H.R. 8 as amended by the Senate passes in the House, will become law

H.R. 8 As Amended (January 1, 2013, 01:39 AM) Permanently extend the 2012 income tax rates at $400,000 single filing, $450,000 joint filing and below ($620 billion in new revenue over 10 years), keep the estate tax threshold at $5 million and extend unemployment benefits for one year.

Amended to include an extension of the child tax credit and the college tuition credit for five years, individual and business tax extenders for two years, and the Medicare "doc fix" for one year. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be permanently fixed. The agreement also extends the farm bill for 1 year and prevents a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.

Senate Vote: 89 – 8 [Republicans: 40 – 5; Democrats 49 – 3] (3 not voting)
House Vote: 257 – 167 [Republicans: 85 – 151; Democrats 172 – 16] (11 not voting)

Now on to:
Debt Ceiling – due ≈ the end of Feb
Sequester – new date end of Mar
CR for budget – due end of Mar

Divided is convenient. They ALL (Reps and Dems) need a nice little pink slip and a swift kick in the ass.

i believe there are many areas to cut. there is documentation indicating the duplicity of federal agencies / departments; all of the pork -- no exceptions; defense; so-called entitlements including SS, Medicare and Medicaid; ACA; we do not need an education department at the federal level; the energy department, without a clear energy policy from an administration is a waste; the epa has outlived much of its need and can be significantly reduced; and more.

i assume you are referring to limbaugh? as an entertainer just like the msnbc line-up i do not listen to him or the radical left equivalents.

is there a limit on how much tax -- sales, property, state, gas, federal, social security, medicare, medical device and other aca taxes, excise tax -- anyone should be paying?

There is hope.

Such division among House Republicans is a good thing as least for those who broke ranks and voted to end this ridiculous self-imposed 'fiscal cliff.' At least these House Republicans put the country first, put aside their conservative dogma, and are willing to be pragmatic.

Cantor once again has outmaneuvered Boehner and put a knife in his back. Cantor was all supportive about getting a Senate bill an up or down vote in the House, forcing Boehner's hand, then voted against it along with two thirds of his party. Anyone taking bets on Thursday's Speaker vote?

Now that we've kicked the can a few more months I'm beginning to think that the forced cuts were maybe the best option. If the government said to each department that they needed to save 10% (not unlike the private sector had to do the last few years- upwards of 30%) then each department could/would have to develop a plan to continue to delivery their mandate while taking some of the government waste out of their system. An example, auto fleets. Many government agencies carry huge car fleets and renew them often. What if a government agency decided that they'd rather pay their employees a higher reimbursable rate/mile instead of paying for the car, maintenance, coverage insurance, gas, storage and staffing requirements, etc. on an entire fleet? Let the employee take on the liabilties of driving their own car AND pay less then running a fleet of cars. I'm sure that there are many, many innovative ways that government agencies could save massive amounts of money without changing their operations much.

You have to admit it, there is a LOT of waste in our federal government. Just cutting out some of that waste, streamlining their processes/making them more efficient, and making them figure out where the cuts are most valuable could work. Yeah, but it takes thought and a reason- neither of which comes easily when you aren't held responsible for your work.

Good Morning everyone and Happy New Year. I've been off for the holidays and I'm tanned, rested and ready for the new year and what will no doubt be the new fights.

It's a wonderful, crisp, sunshiny morning out here on the prairie and all it right with the world.

We've been snatched back from the fiscal cliff (temporarily) and we were able to avoid another GOP-inspired financial catastrophe without giving any credit (where it was certainly no due) to the GOP. In fact the headlines today say it all.

Folks, once again, we need to take a little reality break. The three largest components of our national budget are DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE/MEDICAID. That's not the whole picture but it's roughly 75% of the total.

So here's what I suggest. START CUTTING WITH DEFENSE SPENDING. When you've made a many cuts in Defense as you can without cutting into muscle, then we'll talk about equaling those cuts in other places. Everything is on the table, once you start with Defense.

Now, that's not what the GOP wants to do. They want to cut Social Security and Medicare because those are SOCIALIST PROGRAMS. They've always been against them from start to finish. You need to understand that. They want to strangle them to death while they line the pockets of Defense contractors for more hardware that we don't need.

