E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter weeks of uncertainty, bluffing and posturing in Washington D.C., the Senate voted in the early hours of Tuesday morning to avoid the "fiscal cliff" of tax increases and spending cuts. However, the fiscal bargaining is far from over and more budget drama is likely on the way.
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The Capitol dome illuminates at dusk on Capitol Hill on Dec. 31, 2012 in Washington, DC.
The deal brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would raise income taxes on single earners with annual incomes above $400,000 and married couples with incomes above $450,000.
The measure will now be turned over to the House, which needs to give its backing and will hold a session on Tuesday starting at noon.
House Speaker John Boehner -- the top Republican in Congress -- said the House would consider the Senate deal. But he left open the possibility of the House amending the Senate bill, which would spark another round of legislating.
"The House will honor its commitment to consider the Senate agreement if it is passed. Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members ... have been able to review the legislation," Boehner and other House Republican leaders said in a statement.
Next big fight
Although the Senate agreed at the last minute to avert broader tax increases, the very idea of a “deadline” has lost some of its meaning since each budget deal seems to be merely a prelude to another fixed date when some critically important action must be taken – next up: Congress will have to decide what to do about the "sequester" spending cuts which will come up again in February, as well as decide in March on whether to increase the federal borrowing limit.
In a frantic rush of negotiations on New Year's Eve, the Senate moved the nation away from the fiscal cliff, voting on a compromise package that increases tax rates on those making above $400,000 a year. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports and NBC political director Chuck Todd offers analysis.
Congress is also set to embark on fundamental tax reform legislation in the New Year – as Obama himself seemed to acknowledge Monday when he said he’s intent on “doing some more work to reform our tax code so that wealthy individuals, the biggest corporations can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions… that aren’t available to most Americans. So there’s still more work to be done in the tax code to make it fair….”
The indecision over taxes, spending, and borrowing has become chronic, in part a reflection of the fact that neither party controls both the executive and legislative branches. Ever since the Republicans won the House in 2010, the intermittent rounds of bargaining between GOP congressional leaders and Obama have run aground over the fundamentals: the future cost of the entitlement programs -- especially Medicare -- and who should bear the burden of paying for their growth.
The two sides’ clashing definitions of “fairness” make it hard for them to decide who should be paying a bigger tax bill.
And while tax revenues have been increasing – they’re up 10 percent in the first two months of fiscal year 2013 even under the current tax law -- the increase, even if it is sustained, won’t be enough to pay for future benefits that have been promised.
On the spending side, the growth in entitlement spending is largely driven by the demographics of an aging population. The ratio of tax-paying workers to retired beneficiaries was 3.3 workers for every beneficiary during Bill Clinton’s presidency, but it has been steadily sinking and will drop to 2-to-1 by 2030.
As 2013 nears, Congress runs out of time to negotiate a deal to avoid going over the so-called fiscal cliff. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
The gap between what members of Congress profess to want to do (reduce future budget deficits and borrowing) and what they are actually willing to do is growing ever wider and more glaring, since spending curbs would fall on people who feel they have earned certain Medicare and Social Security benefits.
Failure to reach agreement on these basics is what led to the fiscal cliff that Congress and Obama face.
Domestic spending in the cross-hairs
As part of an accord with GOP leaders last year to raise the government’s borrowing limit, Obama signed the Budget Control Act. The law requires about $100 billion in spending reductions in 2013, out of a total of roughly $3.5 trillion in spending.
While an approximately 3 percent cut in spending might not seem drastic, the Budget Control Act exempts most entitlement spending from the cuts, so the reductions would be concentrated on military outlays and domestic discretionary spending programs ranging from air traffic control to immigration enforcement.
NBC's Chuck Todd explains that a fiscal cliff deal has been difficult to reach because President Obama and Speaker Boehner don't want to appear to be caving to the other.
Senate approves deal to avert fiscal cliff; vote goes to House
The law would make reductions – unless Congress delays or rescinds them – of about 10 percent in discretionary appropriations for defense programs and about 8 percent in non-defense programs in 2013.
If members of Congress seriously want deficit reduction, the Budget Control Act is certainly one way to get it: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that spending would actually go down. Federal spending would be a smaller share of national income in 2022 under the Budget Control Act (22.3 percent of gross domestic product) than they were in FY2012 (22.9 percent). And the budget deficit would fall from 7 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2012 to less than 1 percent of GDP by 2017.
Despite the impressive deficit reduction that would be achieved by going over the fiscal cliff, the members of Congress who have sought to avoid the fiscal cliff think the economy is too weak to tolerate the tighter fiscal policy that many of them voted for in 2011. Undoing the tax increases and spending cuts would boost economic growth by about 2¼ percent by the end of 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
With many of the details of the agreement or a more far-reaching accord still up in the air, there are some benchmarks to judge the deal that may emerge:
- Does it last only one year or more than one year?
- Would it significantly reduce future budget deficits?
- Would it reduce federal debt, measured as a percentage of the nation’s income?
- Are its spending provisions enforceable and credible – or are they hazy promises that may not be carried out by future Congresses, by Obama, and by the next president?
- If the primary goal is deficit and debt reduction, is the agreement better or worse than the Budget Control Act?
- Is it likely to spur economic growth and will it do anything to address the chronic problem of the 23 million unemployed?
Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Since 2010 the Congress has NOT been functioning as a body to collectively govern these United States. With a Black President it has become the CIVIL WAR all over again. Now the South is damaging the North. The legislators have become irrational children. Regardless of what achievements the "South" makes, they move the goal-line again. To add to the mix, we have a pseudo dictator in Norquist calling the shots. His combative style and egotistic demands are ruining our democracy. His presence is confrontational. Most voters want him gone.
WHAT DO WE DO TO CHANGE THE CULTURE CREATED SINCE 2010???????
What do we do? Education. Never in our history has the electorate been so stupid. Madison Avenue decides.
Bob, the first thing that needs to be done is people need to stop thinking this is about race. Most people who don't like Obama could give a crap what color he is. It is his policies, his inability to unite people, and his constant lies.
I agree that the legislators are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them all and start new we would be much better off but we the people keep re-electing these bozos because we always feel it is everyone else's Senator and Representative that is the problem. It is all of them. They have no idea how to truly compromise which is what our country needs.
You mention Norquist... I assume you don't like him because he has tried to create order out of chaos, and the order he stands for is one you don't like. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Wow. A the last minute, the so-called brokered agreement, yet to be approved by the House, calls for shaking down those with incomes of $450K or greater - this should increase revenues to the tune of about $60B, enough to pay a fraction of the interest on the current debt. And Obama has agreed to a 3% cut in spending - Woo Hoo!
And for this, we've had to endure stock market volatility, and an environment where employers still refuse to hire or grow their businesses due to uncertainty.
And it's not over. It's not clear that the House will approve this; but even if they do, we're still goig to have to deal with raising the debt limit next month. Spending is going to continue to increase as well as our debt. Without drastic measures applied to S.S. and Medicare this circus will continue. Given that Congress doesn't have the cojones to take remedial measures, it is up to seniors in this country to do their share: DIE. I know it sounds heartless, and it is, but there it is. Where is Dr. Kervorkian when we need him?
Absolute and complete bull@!$%#. Every (and I mean every) staunch republican who I debate and discuss politics with lets the 'n' word into the conversation at some point.
At a poker game last winter I was the only non-republican playing. We got on the issue of politics and I had to listen to half a dozen people using the 'n' word to describe Obama.
Dont tell me its not about race.
Where you born under a rock? This has everything to do with race. Bunch of old crony white men in the House are upset with a Black man running things. If you need evidence, Joe Biden is only saying what President Obama has been saying for 4 years and because it came from a white man, all the sudden a deal is made. If that isn't racist, I do not know what is.
If you need proof, watch the House screw it all up again and try to amend the bill. They will attach spending cuts up the ying yang to it. All to make sure the bill does not pass and all because they want to see President Obama fail.
Come 2014 I know a few Republicans that are losing their jobs.
I think it's pretty clearly about the people with whom YOU associate.
Nearly everyone around me is a Republican, and I hear the "s" word (socialist) and the "m" word (Marxist) on a near-constant basis, but almost never the "n" word.
Ask your poker buddies if they've ever heard of Allen West, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams......and, if so, if they'd cast a vote for any or all of them.
Either way, you'll be surprised. If they haven't heard of any of them, they're as ill-informed as the Obama voters Howard Stern busted. And if YOU haven't heard of them......so are you.
Right - Im the guy who voted for the black guy - yet I just as ignorant as them? LOL Logic isnt your strong suit?
They would have no idea who any of those people are.
Another idiotic statement. I know both sides have stupid people - whats your point? In my experience race is very much an issue with conservative voters in northern Pennsylvania. This isnt Howard Stern you dolt - this is real life. And in real life - people very much do care about the race of the president.
And regarding how informed I am - fairly sure I have more brains in my left testicle than you have in your entire head. Move along now short bus.
Bob Burnham you had better get used to having a non white person in the WH. The president will not be the last one.
Because Mike's best poker buddies are racist then we all must be racist? And he let the ball drop on this comment for his man crush on his long lost boyfriend John Wayne... SMH @ Mike and his racist poker friends
Can't wait for Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2016. Everyone I know will vote for her. Then we can see what the House Republicans think of a woman telling them what to do since they only have one token woman and her job is to clean the house. Women's work right?
WE NEED a dictatorship....no SH*TZ....because this isn't working. Or we need to re-do the Constitution because this isn't working.
No, just need to get rid of the filibuster so we can actually vote on things and in the House, get rid of the Majority of the Majority rule so we can actually vote on things. Simple to fix.
Mike and Brenda - I agree racism is alive and well... both Democrats and Republicans, white black and other throw insults around. That being said, if you hear the N word being mentioned you are associating with ignorant people. Personally, I have not heard that word in anything other than Rap songs for quite awhile. I don't tolerate it. Let me try to put the Obama thing differently... if he were white... which he is actually just as white as he is black... he would still be just as ineffective, just as much a socialist, just as much a double talker, and just as disliked by constitution supporting Americans.
