E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
House and Senate leaders from both parties will make their way to the White House this afternoon at President Barack Obama’s request for a last-ditch effort to reach an agreement to avoid the impending fiscal cliff.
Related: Obama bringing lawmakers to Oval Office for last-minute 'cliff' talks
The parties will enter the meeting seeming as far apart as ever on an agreement to avert the combination of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1. Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, say they have acted – by passing an extension of all of the expiring Bush tax cuts, an unpalatable proposition to Democrats – and now it’s the Senate’s turn.
The speaker’s office said Boehner “will continue to stress that the House has already passed legislation to avert the entire fiscal cliff and now the Senate must act” at tomorrow’s meeting.
And the Senate, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is demanding that the GOP-held House assents to a bill that would allow taxes to rise on income over $250,000 per year.
Under pressure to show up even without a deal in hand, Congress will work this holiday weekend as the top Democrat and Republican leaders sit down with President Obama to discuss the fiscal cliff. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
This posturing by both parties amounts to little more than a stalemate in lawmakers’ effort to avert the fiscal cliff, just days before the deadline to forge a deal. With that in mind, here are the variables to watch, which could signal either breakthrough or failure on the fiscal cliff.
TONE: Hopes for a fiscal cliff compromise spiked on Nov. 16 when the same congressional leaders who are gathering Friday appeared jointly following their first meeting at the White House to hail the “constructive” conversation, all the while avoiding the usual partisan barbs.
Negotiations have deteriorated in the weeks since then, to say the least.
But with time running out before the end-of-year deadline, how or whether lawmakers speak following their meeting with Obama could speak volumes about the prospects for a deal.
If Boehner, Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appear jointly – as they did in mid-November – it might portend good things about a potential resolution to the fiscal cliff.
But if they take to the microphones outside the West Wing separately (or issue statements), offering more vitriolic rhetoric and finger pointing, it would suggest bleak prospects for ongoing negotiations.
PROCESS: Much of the recent stalemate in Congress, as outlined above, involves whether it’s up to the House or the Senate to act first to resolve the fiscal cliff.
Recommended: Nearly out of time, lawmakers brace for blame on fiscal cliff
Neither party wants to be the one to make the first major concession, meaning that the House is looking to the Senate (and vice-versa) to be the first chamber to “jump,” so to speak.
Boehner has clearly and repeatedly signaled his desire to let the legislative process take its course. He argues that the Senate should amend any of the earlier tax bills that the Republican House has passed. The Senate could conceivably gut that legislation, replace it with any alternative that the upper chamber desires, and send it back to the House to see whether it can pass.
Alternatively, Reid is simply demanding that Republicans pass an existing Democratic tax bill, which would preserve existing tax rates on income under $250,000 a year. (Republicans counter that this law has a so-called “blue slip” problem –asserting that it’s procedurally flawed because tax bills cannot originate in the Senate, according to the Constitution.)
If the leaders emerge from their meeting at the White House with a clear idea of which chamber might act first, it would be a first step toward resolving the fiscal cliff by the New Year’s Eve deadline.
Senator John Thune, R-S.D., and Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., discuss the possibility of the country slipping over the fiscal cliff and weigh in on what needs to be the guiding principles in the last-ditch discussions.
NUMBERS: Senate Democrats want the House to pass a bill that would preserve existing tax rates on incomes below $250,000.
Obama offered a deal to Boehner that would preserve income beneath a slightly higher threshold: $400,000 per year.
Boehner tried – and failed – to pass a bill (his “Plan B”) that would have kept tax rates the same for all income under $1 million.
If the leaders emerge from the White House today with some sort of number on which they have agreed, it could provide the framework for a final agreement.
Related: Boehner calls House back to Washington on Sunday
Just as important have been the topline numbers – that is, the target total savings in an agreement as collected from new taxes, or alternatively, spending cuts.
The president initially sought $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue before lowering that target to $1.4 trillion. Republicans offered $800 billion in revenue, which they said could be collected through tax reform that closes a number of deductions and loopholes.
At the same time, Obama’s last offer to Boehner included $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, including $400 billion in savings from entitlement programs.
An agreement of that scale seems unlikely with just a few days to go until the deadline, but an agreement on these topline numbers – either on a small deal, or a big deal – would suggest a degree of progress toward a solution.
CAN-KICKING: One option available to lawmakers would be to do something they’ve done all along: punt the problem to a later deadline.
In many respects, the fiscal cliff represents the ultimate example of lawmakers’ habit of kicking the can down the road. The automatic spending cuts that compose part of the cliff grew out of their inability to reach an agreement with Obama on taxes and spending during the debt ceiling fight in 2011. And the impending tax hikes are the byproduct of a two-year extension of the 2001 Bush tax cuts past their original expiration date in 2010.
But what Congress can do, it can also undo. And that means they could conceivably agree to delay the onset of the fiscal cliff for weeks, months or even a year to give themselves breathing room to negotiate a deal.
Furthermore, a decision to delay the fiscal cliff could mean that the contours of a fiscal cliff compromise have taken shape, and that lawmakers just need more time to hammer out the details. Alternatively, another can-kicking incident could rattle markets thanks to another instance of governing by lurching from crisis to crisis. Furthermore, it would do little to resolve the uncertainty on taxes that is hanging over many businesses heading into the new year.
THE FLANKS: Lastly, it’s important to keep an eye on the flanks in both parties – liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans – in terms of how they react to today’s meeting, and any possible deal that might emerge.
How many liberals or conservatives finish the day rattling their sabers, versus sitting on their hands?
The more anger there is on either flank toward any potential proposal, the more difficult it becomes for leaders in the House and Senate to find the necessary votes to approve an agreement – especially in such a politically polarized environment.
The importance of the flanks played vividly last week in the House, when conservatives refused to go along with Boehner’s “Plan B” (the proposal that would have allowed taxes to go up on millionaires) because, as the speaker put it, “they were dealing with the perception that somebody might accuse them of raising taxes.”
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
President Barack Obama returns from Christmas visit in Hawaii to the White House, Dec. 27, 2012.
Any final agreement will almost certainly have to involve both Democratic and Republican votes. But if either party’s base is incensed by Friday’s meeting at the White House, it would make mustering the political willpower to pass an agreement that much more difficult.
Leave a Comment:
I'm looking forward to some nice New Years bargain purchases of equity securities courtesy of the morons on both sides of the aisle in Washington. In the long run, even the monumental stupidity of both sides in Washington will be overcome by the inherent power of the capitalist system. That's what's great about capitalism. It is like water flowing downhill. Despite the best efforts of political morons to place obstacles in its way, it will, by its very nature, find a way to go around, over and/or under the obstacles. Temporary obstacles like the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling are nice opportunities for anyone who is a long term investor with cash ready to put to work.
Life is good.
Enjoy.
From Politico:
Longer the fiscal cliff dive, harder the economic hit
By: Ben White
December 27, 2012 05:23 PM EST
If the U.S. dives off the fiscal cliff at the end of the month, as seems more likely by the moment, the markets and economic impact will depend on the depth of the plunge and the quality of the landing.
If a deal is struck sometime in January to reinstate at least some of the Bush tax cuts and a patch is applied to ensure the alternative minimum tax does not slam the middle class, the damage should be limited, many economists say.
Reinstating the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment benefits, both set to expire at year's end, would further ease any immediate hit to consumer spending and economic growth.
However, if no agreement can be reached early in the 113th Congress and tax rates stay elevated and the automatic spending cuts begin to bite, the damage could be much more severe, including a return to recession and a spike in joblessness back above 9 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and many Wall Street economic forecasts.
I am actually more amazed at the brilliance of our Treasury Secretary. He has just realized that going over the cliff is good for the deficit and he won't have to worry about the debt ceiling so soon. I have come to the conclusion that he didn't cheat on his taxes, he's just stupid.
More revenue, less spending equals lower deficit and slower rise in the nations debt. What a genius!
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH HOSTAGE-TAKERS.
And we know who is obstructing resolution & progress on the debt ceiling, fiscal curb, and taxes:
GOP wants to raise taxes on hundreds of millions of folks, while protecting tax rates for the richest 0.02% of Americans. GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
Meanwhile, the President comfortably won an election on creating needed revenues, by raising taxes on the top 2% of income earners. He wants to prevent a tax hike on 98% of Americans, and 97% of small businesses.
Even now, John Boehner can bring on some House Democrats - and vote for the Senate Bill to stop taxes going up on the middle class. Speaker Boehner must now ignore the negative, destroy-everything-Koch-Adelson House GOP Tea partiers, and do what is right for the continuing economic recovery & growth of our country.
The Party of No only cares about the 1%....follow the money.
They do not care about the rest of America.
Heck of a job, Party of No.
Nothing else needs to be said.
Never Stop - the Party of No is going to find they are the ones taking the blame for all of this - from the majority of Americans. They will be hard pressed to get re-elected and then maybe we can get people in who actually care about Americans instead of those who march to Grover Norquist's tune and salute HIM!
Traitors - they should ALL be tried for treason - with Grover arrested first!
It would be nice if liberals could make up their minds over what is good or bad, or what caused our fiscal problems and what didn't. But for the past four years we have heard liberals bash the Bush tax cuts as the reason the country is facing a fiscal crisis, and now liberals claim to fix the crisis we only need to raise taxes on the smallest percentage of the population. How do liberals reconcile that raising 86 billion in annual revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top earners is going to solve our 1.2 trillion dollar annual Obama deficit? Either the Bush tax cuts were bad, or they weren't. If they were bad, then let them expire. If they weren't bad, then why have liberals been complaining about them for the past four years?
Liberals don't seem to comprehend how math works. For example, in 2009 Obama had a bunch of one year expenditures. TARP, TARP 2, and the stimulus. Obama ran a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit in 2009 with all those one year expenditures. So maybe someone can explain why after that year ended the deficit never came down? If Obama runs a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit in 2009 with part of TARP, all of TARP 2, and the stimulus then the deficit should have immediately come down in 2010. But it didn't, and Obama to this day is running trillion plus annual deficits. Yet liberals have been claiming those deficits are the result of the Bush tax cuts, two wars, and prescription drug benefits. For all you math challenged liberals, it doesn't add up.
Party of No, Millionaires and Billionaires, President won on taxing the 1-2%. You people just don't get it. These small tax increases don't solve the problem. They are great for people who want to tax the rich or what ever. They are make me feel good solutions that do nothing with the ultimate problem...Stopping the spending. The country can not sustain it no matter how much we tax.
I don't care which party started it or didn't. We need to fix it.
Where oh where has my Boehner gone?
C'mon Ohio sing it pretty!
You guys put him in there. Might be time for a change in the mid terms.
Wow,
Please explain where you would get $1T a year in spending cuts alone. PBS? Foreign aid?
Rick, it does add up. All of the expenditures (via tax cuts and spending) adds up to a good chunk of the deficit. Another big part is the continuing crappy economy. Nobody's helping to fix that underlying problem, that's the problem.
The reason Clinton's budgets looked good is because the economy was growing nicely, and taxes were higher. So yes, it's both of those things.
Rick,
I wish Republicans would make up their minds. The House bill that extends all of the Bush tax cuts also gets rid of ALL of the spending cuts in the Sequester too.
No spending cuts? That's the thing Boehner is touting as HIS solution?
Now, how is that going in the right direction?
Isn't that the OPPOSITE of what Republicans want? ALL spending cuts and no tax increases?
Rick - apparently you haven't been paying attention - at all. Please ty to keep up because your post just looks dumb!
The short-sighted view: We go over the cliff, everyone pays taxes, and all government programs get cuts. Personally, I believe the government should not have spent, and the Bush tax cuts should never have happened.
The long-sighted view: We go over the cliff, the Republicans get blamed, but ten years from now when the US's books are more in order they will appear correct and be seen as heroes for acting responsibly for the future of America.
Here's one more thing to watch for....
For Harry Reid to actually do something like... how about amending the house bill and send it back to the house for reconciliation ... maybe do a little work instead of running your big fat mouth and blaming the republicans!!
Man up Harry and do your JOB!!
john - your long sided view is clearly looked at through blinders as it makes no sense and is based on nothing but Republican lies.
Wow a group of people out of touch with the everyday people they supposedly represent are discussing the terms of our servitude to the Fed. Because they overspent. To argue with each other is moronic, we the people should rid ourselves Obama( He is Washington in case you did not notice) Boehner ( He is a career politician who has achieved nothing) Reid( another career politician who has done nothing)and Pelosi and half of these career out of touch politicians. These people are wealthy multi-millionaires at our EXPENSE! They did not earn it in the private sector! Get real and start paying attention.
The tea party financed by the Koch Brothers and other billion dollar Corporations dont care about the fiscal cliff it does not make a differance in their lives .. it only destroys the lives of the middle class and the poor .. the strategy is to break the will of all americans .. then offer a carrot and Americans will work for nothing
SeekingSanity
Fist of all, I am not a Republican, just an observer. The "cliff" deal, in my opinion is the most non-partisan legislation that has come out in decades. Everyone pays, all government is cut, and it will eventually lead to getting our books in order. When our books are in order, we will have the ability to actually do more for our citizens when we aren't paying 43 cents on the dollar in interest.
I just wish that if we do go over the "cliff" that we could consider that the budget for the next ten years and send Congress home without pay for the entire time.
It is actually worse because in the subsequent years the government received the TARP money back, WITH interest, so there was a net inflow in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Even AIG has made the government money.
In fact the biggest recipients of TARP (or other funds) which will not be paid back are the auto companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
But it was all a success for the Administration as they won the election.
But what Congress can do, it can also undo. And that means they could conceivably agree to delay the onset of the fiscal cliff for weeks, months or even a year to give themselves breathing room to negotiate a deal.---------------------
This is not an option. Congress was given plenty of time to deal with this situation. Giving themselves another year will not bring them any closer to solving the problem. What concerns me most is this: this "fiscal cliff" does nothing to address this country's debt. It slows down the rate of the yearly deficit. In the next ten years, even with these cuts and tax rate increases, our debt will climb another $10,000,000,000,000.00. Yet the infamous members of Congress can not even find a way to deal with it. How can one expect them to make the real hard choices to fix our debt problems.
What part of "That Bill is dead on arrival at the Senate" does Boehner not understand?
For all of Boehner's and the Republicans' talk about the President's "ego", Boehner sure is trying to act like HE is the President of the United States, instead of President Obama.
Republicans KNOW that the majority of the American people DO NOT support the Republicans' "plan", and that the majority of the American People DO support the President.
Boehner's Caucus doesn't pay attention to a word Boehner says, which all boils down to Boehner not having any power, nor does Boehner have the support of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, to make any "deals".
Congress is broken. Leaders from both sides of the aisle are to blame. We need term limits. Please go to the website signon.org/sign/fix-congress-it-is-broken and sign the petition. We the people can change things. Until we do, congress will never change!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Michael O'Brien, what a biased Liberal hack you truly are.
I suppose there is no vitriol, or finger pointing, in Hairy "Pappa Smurf" Reeds statement, “It’s being operated by a dictatorship of the speaker."
What a buffoon.
I think we're all going to find out exactly what happens when 2 sides cannot agree.
Fiscal cliff or not, neither side is going to budge, and, as for my side, I'm thrilled!
A Message by George Carlin:
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways ,but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete...
Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.
Remember, to say, 'I love you' to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
TO: Rick-3416939 who wrote:
We have, and we've been telling Republicans repeatedly over the past 4 year, but we can't force Republicans to listen, and we know Republicans have a long-standing reputation for "not listening" to the American People.
There is a helluva lot to be addressed by Boehner and his boys. They need to complete their negotiations on the Farm Bill that they just didn't have time for in September. Otherwise the prices of dairy products could double as of the first of the year . . .