That's why we've got to draw the line and thanks to the GOP it's going to be easier and easier to do so.

So, Happy New Year everyone. I can't wait until 2014. It looks like there are about 151 ditto-head congressmen on the GOP side of the aisle that need to find new jobs.

All 3 House are to blame ... It should never have reach this point.

@Billybob-While I don't agree with everything you said, I do agree with the idea. There could have been worse things than going over the "cliff" with the automatic spending cuts. Everyone agrees that spending needs to be reduced. The argument comes in deciding what programs to cut. Dems want to retain social programs. Repubs want to retain military spending. Then neither gets cut and along comes a natural disaster or war and we go deeper in debt. Someone needs to realize that (a) there will always be poor people and while they may need assistance in surviving, it is not a way of life; and, (b) we are not the solution for all the world's problems. Our military should be used to save ourselves from attack (including invasions across the border) and we should let others go their own course. When that occurs, we may be able to pull out of this mess.

The real test is how good the voter's memories will be over the next few election cycles. For the next election, people will remember who either voted no or obstructed the negotiations on this deal. After that, many people will forget everything prior to the current campaign and swallow whatever version of the truth they are fed along with campaign promises and rhetoric.

It's up to the President and the Democrats to keep this active and present on the minds of voters so that people don't forget and take us back to the same GOP policies that got us into this mess.

@Skip, on Sunday, I encouraged everyone to go to this site, study all of the information there, then post here where THEY would make the cuts or STFU about this whole taxes vs. spending cuts issue. As you posted, my first suggestion was DOD cuts, including all of those "no bid" contracts. We need to seriously cut back the whole MIC influence on our economy and their power in DC. All overlapping divisions of the various departments/agencies need to be combined into an appropriate new streamlined department/agency. Means testing for all entitlement programs (and I DON"T consider SS and Medicare to be entitlements since we have all paid into them throughout our adult working life as insurance for the future) should be applied to all expenditures in these programs with strict adherence to the rules, and again this includes all of those corporate entitlements (subsidies, etc.) Many of the grant programs also need to be eliminated. Those are just a few of my starter suggestions, along with a total elimination of our current tax system to be replaced by a Gross Income Tax system that I've been proposing here on Newsvine for many months now.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_budget_2013USbn_13bs1n_006065#usgs302

OK, Billybob, let's look at your list:

there is documentation indicating the duplicity of federal agencies

Cool, I'm with that, but lets see the list.

all of the pork

Once again, I agree, but who determines what is 'pork'?

so-called entitlements including SS, Medicare and Medicaid; ACA;

SS is not an entitlement. Medicare and Medicaid are, but would you prefer our country to allow people to die without medical treatment, like a 3rd world country? Perhaps a better way to attack it is to find ways to lower medical costs instead of cutting off medical access.

ACA is an entitlement only in so far as it raises the amount of people on medicaid. The majority of the bill guarantees access to purchase medical insurance, not free government issued insurance. I would go a step further though and ask why countries like Germany can offer universal healthcare and still have healthy growth and low national debt. What are they doing that we aren't?

we do not need an education department

Agreed. States do this well enough.

the energy department, without a clear energy policy from an administration is a waste

Agreed as well, but how big is this department or the department of education. How much could really be saved?

defense

Totally agree 100%, but how do we fix what was already spent (wasted) these last 12 years on BS wars for nothing?

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City,

I agree with your analysis regarding spending, but when you look at the projections for the budget estimates for the next 5 years, it already shows a decrease of $100 billion for each year in military spending (reduced from $905 billion in 2012 to $799 billion in 2014 and remaining at that level).

Unfortunately, the projected cuts in defense are more than made up in SS and Medicare/Medicaid which are projected to increase about $150 billion each year, compounding.

So over the next 5 years, defense already shows a cut of $446 billion. SS, Medicare and Medicaid show an increase of $1.76 trillion over the same 5 years. In fact in 5 years, just the increase in SS, Medicare and Medicaid will be equal to the total defense spending over 2012 levels.