LOL Brenda, Hilary is dying right next to Hugo Chavez at the moment
We need to change the laws so that if congress is unable to pass a working budget (something the US hasn't had in years) then that congress should be fired and barred from re-election. Otherwise this will only get worse. I started a petition to this effect on the Whitehouse.gov website if you are interested in checking it out:
petitions.whitehouse.gov/user/reset/29299841/1357005956/p3jlp171jOgC-QiowLAfZ0puk39CvOCOZz0XZKSdgpY
I think it is a good idea. Every other corporation and institution is required to function with a budget. The only thing that has kept the US from going insolvent without one has been our ability to print money. A non sustainable path by anyone's estimation. So requiring that officers of congress be fired if they do not do the primary job they have ('power' a.k.a responsibility of the purse), then they should be fired.
Also on a broader point. It has always irked me that we look at governmental branches in the respect of their respective 'powers'. I do not like that word because it ignores the fundamental purpose of those powers. Which is to responsibly serve the American people with them. I know it is a simple matter of semantics but it should be considered at least in civics schooling to instead use the word power with or change it to responsibility. But that is just my opinion.
Woops. wrong link. Here it is : wh.gov/U46Z sorry about that ;)
For starters we can actively stop talking about "entitlements". The GOP has managed to turn this term into a four-letter word. We would be much better off referring to "earned benefits", more accurately describing the fact that people contributed to the funds over many, many years and have "earned" the "benefits" that would be paid out, whether they be social security, medicare, etc. It is much harder to argue to reduce earned benefits, due to the connotation behind this term, than to argue for reducing entitlements, a term that brings free-riding to mind. Given the fact that the GOP has manage to shape so much public opinion thru coordinated "rebranding" efforts, it is high time for progressives to fight back...
99% of my republican associates are racist. I think thats pretty close on a large scale representative sample. And if you could read - my response was to someone who claimed race wasnt the issue why people hate Obama. I disagree.
What is it with you clowns and men's balls. I thought you all hated gays.
"Everything has to do with race, old croney white men upset with a black man running things"
Brenda, I nominated you for Black racist of the year for 2012. Guess what?? Your the WINNER!!! Hopefully you will make changes for 2013, Happy New Year to you and all here!
brenda the reason hillary didnt get elected last time was because the democratic party knew that and they decided to get the voters who never voted to vote was to run a black man in there and that is how obama got elected IF HE HAD BEEN A YOUNG WHITE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS WITH HIS CREDENTIALS HE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED
Now when the senate-approved tax increases arrive in the House, Speaker Boehner will be rejected again by the House RepubliCONs. After new year, these RepubliCONs are 1 year older, but not a whit wiser...still the same old base political animals..sucking up to their rich donors.
It will only get worse untill obama is gone.
Boehner promised jobs in January 2011 taking over as speaker...where are the jobs?
Mitch McChicken promised to make Pres. Obama a one-termer, I am glad he failed; but what happened to these GOP leaders who don't know what they are talking about.
I hope Ashley Judd will kick out Mitch in 2014.
Ashley...U go girl...we all will pull for you
Wow, and I'm not even black. I tan good though.
Sorry Andrew, but Norquist is your fundamental A$$h@le. You cannot have congress pledging two oaths. At the very least, conflict of interest, at worst, treason. With the Bush tax structure, the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Look at any graph of income disparity for the past decade and it becomes obvious. So just when does a tax benefit become grand thief of the treasury? I think that began with the overhaul Bush put in place, but this present legislation is not intended to punish but to restore fairness. We will not tolerate this country becoming a South American Oligarchy of just rich and poor. As for myself, I'd be perfectly happy to pay an extra percentage point or two in taxes if that would fix our economy and narrow the income disparity between rich and poor.
If people don't thing race is an issue I can just tell you that after being in Tennessee for a while it is a real factor in politics today.
A good example of stupidity is a pick-up truck parked in a trailer park in Alabama with a "Vote Republican" bumper sticker on it. Alabama gets more federal aid than it's citizens pay in taxwsw.
@wje37fcsm - put your money where your mouth is... tax time is coming up, there's a spot on the form where you can pay extra taxes if you want, as can everyone else but no one does it unless they are forced to which proves the people talking only want taxes on everyone else to go up.
Rich getting richer will always happen. It is easier for them. They have the same basic needs as the poor but it is a much smaller percentage of their worth. On top of that, in general, rich make more intelligent choices about how to spend the money they have to gain more. Poor getting poorer is a function of rising costs and stagnant pay or job loss. Poor are also more likely to make less smart choices regarding their money. Although the statement uses what appears to be opposite when speaking, in reality they are not linked the way you pretend they are. Rich do not get richer BECAUSE poor got poorer. Both can get poorer together or richer together.
You have your opinion about Norquist... I'm sure it was well thought out and no one is going to change your mind so there's no need to try. Perhaps I would think the same of him if I actually knew him. Although I can't stand Obama as President, I'm fairly confident I would think he was a nice guy and fun to discuss things.
Pigotry
Are you paid in food stamps to write this BS. Say what you want I know one thing Obama owns this economy, the minute the Senate pass the bill this morning. So now all you have is to lie about is rest of the GOP. You and Obama can't use bush what happens from this day on is on Obama. Save your food stamps the time has come. Spending is cut will force fat pigs to pay full price for their food. Big bird will become your next chicken salad. You just got to love it. NBC will have a hard time covering for Obama. Why BECAUSE OBAMA OWNS THIS MESS HE CREATED IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS LOOK AROUND OBAMA NO ONE TO POINT TOO.
Bob James... The proposal still has to go to the House of Representatives. Do you honestly think that it will pass there without a boatload of amendments?
Andrew... What I want is a well run government, and that costs money. I would think that the wealthy, the upper 1% would also want a well run government. Maybe they think that they would be better off with the adage, "least government is best government," or a "starve the beast policy," but as far as I can see that mentality only creates dis-functional government with gated communities, private expensive school, private security. This may be arrogant on my part, speaking for the 47%,... we want our government back... it does not belong to the 53%... it especially doesn't belong to the 1%, it belongs to all of us and everybody is to pay their fair share. The present national argument is over what is fair.
YEP, the GOP has the upper hand right now they are not that stupid to waste that on amendments. They still have spending cuts and the debt limit if they keep their eye on the ball they just mite have Obama stuck in corner for the next four years. I think the economy well needed shot in the arm after today. Yes I know it still has to pass the house but I'm just doing what most of the left spike the foot ball before it over it's giving the left the middle finger.
House Republicans are still working on the assumption that by saying "NO" to everything President Obama proposes they will make him a one term President.
Anyone who votes Republican just proves their lack of intelligence.
Certainly it is about race. Barry hates everyone who is white.
Mike 416
99% of my republican associates are racist.
What you are called is indoctrinated. I came from western Pennsylvania in the country. for over 20 years I lived there. I only true racist that I THINK was a republican. I hear my father in law say racist things about black people all the time. He IS a DEMOCRAT.
My 83 year old mother is afraid of Black people. In here days there were absolutely no Black people in her country part of Pennsylvania. Why? She has watched over 40 years of TV news, where overwelmingly she saw black people were murderers, theives, Drug abusers and poorly educated. That's also over 40 years of watching the reporters ogle over every democrat and blame everything on republicans.
Who is predominantly running the news? DEMOCRATS (Gallup - 79% of Journalists are Registered Democrats). Yeah, they were beaming how bad black people were to people who had little to no contact with black people.
My uncle moved south just outside of Spartanburg, SC got a real eye-opener in the 70's. His exposure to African americans came during WW II. Great experience, no porblems. He bought a couple acres outside of the city. After a few years there, my cousins told me that behind their house was a road with no outlet with a couple of dozen run down homes in it. It was solid African Americans who were dirt poor, so violent the police only would go down if the officers were black, and only during the daylight.
The one thing that struck me odd was they told us that every election a rally was held down in that part where the WHITE DEMOCRATS would go down and tell the African Americans to vote for them and they would make sure their welfare checks and food stamps would keep on coming.
Where did they get that from? Look no further then LBJ's "Great Society". When LBJ signed the bill into law an open mike caught him saying "We'll have those Ni**ers voting democrat for the next 100 years".
Since it worked on African American, they went to women (It was Republicans who passed the women's suffrage ammendment). Then they. Ditto for gays, lesbians, and now hispanics.
How neat! The democrats figured out instead of denying rights to enslave people, but rather to gain their votes and keep them voting for them by giving them things in return for their vote. But, they don't stop with buying votes, the attack ideologically also. With so many in the media, since the overnight convserion to being pro-civil rights, the democratic party has been promoting that Republicans are the real racists!
You have bought it hook, line, and sinker dude!
Racist, non-racist. Doesn't matter and takes the focus off of what the real problem is. Revenue is not matching expenditures. GDP growth is ultra-slow. The pain is yet to come in the form of program cuts and changes to unfunded entitlement programs. And the longer we wait to balance our spending problem, the worse the pain will be.
Already such a significant portion of our revenue goes to pay interest on our national debt. What will happen when rates go back to the Clinton era, from 3% to those horrible historically low 7% (meaning more than double the amount of revenue that now pays only the interest on our debt.
Our credit card bill is due, and we don't have money to pay it off.
It is incomprehensible to many in this country, how the NATIONAL DEBT and DEFICIT simply can not be addressed by the DEMS and POTUS?
Bob Burnham - WHAT DO WE DO TO CHANGE THE CULTURE CREATED SINCE 2010???????
What do we do?.... We get rid of all the biggots in the country.
This is not a "Deal", it is a political move to duck the legal requirements and give the press something to print in the headlines.
They have given themselves a 3 month free pass for doing nothing... They still must define the specifics which is the "deal" - so nothing has been accomplished. Our taxes will go up and the cuts will begin (given they didn't complete the law in both houses and signed by Obama by midnight). What a mess - zero leadership - zero...