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/farm-bill
Also, why isn't the House voting on their own Plans? Why is it Boehner's Plan B and not the House's? I can't even call my Congressmen to ask them to vote one way or another as Boehner won't put it to a vote. What's up with that?
Talk about a Dictator!
Call your Senator and Congress Person and ask where they stand on the fiscal cliff so that you can decide how to vote in 2014.
Tell them to put an agreement together and end this.
Oh by the way, I'm not paying $8/gal for milk so PASS THE FARM BILL!!!
TO: tapado who wrote:
Just because the majority of the American People DO NOT support the minority Republicans doesn't necessarily mean "Congress is broken", it just means that the majority will NOT give in to "minority rule".
We are the majority, and we will stand our ground for as long as it takes, just as we always have.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TO: Eric-913730 who wrote:
I already know that I will NOT vote for any Republican in 2014.
Republicans have played enough games with the Majority of the American People, and Republicans have turned a deaf ear towards us.
No need for me to call anyone, it will be another straight Democratic Ticket for me, come the mid-term elections.
SmBusOwnerinNY
Rick, it does add up. All of the expenditures (via tax cuts and spending) adds up to a good chunk of the deficit.------------
The mandated cuts constitutes $4 trillion over ten years which equates to about $400 billion a year. The deficit is running about $1.4 trillion. In ten years that adds another $10 trillion to our debt. Members of Congress can't even agree about these cuts and tax rate increases let alone measures on tackling our debt, instead of our yearly deficit. Imagine what we could do w/o spending approximately 40% of our yearly intake on interest.
Rick-3416939 But for the past four years we have heard liberals bash the Bush tax cuts as the reason the country is facing a fiscal crisis, and now liberals claim to fix the crisis we only need to raise taxes on the smallest percentage of the population.
============
This argument grows tiring. The Country is facing a fiscal crisis because of partisan politics over the last 40 years, the tie between money/wealth and influence, deregulation, housing, war, overall banking system, stagnant Middle Income wages over the last 30 years, a system geared to further enabling the Have's and not the Have Nots, States that bemoan States Rights, but continue to want the Federal Government to borrow vs them, globalization, Fed Monetary Policy since its inception and yes, putting multi-trillion dollar tax cuts into place for a decade w/o off-setting cuts elsewhere, putting a multi-trillion dollar Medicare expansion in place w/o off-setting cuts and going into the 2 of the longest wars in American History w/o any off-setting cuts or sacrifices...w/o even mentioned the future cost of caring for those who have survived but been wounded by those wars. A 'health care system' run amuck where cost out pace any and everything and a national health care system in medicare/medicaid where nearly 3 times the cost is extracted from the program vs put in by the average consumer.
These are the reasons this Country is facing a fiscal crisis. If you see these as 'liberal' interpretations, you run with that, but at least bring some damn honesty to the table.
Letting the tax rates expires for those making $250k annually or above won't "solve" anything in and of itself, but take the faux "$80Billion will only pay for 4 days of the Government argument elsewhere". There is a valid argument against extending any of the tax rates, but at least there is more of an argument that there is a need in the Middle Class for those rates.
American Girl-724855
What part of "How A Bill Is Passed" does Hairy Reed not understand?
But then again debate is not an option for the close-minded Liberals/Progressives. Weve seen evidence of that for 4 years.
Come on Girl, Barrack Hussein hasn't acted like a president for four years. Somebody has to do it.
Will the Do Nothings even show up? They need a lesson in vocabulary! "Compromise!" Negotiate" Forget the Norquist promise. Represent America and Americans not just the billionaires, millionaires and corporate greed! Republicans-"Stop running away!"
Jim Spence,
And you think that Congress with an approval rating of 17% ( and dropping) has done their job? Especially the do Nothing House with the worst record of no legislation in our countries history? Our President approval rating is 56% in comparison! a lot better than the Worst President Ever rating of 17% when bush left office to hide in Texas!
Jim Spence, NO means NO.
We've already heard all the stupid names, and nasty rhetoric Republicans have stored up inside of them, and we re-elected President Obama.
Republicans can continue on with the hate speech and name calling, but it will only continue to turn the American People against the Republican Party.
Rick, that $1.2 trillion deficit in 2009 was the BUSH budget which was passed in 2008 for the next fiscal year; President Obama inherited that budget along with a totally collapsed economy. TARP was Bush's baby but it was necessary however distasteful it was. In a nutshell, Bush 43 was given a budget surplus by Clinton, we were paying down the debt. In less than one year, Bush turned that surplus into a trillion dollar annual deficit; he started two unfunded wars, passed unfunded medicare Rx plan along with every other piece of legislation from 2001-2006 which was UNFUNDED. Before Bush left office we were bleeding jobs at the 500K, 600K, and 700K per month rate. The recession began in December 2007 and became a near depression in Sep 2008. Reagan, Bush and Bush added 333% to the national debt compared to Carter and Clinton's 81%. So yes, the GOPers are responsible for the biggest share of our current debt and for the near depression. The GOP stopped being fiscally responsible and fiscally sane during the Reagan years.
Anyone who has ever studied economics knows and understands that during recession or depression, Government must fill the private sector void with deficit spending; they also understand that prior to Jan 20, 2009, every Republican president and Congress always voted to "stimulate" the economy during difficult times. How pathetic that the evening of Jan 20, 2009, republicans met for dinner to plan an obstruction strategy against a majority-elected President regardless of the harm it would cause this country--party and winning the next election became more important than country. These GOPers don't deserve their salaries, their jobs and they certainly deserve no respect.
My guess is that not enough people show up to make a quorum on Sunday.
After all, No one listens or cares what Boehner says.
American Girl you are right on. Boehner is a NOTHING leader since he couldn't lead a turtle across the street. He has done NOTHING but obstruct since he became "leader" and does nothing except what he is told by Grover Norquist who apparently leads all the Republicans by the nose. It is time they are all kicked out.
Our President has put forth good, solid plans that they are unwilling to act on because they go against Grover's wishes. It is time Grover is thrown into GITMO and forgotten. Then we can get our country back!
imwhitewolf,
You are projecting deficits as if the jobs will never come back. As jobs are added, taxes are collected causing the annual budget deficit to shrink.
SeekingSanity
"Rick - apparently you haven't been paying attention - at all. Please ty to keep up because your post just looks dumb!"
Trust me still SeekingSanity, everyone that reads your post knows who looks dumb. No surprise you resort to insults and not answers. Same with the American Girl, no answers.
The facts are simple, the worst Bush deficit was 460 billion that included two wars, prescription drug benefits, and yes of course his tax cuts. Since Bush left office Obama has run trillion plus annual deficits, for which his first year included TARP, TARP 2, and the stimulus. Even with those one year expenditures, Obama's deficits have remained over 1.2 trillion, and have never come down. Simply not possible unless spending has increased dramatically under Obama, otherwise we would back to the Bush era deficits. Obama just used Bush as an excuse to ratchet up the spending, and so far he has offered nothing in the way of any solution.
I favor going off the cliff. If taxes need to go up so be it, let everyone pay their fair share. Spending needs to be cut, and that won't happen under Obama so the automatic cuts are a far better option. This country is hemorrhaging money, and there is not one honest solution being discussed in Washington. I agree with the SmBusOwnerinNY Republicans have been outplayed by Obama, and it is time to quit the stupidity and embrace the fiscal cliff. Nothing that any of them come up with will do as much good for the country as going off the cliff. Those in society that get hurt as a result, too bad, no pain no gain.
The nation will survive going over the cliff ... the Republicans won't!!!!! Worrying about perceptions rather than finding a solutions is not going to fly ...
So if tax bills cannot originate in the Senate, then why are Republicans demanding the Senate act first?
I say Republicans aren't doing anything but playing games, even while they come to the microphones saying silly stuff like "get serious" and then go back to their caucus giggling and playing "Lucy and Charlie Brown-type Football".
First Read:
Talking about "flanks" is just more false equivalency nonsense. The Democrats and Republicans are NOT mirror images of each other. The Democrats may have a liberal flank, but the Republicans do not have a conservative flank. The Republicans are almost 100% extreme lunatic fringe right wingers. If the Republicans have a "flank," it's a tiny number of timid moderates that can't be heard over the shrill noise made by the majority of lunatic wing nuts, who can't even vote for a small raise in taxes for incomes above a million dollars a year, as John Boehner found out during his "Plan B" fiasco.
I am tired of all the people he that blame the Party of NO, when in fact the system is broken. The Democrats have raided the Social Security fund for over 50 years, LBJ started it, Carter approved the bill that allows legal immigrats to collect SSI payments even when these people NEVER paid a dime in. ANd Yes the republicans protect the to 2%, but the democrats will not speak about ANY spending cuts on ANYTHING. The Demorcats keep spending with a plan or ending programs. Washington CAN NOT KEEP RAISING THE DEBT CEILING. THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.....
OH and it was the democrats that made it easier for people to buy homes and that is why we have a forclosure problem.
Rick,
You keep saying the same thing but you cannot explain why our National Debt increased more than the annual budget deficits during the bush 43 administration.
American Girl. I have noticed for the last week how close minded you are. I hope in part that it is something of an act. I have friends on both sides and my favorite liberals are the ones that listen to the other side of the debate after they have stated their points. I enjoy reading both sides, Jim Spence, Roy Wilson and SmBUSownerNY. Everyone go hug a person from another party (without getting smacked) it will make you feel better.
Rick-3416929 The facts are simple, the worst Bush deficit was 460 billion that included two wars, prescription drug benefits, and yes of course his tax cuts.
===============
You bust out with that and expect folks to take you seriously?
http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=121
Rick-3416939 ... you quoted the 1% Republican stance perfectly "Those in society that get hurt as a result, too bad, no pain no gain."
You left out "let them eat cake"!
"Everyone go hug a person from another party (without getting smacked) it will make you feel better"
You say this and your log in name is "LiberalsAreTheWorst" What an out to lunch IDIOT!!!!!!!!
And anybody who has studied history knows that government programs put in place during a recession are never revoked during "the good times". Come Jody, tell me when a government program from a recession/depression era has been ended because the economy was booming. The problem with governments, of both the left and the right, is that they justify spending in bad times "because they have to take up the slack", and in good times "because we can now afford a needed program". Once a program is in place there are stakeholders who will lobby for it's continuation.
@Eric
So don't. Are you not one of the posters that complain that the red states take more in taxes than they pay? Well the big secret is that it's not because of Medicaid or Food stamps, it's because of subsidies like the farm bill and ethanol support.
Because the Senate can propose cuts to entitlements.
Houston!
VERY well stated! Why can't the Republican party in the House vote the way their constituents want? Are they that afraid of their pledge? By the way, I hope you all realize that ol' Grover is also on the Board of the NRA. He's pulling them all along with those lobbying $ as well . . .
So where are all the Blue Dog Democrats calling for entitlement cuts? Don't see one House Democrat suggesting ANY changes to entitlements. Only reports are how unhappy they were in 2011 when the President went further than they wanted.
Apparently they ARE voting the way they're constituents want.
The name is for a laugh. You didn't like it?
House Republicans now resemble lemmings. If the T-Party wants to run off the cliff, the rest will follow.
Too bad they're going to take us all with them............
Dennis - Rick and "liberalsAreTheWorst" are beyond comprehending facts. Then they have putdowns for the rest of us. It's very telling but not unexpected.
But for 12 years the left have claimed the Bush tax cuts favored the rich and were the main drivers of the deficit. Why are you not celebrating their expiration?
When the "temporary" Bush tax cuts were enacted, the budget was balanced, the country was in the process of reducing the national deficit, and unemployment was low. The tax cuts, along with two off-the-books wars, and general incompetence and mismanagement lead directly or indirectly to the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930's. My impression at the time was that the main purpose of the Bush tax cuts was to lower the top marginal tax rate, paid by the wealthiest among us, while the middle class cuts were a sop to the average voter and a fig leaf to disguise the Republican establishment's true intentions. I am now and have always been in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, bringing spending and the deficit under control, and restoring the economy to the health that it enjoyed prior to the disastrous Bush presidency. The question is, how to accomplish this in our current situation when the economic recovery is weak and vulnerable and unemployment is high. Independent analysts agree that going over the Fiscal Cliff has the potential for significantly increasing unemployment and tipping the economy back into recession. A more thoughtful approach to increasing revenues and cutting spending is required than the actions which have become known as the Fiscal Cliff, which was designed to be so unpalatable to everyone that politicians of all stripes would be forced to finally get their act together, do their jobs, and design a sensible approach to managing the government and the economy. It is well past time they recognize their responsibilities and do so.
@SmBusOwnerinNY - Are you sure you own a business? No-one in any conversation is talking about 1T in cuts per year. However, the math does add up if you talk about 3-4% cuts across the board. You could take 10% from oil subsidies and 1% from milk subsidies, I don't personally care how you get to the number but 3-4% reduction accros the board would get about 125 billion per year, not the 600 billion over 10 years they are talking about.
Throw in a 5% tax on the evil rich people and you could be looking at 500-600 billion a year in tax increases and spending cuts. I don't know sounds reasonable to me.
While going over the fiscal curb/slope/cliff on taxes and mandated spending cuts won't have a great impact the first few weeks, the point that too many republicans and conservatives fail to grasp is that all taxes increasing in combination with drastic spending cuts is too much, too soon, all at the same time. It will ultimately have a horrible impact on the economy. It is immediate austerity to the extreme while increasing taxes on the middle class and poor (the economic engine of this country). Sure, the deficit will drop but the economy will end up in depression, not a recession but a depression.
It took 30 years to get a debt this large, fixing it all at once would be catastrophic. This is why President Obama's proposal, and even Speaker Boehner's, spreads the hurt out over 10 years. The best way out of the mess is to focus on targeted spending INCREASES to promote job creation, targeted spending cuts in areas that won't impact the economy greatly, increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2%, eliminating tax loopholes including those that encourage off-shoring jobs as well as off-shoring money. A strong economy will fix the biggest deficit problem. Austerity through massive spending cuts and higher taxes on the middle class and poor will ultimately ADD TO THE DEFICIT and DEBT by harming the economy, causing further loss of jobs which means even higher deficits.
Alan ...
For Plan B - Boehner didn't dare put it to a vote. For the defense cuts, yep, Ryan voted the way he wanted and then turned around during the election and stated he'd get them off the table prior to the first of the year. (that hasn't happened) For the Farm Bill, well, they just didn't have the time to vote ... pretty sure the people of this country don't want their dairy prices to double. No vote there either.
Boehner's so stuck on the issue of raising taxes that he's not addressing everything he put off in September. There's a helluva lot more to the "cliff" than increasing taxes on the 1%.
90% of households in this country will be affected . . . .
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/heres-what-happens-you-if-we-go-over-fiscal-cliff-1C7753059?ocid=msnhp&pos=1
SWEET!
Both majority leader reid and POTUS obama must really be stupid. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension would realize that our U.S. Constitution allows the senate to offer up amendments to any bill sent to them by the house. Is reid so afraid of a presidential veto that he can't amend what the house sent him earlier this year regarding the end of accross the board tax cuts come jan 1, 2013?
Is POTUS obama so afraid of the senate that he has to always send out a veto threat? How can the democrats be seen as having any willingness to compromise if reid won't bring up house bills or obama sticking his head up his own ass mumbling my way or no way.
Boehner has shown a willingness to have revenues on the table while obama gives his stock rhetorical answer of "I am willing to make some spending cuts that are near and dear to me" Yet that is all it is.
Come on democrats, you have the power to create compromise, but all you do is stall. I think obama should tell reid in no uncertain terms to do his job as laid out by our constitution and that obama needs to stopthreatening vetos concerning our economy.