It seems to me that the 500 pound gorilla which needs tackled is the entitlement spending.

jj -- thanks for your comments. one of my concerns with too much defense cutting is that we revert to an isolationist nation much like we did after WW I. While our nation's borders at the time of WW II were never seriously threatened it was imperative that we get involved and defend our country which we did in a strong and united way.

i do not think we need as much of an international presence of military bases however i do not believe we should close them all. i would also suggest that reducing our troops to levels done by clinton was detrimental though i believe some reductions are needed and possible.

The part of the article to take note of is in regard to Teapublican presidential hopefuls, Marco Rubio The Great GOP Hispanic Hope and Paul Ryan Lord of the Flies (thanks John for that fitting title). These two punks lack the gravitas to be POTUS now or ever, but it's interesting that Rubio who usually tries to be moderate took the rigid position, and Ryan the fiscal radical took the pragmatic position.

Perhaps because Paul Ryan had a close race? Speaking of which...

As for Allen West's comment: "The day is coming when principled pragmatic Constitutional Conservatives will be sought after to restore the American Republic, and we will answer the call," it only confirms my assertion that Teapublicans are unable to learn, no matter how severe the teachable moment (and are incapable of interpreting the Constitution regardless of a call). B-bye Allen West, don't let the door hit ya in the arse on your way out.

TruePatriot, Paul Ryan did vote for it. Did you mean eric cantor?

From the article above:

which garnered only 85 Republican ayes compared to 151 Republican nos.

Looks like we have enough Republicans in the House to get things done now.

...Obama owns what happens to the economy after last night vote...

I'll agree with that.

Because this year, and the next four, America is going to lead the world out of this Bush Recession as the economy grows and people get back to work.

Salud

The Republican party has lost it's mind, it's direction and it's heart. They do not care about the average American. They care about their donors!! Barack Obama's donors are MOSTLY average Americans and he is listening to us. The Republican party acts like a bunch of spoiled children, crying about food stamps but willing to give millions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies! They are their own worst enemy! They are American enemies! Traitors, I would call them. They do nothing to help this country unless it involves giving more money to their donors. They all need to be voted out! This continual hostage taking and political blackmail has to stop! They are not defending us or keeping us from becoming like Greece. What they want IS the REASON Greece is the way it is!! You can't keep cutting from the bottom. You have to cut from the top sometimes too! The Average American needs to thrive for a while. Corporations sure have been for the past 30 years while wages have stagnated.

The ONLY REAL FIX is to Raise Revenue, by Bringing Back Jobs to US Citizens who Pay Income Tax.

Massive cutting just puts more people on unemployment, which just depresses the economy even further.

Returning private sector jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead. We need our elected officials to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. We need leaders who will actually stand up for the American people.

The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

Wouldn't it be More Productive if Our Elected Leaders Started Working Together as AMERICANS for AMERICANS and AMERICA, instead of just bickering, stalling and posturing for the next election as democrats and republicans! The American People have had it with this unproductive BS! The way that both parties having been operating for years just stinks! Neither party has really been looking out for the best interests of the US Citizens who elect them and who they're supposed to represent.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide.

It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens. All the single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go!

Both parties need to start working together and actually start doing something to fix the real problems in our country like "out-sourcing", illegal immigration, the out of control costs of health care insurance and our reliance on foreign fuel. If they don't start working together and actually start making progress by the next election, then American citizens should run a nation-wide campaign to vote out all incumbents regardless of party to send the message.

And yes - I'm Angry - As are most American Citizens right now!

You may want to copy this for future reference. How they all voted in both the Senate and the House. Useful information. See how your Congressmen voted.

I apoligize for the length, couldn't figure out a way to put it in a table format.

SENATE ROLL CALL ON FISCAL CLIFF DEAL

The 89-8 roll call Tuesday by which the Senate passed the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012, which broke the "fiscal cliff" stalemate.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 47 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 independents.

Voting no were 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

ALABAMA

Sessions (R), Yes; Shelby (R), No.

ALASKA

Begich (D), Yes; Murkowski (R), Yes.

ARIZONA

Kyl (R), Yes; McCain (R), Yes.

ARKANSAS

Boozman (R), Yes; Pryor (D), Yes.

CALIFORNIA

Boxer (D), Yes; Feinstein (D), Yes.

COLORADO

Bennet (D), No; Udall (D), Yes.

CONNECTICUT

Blumenthal (D), Yes; Lieberman (I), Yes.