Meanwhile Obama signed an executive order to give all these clown's a raise...
This entire "fiscal cliff" was manufactured by the Party of No.
Democrats, don't bargain with the American Taliban.
Pathetic and anti-American, Republicons.
You got what you asked for......Left...Please tell me how you thought things would get any better than it was the last 4 years... You have an awful President ...who cant get anything done!.... That is what he will be remebered for...end of story...Not some Congress ...or Senate.......It will be him! You voted him back in ..and this is what you get.
I'd say Brenda's synopsis is an accurate one. House Pubbies will load this thing up with enough poison pills to kill 50 Tyrannosaurus Rex's, and make the President look like the heavy when he vetoes it.
Not much you can do with these House Pubbie twerps except vote them out.
Unfortunately that means that America has to be ungovernable for the next two years.
The Gov. should stop the excessive spending and trim ALL the fat out of the system right down to getting rid of Home Land Security. Raising taxes isn't the answer when the Gov. is addicted to excessivly spending money we don't have. If the spending continues unchecked the Gov. wont be happy untill 99% of our money is taken away in taxes to feed their squandering habbit. This is all about obama wanting a blank check to continue his out of controll spending, and hopefully the House will see through obama's BS and demand CUTS.
He's a SOCIALIST that is the problem.
GOPis extinct......oh really?? If the GOP is extinct, why were they elected to a significant majority in the House? And why is their number growing at a rapid rate in the nation's state governments. In case you haven't noticed, states are increasingly combatting Obama's disasterous foolishness by negating federal health care policies, passing right to work laws, eliminating the union stranglehold, and exploiting their natural energy resources to create thousands of well-paying jobs. . Just because the low information crowd won one election last November certainly doesn't mean that the Inept Emperor reigns supreme.
By the way, the House should defeat any bill that doesn't include significant spending cuts.
I am crossing my fingers and hoping that the House just approves it and we can move on. If so, how bad off are we? Well, unemployment has gone from 10.2% to 7.7% in 3 years. Not bad. We reduced the deficit from $1.45t to $1.1t in 3 years. Not great, but with this deal, we may hit $0.9t in this current year, and the trend is good. Meanwhile, what matters to many of us is our 401ks, and those follow the market. It's gone from 6600 to 13,000 in three years. That's great.
Trends are what matter more than absolutes. Heck, we did great as a nation from 1945 to 1980, reducing the national debt from 117% of GDP to 36% of GDP, and we never once actually balanced a budget. We can do that again. Let's set course on reducing the debt as %GDP back to the order of 36% over the next three decades, and not worry so much about it. Let congress squabble. In the meantime, we Americans can start our businesses, earn our paychecks, reap our investments, and live pretty wonderful lives. The congress does not determine your happiness, you do. And if you can't be happy in America in 2013, you probably couldn't be happy in any economy in any nation in history.
skyhammer1: "Bob Burnham - WHAT DO WE DO TO CHANGE THE CULTURE CREATED SINCE 2010???????
What do we do?.... We get rid of all the biggots in the country."
You know, you'd be getting rid of a lot of asians, latinos, and blacks including Obama if that's is your way of dealing with it.
Spider that's called cutting off your nose to spit your face. Now what is disastrous is Obama in the middle of all this, signs an executive order to give the VP , Congress and Gov. workers a pay raise. Talk about acting like the King Obama has no clue or shame when he does something like this. Thank God the GOP controls house in 2014 the GOP needs to take over the Senate and render Obama what is really is useless.
That's complete nonsense. The vast majority of Obama-haters don't even have the slightest clue what his polices are. He's just a run of the mill centrist Democrat. And the "constant lies" are coming from the GOP.
Funny my vote for Obama was well worth it - never thought I'd see conservative heads explode like this. Now they are going to make everyone pay higher taxes and let big cuts take place drive economy in a recession all the while crying Obama is a communist, he's destroying the country, we just can't deal with this man. They are worried about USA turning into Greece and truth is they will turn it into Greece faster than anything Obama could do. In 2 months at debt ceiling they will try to turn USA into Greece again, Obama ain't going nowhere for 4 years boys, and I've got the popcorn ready.
really?? we know his polices! just dont like them you freakin idiot! stop spewing garbage out yur
cake hole . speak for yourself!
The fiscal cliff is a fabricated deadline to agitate the peasants to distract them and get them to accept austerity while their lords bailout the real culprits of this dilemma, the banksters.
They continue to allow the banksters to gamble in the 1.4 quadrillion illusory derivatives casino. The banksters are given 40 billion a month (QE3) to keep them propped up for as long as the eye can see. They allow the banksters to manipulate the 800 trillion Libor Rate with no penalties, not one bankster has gone to jail over this overt theft to the global citizenry.
HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a financial settlement of $1.9 billion which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank, a drop in the bucket compared to the hidden profits they made laundering the money over the years.
The New York Times put it this way:
“Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.”
And the banksters get away with it over and over and over again and who pays for their criminal acts? That's right, us smucks, they even brag about it. You know the 1% adage, privatize profits and socialize losses. And yet they have the sheeple fighting over which type of austerity they "need" to endure to bail these criminals out again! Apparently the tens of trillions they have squandered at our expense isn't enough. Now the peasants will have one austerity measure after another imposed on them and the sheeple will willfully fight over which one will be imposed on them based on party affiliation dogma.
I am seriously wondering why the people lack so little courage to say no, ain’t going to do this anymore. Where is defiance? Where is just one tiny spark of self-worth from somebody that screams NO! We should not have to suffer any cuts to anything. We should not have to pay higher taxes let alone any taxes, we should not just watch our military budget explode for more evil to be created while millions of people are starving, our infrastructure is collapsing, and our schools are in ruins. The banksters are doing all of this in plain sight, rubbing our noses in it yet there is no outrage or blow back! Just sheeple like silence. It is a total disgrace. We can’t expect the same people who make waves and fight back to keep doing it. Everybody must do their part in fighting for our freedom and change. The old warriors are tired of the battle they have been waging forever, it is time for fresh blood, time for the younger folks to step in.
Folks, if we don't stand up to these criminals now then when? Their use of problem - reaction - solution to manipulate the masses should be an obvious ploy by now.
personally I don't give a rat's ass what color obummer is .. he is a moron and an idiot and does not belong anywhere near the whitehouse
his fiscal cliff deal is dumb as well .. why does it always have to be his way or no way?
it's unbalanced he wants over 200 million in tax hikes and only 15 million in spending cut .. hell, he even signed an order to give federal employees a raise!! WTF?!?!? he is not as much an idiot as the followers who believe he is the right person for the job though .. good job libtards.. you elected a moron to run this country further into debt
Democrats are stupid. After four years of bad choices they think that raising taxes in a way to get us out of this mess. There isn't enough rich people in the country to pay off what the President is thinking about. His only option is to cut defense and military? How stupid! Do you not remember the Benghazi incident?
That's what we need right now. Our Commander and Chief to cut our defenses.
How can anyone be this stupid?
Oh and by the way, only democrats would think this has to do with race. Let me be frank.... for those of us Republicans who are not white, we can see through the democrat's smoke screens.
This President is just bad at his job.
Bob Burnham,
You pose the question:
and I have the answer. We reject people like yourself and someone I'm surprised to not see here today, the individual known as "Feisty." We change the toxic political culture by rejecting people whose best contribution to the political discourse of our nation is name-calling and insult. The demagoguery of people like you and your ilk contributes nothing of value to the conversation and creates nothing but hard feelings and conflict. Trolls like yourself should be ashamed to have created a political climate, right and left, in which is is virtually impossible to compromise.
Brenda and Mike, I do not like the President,but would never refer to him in a racially derogatory manner. I respect the office of President and love my country. I also would never refer to him that way because I have impressionable kids at home. So, every Republican you guys know refers to Barack Obama as a n!gger? Only a fool or someone that was ignorant would do that. On Halloween night I had a large group of black kids on my porch. One commented on my Mitt Romney sign wanting to know if I was a "hater",I knew where this was going but I answered anyway. I said," no I don't hate anyone I think Romney will do a better job". Another piped up saying,"that's just racist"! I then put it to these teenagers," you know that the Presidents Mom is as white as me,right"? A few answered yep,then I asked," if you were to vote would you vote for his white half or his black half"? All of a sudden my porch fell silent. Nothing but the sound of Snickers and Milky Way bars falling into trick or treat bags.You two ought to get a new set of friends before you are judged by the company you keep.
Well I see the left wing fascists are out in force today. First, when you define racism as disagreeing with Obama by definition republicans will be racist. DUH! Socialist liberals might want to do a little research into who the real racists are, I'd suggest they start with John Kennedy, George Wallace, Robert Byrd to name a few.
What they don't understand is conservatives don't have the same racist history as they do so their racial guilt has no effect on us.
Second, these idiots need to realize we just had an election. The results were Obama, marginal 3% victory, republican house, overwhelming victory. Clearly the voters agree far more with what the house is doing vs the president. In fact exit poling showed that while they preferred Obama overall, they strongly disagreed with his economic policies. That is born out in the house victory as it is the house that controls spending.
Third, we are a republic, NOT a democracy. The filibuster is but one tool the government has to defeat pure democracy. The entire makeup of our government is structure so the majority cannot roll over the minority. We have three equal branches of government. We have two houses of congress structured very differently, etc.
fenderbluesjr, classic post!
TrustVerify,
Lets not forget the 100 year anneversery of the charger for the Federal Reserve, and that under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, it's Congress that's supposed to have the power to regulate monetary policy and the like, with words such as "Congress shall have the power too....coin money, regulate the value thereof, establish the value against foreign currency, and establish the value of weights and measures". It's an enumerated power, not an implied one. Oh well, fat chance getting this Legislature to actually do it's job....
Sounds a lot like the dialectic proposed by Georg Hegel, as a means to implement historical change through employing conflict as a means to generate a new synthesis... Crisis maneagement, I do believe is a term which has been used to describe this, much the same as the so-called "energy crisis of 1973" when much the same was employed...