The problem is spending. Without significant spending cuts the Republicans should not agree to anything and let the cliff happen with everyone paying more taxes. Increasing taxes on 2% may make democrats feel better about their financial penis envy complex but subtracting $8 billion a year from a trillion a year deficit barely makes a dent in the rapidly growing deficit. Going back to Clinton tax rates might make sense if you go back to Clinton spending rates which would address the problem at hand. No more kicking the can down the road, it only delays the day of the great financial reckoning coming soon to a town near you.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
I love how people like Rick "forget" that Reagan had 8 years of deficits, Bush1 had 4 years of deficits, Bush2 had 8 years of deficits (including FY2009 which was his until October). Clinton was the only president in our modern history to have balanced budgets and he did it without a single Republican vote. Obama is trying to go back to Clinton-like policies but he is not as fortunate to carry the House as Clinton was. Clinton had no Tealiban...
I also love how people like Rick blame the Financial Meltdown and credit crisis of 2008 on Democrats even though it happened under Bush2 watch AND Bush1 had a savings and loan crisis as well which involved his son Neil Bush.
Coincidence or is financial meltdown a Bush thing?
Rick, your fiscally IRresponsible Republican presidents could not cut it but yet you have these expections of Obama taking out his magic wand and erasing the sh*t that happened in 2008 with the Party of NO doing everything in their power to sabotage any kind of Obama's recovery efforts...you people amaze me with your skewed expectations.
The argument that according to the Constitution, all spending bills must begin in the House; therefore, the House can't pass a spending bill (passed in July) given them by the Senate is an empty excuse. It's been done before, it isn't something new. All Boehner has to do is "blue paper" it (simply make it a House bill), add a House bill number and take it to the floor for a vote.
Well, this will be interesting, and a comedeic effort in political futility. Be like a gang of armed hoss'es, all with broken legs, and shooting each other. Whether they actually all get killed or wounded won't make a whit of difference. Alive or dead, when all the shooting is done, they'll all still have broken legs.
pgulrich
and yet the Republicans wanted to elect their guy who not only wanted to cut the revenue but he wanted to increase the defense spending by $2T without paying for it....
Do you realize that Obama has cut spending every single year except FY2009 which we can attribute to the colossal pile of steamin' sh*t left by Bush2? And Obama did it regardless of the GOP determination to say "NO" to everything and anything that would or could make him look good before the '12 election????
Having won the election, Obama has new hope for his agenda despite his many failures and his inability to work with Congress. He is not concerned about the budget, the deficit, the spending or the future of SS or medicare. Focus on high unemployment has been replaced with going over the "fiscal cliff" for poor decisions, or the lack thereof, during his administration. He will not "budge" and the Republicans will be forced to give-in to what will begin the groundwork for the next crisis.
Will he ever learn from past mistakes? No. He will not do what's good for this country's future.
someotherguy-1373018,
your post is one of the most informative and objective I have seen...kudos to you.
I agree that all Bush tax cuts should expire - in theory. Bush tax cuts were temporary because they were never paid for so it's time for them to go. That being said, you also pointed out something that I agree with:
raising taxes on the low income earners and even the Middle Class will do one thing: decrease consumer spending which will have a domino effect on everything else. Retailers are complaining about decreased consumer spending now, they will be complaing more next year; decreased consumer spending = layoffs...and the cycle begins...
So the million dollar question is: can we increase taxes on everyone without reversing the already slow economy?
This meeting today is eye candy for the under informed voters that gave Obama his 2nd term. Obama needs to go over the cliff this way he has someone else blame. If congress passes a debt deal then Obama owns what happens to the debt after 01/01/2013. For the first time in the history of the Obama administration he will be held to the same standards that he has held for Bush for the past 4 years. NBC and the rest can write as many misleading stories as they want in the end its Obama's actions or en-actions that will shape the future of this country. You low information voters out their need to get yourself back to paying attention. Help the rest of us bring the right people into government because the framers did not set it up the way its running to day. Obama has not followed the Constitution and he is slowly taking away your rights if you like being a free people you need to get involved.
Jody, Iowa
NO!
In 2006, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years, and their first budget, FY 2008, saw a year-over-year increase of spending of $254B, an 8.5% increase. A significant increase.
In FY 2009, Bush's last year in office, he proposed an increase of $124B in spending. While this was a significant increase, the Democrats ended up increasing spending by an astonishing $535B instead. Hence the new normal of trillion-dollar deficits. Bush refused to sign it into law, but Obama did.
So if Bush didn't ask for it, and wouldn't sign it, why are we attributing it to Bush? At most, we should only attribute the $124B increase to Bush since he asked for it, and the extra $411B to Obama since he approved it.
The first six years of Bush budgets, the ones passed by a Republican or split Congresses, spending increased a whopping 32%, an average increase per year of 6.15%, a max of 7.4% in FY 2001, dropping to 2.7% in FY 2007.
But over the next two years, with Democrats controlling both houses, spending increased 22%, with that huge 15.2% increase in FY 2009. And yes, in the next three years of Obama the increase has only been about 7% combined, but we can't ignore that most of that 22% increase, $411B vs. $378B, was spending Bush didn't ask for and didn't approve, and Obama signed into law.
Barrack Hussein didn’t “inherit” that budget, he signed it into law.
NO, NO, NO!!!
There never was any surplus. If there was, there had to be a year where our National Debt was lower than the preceding year. Nowhere in the past century has that happened. The mythical Clinton “surplus” was nothing more than typical Washington fuzzy math. It was simply a manipulation of the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings which make up the National Debt. The closest it came was in FY 2000 when the deficit was almost $18 billion. Not once from FY 1993 to FY 2001 did our National Debt get paid down. Hs claim that he never used any Medicare funds is obtuse as he used the Social Security funds that LBJ changed into the General Fund with accounting gimmickery.
No war is ever “funded”. All wars are paid for by taxpayers or by some form of bonds. War Bonds, Savings Bonds, etc. Bush submitted, and Congress passed budgets that contained estimated was costs. If more funds were required an “Additional Appropriations” bill was introduced and passed by Congress. Barrack Hussein has been doing the same thing.
Medicare Part D is the most cost-effective program within the federal health insurance programs and a good deal for taxpayers. Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicate that Part D's price to the public will come in at 46% less than initially estimated for the first decade.
In fact, Part D is saving the entire Medicare program money, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Improved access and adherence to medicine is saving $1,200 per year in hospital, nursing home and other costs for each senior who previously lacked prescription drug coverage, according to the study. This is saving the Medicare program an estimated $12 billion each year.
It’s a good deal for seniors too because they are paying less out of pocket for their prescriptions. The total average out-of-pocket prescription drug costs dropped between 13% and 15% thanks to the creation of Part D.
Medicare Part D plans are available for as little as $14.80 per month in most States.
The competitive-based Medicare Part D program is working and should be used as a model for reforming other elements of federal health care programs. Medicare Part D enrollees are overwhelmingly satisfied with this program. A recent Medicare Today survey reported that 84 % of seniors are satisfied with the program.
Hmmmm, for all the complaining all you Libbies keep doing about the cost of mean old Bush’s Medicare Part-D maybe you should let the Republicans do more Health Care Reform. They seem to create cost-effective programs rather than economy destroying ones like Democrats.
Obviously you don’t remember what Reagan “inherited” from your boy-toy Carter. Yet despite that massive “stagflation” disaster he managed to create 20 million jobs, reduce inflation, reduce 20% interest rates, increased growth more than any president for 40 years prior. Oh, and by the way, he also ended the Cold War which crippled the whole world not just the U.S. for decades. If you don’t remember its effects, just read up on JFK’s exploits with Nikita Krushchev.
Reagan also had to deal with one of the most corrupt and self proclaimed profligate spenders in, Speaker of the House, Tip O”Neill. If you’re not familiar with that criminal look up the 1982 TEFRA negotiations history.
And we haven’t been “stimulating” this recession?
Not to mention the massive $863 billion $timulu$ bill, the $401 billion Porkulus bill, The TARP infusion into bank, auto and Fannie and Freddie rescues, and of course the silent stimulus everyone forgets is the Herculean infusion of QE1, QE2 and QE3 with the additional $45 billion a month the Fed has been adding for the past 3 months
How much is enough?
Try to keep up Spanky.
This president will go down in history as being one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, president in our history. He has absolutely no leadership qualities, doesn't know how to or when to negotiate, and just doesn't seem to care. He acts like all he has to do is give a preacher-like speech and all will fall on their knees. Whoever heard of a 'leader' who strove only to split the people in order to get elected? Black vs white. Hispanics vs white. Union vs non-union. Rich vs middle class. Rich vs poor. Wall street vs non-wall street. Anything to get elected. And so many of you were sucked in.
He could take so many lessons from the likes of JFK, Reagan, and Clinton on how to get things done;however, he thinks he can jawbone and preach and that will make the congress cowtow.
The stupidity of the the liberal electorate to have ever voted for and then re-elected this clown is beyond belief. Those of you who voted for him are going to get what you deserve. Unfortunately, those of us who saw through his facade are going to have to also get what you deserve.
I believe he and his family live here too. I'm pretty sure they're here to stay.
The people who are not worried about this country's future are the "I've got mine now" folks. You know, the Romneys and Boehners of this land.
kkwilson - your post shows you've been sleeping for the past 4 years - and apparently for the 8 prior to that. Our President has had much success - kept us from a full-blown Depression, which Bush pushed us to without concern.
The "inability to work with Congress" is almost laughable. How do you work with a group that vowed to block EVERYTHING you attempted in order to make you a one-term President? Explain that - no one could have worked with this group of traitors.
And, yes, the focus should have been on jobs - the topic Republicans ran on in 2010 then promptly forgot when they won.
Too bad you refuse to put the blame where it belongs - squarely on the Republicans in Congress - the most do nothing group EVER elected and the biggest failures of all time!
hijack - President Obama will be in the history books as one of the top 10 Presidents of all time. Bush on the other hand - the WORST in history!
kkwilson
there is inability to work with Congress and then there is impossibility. The Congressional Republicans have made it IMPOSSIBLE from day 1 which was Obama's inauguration day.
How do you explain Republicans voting against their bills? For example the, six Republican co-sponsors of Bipartisan deficit-reduction commission voted against their own senate bill? The six were McCain, Brownback, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma. McConnell had once supported the idea, but he too voted against it.
Who said spending bills must begin in the house? I think you mean revenue bills. But if you're mixed up over revenue and spending it answers questions I have over many of your posts.
Meanwhile bills that the Senate can pass include this little nugget.
Just another flip-flop from our evolving President.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/obama-doj-embraces-bushco-fisa-argume
JimSpence
FY2009 belongs to Bush minus $200 billion which Obama added.
For the sake of playing your game, let's assume you are right even though the Dems did not get sworn in until Jan of 2007 and FY2007 was already on the books. But let's forget that "small" detail..tell me, if it's the Dems that are responsible for the deficits, what happened in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007?
I honestly hope this meeting is productive and they can come to an agreement. It is important that we don't do anything to harm this fragile economy. As Americans we should all want to prevent another recession. We are just starting to recover please don't put our recovery in jeopardy.
Nice try at revisionist history Jim. But no one but you buys the BS you spew.
Unfortunaltly the repuks won comfortlaby in the house in this last election. They would have needed to lose 25 seats to have not won comfortably. So we have to just deal with this gridlock for another couple of years. However we can look at it from the bright side going over the cliff means everybody will be paying their fair share and not just 2% of the tax payers.
Five things you'd see if you were able to watch the meeting at the White House:
1. Obama demanding his ridiculous, useless tax raise for the rich.
2. Obama throwing a temper tantrum when he encouters disagreement with his stupid proposal.
3. Harry Reid blaming the Republican House, even though his Democrat Senate has offered no solution.
4. Nancy Pelosi predicting a big GOP loss in the next election.
5. The MSM agreeing with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
High rolla - yes they kept the house but lost seats in the process - something they were sure they wouldn't do. They also lost seats in the Senate. This should have shown them people are NOT happy with Republican gridlock. Look for more lost seats in 2014.
spider - didn't get that brain for Christmas, did ya? Too bad - just your usual rants and raves with nothing of substance and absolutely NO facts!
Jim,
While Bayllie gave it to you already, let me put some facts about Carter and Reagan in there for you.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Have a lookie at that graph a second and tell me when the tide turned.
What? You think it was the Democratic Congress? Got some more facts for you:
http://zfacts.com/p/57.html
Spider,
speaking of crybabies....
1) if $86 billion is useless, then why would it be so hard for them to pay it?
2) the only temper tantrum I've seen is the RWNJ's storming out of the capital last Friday with nothing to show ....and of course, Eric Cantor was smiling ;-)
3) the Senate actually passed the ONLY bill that might solve the problem in the short run--a clean bill extending the tax cuts on everybody below $250K
4) too bad, so sad. Nancy's right. Good luck you guys. Gerrymandering can't save you forever. Demographics are coming to get you!
5) Boogety-boogety-boogety the MSM!
Yes.
Even the most stubborn laissez-faire/classical economist follower as yourself must realize what happens to spending and revenues once a recession happens. Read an economics book; any book, even if it is written by the obsolete writings of Ludwig von Mises.
Yet the budget still passed under Bush, and since presidents take credit/blame for spending, he gets the blame. It may be unfair, but that is how the ball runs in America.
Yes, yes, yes.
First of all, you can have a surplus and a national debt that stays the same (or increases). The surplus means that you make more than you spend, making borrowing unnecessary. Yet you can still borrow money; in order to decrease the national debt, you have to pay it down (or grow your way out of it). Secondly, while there is confusion on whether Clinton had a surplus, most of the criticism comes from the right, leading to charges of bias and jealousy on their part.
Yet most wars in American history have been "funded" via a combination of tax increases and bonds. Unfortunately, Bush financed his wars solely via bonds; pushing the entire $3-4 trillion cost of the overall War on Terror onto the national debt instead of spreading the burden evenly.
Yet it wasn't paid for by tax increases or spending cuts (thereby adding to the deficit either way you pan it out). And in reality, the costs were probably less than 46%. And the CBO also states that Clinton had a surplus; seems like your cherry-picking your facts.
Yet Medicare Part D mainly reduced costs because fewer people signed up for it and drug costs rose at at a lower rate than expected. Republicans got lucky on that. And FYI, if Republicans are better at creating cost-effective programs, explain to me why every Republican president since Reagan has had a deficit???
Unfortunately, Reagan created that so-called "prosperity" using debt as a fuel. You right-wingers apparently forgot that he tripled the national debt and that his debt-fueled boom collapsed in 1989 with the S&L crisis. Everything went south from there, as middle class wages collapsed due to outsourcing and costs surged due to deregulation while those of the upper class skyrocketed.
Oh we have; problem is that all of the Fed infusions had little effect due to us being in a liquidity trap where you can't pump more money in the supply or lower interests rates further as a stimulus. All the fiscal stimulus worked, but it was inadequate and focused mainly on bailouts instead of more stimulative investments like aid to states and public works projects.
I'm waiting on you, Jimmy.
Backhouse @ 1.2:"GOP wants to raise taxes on hundreds of millions of folks, while protecting tax rates for the richest 0.02% of Americans. GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class."
You're an idiot, the Republicans have said and continue to say that they do not want any taxes to increase. It your boy Barry that wants to go over the cliff all the time screaming "it's the Republicans fault."
[A Message by George Carlin: The paradox of our time in history...]
thetotas, nice sentiment...but Carlin said no such thing. Don't believe everything you get in your inbox, or hear on Fox "news"...
Shellie-657180
Disprove any of it.
And please don't drag the ridiculous Rex Nutting argument into Barrack Hussein being the lowest spender in history nonsense, it ranks right up there with the laughable Brown University claim the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost $5 trillion dollars.