DELAWARE

Carper (D), No; Coons (D), Yes.

FLORIDA

Nelson (D), Yes; Rubio (R), No.

GEORGIA

Chambliss (R), Yes; Isakson (R), Yes.

HAWAII

Akaka (D), Yes; Schatz (D), Yes.

IDAHO

Crapo (R), Yes; Risch (R), Yes.

ILLINOIS

Durbin (D), Yes; Kirk (R), Not Voting.

INDIANA

Coats (R), Yes; Lugar (R), Yes.

IOWA

Grassley (R), No; Harkin (D), No.

KANSAS

Moran (R), Yes; Roberts (R), Yes.

KENTUCKY

McConnell (R), Yes; Paul (R), No.

LOUISIANA

Landrieu (D), Yes; Vitter (R), Yes.

MAINE

Collins (R), Yes; Snowe (R), Yes.

MARYLAND

Cardin (D), Yes; Mikulski (D), Yes.

MASSACHUSETTS

Brown (R), Yes; Kerry (D), Yes.

MICHIGAN

Levin (D), Yes; Stabenow (D), Yes.

MINNESOTA

Franken (D), Yes; Klobuchar (D), Yes.

MISSISSIPPI

Cochran (R), Yes; Wicker (R), Yes.

MISSOURI

Blunt (R), Yes; McCaskill (D), Yes.

MONTANA

Baucus (D), Yes; Tester (D), Yes.

NEBRASKA

Johanns (R), Yes; Nelson (D), Yes.

NEVADA

Heller (R), Yes; Reid (D), Yes.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ayotte (R), Yes; Shaheen (D), Yes.

NEW JERSEY

Lautenberg (D), Not Voting; Menendez (D), Yes.

NEW MEXICO

Bingaman (D), Yes; Udall (D), Yes.

NEW YORK

Gillibrand (D), Yes; Schumer (D), Yes.

NORTH CAROLINA

Burr (R), Yes; Hagan (D), Yes.

NORTH DAKOTA

Conrad (D), Yes; Hoeven (R), Yes.

OHIO

Brown (D), Yes; Portman (R), Yes.

OKLAHOMA

Coburn (R), Yes; Inhofe (R), Yes.

OREGON

Merkley (D), Yes; Wyden (D), Yes.

PENNSYLVANIA

Casey (D), Yes; Toomey (R), Yes.

RHODE ISLAND

Reed (D), Yes; Whitehouse (D), Yes.

SOUTH CAROLINA

DeMint (R), Not Voting; Graham (R), Yes.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Johnson (D), Yes; Thune (R), Yes.

TENNESSEE

Alexander (R), Yes; Corker (R), Yes.

TEXAS

Cornyn (R), Yes; Hutchison (R), Yes.

UTAH

Hatch (R), Yes; Lee (R), No.

VERMONT

Leahy (D), Yes; Sanders (I), Yes.

VIRGINIA

Warner (D), Yes; Webb (D), Yes.

WASHINGTON

Cantwell (D), Yes; Murray (D), Yes.

WEST VIRGINIA

Manchin (D), Yes; Rockefeller (D), Yes.

WISCONSIN

Johnson (R), Yes; Kohl (D), Yes.

WYOMING

Barrasso (R), Yes; Enzi (R), Yes.

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

HOUSE ROLL CALL ON FISCAL CLIFF DEAL
=====================================

The 257-167 roll call Tuesday by which the House passed the agreement that avoided the so-called fiscal cliff of middle-class tax increases and spending cuts and sent the measure to President Barack Obama.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans.

Voting no were 16 Democrats and 151 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 3 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats - Sewell, Y.

Republicans - Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans - Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats - Barber, Y; Grijalva, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, N; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats - Ross, Y.

Republicans - Crawford, N; Griffin, N; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats - Baca, Y; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, X; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, X.

Republicans - Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, N; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, X; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats - DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans - Coffman, N; Gardner, N; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats - Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

DELAWARE

Democrats - Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats - Brown, Y; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans - Adams, N; Bilirakis, N; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Nugent, N; Posey, N; Rivera, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, N; West, N; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats - Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, X; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans - Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, N; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, N.