As to cuts on Medicare and Social Security, I say that if the House leadership is serious, then they should put their money where their mouth is; by proposing the same cuts they propose for Americans as a whole onto the legislative perks wrt Congress's own retirement plan and their own cadilac medical plan. Lead by example, and mandate the biter pill on Congress's own entitlements called perks for office holders and and former office holders. Else they look like a bunch of hypocrites who mandate one thing for the average Joe while continuing to give themselves a much different and much more ideal health and retirement program for themselves, even as they continue to vote themselves pay increases on the tax payers dole; all of which is no less an entitlement then the very things they speak on in words, themselves.... Basically Congress, put your OWN MONEY, on the line along with everyone elses, or stop trying to act like you aren't being a tad self serving in all of this. Now if Congress would put up already, and legislate upon themselves what they legislate on all others, then they'd actually hold an ounce of credibility.... As long as Congress's own retirement benefits, and talk of cuts wrt their own salary, tax payer provided, remain off the table, it remains obvious that they aren't walking the talk....
Boehner, I hope at least ammends this bad bill. It only taxes the rich and has an even worse marriage penality. Why not 400K for single and 800K for mairried? Or is the democrats saying a wife is only worth 50K. This is the same deal that floated around for the past several months, Were is the compermise? Obama wanted taxes raised on everyone, Republicans wanted taxes raise on no one, The good compermise would have been raise the taxes on The Democrats, and keep the same taxes for the Republicans. That way each would have gotten what they wanted, (you know do unto others as they want to do unto you.). I think if Democrats really want to help Obama they shoulc all pay an extra Obama gift tax to him. Then he can spend it on green energy, or paying for more job Czars.
Were completely broke but the American people think the government will fix it easily with tax increases and spending cuts. Wait til theres riots and food shortages. People don't understand whats coming.
Ugh typoes,
Make that "Lets not forget the 100 year anneversery of the charter for the Federal Reserve", which with the media's attention on the fiscal cliff, is off the matter of this, it's being up for renewal, or the debates for reform that could be held wrt that...
@wje37fcsm - I want a well run government too but these people don't know how to do it. You are suggesting the 47% say we should just throw more money to people who have proven they 1) spend irresponnsibly 2) don't do their jobs - coming up with a budget is one of the few things they are constitutionally mandated to do and 3) have complete disregard for future generations. I say nay nay. They need to be forced to figure out how to use less money and be less free-wheeling with their supposedly good ideas that cost more than we have.
@Red - Centrist!?!?! lol. Take a look at the chart on this page... If he is center, why is there so little space to the left of him. I count nine senators with a more left leaning idealogical voting record. For a list of lies you can just search "obama lies" and find tons of stuff. Here's a good fair link.
Riots and food shortages ? Tax reform ? End of the world ? Looks like some predictions here. Like I have never heard these before. Like people haven't been saying this for a couple hundred years.
Salvia- I'm not trying to blow things out of proportion. Do you know how much debt were in? Do you know how they are going to try to fix it? Austerity. Did you see what happened to countries that used that method. Greece, Spain, UK, etc. There were full blown riots in all of those places. Imagine that on a much much larger scale and over a longer time period.
So, what will happen next relative to the debt ceiling and sequestration cuts?
Something like this:
The Republicans will insist on spending cuts for lifting the debt ceiling. The President will say, "pound salt".
Then he'll say, "if you want to bring in the sequestration cuts, we can talk more. We'll agree on switches to the sequestration cuts from Defense and Discretionary programs ONLY if you (Republicans), at the same time, lift the debt ceiling for at least a year. If not, I'll let all the sequestration cuts stick." The President would prefer the changes to cuts but could live with them (as is) in a negotiation.
the only question is whether tax reform (a Grand Grand Bargain - subject to further revenue provisions and further future spending cuts) will be done at the same time (doubtful in 2 months?) or done later.
Andrew, you are, at best, naïve. "Most people" LIKE Obama. This is why he was re-elected. "Most people" who do NOT like Obama cannot articulate why this is and resort to dumb stuff like "he was not born here." Provably false. So, yes, the rest of us conclude that these folks were taught at a young age that the color of their skin made them "special" and are really upset that this no longer is true. If you have actual issues that you can articulate about why you disagree with the President, great. Unfortunately, 99% of the people who "disagree" with him cannot do this and just blather on about non-issues such as falsely stating where he was born or what religion he professes. If you DO have legitimate concerns with his policies, these idiots are drowning out your expressions of concern. Deal with THEM first and maybe the rest of us will listen to you.
I don't know whether racist or not, but from comparison of attitude people showed on Obama, they are much different than the past presidents.
Whatever it is, it is so different that it doesn't take people hard to notice them.
The Democrats will continue to blame Republicans, Republicans will blame Democrats.......
And a "true leader" would be able to find common ground between them both for the betterment of Americans.
Too bad we have a community organizer in the White House....
Steve, Well said, a sales guy like Barack Obama is what you need in your cabinet of adviser's to push your agenda and not as President. First of all no one with any common sense trusts a salesman! So in that regard he has the deck stacked against him when he truly does want to negotiate. But like any salesman he has a system,if he succedes he takes the credit,when he fails he and his lemmings ream the Republicans.
Obama should stick to his guns. If he gives republicans every thing they want just to extend cuts to those below 450K he'll have nothing to bargain with over raising the debt ceiling. Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and Bush 7. It's raised 3 times so far under Obama and republicans act like Obama's the first president to do so. If the GOP doesn't agree to raising it another year I'd refuse to give them anything until they do.
That's pretty much how the Dem's already work
I don't agree with the Republicans increasing the debt ceiling before and I don't agree with anyone raising it now... Mike and Brenda would think this makes me a racist... the simple fact is, sometimes enough is enough. What does it exist for? It is supposed to be to prevent things from going to far... instead it just slows things down. Better than nothing.
This debt ceiling thing is another travesty.
I mean the fight over the debt ceiling already caused the downgrading of US credit rating for the first time since 1917. GOP stubbornness led to this self-inflicted wounds. Recession and out-of-control defense spending has reduced revenue, Bush's 2 rounds of tax cut for the rich have made things worse.
Then House members are elected/re-elected every 2 years, the House RepubliCONs often pander to the uninformed public who often thinks the family analogy of being in debt. But the US government is the most powerful and stable, and can always pay back by raising revenue or printing money.
Typical Democrat. Bush only cut taxes on the rich. If all the tax cuts expired, everyone would be squeeling like the little pigs you Democrats all are...
Pigotry
Now what makes me crazy is stupid people like you. Debt ceiling that cause the downgrade was not Bush's problem. The cause was 8 billion in stimulus spending, unemployment insurance and other safety net spending IE food stamps, Obama phones , birth control for teens some of you take care of your kids we would not spend tax payer money and more I'm sure you use of of these.
Expenditures related to healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are growing considerably faster than the economy overall as the population matures plus Obama care. S&P considered the government budget deficit of more than 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and net government debt rising to about 80 percent or more of GDP by 2013. Moody's warning that if Congress did not quickly raise the debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion, the agency might reduce the debt rating. If Obama had spent 6 trillion intelligently, we would not be talking about debt ceiling today try to blame Bush for this one. Get you facts right before you post.
The debt limit should not be raised period. The Government needs to balance the budget and not spend more than it takes in. The Federal Government has increased in size 100% in the last 10 years. Our population has not increased even 25%. Government is too big, cumbersome and stupid. The founders of our country would roll over in their graves if they knew we have career politicians and that career politicians raided or stole money from our seniors to fund a growing government and now can't pay it back. Heck, they would never have allowed SS or Medicare. A Democratic Republic is not supposed to take care of it's citizens from cradle to grave, that is a Democratic Socialist government. Just what is fair share? That means everyone contributes equally the same amount. EVERYBODY contributes the same amount. Now if you don't like that, then fix it so the top 2% are not paying over 50% of all taxes paid. Because that is not fair. I do not have a savings account, retirement plan or 401K or even stocks or bonds. I live on SS only and have worked hard all my life. I have always understood that NOBODY not even my governemt owes me a living. Life isn't always fair, my parents taught me that along with get up out of bed and get a job and be productive. Our country is turning into a gimme gimme state and that is not fair to the productive members of our country. The EIC and Child Credit need to go away. Those are entitlements we can not afford. If you can't afford to take care and raise children on your own then do not have them. My children at times struggle but have never claimed the child credit or EIC. I raised them better than that.
Hey Larry the difference in the taxes between Obama's 200K or 250K or what ever he is defining wealthy as this month, and the current $400K is peanuts. The real issue is spending cuts. The new taxes don't change the deficit by all that much. At the real issue is the entitlements getting ready to blow up in 5 to 10 years. A true leader would not being ignoring those facts to save his popularity.
Notice all you hear is No, No, No from Democrats on the open checkbook... There is not a Democrat who will touch the hard true because this is what they use to buy votes...game over folks.
dari43 - Amen!
@ Larry,
How about we agree that Raising the debt ceiling under Obama is out of control spending, just like it was under Bush and Reagan. And that Obama is will be a better president if he actually controls spending unlike Reagan and Bush. And if he doesn't, he will be just as fiscally irresponsible like Reagan and Bush.
Poor fiscal irresponsibility is poor fiscal responsibility, regardless of whether or not it comes from a Dem or Rep.
Your argument is almost the same as China's argument against EPA regulations when they claimed that putting them under tougher standards is unfair because the US got away with poor standards longer, therefore they should be exempt from the costs of better environmental standards for another 50 years, just to be even.
Does that work for you?
lets face it the only reason to raise taxes on the wealthy is the dems are using the envy of poorer people to get more on their side. the money that will be TAKEN from the wealthy is not enough to make any kind of progress. if the pres. thinks it will make a difference he is dreaming which makes me think it is all about envy. why the 250,000 or 400,000 what ever it is today seems to be over what the pollys make
Hey Bob! Was it 8 billion or 6 trillion? Remember who allocates spending and cuts the checks? Maybe you should take a hard look in the mirror before you call other posters stupid. Also, your rant sounded like a sound bite for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Please tell us that you can form your own ideas. Please!