Seeking Insanity, American Girl, - Did not see you on the Chicago gun murder board. Only 500 this year, Obama's hometown, killing minorities for 50 years running. No wonder he passed responsibility on to Gaffe Biden on gun control! Only in a city run by Democrats could this happen! So you want us to trust the Democrats on this one too. The Republicans passed a bill to continue a tax cut on everyone. What has the President and Harry Reid done.
it is not the "R" or the "D" in front of their name that matters, they are two sides of the same dirty coin. telling lies makes you a liar, stealing makes you a thief. it has nothing to do with your political affiliations.
our government is corrupt, no one can deny that. whoever has the most MONEY gets to make all the rules. politicians do not give a sh1t if you and your family starve on the street today, their life wont change one little bit. they are still rich elitist either way.
i do have a question or two...
what would happen if we actually used the constitutional clause that removes the government from power and start over? what happens to that debt? would it not be like a bankruptcy? would we sacrifice our leaders lucrative jobs and get a fresh start for the whole country?
why is no one else asking this question? our (so called) political leaders greed got us in this mess, so they could get their hands on some more "unguarded" money. why are they not held accountable? if you hire me but then i refuse to do the job, do you still pay me? no, you do not. you get rid of me and never hire me again.
and one more question... if we are so close to certain economic death, why are we still giving astronomical amounts of our limited money to foreign country's? they just give it away without even asking our opinion. AND, because it was borrowed money we are now FORCED to pay interest on it as well. you would think that would be one of the first things to get the axe. but it's not, the working citizens of this country get the axe, again. we are just 315,072,058 little ATM'S to them.
all while they take yet another extravagant vacation that most of us will work our entire lives and still NEVER be able to afford. obama's 2012 christmas vacation alone cost taxpayers 4 MILLION DOLLARS. feel free to look it up, i did.
personally, i think we have remained silent because up to this point we still have something to loose, we still have a roof and some ramen noodles. but that won't last much longer. there will no doubt be a ramen tax coming very soon.
THEY WILL NOT HEAR US UNTIL WE MAKE SOME NOISE AND SCARE THE SH!T OUT OF THEM!!!!!!
THE entitlement cuts, WERE ALL FROM, social security AND MEDICARE, not from any other give away program,social security and Medicare are paid for by all workers, all their working life, the Government has free use of the money for 40 plus years, HOW THE HELL IS THAT A ENTITLEMENT, what about foreign aid, welfare, farmers aid,free cell phones, housing, food stamps ,all paid out of social security taxes; they must convince America that social security is just a welfare system, that is why they now call it entitlement same as welfare!
Seeking Sanity thats like saying a team scores more runs in the 9th inning than the other team did. However the other team was leading by 25 runs at the beginning of the inning so unless the dems won that inning by 25 runs they still lost the game thats just the way it works.
bayllie
The budget is normally passed and signed before the beginning of the fiscal year, which began October 1, 2008. Obama was elected a month later. The Democrats knew Obama was likely to win, so they didn't want to bother sending up a budget they knew he wouldn't sign, so they held off until after Obama was inaugurated, and got continuing resolutions, which funded the government at FY 2008 levels.
Good God man, I put it in my post! Try reading before you make yourelf more insignificant than you already are.
Here it is, AGAIN!!!!!
The first six years of Bush budgets, the ones passed by a Republican or split Congresses, spending increased a whopping 32%, an average increase per year of 6.15%, a max of 7.4% in FY 2001, dropping to 2.7% in FY 2007.
Nice try Sparky.
I hope the US is falling off the fiscal cliff and the idiots in Washington learn to take care of business. It is pathetic to see how these so called law makers deal with their responsibilities. This can kicking is now going on since that Dumbama guy is in the White House. Bring it to an end and start with something reasonable in 2013.
So far all of the crap we hear and see is lies, nothing but lies. It was an artificial "peace" that did not result in any accomplishments by the so important committees that were put in place and did nothing but spend money.
Step aside Obama, you have screwed up enough already - Loser!
Never Stop Asking Questions- In response to your comment. There you go playing that blame game. Who is the President buddy? Obama is and if this so called leader cares about the middle class as he claims he does then why didn't he and the Left take care of this major problem when they had control of the house and senate? Ha? I am asking you? Instead they wait until the last minute then turn around and blame the GOP while this Government plays politics with American lives. I am so tired of you and your Liberal buddies always playing this blame game rhetoric. Harry Reid has the balls to knock the GOP's plan well were is Reid plan? and how come it isn't on the table? Harry Reid needs to put up or shut up.
So Obama is to BLAME for 2009, 2010, 2011 ......
Therefore he is to blame for the $6T in debt over the last 4 years....sorry, that's the way the ball runs
TO: Alan, NJ:
I don't understand your obsession with trying to re-write history to favor George "Curveball" Bush when he was the worst president in U.S. History.
You don't actually believe that any legitimate "historian" is gonna LIE in the history books, do you?
You'd probably have a lot better luck trying to re-shape the wackos' memory and tell them what you want them to remember than you will here.
Good luck with that, because we already found out years ago that the wackos don't have any "memory"!
JimSpence
hahahaha, so because Obama was elected in Nov of 2008, it's his budget? Again, Bush's signature is on it so it is Bush's bill. PERIOD.
Please tell me, besides the stimulus that Obama added to FY2009, what exactly was Obama's???
Now you're going to tell me that FY2001 was Bush's accomplishment since he was elected in Nov of 2000?????????????????????????????????????????
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as spending REQUEST by BUSH and submitted to Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008. Way before Obama was even close to being the ONE.
Bush submitted a federal budget of $3.1T declaring that the spending plan would keep the United States safe and prosperous and, despite its record size.
Bush’s proposed budget was the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion so guess what it is BUSH"S BUDGET even though it ended up being reduced by Congress!
again, deficits, deficits, deficits...I guess as Cheney said "deficits don't matter," right? - as long as it's not Obama and it is a Republican, right? Bush took a balanced budget and f*cked it up, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, added debt and finished off the Social Security to hide the real spending. On top of that, he never paid for his precious tax cuts and his wars that he lied about to start.
what part of a freakin' 8 years in a row of deficits don't you understand?
Oh my the little righties are just all over the place calling the President names, etc. So adult - NOT - but SOOOOO Republican.
High rolla - it's not at all like that but stick with it if you need to in order to make the Republican look better - it just doesn't actually work.
geo - and Chicago has what to do with the topic? Oh, that's right, absolutely NOTHING! Oh and I don't have to seek insanity - the Republicans on this site make it far too easy every day!
What have I written that favors George Bush? I think he is the most fiscally irresponsible President in living memory. Unfortunately the current incumbent is no better, and in some ways even more fiscally irresponsible. It is the fact that those on the left attempt to claim there are major differences between the last two Administration's that I do not understand.
Escalation in Afgahnistan
Extension of Unemployment Benefits
Change in eligibility for Medicaid and Welfare
Cut in payroll tax
Cash for Clunkers
Auto Bailout
Freddie/Fannie Bailout
But the biggest is that the demographics of entitlements is changing and he simply kicked the can down the road like every one of his predecessors.
Oh...I forgot...he also extended the Bush tax cuts....
As I said, Bush and Obama what's the difference?
jim spence,
You need to read the A.C.A. before you make claims,i think you need to do a little research.This is the second day you made the statement about med D,i have to tell you your wrong!
The A.C.A. is where your are seeing the savings from med-d.STICK THAT IN YOUR BAG!
*shakes my head* It is not solely the blame of one side or another. IT IS BOTH! Get your knickers out of the obnoxious twist they apparently are in. Everyone will have a different or varying opinion. Simply because that opinion DOES NOT MATCH YOURS does not mean you have the right to bully others. WTF is with all the bashing??? That is so grade school.
SmBusOwnwerinNY:
Gee, what does your small business produce....I mean, besides really silly comments?
For all of you idiot liberals out there, (especially Backhouse), the House just passed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, so how is it they want to raise taxes on 98% and protect the top 2%? It is now the responsibility of Lighthead Harry Reid and the Dumocrats in the Senate (and the President) who will now allow taxes to go up on everyone after fighting over a measly 70 billion in a 1.2 trillion budget.
Sanity, do you have a job or have you ever worked? What great government handout are you on, to be so blindly leftist?
Again, read about the economy with JFK, Reagan, Clinton. Your boy is no leader and we're paying (well, maybe not you and your welfare kind).
Alan, NJ
and, Alan, why did Obama do that? Why did he do something he did not want to do in the first place? Was it so that the Republicans would not vote against extending unemployment benefits and passing the 9/11 First Responders bill?
see, when you say Obama extended Bush tax cuts you lie by omission because your complete sentence should have been: "Obama extended Bush tax cuts to take care of the unemployed and those brave men and women who ran into burning buildings to save others." Makes a big difference, doesn't it?
Shame on you for spreading propaganda!
hjack - I've been fortunate enough to never have to have help from the government and definitely work. Your posts show very low comprehension skills which I guess is the reason you couldn't understand my posts - on this page - about working.
President Obama's leadership kept the country from another depression and we are slowing moving out of the worst recession SINCE the great depression. Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand any of this. Your posts indicate it is WAY over your head!
I have no boy - our President is a MAN and ten times the man his predecessor was. Bet you voted for Bush - twice - right?
Now just go back to your Mom's basement and your far right lies - it will make you happy. Dumb but happy!
Freshieee
Fishy!!!!! Good to see you my good Keynesian Progressive afficianado.
OK, let’s look at my stubborn laissez-faire/classical economics, shall we?
Do you remember the Great Depression of 1920?
No?
That’s probably because it never happened, but by all metrics since, it should have.
President Warren Harding “inherited” a very sharp deflationary downturn from Woodrow Wilson. The deflation was the largest one-year percentage decline in almost 140 years of data. According to most economists it was as severe, from peak to trough, as the same contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR dealt so horribly with. GDP plunged from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed rose from 2.1 million to 4.9 million. Wholesale prices dropped by 36%, worse than any year during the Great Depression. Industrial production declined by 30%, automobile production declined by over 60%. The stock market fell 47%. From 1919 to 1922 business failures tripled, those that survived saw a 75% decline in profits.
WHEW!!!! Kinda bad wouldn’t you agree?
Contrary to Herbert Hoovers and FDR’s Keynesian efforts of deficit spending Harding knew that the <gasp> free-market can correct itself, given the opportunity. He dramatically cut spending from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $3.2 billion in 1922. His Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, slashed the top tax rate from 73% to 24%, the bottom rate from 4% to 0.5%. These cuts resulted in economic recovery in 1922, only a year and a half later. GDP rose at 4.3%, without an inflationary adjustment, and unemployment fell to 2.8 million. Productivity improved and real wages increased. The stock market tripled followed by a dramatic expansion of the middle class. By 1926 the unemployment rate was 1.8%.
WOW!!! I bet Barrack Hussein would love a tripling of that unemployment rate, don't you?
So, a severe downturn, similar to the 1929 contraction, became an 18 month recession instead of a decade long depression such as engineered by FDR. Austerity allows private sector growth. It’s not too late to do the right thing.
Today Barrack Hussein’s solution is to tax the mean, nasty, rich, fat-cats to generate $850 billion, or whatever he dreamt it should be last night, over a decade.
So, this will generate $85 billion a year in revenue. The problem is we SPEND $10 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY!!!!
So Obama’s plan will pay for 8.5 days of spending, what do we do to pay for the other 356.5 days?
You Libbies can stomp your little feet and bang your heads against the wall all day, even you know this has NOTHING to do with policy, it’s all about politics. It’s Barrack’s class warfare pity-party, no more, no less!
His alleged “Jobs Plan” is just a mini-stimulus to redistribute more barrowed money to the public sector for his base and crony unions benefit. The initial $863 billion stimulus was a blatant failure. Even if you accept that it created 5 million jobs, that means it cost our government almost $200,000 to create a job. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think that’s a very substantial return-on-investment.
Now, would you like me to
schooleducate you on the other Depression that was actually worse than the “Great Depression”? You know which one I’m talking about, don’t you?The Depression of 1946.
But wait, you’re probably saying there was no depression in 1946, right?
Well, leading Keynesian economists, most notably Alvin Hansen, said that government can’t just disband the Army, close down hundreds of munitions factories, stop building ships, stop all those incorrigible “Military Industrial Complex” bogeymen and remove all government economic controls.
Could they?
After all, the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression was the courageous massive government intervention in the economy, right?
Well, you’re right, there was no Depression in 1946, 1947, 1948 or any other year the Keynesians so wanted to happen to prove their nonsense theories again on.
I’ll let you find out how it never happened.
Hint: It wasn’t Keynesian by any means, and Ludwig still stands proud.
I’ll discount the rest of your post you so cavalierly challenged me on to save you any further humiliation.
Any other dares?
OO-BAMA LicenseToBore,
Deportations under Obama (all records): FY2010 = 392K; FY2011 = 397K; FY2012 = 410K for a total of 1.2 million in the last 3 years.
In the period 1984-1986, Reagan added more to the federal debt than any president before or since.
The last republican president to balance the budget was Eisenhower.
The recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that there was no statistical correlation between tax cuts for the wealthy and economic growth. There is, however, a correlation between tax cuts for the wealthy and a wider income gap between the rich and the poor.
Top down economics doesn't work for the simple reason that when the wealthy get more money, they don't spend it in the US economy - unless of course the middle class is already doing well, at which point there is a profit motive for them to meet demand. Middle-out economics does work for the simple reason that when the middle class gets more money, they do spend it in the US economy, which means in part that the wealthy will create new jobs to meet the demand.
All sides agree right now that the middle class has been economically crushed. Trillions of their dollars have flowed to the wealthy under trickle-down policies, making an income gap that is now even worse than the robber-baron days. Of course, the wealthy are not creating jobs with all their cash, because the middle class can't afford their products. More top-down policies will not correct that problem.
This is why the bellyaching and whining about how little tax increases on the rich will do to cut the deficit in the short term is missing the point. Anything that can be done to boost the middle class right now, will be a long-term boost to the economy, including the pocketbooks of the wealthy. Since the income gap is the thing that is the most severely out of balance, it makes sense to take steps to correct that problem first.
I don't know why it has become doctrine among republicans to follow the bizarre, elitist Milton Freedman economic policies into the abyss come hell, high water, or the destruction of the middle class. I suppose I don't care that you've got your head up your butt. I do wish, however, that you'd pull your head out of MY butt for a change. You made your arguments to the American public, we made ours, and we won. We don't have time for sore losers right now. Time to grow up and live with it.
JimSpence
every president would love tripling of that rate but the problem is that we don't live in the 1920s when a recession was associated with Henry Ford's shut-down of all his factories for six months in order to changeover from the Model T to the new Model A automobile.
one company shutting down for 6 months contributes to recession.
you try so hard to sound smart but you make yourself look silly by comparing 1920s to 2010s. Another reason why you should NEVER compare 1920s to 2010s is the fact that WOMEN were a small % of the workforce. Different times, my friend!
But keep copying and pasting stuff you don't really understand.
mike876
jim spence,
ROTFLMAO!!!
Mikey, you’re out of your league on this one. As a matter of fact I have read PPACA. TWICE!!!!
I betcha that’s twice as many times as any of your dysfunctional Liberal lawmakers read it. Remember when Nanny Piglosi told everyone we need to pass the bill so we know what’s in it? None of them have STILL read the bill.
Anyway, Medicare Part-D was passed in 2003 and went into effect in 2006. I gave you two (2) references, the CBO study and the JAMA study. Did you read them?
Of course not. Well here’s three more. The Intercontinental Marketing Services' Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Bureau of Economic Research studies.