Pigotry,
I think you better give the report from S&P from last year's downgrade another peak because you are absolutely wrong on the reason for it. This is the kind of willful blindness which creates an atmosphere in which no comporomise is possible.
You say
That is exactly why the credit rating was reduced. Trolls like yourself are a waste of flesh.
Printing money does have a price. Unless it has value it is simply Monopoly money. A realistic approach MUST be provided in order to put the government back together again. Too much power has gotten into their heads and I mean ALL of them. It is absolutely ridiculous how much bickering is going on considering this is the first of many more battles to come.
Either way, it is nothing but drama and very much ... staged.
dari43, Thank you, for being a true citizen of the United States of America. You are one of the very few I've read on ANY thread that understands the attitude our country was founded on!
Asl the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted. Larry the orginator must of been thinking of you and Pigotry, when he said this. The Debt ceiling should never have been raised, the problem is 20 years ago it would be raised in the millions, Now it is in the Trillions. Compairing the two is crazy, It would be like compairing, spilling a glass of water on the floor, to the flooding of homes from Sandy or Katrina. Both Regan and Bush worked out tax cuts with spending cuts, the problem was the tax cuts went through, but the democratic controlled congress didn't honor the spending cuts, instead spent more.
Take a look at the plan that passed.... how much were REDUCTIONS and how much were INCREASES?
That's what is wrong with DC.......
Time for a NEW PLAN....... SECEDE.... divorce DC............
Well the 1st phase is done, so what we are over the Cliff..... This really is what is needed because we are not going to see change any other way.....
They all should be tarred and feathered, Reps and Dems alike.
Again the people are shown who the politicians work for..........The Rich. The Corporations. Wall Street.
Turns out President Obama is a liar.
Shame!
Wait!! Didnt the Bush tax cuts expire and the sequestration take effect at midnight or not? I do NOT like what's going on. The DEMs had BETTER stick to their guns! This debt crisis was caused by Republicans over 30 years. SS and Medicare recipients, now and in the future, should NOT have to pay for fixing what the GOP deliberately did. Let republicans find a way to fix it without involving those who had nothing to do with this debt crisis!
Tom in NH
What are you talking about? LBJ and the Democratic Legislature began the rape of the SS Fund by dissolving the fund and placing it into the Federal Budget. The democratic congress promised a 3:1 spending cuts to tax increase during the Reagan administration. We got the tax increase and NO FREAKING TAX CUTS. Why don't you look at the Pelosi and Reid congresses from 2007 through 2010 and see how much they spent. Our present administration has passed the largest tax increase in history with their health care law. Wait until you see how much this program is going to cost. The Bush administration gave us an unfunded Medicare Part D which both parties voted their approval.
Taxes are the only thing that this current administration knows and taxes are what you are going to get.
So using your warped logic we should have the democrats pay back the Social Security Fund with interest for the last 53 years. I'm sure you do not want to go there.
Wake up and smell the coffee because your thought process is quite flawed. Neither party has been respectful of the taxpayers.
Tom, you are misinformed, which is not surprising since you apparently didn't read (or comprehend) the article. First of all, the Republicans did not "create" the crises. True, the national debt started to skyrocket under Reagan, but both parties are equally to blame.
It's only gotten rose since the recession, due to loss of (tax) revenue as well as increased spending - maintaining two wars, attemptps to stimulate the economy and increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps.
SS and medicare will continue be a drag on the federal budget and it will get worse as the population continues to age. I live in Sun City where a significant portion of the residents have been retired for over 20 years - that's over two decades of receiving S.S. and they are at the stage where they are increasingly going to the hospital, consuming all manner of drugs and undergoing various medical procedures. There should be a cap on how much entitlement $$ one can draw in their lifetime.
commonsense/gumps:
THIS is what Im talking about!!! Edumacate yourself and turn off Fox News!
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=14
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/blaming-obama-for-george-w-bushs-policies/
( Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush
administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron
Paul. )
For someone claiming to have a clue - you sure dont...
Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Less fox news - more independent thoughts
Edumacate???? Umm, I don't watch Fox News
Whose tax cuts are we fighting to save?
Commonsense53: Do you simply make things up? Democrats opposed Reagans cutting taxes the same time as his massive spending spree of the largest peacetime military build up in history. Growing Carrier task forces from 3 to 10, star wars defense programs etc. until Reagan went to the people with his fire side chats demanding a chance to implement what he was elected on. He got what he wanted. The size of our military exploded as did our debt. Trying to blame democrats for not paying for a republican presidents spending spree requires an IQ the size of a pea.
Reagan was able to pull it off because our debt was miniscule compared to today. Pumping what would be probably 3 or 4 trillion in new defense spending on credit of course grew the economy. The problem is Bush tried the same thing when our debt was massive, growing a 5.7 trillion debt into a 12.1 trillion one so when the meltdown occurred we could no longer afford to spend our way out. Republicans call themselves fiscal conservative because they oppose any spending outside the military but spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave on that and pork.
No love for ending the cold war or bringing down the east German wall? You people and your political spins are out of control!!! Oh that's right the world has always been a peaceful planet that negotiates peace.. Regan did more for you and our future than Clinton or Obama could ever claim
The peanut farmer sure wasn't growing the economy either with our gas shortages.. you people are delusional
I just heard that Congress plans on giving themselves a raise this year(you know for all that hard work on filibustering).
I urge everyone to send a message that NO they do not deserve a raise, now or the near future, until they can actually work for whats best for this country and not their political party!
Right - could ever forget the guy who traded guns for lives, paid millions to osama bin laden in the form of foreign aid and tripled our debt in his 8 year term and was the first president to take us into the trillions of dollars of debt.
Yes yes - he's a god damn peach.
Gumps said: There should be a cap on how much entitlement $$ one can draw in their lifetime.
So at some point they should just cut off the funding and kill Grandma. Is that what you're saying, Gump? Our problem is not health care for the elderly. It's the GOP policy of tax breaks for the wealthy and endless wars. End the tax breaks and end the wars. Problem solved. Money to keep Grandma alive.
What I'm saying is grandma needs to fund more of her meds and operations. If you can't afford it, then well, let nature take its course. Harsh, I admit, but there it is.
It would seem that you neither read the article or are aware of issues regarding entitlement costs.
Hardly. Yes, ending the wars will help. And ending tax breaks might increase revenues. But the cost of healthcare continues to skyrocket and as the population ages, more $$ will be sucked into the healthcare black hole.
night musician, then please explain:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Total_US_Federal_Debt_by_President_(1940_to_2009).png
when it comes to the debt crisis,why does everyone pile on the retired,who worked and paid into the system,what about the millions of non taxpayers,sitting home collecting their "ENTITLEMENTS" The democrats don't want to touch their core voters,just keep taking from those who have and expecting nothing from those who want.
Mike40MD,
Who said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"? Betcha think Nixon put the first man on the moon. I have no idea what "Regan" did to you or for you. I do know that President Reagan is responsible for many of our economic woes today with his "trickle down" or "voodoo" economics.
Aside from his considerable speaking ability, the best thing Reagan did was to actually listen to Gorbachev and trust that the Soviet leader was serious in reforming his country. The end of the Cold War was much more due to Gorbachev than Ronald Reagan. If the right-wingers in America had their way, the U.S. and the Soviets would still be at odds today, because foreign policy conservatives aren't happy unless they've got something to fight.
As to healthcare costs for the elderly or for everyone, in fact, we need to each do as much as possible to stay healthy and to ask questions when we do need care. I think in general too many drugs are prescribed without regard to their interaction. My inlaws used to accept whatever their doctors prescribed and at times were walking zombies. They would be taking a dozen drugs each and had only one doctor. My aunt who is 92 started with their doctor when she moved closer to them. Again, piles of drugs. When we took her to a gerontologist, most of the drugs went away and she feels much better.
Michael, if you read the article then you would know that the problem has to do with an increasingly large portion of our population that is reaching retirement age. I live in a place where most of the residents have been retired for 15 years or longer - some more than 20. And these individuals are increasingly in need ofexpensive healtcare, including prescriptions. These are part of the "millions of non-taxpayers, sitting at home colleclting their entitlements", as you so eloquently stated. Why don't you try doing a little research on the subject?
Mike 416
Fox news is what the left uses to slam people who primarily use NBC & Newsvine that they disagree with.
Now, if you were telling people like Tom to turn of Fox News, that might look like a slam to you, but instead they see you as beneath them.
That is the cool thing about thinking of yourself as smarter and more authoritative. Everyone else is wrong no matter how wrong you actually are.
IF any of you are old enough to remember the 80's..I think Carter was driving us into the ground and Reagan pulled us out of the ditch...times were crap in Houston under Carter...just loved 18% interest rates and gas lines........
Whatever Reagan achieved doesn't change how he accomplished it. I notice you didn't argue any point simply declare it was worth it. As an adult who owned a business when Reagan was president I'd bet I know more about what Reagan achieved and at what cost. Regardless trying to blame democrats for spending initiated by a republican president is the logic of a retard. No other way you can spin it.
Which was the point of my first post. Reagan spent our way out of a funk by spending the equivalant of several trillion in todays dollars. When you hire millions building Aircraft Carriers and support ships, star wars programs and such you boost the economy big time. But as I noted Bush spent so massively we no longer had that option when the economy imploded.
Reagan fell for democrat lies. He was promised spending cuts with his tax cuts. The spending cuts never happened. That's why republicans are demanding spending cuts first this time, they know if tax increases come first the cuts will never materialize.
Look at all of Obama's supposed deals, tax increases immediately, spending cuts some time later. Even republicans aren't talking about spending cuts, just reductions in the planned increases.\
Reagan rescued us from a disaster arguably worse than 2008. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, 20% interest rates, the fall of Iran, etc. It's pathetic liberal bed wetters try to rewrite history when there are clear statistics to prove they are lying.
Reagan won his first term in a landslide, he won his second term by the biggest landslide in history carrying 49 states. You don't do that by ruining the nation.
All presidents have increased the deficit but it didn't go exponential until Obama took office. Again you can't lie about it when the data is readily available. Saying Bush got us into this is beyond stupid. His deficits weren't even half of what Obama has been running. Bush's highest deficit is the one socialist democrats forced on him his last year.
Since Bush and republicans averaged 5% unemployment, MANAGEABLE deficits, and had a record Dow it's a total lie that anyone can go beyond when democrats took over congress to discover the mess we're in. Yes all deficits are bad but the small ones can be managed with decent GDP growth. The problem we have now is MASSIVE deficits EVERY YEAR WITH NO END IN SIGHT, and pathetic growth. That is all on democrats watch.
Trying to rewrite history will never change it. Democrats didn't promise spending cuts they demanded them in order to acceot his tax cuts and spending. Democrats refused to support Reagans tax cuts and massive spending unless he agreed to cut spending in other areas to keep our debt from exploding, Reagan agreed and did offset some of it by eliminating deductions. Do you people really believe the nonsense you spew? You think democrats cheerfully told Reagan to cut as many taxes and spend as he wanted and they'd pay for it? I'm hoping you're in the 3rd grade, any higher and you embarrass yourself.
Reagan did it by promising a massive tax cut. I voted for him and saved about $18,000 in taxes his first year which was good money then. That has nothing to do with any other points. When Reagan was elected he spurred the economy with debt. Our debt was low enough it didn't matter and few cared. As I pointed out it was totally different under Bush who exploded the debt by paying for nothing when the economy was fine which didn't allow him to spend our way out as Reagan did.
At the time we simply out spent and out developed our military that the Soviets couldn't compete, It drove thier financial system broke. As for Star Wars, it played a big role in making the peace. The system would have made most of the Soviet missles ineffective, (you can see the current tech, in service today in Israel and Gaza) There spys knew we were working on stealth, and anti missle technology. We came out on top because of or history, of doing things like the Panama Canal, Atomic Bomb, etc. When our country put our mind into doing something we did it. Now we are being over regulated, and over taxed. We all the the free (not really, but it sounds good) government handouts. Most of our grandparents would never take charity from the government but the current ones go looking for it. They made it pay so well that it is better then a job. The Current retirees, are not all blameless, as a first grader knows you pay someone 33 cents, each day, for a month and you then want that person to pay you a dollar a day for the second month you will be a lot richer, at the end. Every person with a job can look at their paycheck and see what they paid into SS, and compute that for every $50 a month you paid into it you will get back $1,300 a month. So you will take out what it took over two years to pay in. Say you work for 40 years, then you would have taken out all the money you paid into it in less then 2 years. Since a lot collect for more then 20 years, you better have at least 10 kids working to pay for you. That is why the system is broke As for the surplus Bush had, it was based on the value of the stock market at the peak of the Dot com bubble. and like the current housing bubble it quicky was gone before Bush had the presiden't chair warmed up. Bush had a debt of 5trillion and went to 10.3 trillion, in 8 years, that was an almost 6 trillon increase or 750 billion a year Deficet. Obama has increased the Debt to over 16.2 trillon (his term hasn't even ended yet) so he will have added 6 trillion in 4 years, or 1.5 trillion a year, twice what Bush had. The amout of money is the same for both in terms of Taxes the government brings in, so the differance is Spending. Obama spends twice what Bush did, that is the problem.
@ Larry: The truth is R. Reagan was one of the worst Presidents ever. Your comment that he was responsible for turning our aircraft carrier fleet from 3 to 12 is so completely wrong that one needs to wonder where you are getting your information.
When Reagan took office in 1981 we had the carriers Forrestal, Saratoga,, Ranger, Independence, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, America, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, D. Eisenhower and commissioned in 1981 was the Carl Vinson. That's twelve by my count. I will never read your biased posts again.
300Micheal: Your maths off. Bush ran the debt up from 5.7 trillion to 12.1 trillion. The last Bush budget ran from October 2008 until October 2009 with a projected deficit of 1.2 trillion and was passed before Obama was even elected. A new president has nothing to do with the first years budget unless it's his second term. Funny how people want to blame a man for spending before he's even elected.
Valhallaphil: Nice spin on numbers. Bush took over from Clinton with a 4.2% unemployment rate that was handed off to Obama at 7.9% and hit over 9% while under his budget, a DOW that had the largest crash since 1929 falling from over 14,000 down to 6400 and the largest yearly deficit in history in each of his years and you call it manageble. And congress doesn't implement or have any responsibility for initiating spending it's all the president. Reagan owns his tax cuts, star wars and military build up. Obama owns Obamacare and Bush owns his drug plan, 400 billion tax cut and 2 wars. Being able to sell it to congress doesn't make it thiers.
The American people are participating in their government's reality. The government needs to be participating in the people's reality. The American people are in the world and "of it". Be in the world but not "of it".
amen!!!
amen!
Amen!
I am so disappointed the President caved in to those idiot republicans. I thought he had more cajones than that. Now the republicans know they can run over the President if they stick it out long enough. What a shame
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I am disappointed the Republicans caved to the President. Why does anyone need to pay more taxes? We get more and more programs, spend more and more money on the ones we already have, and do nothing about getting anything under control... so let's take money from the wealthy people because there are so few of them and no one sympathizes with them being taken advantage of.
Problem is no one goes after Obama. Should have been done more during the campaign. If he gets his tax increase, will he balance the budget? How? Why is it unfair that the top ten percent pay seventy percent of all Federal tax? Why is it unfair that the bottom ninety percent pay thirty percent? Explain please how this makes sense in your warped brain?
Where have you been the previous 2 months? He never said he was going to balance the budget with tax cuts alone.
The American people supported Obama's way of getting our finances back in order (with tax increases to the wealthy). That is fact. You dolts cant seem to get it through your heads that your thought process in the minority of people.
yes what a shame in bipartisanship.. I know it kills you sci-fi loving Democrats
Mike 416
Were you as concerned about the healthcare law being backed by the minority or are you just using the thought process to foward your slobbering Obama fetish. Hell,Obama didnt stop his bullcrap run in'10 even though the MAJORITY told him to.
And yet - he was just re-elected by more electoral votes than when Bush beat Kerry and declared it a mandate.
And obamacare did have a majority - he just used reconciliation to cirmuvent the do nothing repub filibuster. You are clueless.
So when repubs are in the majority and the president uses the bully pulpit - thats great. But when dem's do it - they are crazy ideologues. Got it.
The only reasons you are whining about bipartisanship is because you are in the minority.
wilman it is a matter of how you look at it.
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.
If you look at it where the money is the top 1% should be responsible for 34.6% of taxes, the 2%-20% should be responsible for 50.5% of the taxes and the bottom 80% should be responsible for the last 15%.
A fair tax from your point of view would take the same % from each group thus decreasing corporate revenue and increase government cost in welfare and foodstamps.
Lets put it this way and these numbers are just easy numbers and in no way reflect actual income at each level.
Lets say it breaks down this way.
Top 1%- 346 billion at a 34.6% tax rate would equal 119.716 billion
2%-20%- 505 billion at a 50.5% tax rate would equal 255.025 billion
21%-100%-150 billion at a 15% tax rate would equal 22.5 billion
For a total of 397.241 billion in revenue from a trillion dollars of income. Meaning that you have a tax rate of 39.72% on income in this country. Now take that 39.72% and apply it to the three groups individually.
1% 346 billion at a 39.72% tax equals 137.43 billion
2%-20% 505 billlion at 39.72% equals 200.59 billion
21%-100% 150 billion at 39.72% equals 59.58 billion
This gives you the same tax revenue but there is a major problem.
In 2007 there was roughly 146 million employed workers this means
80% of the country is averaging $770 for every trillion made in this country under your plan
80% of the country would get $1154 for every trillion made in this country if you tax based on percentage of US total income.
The next 19% get $12,288 per trillion under your tax and $9,012 by following the money
Top 1% get $168,493 per trillion on yours and $143,493 by following the money
7.73 Trillion income for US households in 2007
The average salary per worker is as follows under both plans.
21%-100% $5,952 at 39.7% tax $8,920 at a 15% tax
2%-20% $94,986 at 39.7% tax $69,663 at 50.5% tax
Top 1% $1,302,451 at 39.7% tax $1,109,201 at 34.6% tax.
Look at what taxing the bottom 80% at the same rate as top 20% does. It pushes poverty even lower while the top 20% are doing quite well. Following the money boosts the bottom 80% although still quite low and the top 20% are still doing quite well.
This doesn't even take into account investment income that the top 20% have the capital to take advantage of and corperate profit taxes.
If you throw corp profits into the equation since they are people too this shifts the tax burden from what I showed above. It would increase the top 1% tax rate while lowering the next 99%. This gives even more buying power to the consumers. Consumers spending increases corp profits which increases employment and the cycle continues. When you take the tax burden from the top 1% and put it on the bottom you take away spending power which drives down demand and decreases employment and the cycle continues.
So it really is a matter of how you want the corps to make there money. They will make it either way. Do you want them to make the money on less production via lower taxes or make it on more production on higher taxes. I perfer the later because this strengthens the consumer class and strenghtens the country as a whole.
If you believe that corps hire based on taxes and not consumption you are truely ignorant.
"The American people supported Obama's way of getting our finances back in order (with tax increases to the wealthy). That is fact. You dolts cant seem to get it through your heads that your thought process in the minority of people."
Too bad the numbers don't work. Too bad Obama doesn't have a plan to balance the budget.. Where are all the cuts in spending in the proposal? See any?
carlson
Absent of the free market concept and what it costs to build and run a business, I would say your taxing concept would work.