You’ll find the savings have been happening from its inception. By 2010 the costs have dropped on 8 of the 10 most commonly prescribed drug classes from an average cost of $1.50 to $1.00 per day. Estimates show that the cost will drop to 65 cents by 2015.
PPACA didn’t even address this. They addressed the donut hole, which has been significantly decreased by the cost savings of Med Part-D. PPACA wasn’t even signed until March of 2010.
BTW, not to get too personal, but are you married? I hope not, especially if you and your spouses combined incomes are $50,000. If it is you may consider getting divorced. Not for personal reasons but rather economic reasons.
See, if you earn $25,000 each as singles you’ll have to pay $3,076 each, but if you’re married it skyrockets to $5,160 each.
Now, if you both make $32,000 you’ll only pay a maximum combined $5,684 if unmarried. But if you’re married it goes up to about $15,000.
Quite a punishment for just saying “I do” don’t you think?
Isn’t PPACA great?
How's your bag feeling now Spanky?
bayllie
ROTFLMAO!!!!
But, but, but you little Libbies keep parroting what your criminal FDR did in the 30's as a shining example of your ridiculous Keynesian tax and spend nonsense. So how is that any different?
And what the hell does the percentage of the workforce have to do with women? The workforce is a constant regardless of who's in it per each era.
C'mon bayllie, you can do better than this.
You're out of your league Spanky.
bayllie - arguing with JimSpence is like arguing with a brick - except the brick is smarter. Don't waste your time.
SeekingSanity
you are offending bricks because a brick would not ask "what % of workforce has to do with women?" I guess our little jim does not understand how unemployment was/is calculated
jim,
those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Majority of women back then did not work, thus, were not part of the labor force. Different than today. Is it that hard for you to understand that?
SeekingSanity
Happy 2013!
“We can't be so naive to believe that just taxing the rich will solve our problems,” said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “Put everything on the table. Repeat. Everything on the table.”
"We can't be so naive to believe that just taxing the rich will solve our problems, said Senator Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. "Put everything on the table. Repeat. Put everything on the table", stated the Senator in a speech at the Center for American Progress. "Progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines and deny the obvious".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/27/news/la-pn-durbin-progressives-fiscal-cliff-20121127
I could say the same of you, but then I'd have to shoot myself to contain my laughter.
Indeed, let us delve into the iconic philosophy that demands that the government stay the hell out of the economy and let the private sector run itself, even though that was tried over the past 30 years and failed miserably in 2009.
First of all, what you are proposing is that government policy brought the economy BACK from depression, no? After all, you are implying that government austerity led to a recovery. You and I can at least agree that government policy can do something. Secondly, since you have gone back to your beloved classical theories, I shall go back to my holy Keynesian principles. The 1921 recession was caused by deflation, in part by the inflexible gold standard and the chaotic transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime one. We just recently went through a debt-based recession which requires long periods of gradual recovery and debt deleveraging. Inflation and deflation-based recessions, however, can be quickly resolved. And technically, the Harding Administration did engage in Keynesian economics via tax cuts, which could have countered the austerian effects of spending cuts. What I say is that recessions and depressions are caused BY the private sector (and occasionally by government intransigence) and can only be solved by the private sector is if they contradict their own principles by investing money in production and stimulate consumer spending, essentially doing the job that the government would normally do in that case. But because the private sector is based on profitability, investing in a depressed economy is like a vegetarian eating BBQ ribs.
Yet tax cuts are not austerity; they are stimulus. The private sector does not grow in a recession because there is not enough demand to make growth and investment profitable, and austerity actually makes a bad economy worse (as evident by talk about the fiscal cliff's consequences) by sucking money out of the economy, either by cutting government spending (which has a multiplier effect on the economy) or increasing taxes (and thus decreasing disposable income).
That is not an economic solution; that is merely a deficit solution.
Okay then, why not let all of the Bush tax cuts expire gradually??? After all, we do have a revenue problem (since revenues are far below their postwar average ratio to GDP), and letting the Bush tax cuts expire would save nearly $4 trillion over 10 years.
Actually, assuming that we have an $8 trillion deficit over 10 years, this tax hike will cut the deficit by roughly 11%. And, considering that the Republicans have been waging class warfare against middle-income Americans in favor of wealthy backers, I think another class war will even things out.
Actually, considering that stimulus kept the U.S. from going into a real depression, it was well worth the price. And the jobs plan will actually be paid for; plus it will consist of tax cuts AND spending increases targeted where it will actually boost the economy, at infrastructure and aid to states.
Well, it wasn't necessarily Keynesians proposing that. A lot of businessmen, leading economists all across the spectrum, and ordinary Americans feared a return of the Depression because they rationalized that since wartime government spending had lifted the economy out of the depression, the postwar cuts would send it back into depression.
Yes, government intervention saved the economy during the Depression.
Actually, Keynes is laughing in his grave while Ludwig is pacing nervously in his tomb. The economy did not collapse after the war (although it had a somewhat rocky transition) because of the New Deal; the New Deal (which I assume you would call a socialist endeavor to take away our economy freedoms) was a long-term deal that strengthened the flawed foundations of the American economy, planting roots into the ground (government regulations and social programs) that would keep the economy from ever collapsing in a chaotic manner again. It tightly regulated the financial industry, established social welfare and insurance programs to protect the unemployed and the poor, and helped stabilize the economy for the next 30 years.
Yes; perhaps you can tell me what caused this recession to spiral out of control and why it we recovered from it by 2010. And try to take out the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controversy, since that is just a bunch of right-wing bull@!$%#. Go ahead and shoot. I have all day to prove you wrong.
bayllie
Funny how baylie forgets it was a Republican held Congress that worked with Clinton to balance the budget during part of his term. In fact it has been over 40 years since a Democrat held Congress put forth a balanced budget, and they have held power far more then Republicans over the past 60 years. Most recently, Democrats haven't even taken the time to pass a budget, Harry Reid in particular doesn't seem to feel that is a good use of his time. Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote, my how liberals are prone to re-writing history to suit their delusions.
Bayllie and Seeking ..
It only argues for the sake of arguing. I had a gut full of it last night.
Happy 2013 to you both. When the dust settles from everything that is going on right now (as it will), I wonder what poor JimSpence will have to bitch about ....
.
Rick-3416939
Rick, please list names of Republican Congressman who worked with Clinton by voting "YES" on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93) aka the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes and is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.
come on, please list the Republicans who voted to for this...I'll wait but won't hold my breath.
Layton-3733410
I continue just to see what other silly stuff he can come up with.
Happy New Year's to you as well!
Pervy Bill later admitted he raised taxes to much. Also, the bill did nothing to curtail the spending. That would not happen until later after Republicans took control of Congress and forced Clinton to agree to cuts and reforms in social program. I find it curious that the left's heroes are normally unaccomplished talkers who take credit after the fact for doing little or nothing.
LITTLE JIMMY,
here is the link, healthcare.gov/law/full/
Pages 906-925.AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!
*yawn*
Am I the only one who is suffering from "fiscal cliff fatigue"?
I do want to offer my congratulations to the 112th Congress led by John Boehner as earning the coveted title of being the most UNPRODUCTIVE Congress in history!
We got the best representation from them money could buy...
Feisty - isn't it the truth? Boehner and his group of bandits believe they hold all of America hostage and it will be viewed favorably? Clearly they have learned NOTHING but will learn much in 2014.
Apparently it was a "fire" sale if this is the best they had!
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH HOSTAGE-TAKERS.
And we know who is obstructing resolution & progress on the debt ceiling, fiscal curb, and taxes:
GOP wants to raise taxes on hundreds of millions of folks, while protecting tax rates for the richest 0.02% of Americans.
GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
The President comfortably won an election on creating needed revenues, by raising taxes on the top 2% of income earners.
The President wants to prevent a tax hike on 98% of Americans, and 97% of small businesses.
Even now - John Boehner can bring on some House Democrats - and vote for the Senate Bill to stop taxes going up on the middle class. Speaker Boehner must now ignore the negative, destroy-everything-Koch-Adelson House GOP Tea partiers, and do what is right for the continuing economic recovery & growth of our country.
Fisty, you do know that CONGRESS is BOTH the SENATE and the HOUSE OF REPS....don't you? My bet is no by your ignorant statements. Glad you're bored though....
No Feisty, you aren't the only one. This issue is a disgusting reminder of the ineptness of the Weeper of the House.....trying to get the TeaPeople to govern. Low-information Groverites!
I think Boehner understands that his hand has been overplayed. He is playing this game of chicken waiting for the President to flinch as he usually, reliably does.
But this time the President is not flinching.
The President said during the debt limit "negotiations" earlier this year that he would not keep the Bush tax cuts. He's sticking to his guns.
Spending bills can only originate in the House, so the ball's in Boehner's court,........like it or not.
This artificial controversy brought to you courtesy of the Goofy Old Perverts.
So Fiesty let me get this straight. Your view is that the Republicans are stalling and yet the House has sent numerous bills to the Senate and they have not acted on one of them? So really who is stalling? Just a quick reminder; the house starts the bill process on fiscal issues. If the Senate does not like it, they can gut it and send it back. But Dingy Harry has stalled these bills. Why? It would disclose who is really holding the American public hostage. It just might ruin the Democrats from winning elections in 2014. Hmmm
Yes, it is getting old really quick. Never in all my years of following politics have I seen a party so totally dysfunctional that they can't even pass the simplist pieces of legislation that they ALL agree and know is the right thing.
While FR may have provided "cliff" notes, the only cliff note worth anything is the simple fact that too many House republicans are incapable of governing, lack even a basic concept of what democratic governing means (clue for GOPers: it isn't the minority gets to call the shots, their way or no way). That inability to lead and to govern has caused harm and will continue to cause harm UNLESS Boehner realizes the obvious--that he is Speaker of ALL the House, not just his caucus. And as Speaker, his responsibility (as Pelosi had to do in 2007-2008) is to bring legislation to the House floor that his side may not be 100% on board.
The most idiotic and silly idea of House and Senate republicans is that if they do nothing and we go over the cliff/curb/slope allowing all the tax cuts expire, they can then vote to extend them for 98% of the people and it won't be against their principles or offend their King Grover Norquist. That is the definition of insanity. Never raising taxes regardless of circumstances or needs whether war or crumbling infrastructure is not a principle, it is lunacy run amok.
I'm usually an optimist but unless Boehner reaches across the aisle to Pelosi and democrats to help him pass reasonable, logical legislation, we might as well strap on the parachutes because I don't think Boehner or McConnell have the courage to do what they know is right.
GOP, revenue bills must also originate in the House. (Const. Article I, Section 7: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills".)
Lynn, you are correct that there are House passed bills sitting in the Senate, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in the Senate have sixty votes to overcome the filibusters that would be raised with any attempt to 'amend or concur' those bills.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH HOSTAGE-TAKERS.
So true, Backhouse.
We know the ones guilty here..........the idiots that elected them. There has been over the last four years an unprecedented demagoguery of the lowest order sowing seeds of misinformation, outright lies, irrational fears and hatreds.............and now we see the fruit. What is truly sad is that the public proved rich soil for the evil seeds. What is truly not even funny is that those who so smugly claim to be saving "the America they knew" are the very ones who are destroying it through their idiocy. And they're so friggin stupid they don't see that.
GOPisextinct wrote: "Spending bills can only originate in the House, so the ball's in Boehner's court."
Didn't you read the article? Boehner has sent at least one spending bill to the Senate and the Senate has not taken it up.
Yes, the Republicans are stalling, this is what they have done for the past four years: delay, deny, stall, obstruct, filibuster and repeat the process. The House sent a bill to the Senate (knowing it would NEVER pass) that extended ALL the Bush tax cuts including those for the richest 2%. That is the arrogance of a party completely out of touch with reality as well as being out of touch with what the majority of Americans clearly stated at the polls. Under the Constitution, democratic government means the majority rules. The GOPTPers did that despite the majority of Americans votes on Nov 6 and subsequent polls concurring with President Obama and democrats' position that raising taxes on the wealthy as well as spending cuts are needed to get our fiscal house in order. Democracy means the majority rules; it means give and take; it means compromise--all things the GOPTP doesn't grasp. They agree that tax cuts should be extended for 98% of the people yet they refuse to compromise over 2% of what they want. That's stupidity born of arrogance and rigid dogma.
Sending bills to the Senate that don't have the top 2% tax rate going back to Clinton's is not working together. It is we want all taxes kept low and lots of cuts...so the middle class will lose their big tax breaks(education, house), the poor will get cuts to some of their services, and the rich will lose...nothing. Sounds like a great plan. Good job House. Yep, tax rates kept super low for all and we will just cut services that many people rely on to save money. That is a win for the rich who lose nothing and a screw you to everyone else.
RossXtn;
Perhaps, but not a realistic bill that does not involve eviscerating our earned benefits programs.
Harry Reid is rightfully telling Boehner and the Pubbies to sit and spin.
Good for him!!
Democrats seem to have found their backbones lately,.....and it is good to see.
It's well past time for the Weeper of the House to pull up his big-boy panties and be a LEADER to the entire House of Representatives, rather than cajoling a few hell-bent obstructionists!
Time to put country before party!
GOPX,
I couldn't agree more... about time they recognized the election results!
Not gonna happen! You're speaking in a foreign dialect to that Idiot. He's bought and paid for!
......and we're going to have a front row seat as Boehner, and Grover Norquist eat a giant steaming pile of crow right in full view of allllll of America.
What a lovely New Years present!!
RossXtn ...your right why wont the senate take up a bill sent by Boehner all it asks for is the elimination of SS and medicare eliminate Unemployment benefits eliminate tax loopholes like home mortgage and give Millionairs another tax break ..Reid must be nuts to hold up a bill as good as that one
Of course Weeper Boehner keeps saying they have acted, by passing an extension of all of the expiring Bush tax cuts. It appears in his drunken little head he thinks he can get the public on board.
However, only a portion of the 47% that voted for Willard, are working so hard to protect the top 1 to 2% that could care less for them.
So stop your complaining, The bottom line is taxes will be going up on the top 2% and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Period, end of story.
The ball is in Boehner's court but he has no balls !!!
I must remind you Feisty, that congress is made up of both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, so please point out the Harry Reid is also to blame.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
If they were merely unproductive, that would be a big improvement over what they really are: one of the most DESTRUCTIVE Congresses in history. They're responsible for the United States losing its credit rating in the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. And they may well bring an end to the Obama Recovery from the Bush Recession and drive the country back into a new Boehner/McConnell Recession.
TO: SeekingSanity who wrote:
Boehner has got 2 big problems: (1) Boehner can't control the Teagaggers but needs at least some of their votes to close the deal that Boehner would like to make with President Obama; and (2) Eric Cantor wants Boehner's job and Cantor controls the Teagaggers so Cantor has rendered Boehner powerless in an attempted coup to take over the Speaker's seat.
TO: Think about it-3099387 who wrote:
Harry Reid is NOT to blame for anything because Reid is only trying to work the will of the Majority of the American People.
Republicans, on the other hand, are attempting to thwart the will of the American People in favor of supporting an agenda cooked up by 26% of the Republican Party.
How is Harry Reid to blame when the Senate is loaded with filibuster fanatics?
Nope!
Not a chance, the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans, right where it should! ;o)
Houston!
Thank you for pointing that out!
Hope you & yours had a wonderful Christmas!
Bruce, if I recall correctly the senate can define the number of votes required for a bill to pass or brought to the floor for debate, be it 60 or a simple majority.
If you want to talk about filibuster threats, it is rather foolish to just assume that one will occur until it actually happens. Regardless, if the tghreat of a filibuster is so onerus, why hasn't the democrat led senate either eliminate it or modify it? Hard to think of it as being so bad if the democrats have offerred up no alternatives to it since they gained the majority in 2007.
Is reid and obama so weak kneed that they just assume that only the republican party can straighten out our economy?
Interesting that reid has yet to vote on any budget proposal since 2009 even though the budget control act of 1974 says otherwise...
american,
Senate rules can only be changed on the first day of a new Congressional session … once every two years.
Not all members of the majority Party wanting to change the rules agree that changing them is the proper thing to do. It is not easy to change the rules.
American girl and other lefty thinkers...
Boehners failure to bring his plan B to a vote shows that even if boehner brought obamas plan before the house the house would have still shot it down. Then lets not forget a house rule that the speaker can only bring a bill party's majority is behind it. Obviously boehner didn't have a majority.
american,
Not true especially if Boehner didn’t require that a majority of the majority Party vote for the bill but Boehner refuses to ask any Democrats to help pass any bill.
Assuming that there is such a thing as a compelling argument, it seems rather self serving for one side to cry foul because the other side doesn't agree.
Obama was clear. Allowing the Bush tax reduction to expire on those netting in excess of $250,000 per year was the key issue on which he ran and earned the vote of the majority. The people have spoken and it is time for all representatives to respect the will of the people and negotiate a fair, reasonable and sustainable solution.
Damn Congressman! If you aren't willing to negotiate why did you run for office in the first place?
american, the GOP Senators have demanded 60 votes for everything; that is the filibuster rule, 60 votes for cloture which means 60 votes to even take a bill to the Senate floor for debate and amendment. That's not democracy, that's tyranny. Did you miss Mitch McConnell demanding Senator Reid allow a vote on Mitch's own bill; then realizing it would pass, Mitch walked it back by filibustering his own bill? So spare us the phony baloney that President Obama and Senator Reid are "weak kneed" because in the words of Newt Gingrich your argument is "pious baloney".
Hussein will have to agree to spending cuts if he wants a debt ceiling raise.
Hussein wants the nation to go over the edge because it will raise everyone's taxes, then he can be seen saving the middle class by lowering their taxes in the new year.
Robert Ripley doesn't have nothing on these boys.!! Believe it or not.!!
Hey LittleGuy, Who in the hell is Hussein?
Are you confused? BTW, that sounds like a great plan!
Guy,
Presidents cannot increase or decrease taxes and they cannot spend … only Congress can.
Then why is he asking for a meeting? Why is he making demands? Sorry, your logic is flawed. If you were correct, the he should STFU and deal with other ways to play Robin Hood.
Fiesty - Don't you wish that Chicago was run by Democrats so they could do something about all the guns slaughtering thier citizens? Don't you wish they had someone powerful that lived there to do something about the 500 gun murders this year. Don't you wish that we had someone, who instead of talking tough, would do something about it, instead of passing it on to someone else? And the Republicans passed the tax cut bill, what have the Democrats done? How much of a COWARD are you not to post on the Chicago Gun Murder Board!
We'll go over the so-called fiscal cliff. Taxes will increase.
THEN the Republicans can vote to decrease taxes to where the Democrats want them so they (R) can claim in mid terms they did not increase taxes and infact voted for tax decreases.
If this happens then its the (R) at their slimiest but I would applaud the rather clever politics.
Gene.... Because he is the President of the United States of America and he is representing the interests of the American people as authorized by the majority that elected him. What do you think a President is supposed to do if it isn't to represent the interests of Americans? Not to confuse you with more than one question but, what do you think the phrase, "the majority rules" means in the context of a democratic republic?
Not to confuse you campdog, winning the Presidency does not mean you get a blank check to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want it. The House of REPRESENTATIVES ... is designated to be the source of revenue legislation as designed in the Constitution.
Obama's job as President and supposedly as Chief Executive, is to see to it that the laws of the United States are carried out.
eo-1957883
What I wish is that the pipeline of illegal arms from mostly Southern states with lax gun laws were closed so that the guns didn't reach Chicago or other cities in the U.S. and Mexico, where the flow of guns is primarily through Texas, where our wingnut governor believes that the right to buy guns "no questions asked" at the endless gun shows is sacred.
jim-1455434
When did Obama ask for a blank check? If you can't be specific, we'll have to assume you're just making stuff up, like wingnuts usually do.
It's nice to hear all the arm chair quarterbacking going on... I'm glad how many of these posters sit right there in the house and senate with all the backroom dealings, whitehouse meetings and know exactly what is going on... lol.. I know I have no clue about all of the negotiations - only what our incompetent media tells us, but know it takes both sides to screw up these negotiations.
I know I don't want another dollar spent without a balanced budget.. I'm soooooo tried of all the promises going back to FDR.. My tax money in SS and Medicare has been spent years ago and we only have our government to blame. Most incompetent White House, Senate and Congress durning my life time and that goes back to Eisenhower and also includes the incompetent Bush years as well.
Let the clift fall.. its the only way that will stop the increase in corrupt government spending.
Jimbo! Thank you for acknowledging: The House of REPRESENTATIVES ... is designated to be the source of revenue legislation as designed in the Constitution.
Obama's job as President and supposedly as Chief Executive, is to see to it that the laws of the United States are carried out.
(Golly Jim, where were you when so many were complaining about Obama going on vacation rather than working on resolving the fiscal cliff issue? By your standard, if he wasn't needed in the process why shouldn't he have taken a vacation?)
Legislation is not law until the President signs it into law. I think the President would be more than willing to sign "it" into law and carry out the law once the Republican party finds the courage to tell the Tea Party to get real and stop obstructing.
I'm not confused but I will admit I have trouble understanding folks when they talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Unfortunately, the prescription of the bipartisan committee was for $2-$3 in spending cuts for each $1 of tax revenue increases. And that did not allow for any additional NEW spending.
Obama isn't even close. He demanded $1.6T in taxes, $80B per year in new spending and offered $400B in "phantom" cuts in the future. And then he insisted that COngress hand over their Constitutional authority to control the debt limit to HIM!
Obama can get a favorable compromise (55:45) but there is no way in hell those of us who sent the GOP House back to DC will tolerate the 1-sided agenda he is pushing.
The wannabe Empereor and his SPENDOCRAT kabal need to come to the table seriously and stop playing politics. The GOP put revenue on the table. The democrats need to put the spending cuts on the table, and stop being afraid of admiting to their supporters that they are NOT Santa Claus!
Look at what's really happening had enuf of republicans, not just the lies you're being fed by Fox and the tea people.
Mo - anyone who uses the "Emperor" nonsense is incapable of rational thought. You're wasting your time!
Obama only raised spending 6%.
That is due to the large and hefty increases left by Bush and the Republicans.
Remember "deficits don't matter" and "let's go to war and cut taxes"?
The only one sided agenda here is protecting the rich. Guess what? You lost the election over that issue. Stick to your guns but you will lose seats in 2014 based on this.
the ORIGINAL offer was $10 of cuts for $1 of revenue. Rightfully, Dems have changed their position because when you throw a hissy fit and cause our Bond Rating to suffer,...well you shouldn't THEN get your way. A little thing we parents call Negative Reinforcement. Have the tantrum,...but it isn't going to get you what you want.
Only wish, as a parent, I could say I still "loved" the GOP,...that would be a big fat lie, however. Good Times!
hadenough, we didn't have a debt ceiling for many, many, many years; there is no such thing in the Constitution, it is simply legislation passed by Congress to confirm what they already did. Wouldn't bother me if any President (R or D) had the ability increase the debt ceiling as needed. No other civilized, western country has a "debt ceiling" and we didn't have one either. The national debt is money already voted to be spent and spent by--wait for it--Congress. So in essense, Congress voting to increase the debt ceiling means Congress votes to say--yes, spent it so now we must raise the debt ceiling to cover what we ALREADY SPENT plus interest owed. Until Jan 20, 2009, the debt ceiling was raised when needed with enough votes by both parties to pass it, usually with the minority party allowing as many members to vote NAY as possible while still passing the bill, because both parties understood the debt ceiling covers the money Congress already spent with their votes.
Failing to raise the debt ceiling is essential; to cause default would be disastrous to our country on so many levels. Using it as a hostage is irresponsible because the money has already been spent with the approval of Congress which voted to spend it.
Eric you seem to be forgetting that this country is not a kingdom. We had theree brancehes being elected. Guess what the house was elected against his issue so what we have is gridlock unless all sides compromise. The dems did not gain the 25 seats neede to win a mandate so therfore its compromise are go over the cliff. Which going over the cliff is what needs to be done that way everybody can pay a fair share.
Edit to my 3.5 last paragraph. That should be raising the debt ceiling is essential;....
High rolla, guess you missed the voters saying they want the parties to work TOGETHER, too. The only reason the House remains in GOP hands is gerrymandering. Democrats in the House received MORE votes than did the GOPers in the House. The 3 branches of government are intended to work at governing, not one branch obstructing the will of the other 2 which is the majority rule of democracy. Compromise is expected but there has been ZERO compromise coming from republicans for the last four years--ZERO.
My point exactly unless the dems give spending cuts it not going to happen. Im glad you see that Jody thats my point exactly spending cuts will have to be part of the deal if one is made. The dems did not recieve enough votes to win the house they my have won the quarter but the repuks won the game in the house.
high rolla
What you fail to grasp is the Dems did Not lose a head count. The GNOP lost in both houses.
One thing you can be sure of is the GOP will be gone in 2014 if they don't stop the games. sad But true.
high rolla,
If you have noticed the President has given in on cuts in spending. I will love it when the Defense budget is cut! The republicans are staying with their No increase in taxes or the top 2%. It should be an increase for all those making $200,000 not just to $250,000. Stop protecting the rich millionaires and billionaires and greedy corporations!
It's all a mirage, trust me, Obama is licking his chops at the possibility of more revenue to squander. He could give a rats azz if we go over the cliff as do many of the posters here. As if taxing small business owners making $250K a year is going to solve our debt and spending problems. What a disaster of a president and congress.
Read post #3.1 above insane American. You've fallen for the Fox tea people lies.
No one ever said taxing the wealthy would SOLVE out debt and deficit issues gifted to us via the spend free days of the Bush era. It is simply a way to begin the process of resolving the issue. Their is no one fix solution and the sooner the GOPTP politicians understand this, the better off we will all be.
Why are you working so hard to protect the top 1 to 2% that could care less for you. Bottom line is their taxes are going up, and you can't do anything about it.
Sane America,
No one ever said simply by raising taxes we would solve our debt and spending problems. It is only a part of what needs to be done. When coupled with needed spending cuts, and some infrastructure repair spending, putting more people to work, instantly, which will further increase tax revenues, but ALL OF IT TOGETHER, will help solve our problems.
Sorry, but if you are a small business owner and allow yourself to extract in excess of $250,000 while your business is suffering you should sell your business, go back to school and learn how to manage.
"Neither party wants to be the one to make the first major concession, meaning that the House is looking to the Senate (and vice-versa) to be the first chamber to “jump,” so to speak."
Or as Scott Glenn said to Alec Baldwin in one of my all-time favorite movies,The Hunt for Red October, "The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch".
"Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, say they have acted – by passing an extension of all of the expiring Bush tax cuts, an unpalatable proposition to Democrats – and now it’s the Senate’s turn."
Seems to me there's been nothing BUT "acting" going on - on both sides - since this whole mess started. Except Glenn and Baldwin and Sean Connery and Sam Neill and James Earl Jones are way better actors. And they could save the entire world in under three hours. Maybe we should let them handle this mess.
At least they knew when it was time to flinch.....
For some reason, reading your comment, the title Profiles in Courage springs to mind.
I think Congress should award itself the Congressional Medal of Honor. Forget Afghanistani and Iraq War veterans, first responders and teachers who sacrifice their lives to save children - these Congressmen are the real heros in today's America. Look at them playing hot potato with measures to cut the deficit. Such bravery and patriotism!
Great points, JoAnne and Amy. I am astounded that the GOP has allowed the situation to get this bad. Profiles in Courage indeed. It is embarrassing that these obstructionists won't see reason and due to gerrymandering there are likely to be no consequences to them.
Love your avatars!! Wishing all my FR friends a happy and healthy 2013.
JoAnne, Amy, & Steeler Fan ...
Love your new avatars, too! Testing out mine . . .
Best wishes to all of you for a healthy, happy, and hopefully saner 2013!
Layton - love ALL of the new avitars from you, Steeler, Amy and JoAnne. Having computer problems and I can't get one posted. :-( Oh well! Eventually!
Seeking -
Make sure to scroll down and click on "Save profile" at the bottom of the screen. Then just be patient. It'll show up on your home page before it shows up here.
JoAnne - thanks I tried that. I think it has something to do with the computer being my office one - some things are blocked. My laptop died - buying a new one this weekend!
Happy New Year to You!
Compromise: a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions, "Webster's 9th Edition"
The definition said nothing about posturing or the blaming of fault by one side or the other. You Progressive Libs are a mirror image of the Tea Party. There is nothing progressive about bullying from the Left or for holding out just to prove a point of power from the Right.
You're both very wrong! and the voting constituency is wrong in believing they are owed something just because they exist.
It's time for congress to get back to work. You can feel the mood of the country and it's ready to revolt against these do nothing representatives. Watch out, you guys may have to go out a find a real job, hope for a few benefits and go to work like the rest of us. Your ivory tower is crumbling beneath your feet!!!!!
I went to Les Miserables last night and now I can't stop thinking "to the barricades!" whenever I read about the fiscal cliff shenanigans the royal Congress is subjecting us to.
Ames -
Just don't try asking the GOP/TP Congress "Do You Hear The People Sing?"
'cause I think the only voice they're listening to is Grover Norquist's. And compared to him, even Russell Crowe sounds like Pavarotti.
P.S. - Kind of brings new meaning to the word "barricade", doesn't it?
"Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!"
A talented satirist could do alot with Master of the House. Speaker Boehner certainly fits the bill as an unctuous barkeeper.
Amy, surely you're not suggesting Madame Thenardier's line about "Hypocrite and toady and inebriate!"..... are you???
Everybody raise a glass to the Master of the House!
LOL, JoAnne:
Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
Ready to relieve 'em of a sou or two
Watering the wine, making up the weight
Pickin' up their knick-knacks when they can't see straight
Everybody loves a landlord
Everybody's bosom friend
Boehner is a selfish, and the GOP are idiots. WE go off the cliff, so he can be re-elected as speaker, and so they can "say" they are voting for tax cuts rather than tax hikes...
The sad part is that apparently the other idiots that voted for these clowns will buy it. Talk about low information voters.... I am surprised that the people voting for these numb skulls have enough brains cells to keep breathing...
If you noticed on Nov. 7 all the republicans were on a respirator. And by all the republican posts sense I'd say their still on a heart monitor.
Mo - Nope, they had their hearts removed long ago - along with what served as a brain!
You got it, TeaPeople in congress, with those great health insurance plans that "we the people" subsidize.
I would not get your hopes up to high that somehow they will come to an agreement on the fiscal cliff. The republicans still wants to protect the rich and the corportate CEO's with their failed idea of the trickle down effect. The senate a month ago sent the house their bill for consideration, and Boehnor has not even bothered to bring it up for a vote. Instead, he came up with his own plan and could not even get enough support from his fellow republicans for a vote. Obama has raised his threshold from 250,000 to 400,000, but the republicans only want it their way. Obama has said that reforms are needed in medi-cal and social security, and the republicans counter that they want to cut spending but as of yet have not produced and ideas of what they want to cut.