What you fail to consider is the amount of money it takes to run a business. For many years before the ACA you could plan a business that an employee costs 1.5 times the hourly rate you pay them to cover for employee benefits. This number in had edged up to 1.6 Times the employee wage. I'm seeing based on the health insurance increases for for the last 3 years that and health insurers estimating their rates to increase between 30 & 100% for 2012, that number may be between 1.85 & 2.0 times the employee wage.
Now, with a tax increase you are telling them that they have to do all that with less. Seams to me the the theory doesn't work.
The public is misinformed and is in love with ideal of taxing the rich..but the real math shows it really accomplishes very very little but the common welfare recipient cannot understand those big numbers they think it will give them free money.....misinformed voters are dangerous..........
justredd.... you are right. Many on here have preached about how taxing the 2% is what needs to happen. Sadly, no one has thought beyond that. So now, what?
Taxes will be raised on everyone that purchases simple goods or products daily. At least 51% of Americans are going to see some sort of tax increase to the income they work so hard for. Ultimately that is to fund the special interest group. Redistribution of money will come at a shocking price, much like the funds that are being syphoned out of Medicare then re-allocated to ' Medicare and Obamacare'. Least we all forget even the Democrats were complaining (not too long ago) about not wanting one of the Obamacare taxes to go into effect.
Regardless, get ready for the ride.
Liberal idiots are still living under the illusion that Obama got re elected on his stance on the economy when exit polls clearly showed though he was preferred overall, his economic policies were strongly opposed. That's why republicans were re elected to the house by a much wider margin than his victory.
Increasing taxes does NOT help the economy. That's why even democrats are holding their noses and extending them of the majority.
The problem is our current economy, as anemic as it is, is a total illusion. If you took home $2500/mo but spent $3700 and charged the rest your life would seem better too, but sooner or later that bill will come due. The first downgrade was the equivalent of our first warning from the credit card bank.
It will be easier to make a New Year resolution now that Congress has goofed up again. All of the entitlement has been kicked down the road with nothing being done to get spending under control. I myself will never vote for a republican or for that matter a democrat. The people in the United States are not being treated equal therefore a good Independent party must lead us out of this mess in the future.
Did you really expect anything more from idiot politicians? They care about nothing except staying in office.
In all fairness, after you witnessed how Ryan was demonized for even trying to make a dent would you stick your neck out? With their campaign of hate, democrats killed any possibility of a real solution.
The Tea Party are the only ones serious about real progress, look where that's got them.
I am one of those idiot republicans. Our government needs to stop spending and start reducing our deficit. Government at all levels need to do this. We cannot spend our way out of recession.
The main problem is that we have replaced God with gov. This has never and will never work.
I am looking forward to all the hate replies.
I wont give you a hate reply but I think its ridiculous that you pin the failings of this country over the lack of a christian god. If anything religion creates more divisiveness.
America was only founded on Christianity... duh.. There is a higher power than the US government and thank God Mike doesn't get a vote on that one
Tall:
If it's theocracy you crave for, look no further than Iran? Somehow America was a theocracy before the Constitution and the founding of our government? You are one of the more confused elders on the vine today, not quite as bad as some.
The founding father were not christian genius. They were free masons. Thats kind of the opposite of christianity. Get a clue. I always laugh at idiotic conservatives who claim that this country was founded on christian principles when the founding fathers were no such things.
and you zealots are every bit as bad as the tailiban. Boycotting dead soldiers funerals because god hates gays... decades of child molestian and abuse covered up... claiming to be the voice of god. LOL You people are clowns. Let me give that red nose a honk!
Kasey -- Theocracy might be too strong a term for the time before the Revolution, but if you were not a member of the Church of England you couldn't vote or hold public office in some of the colonies and, member or not, you paid a tax to support the Church. This is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to.
Lets get it straight.
Our country was founded by rich white slave owners that didn't want to pay tax's. The only change we have had is that the slaves have changed. Now all race's and colors are slave's to the rich corporations, they are still owned by white men and still don't want to pay tax's.
TallTex, I agree with your first sentence.
America was not founded on principles of Christianity...it was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Separation of church and state was not to keep God out of government, it was to keep government out of religion. Whether Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, or Mormon, religion has NO place in government decisions any more than government should have a say in our religious choices. I have a deeply spiritual life and don't hate any religion, but I do hate the way that Christians seem to believe that THEIR religion is the answer for everything.
Kasey
You cannot equate Christianity with Islam. Not only do you insult Christians, but you insult Muslims.
Worse yet, you believe misrepresentations of what either is truly about.
American was founded on many christian principles and ideals, but not founded on Christianity per se.
All men are Created Equal.
Freedom of Worship is a Christian ideal.
Man has rights the government should not be infringing on is a Christian ideal.
Free markets is a Christian ideal.
Education was primarily promoted by Christianity.
Now, was the US Constitution founded on Christianity. NO. It was formed as a neutral party to insure the above ideals remain open to all for all posterity.
Rick
That is a henious distortion. The population of the south and the slave owners were clearly in the minority at the time of the revolution and at the time of the creation of the US Constitution. The 3/5's rule on slavery was only allowed because the founders understood that without Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, that the country would not win it's independence nor maintain it's independence. The writings of those in the north show that they thought slavery would end in about 20 or 30 years.
You are ignoring the fact that from the Constitutional convention where the slave states sought "equality" in power until the Secession in 1961, that the slave states were actually trying to gain the majority in the country. Secession was the realization that becoming the face of the US was not going to happen and in the end, slavery would crumble.
To think as you do, you are listening to people who wish to destroy our country or are using this fraud of a position as a way to take over our great country.
As a further discussion on the america founded on religious freedom.
The Pilgrims came to escape religious persecution
The Purtians came in for the same reason, but then overwhelmed Massachusettes and were rather intollerant of other beliefs.
New York, Virginia, the Carolina's, and Georgia were colonized simply for the benefit of England. Virgina even estalibished a state religion.
Pennsylvania was established by Quakers to escape religious persecution.
The Idea of freedom of religion came out of the Constitutional convention when they argued over what religion should be the state religion. Several states had an established religion. The conclusions was that there should be no state established church (religion) whether government mandated, representation of a church is the majoirty, the state should not make laws out in favor of a church (religion), make laws against a church (religioun) and out of respect for all religions "god" would be handled in a deistic manner.
Tex. I am disappointed with Jesus. I thought that he was a progressive but according to the Tea Party he is actually not only conservative but a Neo-Con as well. Who would have thunk it!
Jesus was not progressive. He believed in helping people who really need it. That does not include an increasing block of freeloaders that find it more comfortable to leach off of others than to earn their own way.
It is not that God is out of government. It is that God is banned by government and government is the God of the socialist. Saying the 10 commandments cannot be displayed is religious suppression, not freedom. Saying a military grave cannot contain a cross is religious suppression, not freedom. Saying a valedictorian cannot thank God for their success is religious suppression, not freedom.
Progressives are increasingly taking a page from 1984, redefining terms to mean just the opposite of what they used to. Now those who want to limit the overreaching power of government are somehow fascists, growing government to control everyones life is anti fascist. Now those who are the party of Lincoln, those who are responsible for every piece of civil rights legislation are called racists, yet history shows the very ones screaming racist were the real racists. Now people who actually want government to live within it's means are called radicals while those who want to drive us into bankruptcy are called responsible.
What a sad state of affairs.
The best thing the Republicans can do is let the sequester happen at this point. It's the only way they'll get any cuts to happen... even that is smoke and mirrors though. The law the article mentions has a few numbers (3.5 trillion and 100 billion) that if you break them down to numbers people can relate to we are spending $350 a week on things and the reduction is basically cutting out 10 bucks a week. The sad thing is $100+ of that is being put on a credit card and that the credit card is maxed out... so we'll probably just get a new limit. Those that have ever filed bankruptcy know that that never works.
Sequester will impact many people's jobs. I think thoughtful management is a better solution. Stop the stupid projects, studies, etc. that have no meaning. Just throwing it all to the wind will not get us where we need to be.
Everybody wants to blame the congress, mainly the republicans. What about the "Democratically controlled" senate who has not passed a budget since Obummer has been in office. You want to blame that on the republicans too? How shallow minded can you be. Now let's talk about entitlements. The ones to go after are not seniors. They have worked all of their lives (most of them anyway). The ones that we need to reign in are the phony claims of disability and illnesses that allow people to collect SSI. I believe that this fraud is costing us billions of dollars. People who are collecting this along with some of these quacks need to be investigated thoroughly before allowing such claims. People who are able bodied but decide to sit around and collect their entitlement with the help of a doctor or case worker. Tell me this doesn't go on.
Sadly I've come to the same conclusion, let it happen. While it will be painful in the short term the alternative will be complete collapse. After Ryan was so demonized no politician in their right minds will stick their neck out and offer a real solution.
Now that the Obama admin and the Dems in both the House and the Senate are about to reinstate the Bush tax cuts, is Bush still to blame for everythin that is wron with the economy? Maybe it just signals that they haven't come up with anything better as yet.
Democrats don't talk about the fact that everyone got a tax cut under Bush. They blabber in the abstract about tax cuts for the wealthy. (Which means everyone keeps the Bush tax cuts except for those who pay the vast majority of Federal Tax.)
So tax cuts - which no longer blanket the entire population - are the same as across the board tax cuts.
Do you people read what you write?
If you pay attention to all the tax loopholes and other tax breaks that the extremely wealthy get, then they don't pay their fair share as a percentage to what other Americans pay. ex, Warren Buffett's sec pays more as a percentage than he does.
Sure, everyone who makes over $250,000 a year is just like Warren Buffet. I am going to be moving all my assets offshore next week.
Idiot Buffet... If he thinks he should pay more tax, go ahead and write a check you old troll... Still waiting Warren...
People miss out by not watching the financial channels. Buffet wants taxes to go up, just not his. He wants dividend taxes to stay the same and that's where he gets his income. Also, he wanted taxes raised on $1 million, NOT $250K OR $450K.