With the republicans fiasco with the debt limit last summer, I guess they figure that they have not done enough damage to the U.S. economy with the lowering our credit rating and are bound and determined to see how much more damage they can do, not only to the economy, but to every single Americans life style. 55% of Americans in the last poll have said that if we go over the cliff, it's the republicans fault. They lost the election (yes they still control the house, but the democrats picked up 9 seats) and I guess they did not hear the public when they said we needed a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
David - yes, the GOP is standing firm in their pledge to Grover Norquist, no matter what it does to the country. It is time everyone who signed that oath to Norquist is arrested and tried for the traitors they are. At what point does the DOJ do it's job?
President Obama and the Democrats have made concessions but Boehner and his bandits dig in thinking they can get everything for nothing. He HAS to go - and take all of his traitors with him - and that includes the 4 Democrats who signed pledges to Norquist.
Willie - again, you see only what you want to see. President Obama has proposed spending cuts - starting with the Defense budget. You know, we could cut those projects that even the Pentagon says we don't need but that put money in the pockets of the Republican backers so the GOP won't let them be cut.
The President has also shifted from raising taxes on those make over $250,000 to those making over $400,000 but then Boehner reneged! Classic traitor that he is - he doesn't care about the country.
We have a problem with revenue and spending - both have to be addressed.
According to the GOPTP, we only have a spending problem until it comes to defense cuts, then magically, their tune changes and we have an entitlement problem.
Willie, please get informed. As I said, Obama has raised his treshold from 250,000 to 400,00 and has stated that medi-care and social security must be reformed. Tell me one thing that the republicans have put forth other than protecting the 1%?
Yes...going from 250,000 to 400,000 for the tax rate to go back to pre Bush..that is a huge one. And if you really think we JUST have a spending problem then your head is in the sand. Sorry, at some point of time you have to pay for the two wars we have been fighting...I guess for republicans that is ok money spent, but the poor on food stamps, well that is just BS....I didn't hear any people up in arms while shoveling cash at Haliburton and Blackwater...where was this outrage that you all feel now? You have to have spending cuts AND an increase in revenue. Do you really think either side is going to not spend money??? If so, you are an idiot. Republicans sure like to talk small govt, but they don't follow that through with action. Bush increase the size of govt by huge amounts...creating all sorts of new agencies. You see the big difference between repubs and dems is that most dems realize we have to have both, while repubs only care about getting rid of entitlments so that the rich can continue with paying a lower tax rate than most other people. It's why Mitt refused to show his tax returns...cause it would show he had years where he paid nothing!
You will never see most republicans support defense cuts.
The bulk of the defense industry is located in red states. The majority of military bases are in red states. Both inject billions to the local economies. Defense spending is prime republican pork and a way to buy votes.
Rev-1240041 . . .
Thanks for pointing that out! I googled it and you are so correct. Wow. No wonder the Republicans get their britches in a pinch so fast! Living near a rather large AFB and in a Red State, all I hear on the news is how the Congressman of my District will "protect the Base and the jobs!" Gag. He actually stated this morning that it is imperative to continue to have civilian workers to make sure the outdated planes can still work in case they are needed at some point. That there's some progressive thinking!
Incorrect left wing B.S. as usual. The largest segments of the defense industry are in California and Virginia.
Think again - and this doesn't include nuclear missile silo locations.
http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_USMap.jsp
RedDev - "Think again" - now there you go asking the impossible!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2nd CHRONICLES 7v 14>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If my people which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fiscal cliff deal last year should have included automatic resignations instead of spending cuts and tax increases. It would have accomplished more.
This is all smoke and mirrors. Dems & Repubs & Wall Street have been planning this for years. Their only problem has been trying to convince the people to yet again be robbed by the 1%.
This President and all his personal plans for dominating people with his elitist power trip, its just plain yukky.
Gofigureit - what a totally ridiculous post. Your post shows a definite lack of ability to think critically and sanely. There is help for that, ya know?
Oh, and take WillieSmith with you since his posts indicate the same malady!
You are too too funny to reply to. Aw, suppose I should have typed out some lengthy meaningless intellectual dribble here on a freaking comment board... but hey, breaking things down to simplicity often works best. He is a yukky dude. And a con artist. And an anti American anarchist. And a narcissist. And a grown child who never had to take responsibility. Oh heck, he's just yukky. yukky, yukky, yukky, yukky, yukkky..... bugging you yet?
Gofigureit - your post indicates an individual who has no concept of reality. So sad.
Now that is a classic case of pot and kettle. With every over committed to Obama bodyguard stance you take you show that same lack of ability. You need to loosen up a little and stop jumping on everyone who even gets close to disagreeing with you and your undying devotion to this administration.
Oh and congrats on that over 500 this year. How are those restrictive gun laws working out for ya?
Yup, implementing insurance coverage for all Americans is a severe sign of a man whose goal is to dominate the masses. Indeed, what a yukky, yukky, yukky (what the heck is a yukky anyway) domestic terrorist and how dare he try to improve the lives of all Americans.
It isn't improvement that he is trying to accomplish. It is ownership.
Just too funny. You wittle Obama babes arguing over the word "yukky". I am sitting here getting my laugh of the day. And you all still don't get it. :-) Obama and his staff of boobs are just "yukky".
Talk - what an absurd post and you know it. Friends with Gofigureit are ya?
Talk ..
Nope, that would be Boehner's mission. Why didn't Plan B come to a vote in the House? Because all he wants to accomplish is ownership and to dictate what he feels the country should do. I'd suggest that you read a little more and whine a little less.
Oh wise Swami, please explain to whittle Gwasshoppa how medical insurance for all translates to ownership. I'm all ears.
It's not me that's whining. Read all of your posts and those on the liberal side. "Why can't the GOP do this, why can't they do that, oh that Boehner is a hack, it's not our fault it the GOP, you can't blame Harry Reid,"..... and on and on.
And I do plenty of reading and learning. I suggest you do the same.........on a VARIETY of topics from a VARIETY of sources. Not just a right or left. Both with some independent writings thrown in. Read the following article with an open mind if you can and then come back and read your fellow posters on the left and put the two together and see what you come up with.
Do some reading on Obamacare and see how many people STILL think it is free. Maybe ownership is not the word. Maybe more like Seeking Sanity, UNDYING, FAITHFUL, BLIND FOLLOWING.
Hey Red Devil. Take a day or two and read through the 1500 pages. Then read through the CR to find all the new laws and regulations that are planned to implement Obamacare. Then read all the new taxes and expenditures. Then in two years, just try to make a health care decision for yourself. We let Paylosi, Dirty Harry, and the President take away our most personal and private part of our life, our health.
Gofigureit and Talk to the Hand - as usual - a post that is total nonsense but tries to use the typical Repubican scare tactics.
When Healthcare was under discussion for years - Republicans said something needed to be done - yet they NEVER came up with an suggestion - NOT ONE. Then the President puts a proposal on the table and suddenly they are totally against all of it - again, no suggestions, just against it.
Well, talk to people with pre-existing conditions and tell them that the ability to get coverage for cancer; heart problems; etc., that they couldn't get before is a bad thing. Talk to the parents that can keep their children on their policy until they are 25 and tell them it's a bad thing.
Oh, and stop the nonsense about the death panels - it just makes you look as stupid as Sarah Palin!
You CAN'T stand that our President actually got something done - in SPITE OF the Republicans who continue to sit on their hands - and get paid for it!
Well gosh TTTH, thanks for the enlightening article on pizza-pizza. What better way to illustrate socialism than to order pizza for the staff and insist it be equally divided into slices for all. Of course, we all know the extreme bent of capitalism that represents the current state of our country is that while staff are fighting for a single slice of pizza so generously provided by the CEOs, management is gorging on Filet Mignon, twice baked potatoes, hop shoot risotto sprinkled with saffron, and polished off with a fine glass of Dom champagne.
Quite frankly, I fail to understand the link between some idiot named O'Rouke and a stupid op-ed piece on pizza for all and open access to healthcare. Of course if you believe the idiot savant O'Rouke's statement -
- then you are already behind. China does not own all the worlds money or the worlds debt (which ever way you prefer to slice it). The idiot savant is simply engaging in fear mongering, and apparently, you are his favorite customer.
With Obamacare, you have the option to make a health care decision for yourself. Under the prior system, those options were unavailable. In doubt? Ask anyone with cancer or any other pre-existing condition how easy it is to get insurance coverage outside an employee group plan.
SS,
My daughter has a pre-existing condition, and its been over a year since she started with the paper work. As of today she is still waiting for approval.
RedDev - Ask anyone with cancer or any other pre-existing condition how easy it is to get insurance coverage outside an employee group plan. Or even with an employee group plan - often pre-existing conditions are still not covered under group plans - at least for a specified period of time.
thetotas ...
The pre-exisiting condition clause goes into effect on Jan 1, 2014.
(I read it TTTH)
thetotas - from what I understand, the pre-existing condition portion of AHA doesn't go into effect until 2014. Sorry
PCIP - As a result of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, California has a contract with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to establish a federally-funded high risk pool program to provide health coverage for eligible individuals. The program will last until December 31, 2013.
My daughter is buried under red tape, and if this is any indication how Obamacare will work, we are in big trouble.
Seeking Sanity and all the rest are so comical in their attempts to defend this bunch of legislative garbage. They can't defend it, so like old Seeking his Sanity there, they go back and start spewing year old talking points from the DNC and Moveon which aren't even on point. Its all libals can do is pretty much type "thats not true" with a bunch of hate speak mixed in for added benefit. Little childrend do the same thing when you tell them not to do something or it will turn out bad for them.... "thats not true, you are just saying that"... blah blah, Bushs fault.
Gee Totas - I guess we should apologize because the California Governor didn't walk up and personally deliver the insurance policy to your daughter. I fail to see how she is any worse off than where she started. What I do see is that once she figures out how to work through the so called red tape, she may actually enjoy insurance coverage. But hey, let's scrap Obamacare because your daughter can't find her way out of the binding tape.
yukky, libals, childrend .. yup, a bunch of blah, blah, blah talking points.
Sorry, I don't bother doing spell check or edit comments. I'm not getting paid or turning them in for a grade. But hey, thank you for supporting my point as that seems to be your best argument.
Red Dev I see you didn't read with an open mind and try to connect the dots (as well, as it seems, the whole article). Typical. You missed the whole point and you couldn't pack O'Rourke's lunch let alone be able to refute what he is saying.
Typical Lib. Pull point or two out of a writing and make it the main focus. You ever hear of metaphor?
Actually, if you go search through the CR you will find not just one, but four (that I counted so far) republican proposals for healthcare which were stopped by a dem controlled congress. And, the presidents Obamacare was never a proposal to congress, it became a mandate which was slid through by a dem controlled house and senate without debate or consideration. And as Nancy the insider trader Paylosi said, can't find out whats in it before we pass it. As for 25 year olds being covered on their parents policies being a great thing... well, 25 would appear to be pretty much in adulthood not a liberal induced childlike state. Whats next? 30, 35, 40... lifetime? Remember, us folks who work and have to pay those premiums for all those adult kiddies. As for pre-existing conditions, no one in this country is turned away for medical care. Sure, not having insurance might hang a big bill over your head, but who's fault is that? Is it my responsibility to pay for someone elses not investing in themselves so they would have insurance? But on the humanitarian side, the Republicans did have an amendment in another bill which changed the pre-existing conditions rules, but it was knocked out by.. you guessed it... Dirty Harry, Crazy Nancy and their gang of liberal pick pockets who wanted to shove through Obamacare. One more time, go read the 1500 + pages, and zoom through the CR a few times to check out all the fine new laws and regulations and taxes which will come from Obamacare.
I must live in a curtain of fog, because I've never heard of a metaphor. I will admit to being quite good at connecting the dots .. I especially love taking the red ones, that glimmer like ruby gem stones, from the box, connecting them to my tongue, rolling them around like sweet grapes from a vine, then chomping down and savoring the resulting flavorful explosion as intense as a July 4th fireworks display, only to swallow and have the taste recede like the ebb of an ocean tide.
RedDev,
I think you just shot over everyone's head with that one (well, most of them). Good one it was, though.
Now it's got me wondering if more libs caught it than reichwingers. Hmmmm..........
Most voters and congress don't realize the predicament the of the US government financial condition.
To get an appreciation, here is the predicament in terms of a household budget:
Annual income: $24,000, spending: $35,000 leaving a hole of $11,000.
Debt: $161,000. Can this household or country be saved by only cutting spending?
Some observers believe the fiscal cliff plans under lip flapping discussion do not begin to address the depth of the financial hole. The idea of no new taxes is absurd unless a trillion dollars is carved from the budget. What is even more absurd is that Norquist yields more power over republican congress than voters. Fix it now or get some real hurt later. Are you listening congress? No more kick the can.
WillieSmith - oh yeah, let's cut the Departments of Education and Energy because people like you, gofigureit and djo show no education is necessary. And, I love how it is all the Democrats fault when the Republicans are the ones who got us into this mess. Do you recall Bush spending constantly including two wars that he had no budget for? Oh, that's right, you have no problem with Republican cheats!
Next time you call anyone dumb you should be standing in front of a mirror!
Only in the mind of a uneducated bagger. Too much Rush!
Trust me, Willie, your lack of education shows.
And as far as the Department of Energy is concerned, WHO do you think cleans up all the radioactive areas created by the nuclear weapons programs?? I know this because I used to work for them...
Understand Obama is positioning this meeting as a Beer Summit to generate a more relaxed, but urgent setting. To get in the mood of the failure to avoid the fiscal cliff, the WH is providing Sterno shots and Ripple wines as beverages.
Reid is over the moon! Pelosi asked if Ripple had a Pinot.
sndvl - your post indicates the ones in the White House aren't the ones doing the heavy drinking!
Cute, but Obama is sticking with his Colt 45
Wow, a repub on a message board with a racist comment about Obama. That is your real issue.
It has been the underlying racism going on since the President first decided to run. There are people that can't stand having a President of color who is more capable of being a great president than anyone the republicans could deliver.
Remember they voted for Sarah Palin in 2008.
Beer summit with "Arrogant Bastard Ale" provided for all by the president. (For the president's legions of fans that don't get to town much, that's actually the name of a beer).
pgulrich - IF the President was serving beer it would be the beer brewed at the White House. You can keep your "Arrogant Bastard Ale" since it clearly suits you! Oh, and most of the President's supporters get to town very often!
Yep, gotta get them food stamps and get the Obama phone recharged. And the bar on Main Street takes EBT.
What the bigots don't realize is that President Obama has lived a better "white" experience than they have. Raised in an island paradise by wealthy grandparents, an ivy league education, cushy job at a University. President Obama is whiter than most of the people that make the white supremacist remarks.
I think there is something in that tobacco chew Boehner is using. He is using his poker face and playing games with the president. PRES. OBAMA, PALEEEEZE DON'T CAVE!!!!! The American people spoke, so don't play Boehner's game of chicken. I hope these GOP leaders (?) get voted out of existence for wanting to put the country into a tailspin. They should remember Barak Obama is the president; not Grover Norquist! We, for sure, know who owns the GOP.
Watch our government in action today with key players Dopey, Grumpy, Sleepy, Sneezy and Bashful doing what they do best as they sing their merry tune....
Just whistle while you work
Put on that grin and start right in to whistle loud and long
Just hum a merry tune
Just do your best and take a rest and sing yourself a song
When there's too much to do
Don't let it bother you, forget your troubles,
Try to be just like a cheerful chick-a-dee
And whistle while you work
Come on get smart, tune up and start
To whistle while you work
Take notes America, and get ready to vote the "Party Of NO" out in 2014. The GOP/Teabeggers have created this mess, and trying to blame the President is a joke. The Teabegger Congress has no clue that the President won the election. The Teabeggers are ignoring the will of the people, and are only concerned about their own self-interests. The "Bonehead Boehner Bunch," and "Crazy Cantor's Cronies" have more loyalty to the "Goofy Grover Tax Pledge" than they do to the American People. The GOP/Teabegger "House Of Hoodlum's" have been 'harvested' by the Koch Brothers and the ALEC Group. Again! The "Mickey Mouse Mitch McConnell Club" in the Senate have no intention of 'compromising' with the President. The poltical and economic goal of the GOP/Teabegger Congress is to never compromise, and to always obstruct our nation from moving forward. Anyone read Draper's book yet? Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party Of NO has got to go!
Again Willie, you seem to only have an issue with one sided spending, but make no mention of the two wars..one of which was made up, or of all the money that was made off the Iraq war. You see I would rather have my money used to help people out in this country instead of my money going for no bid contracts that did a shoddy job and KILLED soldies while they showered in Iraq.
You mean the two wars that both parties voted for? You mean the war that was based on WMD's that not only Bush was certain Iraq had but Clinton before him and other officials? Those wars? I didn't agree with going to war either but let's not make this politically one-sided. I don't understand why the bill cannot be modified by the senate and presented to house of reps? If it fails in the house then you can definitely blame the GOP. I blame both parties for now. Heck, aren't they giving themselves a raise while the rest of us brace for the cliff?
WE just had an election the time was last month.Why didnt we vote them out then. Geese the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a diiferent outcome.
Which is where Mr. Obama would step in if he was a real leader for the country instead of a party hack. He would go to H Reid and tell him that the Senate needs to make significant concessions on both spending and taxation. That would enable him to go back to the House ans say the Senate is willing to compromise now it is your turn. But, to the contrary, Obama's approach has been such that it has caused H Reid to dig in his heels and resist compromise. Hell, H Reid won't even bring House passed legislation to the Senate floor for amendment and vote. Seems to me that Obama has no ability to get his own party to compromise, which is the true mark of leadership. His lack of leadership is causing the country to suffer.
Boehner is a classic example of a man that cannot lead. He cannot even get the House to vote for his own plan B. But hey, it is always easier to blame any and everyone else for Boehner's lack of ability.
Obama has not been able to get a single Dem in the Senate to vote for the budgets he has proposed the last three years. The Speaker, on the other hand, has passed a number of budgets through the House only to have them land on H Reid's desk to collect dust, because H Reid refuses to bring them to the Senate floor for a vote and Obama fails to put any pressure on H. Reid to come up with a Senate counter proposal. Please try to deal with facts instead of fantasy drivel
Well, if you want to reach into the history books, there has never been a president that has had his budget passed by Congress. That said, the excuse has nothing to do with Boehner's inept leadership and his inability to get his own members of the House to vote for his plan B. And it isn't just plan B that tells us Boehner can't lead. He failed on the farm bill, violence against women act, the medicare payments to doctor bill, which are simply a few of dozens. Of course, when the bar is so low that success is measured by renaming post offices, it is easy to understand your point.
Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," he doles out pay increases to federal workers.
Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, giving some a raise, like Biden, House and Senate leaders and the list goes on.
the totas ...
What the he!! are you reading? The President signed an executive order to EXTEND the pay freezes until March 27, 2011 for civilian federal employees . . .
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/12/white-house-issues-formal-pay-freeze-extension-feds/60334/
President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.
According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.
Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
ADJUSTMENTS OF CERTAIN RATES OF PAY
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 114(b) of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 112–175), which provides that any statutory adjustments to current levels in certain pay schedules for civilian Federal employees may take effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after the date specified in section 106(3) of Public Law 112-175, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Statutory Pay Systems. The rates of basic pay or salaries of the statutory pay systems (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5302(1)), as adjusted under 5 U.S.C. 5303, are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:
(a) The General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332(a)) at Schedule 1;
(b) The Foreign Service Schedule (22 U.S.C. 3963) at Schedule 2; and
(c) The schedules for the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs (38 U.S.C. 7306, 7404; section 301(a) of Public Law 102-40) at Schedule 3.
Sec. 2. Senior Executive Service. The ranges of rates of basic pay for senior executives in the Senior Executive Service, as established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5382, are set forth on Schedule 4 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 3. Certain Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries. The rates of basic pay or salaries for the following offices and positions are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:
(a) The Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312–5318) at Schedule 5;
(b) The Vice President (3 U.S.C. 104) and the Congress (2 U.S.C. 31) at Schedule 6; and
(c) Justices and judges (28 U.S.C. 5, 44(d), 135, 252, and 461(a), and section 140 of Public Law 97–92) at Schedule 7.
Sec. 4. Uniformed Services. The rates of monthly basic pay (37 U.S.C. 203(a)) for members of the uniformed services, as adjusted under 37 U.S.C. 1009, and the rate of monthly cadet or midshipman pay (37 U.S.C. 203(c)) are set forth on Schedule 8 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 5. Locality-Based Comparability Payments. (a) Pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, and my authority to implement an alternative level of comparability payments under section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, locality-based comparability payments shall be paid in accordance with Schedule 9 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement these payments and to publish appropriate notice of such payments in the Federal Register.
Sec. 6. Administrative Law Judges. Pursuant to section 5372 of title 5, United States Code, the rates of basic pay for administrative law judges are set forth on Schedule 10 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sec. 7. Effective Dates. Schedule 8 is effective January 1, 2013. The other schedules contained herein are effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after the date specified in section 106(3) of Public Law 112–175.
Sec. 8. Prior Order Superseded. Executive Order 13594 of December 19, 2011, is superseded as of the effective dates specified in section 7 of this order.
BARACK OBAMA
the totas,
I apologize. I didn't realize another one had been signed today.
Thanks for the info.
Congress is broken. Leaders from both sides of the aisle are to blame. We need term limits. Please go to the website signon.org/sign/fix-congress-it-is-broken and sign the petition. We the people can change things. Until we do, congress will never change!
Term limits so we can get stuck with bagger RWNJs even faster? There already IS a term limit in existence. It's called a ballot box, in case you didn't know.
It strikes me that we not only have a spending and revenue problem, we have a statesmen problem. The people who are charged with the health and safety of our country are hell-bent to strangle us in our sleep. Given the mentality of this kind (I'm thinking Assad, Chavez, Duvalier, Idi Amin Dada, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Castro.... the list is long.....there is no reasoning with this sort. The people might have to get ugly. I'd start with McConnell, Cantor, Boehner (who is less evil than he is stupid) and go from there.
6 things. If we see a mushroom cloud you know we have made some progress. BTW If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress?
BobW: Regress. Sort of goes with Republican don't you think?
Boehner is a spineless narcissist whose only objectives are to work on his tan and to preserve his political skin. In truth, Boehner's House is controlled by and beholden to the Tea Party Terrorists who are once again holding the whole country hostage to their radical extremism.
Meanwhile, 4 million of us ordinary Americans struggling to find a job and to put food on our table will completely run out of unemployment insurance when the federal extensions expire on Dec 29th. Countless thousands of Americans will end up homeless as a result.
These immoral and narcissistic Republican idiots need to go away. They do not care a fig about the plight of ordinary Americans...their only interest is in protecting the rich and the polluters.
Nothing in the Obama proposal will result in those struggling to find a job getting one. In fact, Mr Geitner has said that the unemployment picture will remain largely unchanged until 2015. Wasteful government spending and continued and increased government handouts do not create jobs. Increasing taxes on business and those that create private sector jobs does not create jobs. Ratcheting up never ending regulations does not create jobs, but actually decreases jobs. When idiots like you start realizing those basic facts then we will start to make some progress.
"Immoral and narcissistic Republicans"....that's classic.
Obama will be villified in history books 30 years from now; he is a community organizer....that's it.
NO ONE will remember John Boehner in the future, think about it.....do you remember the Speaker of the House when Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, etc. were President ?....nah, I didn't think so.
Obama is the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.....not because he is black, just because he is not smart enough to reach across the aisle, not a good judge of people, and he is arrogant.
There are 16,000,000,000,000 reasons why this is so.....
Have a great New Year.....see you at the bottom of the fiscal cliff
WillieSmith - a totally nonsensical post starting with the stupid Obamaphone comment. Since the free phone program was started by the FCC in 1996 and at that time was landline phones, your post shows how little you know. But, feel free to blame it on the President since you and your kind know nothing else.
Your posts shows a lack of mental acuity but it clearly shows a total Republican!
KingK - interestingly enough, the top CEO's of Fortune 500 companies say your post is all lies. They say increasing taxes on the wealthy will in no way cause job losses and that they are more than ready to pay more in taxes. Too bad you didn't get the memo!
trouble1954 - President Obama will be listed as one of the best 10 Presidents in the United States. George Bush is and always will be the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY. Get used to it!
Sanity: 10 Best Presidents ???.....(smile)...yeah, right.
He is so weak, so clueless...he is not respected anywhere, here or abroad.
The only people who like him are people on the government teat, people like you.
Watch this economy tank in 2013.....gas prices are going to zoom, unemployment will be staggeringly high...(probably 27% in the black community)
And ol' Sanity will be singin' Barry'Boy's praises right up until when his gubmint check bounces....LOL
trouble1954 - "The only people who like him are people on the government teat, people like you." Sorry but your post shows a child mentality. I work - am at work now (we adults actually know how to multi-task).
It must crush you to know that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to have voted for President Obama. The low-information and low-intellect were most likely to vote for Mitt.
The rest of your post prove my point precisely - no matter how much I seek, there is NO sanity to be found in the Republican party! NONE!
This is the reality they certainly do not wish to face. They can throw out all of the rhetoric they like but this is the reality. Doesn't make our job any easier debating these people. It's not just low information either, it's misinformation. Not only are they often uneducated as to what they speak but they have been taught much of what they know by the uneducated like Limbaugh and Beck, who are not qualified to teach kindergarten and who lash out at academia because they were failures themselves.
Every person lost to this insanity is another detriment to America. The other sad fact is that few ever recover. Their minds become permanently bent. Thus they vote against their own interests and support candidateswho cannot govern properly. What we see with the fiscal cliff is merely symptomatic of the entire process. They defend the indefensible and push forward with absurd proposals while the average American faces catastrophy because of their intransigence.
Here is an excellent example of the delusion we must face when talking about the opposition:
Consider that Obama would have won by a landslide if the world had voted. And most of the world is thrilled Bush/Cheney are gone. And the true mystery is why so many who are on the government dole voted for Romney. Hell, half of that number are probably TP's! Don''t expect to hear anything rational from the Right. That way you will not be disappointed.
trouble1954 - I see by your post that reading comprehension is a problem for you. Again, no government check - just the check I earn. But I understand that those supporting the Republican party lack considerable intelligence so I'm no surprised you don't understand. No Problem.
trouble - and, our President is Well-respected here and abroad. He has helped the country's image and respect throughout the world - repaired the damage George Bush did to our country. Too bad you can't see reality!
Irrational hatred seems to be an affliction of the far right. So sad!
WillieSmith,
Thinking like yours really blows my mind! You yell about the unemployment numbers, but then when someone is unemployed and relying on those benefits to, I don't know, eat, you villify them and scream, "go find a job-there's plenty out there!" Unbelievable!
voxrationis - your post is sad but so true. I'm constantly amazed that so many continue to post the ignorance they do and think anyone will take them seriously.
Have a very Happy New Year! And, let's hope some on the far right begin to realize they have been played for dupes by the likes of Boehner, Cantor, etc.
Jed7 - reality has no place in Willie's world!
While visiting Ireland during the Bush years, I went to a pub (imagine that). As soon as I spoke the entire room went quiet. One young fella looked at me and asked if I was an American. Then he asked what I thought of President Bush. After I said "He's the worst President ever!" everyone started talking and laughing again. I drank pretty much for free that night. :)
Keep blaming Bush, Its easier than blaming the real people at fault here. Congress, Democrats and republicans alike, The media wants you to continue to stupidly blame Bush. It works, Brain deads just keep repeating and repeating over and over, meanwhile, people like Reid, continue to dictate. My way or the highway, Reid doesnt even allow congresses ideas to be talked about in the senate. I call that a dictator. MY way or the Highway. Reid and Pelosi got us into this mess. Clinton deregulating the banks and forcing them to give out the mortgages to those who could not afford them. That started this mess. the republicans didnt have control of congress in bushes last years. The democrats did. The democrats had control of congress for the first two years of Obama. they didnt fix squat, WHY, because they dont want too, that is why. Yet you brainless People keep blaming Bush because its easier than blaming the current administration for which you voted for and support. You love Obamacare, yet, it doesnt even go fully into effect until 2014, My wife still cannot get insured due to prior illness. Yet we all love Obamacare. Crap. Your blind, and had a load of crap dug into your heads. Keep blaming Bush. forever and ever, but, history will show the truth as it did for Carter...
In the end, it all comes down to money. It always does, but what this government does not need is more money to irresponsibly spend. We need proper spending cuts, just like a family has to do at home to make a balanced budget. I do realize that a family budget is much simpler than a government’s budget, but if you could get rid of things that are not needed to carry on a standard of living and quit spending revenue on pointless ventures then we may just come out ahead for once.
An example would be making a playing card deck for a tournament for the card game Magic the Gathering. By standard, you are only allotted 60 cards per deck and you may have a lot of good cards that you want to put in the deck, but you can only have 60 cards to play with. This means that you have to bargain and find responsible ways to utilize that cards that you want to keep and cut the unneeded cards that are not needed at that point and time. That is the same thing you do with a budget. You cut unnecessary spending that you can do without, to free up money to snowball down debt or help cover other endeavors.
PS: Yes I’m a gamer. :)
Simple, get rid of both parties. Actually dissolve them all! The parties do not stand for who and what they used to stand for; the majority of them have succumbed to greed. Destroy superPACs and no more outlandish money spent campaigning. I would have (3-5) TV appearances with debates with all the eligible candidates and that would be it!
Also, start a FLAT federal tax and this entire "fair share" bickering will be done with
You follow Fox News? Can you read? Bush did double the national Debt... Over 10 trillion dollars when President Obama took office. I don't think he has doubled it yet...
Morthoseth, For the most part I agree. Or government has departments that can be done away with like the department of educations (which is a state job), for example. That would save Billions alone. It would be so easy for the government to dismantle the non essential departments and then free up the cash to pay down the debt. I find it hard to see why the government can over spend by over a trillion dollars in a year, but says it would take over ten years to pay it back. It means spending money on the essentials and not spending on the luxuries. I always found it interesting that people would spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays 1/250 of that amout in yearly pay. You would also have to change the courts, because they allow Unions, Pacs, and other groups to contrubute to campains. Maybe only voters should be allowed to donate only say $10 each, then the canidates would have to learn to budget thier money (what a novel concept), kind of like on the job training. Or have it so only people that had to make a budget can run for office.
I'd just like to personally thank the President, the party leaders, and all the members of Congress for their work on behalf of average Americans.
Their consideration for the people who go to work every day to provide for their families. The people who do their best to raise their children. The people who obey our laws, and pay their taxes.
Your concern for these folks has been truly heartwarming.
It's also gratifying to see how you can put aside political dogma and really listen to the input of all involved on the best ways to move ahead, and then to come together to meld these ideas into an approach for the good of all Americans.
And for your dedication to getting the job done at the sacrifice of your personal time over the holidays, for example.
Yes, its' all been truly admirable.
NOT!
It's time in 2014 ,2016 to throw out all these useless politicians
Had the chance this year to throw out the biggest one but NOOOOOO. He got reelected.
"Bonehead Boehner" is leading a "Teabegger Mental Hospital." His GOP/Teabegger "House Of Hoodlum's" have had this planned out since January 20, 2009 at their "Caucus Conspiracy." The GOP'Teabegger "Circus Elephants" are heading our nation over the 'fiscal cliff.' Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party Of No has got to go! Getting ready to vote in 2014? One would hope so America!
Put the tinfoil hat away and come back to reality.