In yet another typical liberal lie, tax loopholes do NOT erase taxes, just reduce them somewhat. They get no special loopholes you have the same options.
Buffets secretary pays a higher MARGINAL percentage because Buffet gets his income from capital gains. Capital gains are taxed lower because government rightly wants to encourage investment to maintain a healthy economy.
I've been moving my assets overseas for some time now. All that's left can easily be moved in a few seconds with some mouse clicks. If rich liberals can do it, I have no guilt.
I am happy the senate slack asses were able to get something done. Both sides made progress.
I am continuously disappointed with the house and the idiots involved. How come things are only dysfunctional when republicans are in charge? LOL
@Mike-416
Not everyone agrees with a 'progressive' tax system or government redistribution. This country has a serious spending problem that has been ongoing for 40 years. It isn't exclusively a Republican or Democratic problem.
The current administration is no better than congress; it leaves no room for negotiation either. It also doesn't make us all racists because some of us believe in a market economy.
Perhaps you need to be a little more open minded. You slammed Sargeant-Mac earlier today as a racist for disagreeing with Pres. Obama. He had commented on Thomas Sowell who is a brilliant economist, and happens to be VERY black. (look it up!)
Life philosophy is not about skin color. I am white with a black step-dad. He is a hard working man who taught me many of the values that I carry with me today. He also taught me that @!$%# isn't a color; it's an attitude. They come in all colors!!
the progressive ideals of redistribution are not in favor of the working man....the working made the country with hard work and now that is not rewarded but infact is put down and spit on. The ideal that the government is supposed to SAVE anyone is a sad deal indeed, at times people need help but it was designed to be TEMPORARY at best....but not todays left wing ideals.
I'm delighted that the Senate passed this bill to avert a fiscal cliff. And now it goes to the House for approval, but if it fails to pass the House. Ummmm....................Soooooooooo, what do we do now. Just asking.
I hope it does fail in the House.Its about 40-1 in revenue to spending cuts.Washington is full of idiots.
There will be many, many more situations like the fiscal cliff. There is little to nothing "united" about the United States. We are split along party lines, and for many, their views are intractable.
Our only hope is to someday get leadership that might actually try to bring us together. We absolutely don't have it now. Watching Obama's "press conference" on Monday was an embarrassment. He basically blamed Republicans and said they've got another thing coming if they don't do what he wants. That is most definitely not leadership meant to inspire and unite.
That leadership used to exist in the name of JESUS CHRIST.. Now to many of us are no different than the communist atheist nations. Just sayin
Iran called - they want their religious nut bags back.
More mumbo-jumbo BULLSH!T. How about this.......DO NOT SPEND MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN.
Is that too damn difficult for politicians to understand?
Well, that may be what you think the Dems stand for but isn't that better than,
DO NOT SPEND MORE, after Bush's tax cuts, THAN YOU TAKE IN.
All presidents have run deficits including Clinton, but it wasn't till Obama that they went ballistic.
Just because Bush got away with idling through a stop sign doesn't mean Obama gets away with vehicular manslaughter.
Mathless Phil,
Federal Deficit FY 2009 (July 2008-July 2009) at $1.4 trillion, as Bush exited WH Jan 2009.
Federal Defcit FY 2013 (July 2012-July 2013) at $901 billion after 4 yrs of Obama.
US spending.com
This is a decrease of $499 billion of the Federal deficit (not the public debt).....case closed.
@Lance Vargo,
Unfunded Coporater tax cuts are federal deficit expenditures. What do you not understand about that, Bozo????
Happy New Year!!!
The Senate passed a deal!!!!
They took the Budget Control Act and swapped it for what was behind door #3. More taxes and no less spending.
WE GOT ZONKED!
Yes, absolutely ridiculous that we just (or rather as usual, Democrats raise taxes for increased spending) move ahead with more taxes but NO budget cuts!
There is not an iota of leadership in a man who tries to increase spending when already using China as a credit card and his own nation's economy is horsesh*t.
Who the f*ck voted for this man (and clearly got suckered by the Hollywood charm and smoke)?
We are a nation of drama queens, crisis after crisis, fad after fad for the most part. Who is the money for? Chicago,Detroit,Oakland,Philadelphia,Boston, New York, St. Louis, Kansas City, Miami,Pittsburg, Cleveland, etc.,the old ports and manufacturing hubs, who products and services waned, and political corruption took over. When we built the interstate highway system, then came the gas guzzling cars and the suburbs and the malls. Populations who once lived around the heavy industrial centers moved away, and large older cities went into decay. Now we have on line shopping to compete with mall shopping, just as mall shopping once competed with "downtown" shopping. The union labor force was once strong, because of the destruction around the world from WWII, and the nation's industrial development to fight that war, not social commitment and ideals for Utopia. Ideals for Utopia have always been around, and never been met. The tax rates will have more effect on those who work in the entertainment industry, than work in manufacturing, agriculture and the like. A carpenter, plumber, electrician, etc., is going to have one hell of a work schedule to make $400,000 a year. You just don't see water pipe connecting on YouTube popularity surveys.
I am so sick of Republicans and their self-centered policies. They would gladly throw the country under the bus just to get their own way.
And Dem's would point their fat little chubby fingers like they always do.. Oh and spend spend spend :)
Huh?
President Obama and Democrats are just as guilty of your second sentence. Get off the weed, Deb.
Yeah, I'll bet your sick. Sick of anyone who might ask you to be responsible for yourself instead of sucking the hind tit of government your entire miserable life.
United we stand, divided we fall...playing right into this regime's game-plan. Nice to see 2013 start off with more of the same old finger pointing, dissing each other, "my-way-or-the-highway" selfish B.S. Rip versus Dum...screw the two-party system we are either being played like a worn out fiddle or a cracked ping-pong ball in a never ending volley...take you pick. Greece... in two years we'll be right there with ya only on GRAND SCALE! and, don't anyone bitch when they come out of the grocery store with a plastic bag in each hand costing well over $100. Keep on printing that paper backed by air molecules Fed. MAN, we have a boatload of dunces on this sinking ship. Money doesn't grow on trees, Santa never lived, you spend more than you take in and you are f##ked....ACT YOUR WAGE...(revenue). Enjoy your Happy New Year folks...good luck.
Beev...yeah, well, try and convince some dumbass Obama supporter who thinks the world is a big ass lollypop and this country can go right on spending and printing without consequences. Morons. They are either too dumb to understand, too stoned to comprehend or they just don't care.
All you have to do is watch. The Fed prints money, and within the week prices on goods and grocerys at the market go up at least 5%. When they print money (listen Pigotry) the value of the paper money in circulation gets devalued. So it takes more money to purchase the same item, then it did the week earlier. The people it hurts most are the fixed income people because thier dollars do not buy as much as they did earlier. Of course the government officials can give themselves a pay raise to make up for it, Very few of us can do the same. The other method they use is to raise taxes, Government simply raises taxes and we have less to spend on our utilites. food, and other things, of course the government keeps spending more, because they can always raise taxes more.
Like millions of us, I am sick and tired of the way the 112th Congress behaved. Its ratings, justifiably so, are in the toilet. The 113th Congress, both parties and both Houses, need desperately to chose new leaders. Perhaps that will work?
You voted them in. You get what you asked for.
I'm perfectly happy with the members of congress who show some backbone and don't suddenly become deaf and dumb once they get to Washington DC. I hope the House of Representatives vote this Senate agreement down, bigtime. If you choose to call that ineffective or unwilling to compromise, damn straight. What good does compromise do if by compromising you give away only half the store each time instead of the entire store all at once. Screw compromising. Stop this idiotic spending that these lib addicts insist on.
.
I'm all for stopping spending on you.
Your comment might have some merit if you had two nickels to rub together. But, since you are no doubt a lib big spender, you're broke on your ass.
William....by the way, the federal government doesn't spend a dime on me. Of course, I understand why spending cuts frighten you. Get a job you friggen bum.
"...the federal government doesn't spend a dime on me."
You might want to rethink that Lance.
Our government is demeaning the principles in which this nation was founded. They are killing us with a thousand paper cuts, a slow and painful process of taking baby steps toward any resolution, taxes one month, budget cuts the next, raising the deficit the next while we watch our net worth sink into the abyss. I'm sure one of our high schools in America could hammer out a logical agreement better than our inept congress. I've never complained about our government in my 65 years as I assumed we sent our best and brightest to Washington to govern this great nation. I was way too naive. Let's start electing those who are not staunch Republicans or Democrats, but logical Americans who can work together. We are embarrassing ourselves in front of the world.
We need to (but certainly will not) re-frame the issue. We can raise $X in Taxes and we can spend it on $Y programs. We have a choice in $Y about whether to spend it on Defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc. We can accurately predict what $Y is now and what it will be in the future, but we can't rely on $X beyond a certain amount. We know that the increase in $X is more driven by the economy than tax policy. So how do we drastically change $Y (spending) while doing the least to hurt the growth in $X. Only a smidgen of the answer is in taxing people making $400K. Most of the answer is in adjusting $Y. And that, my friends is something our Goverment will never do. Welcome to 2013.
Mike 416: You need to change your friends, none of mine use the "N" word, never have and I would NEVER tolerate it.
.
The House Republican tea nuts are determined to wreck the US economy as required by their billionaire owners who want their tax breaks preserved -- let the serfs(middle class and seniors on SS) pay the taxes.
They will reject the Senate bill or amend so badly it cannot pass the Senate.
The longer these nuts fail to do their job the more likely a military coup in the USA. The generals will feel their higher duty is to preserve the country -- not Congress.
.
William...get back on your corner with sign that says you'll work for dog food. While you're wasting time at the computer down at the Wi-Fi coffee shop, some other bum has your panhandling corner.
You're damn straight the House will vote down this piece of sh!t Senate bill that calls for 600+ billion in new revenue with only 20 billion in spending cuts. Only broke welfare bums like you want to piss away more money for nothing.
Correction broke welfare bums don't want to piss away more money, they want to piss away someone else's money. (Cus that's fair!!!)