HAWAII

Democrats - Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans - Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats - Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans - Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, Y; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, N; Schilling, N; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats - Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans - Bucshon, N; Burton, X; Pence, N; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, N.

IOWA

Democrats - Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans - King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Republicans - Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, N; Pompeo, N; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats - Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans - Guthrie, N; Massie, N; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats - Richmond, Y.

Republicans - Alexander, Y; Boustany, N; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats - Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats - Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans - Bartlett, N; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats - Capuano, Y; Frank, Y; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats - Clarke, Y; Conyers, Y; Curson, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y.

Republicans - Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, N; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats - Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, Y.

Republicans - Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats - Thompson, Y.

Republicans - Harper, N; Nunnelee, N; Palazzo, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats - Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y.

Republicans - Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, X; Hartzler, N; Long, N; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans - Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans - Fortenberry, Y; Smith, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats - Berkley, Y.

Republicans - Amodei, N; Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans - Bass, Y; Guinta, N.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats - Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans - Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats - Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y.

Republicans - Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats - Ackerman, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y.

Republicans - Buerkle, X; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y; Turner, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats - Butterfield, Y; Kissell, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, Y; Shuler, Y; Watt, Y.

Republicans - Coble, Y; Ellmers, N; Foxx, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans - Berg, N.

OHIO

Democrats - Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Sutton, Y.

Republicans - Austria, N; Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Gibbs, N; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, N; Schmidt, N; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats - Boren, Y.

Republicans - Cole, Y; Lankford, N; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats - Blumenauer, N; Bonamici, Y; DeFazio, N; Schrader, N.

Republicans - Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats - Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans - Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats - Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats - Clyburn, Y.

Republicans - Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans - Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats - Cohen, Y; Cooper, N.

Republicans - Black, N; Blackburn, N; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, N; Fincher, N; Fleischmann, N; Roe, N.

TEXAS

Democrats - Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, Y.

Republicans - Barton, N; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Canseco, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Farenthold, N; Flores, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, X; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats - Matheson, N.

Republicans - Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats - Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats - Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans - Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Griffith, N; Hurt, N; Rigell, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats - DelBene, Y; Dicks, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans - Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats - Rahall, Y.

Republicans - Capito, N; McKinley, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats - Baldwin, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y.

Republicans - Duffy, N; Petri, N; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans - Lummis, N.

Our economic problems didn't happen overnight. It's been happening over the past 15-20 years, but the economy was kept going by middle class Americans tapping into the equity on their homes until they were completely tapped out.

It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about doing the right thing for our country and the majority of its citizens. I consider myself an independent voter, but going back to the Reagan days and with the only exception having been Perot, I’ve always voted Republican. But all this single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go! This is the problem with our country. It shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide. (Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals or cheap easily abused labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA) Our leaders are elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to represent the interests of those citizens and the country itself. They are NOT elected by the Global Market Place or foreign citizens!

We need our elected officals to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. We need leaders who will actually stand up for the American people.

We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

I guess we should keep letting Corp Boards, Wall Street, CEOs and Foreign Lobbyists promote sending US jobs to countries where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or no real environment regulations. How's that been working for us?

The so called “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "out sourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world’s customer base out of work. I’m not a lefty or member of any union. I run a business that employs over 20 people and produces products that are purchased by customers that do manufacturing and packaging. I’m just an average Joe, but I've been saying this for more than 10 years now. If I can see it, so can our so called leaders (political leaders) who are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

We need to add tariffs that are proportionate to the inequities in wages and regulations in the country where the goods were produced and or where we’re importing them from. We could then use the money raised by these tariffs to help companies build state of the art manufacturing plants here in the USA, which would create more jobs here at home for US citizens, which would then in turn increase our income tax revenue.

The people with all of the excuses as to why we can’t or aren’t willing to manufacture products here in the US are the same people who have provided us with the thinking that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Over the past 15-20 years, I've seen too many of our customer's close manufacturing plants here in the USA and move those plants to different countries, decimating entire areas here in OUR COUNTRY. And I'm not alone. Returning jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead.

Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let’s keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

These so-called “free trade agreements” have to go. It was obvious when they were passing these agreements as to what was going to happen and sure enough it did. Our leaders had to have known this as well when they were passing these bills. It’s just common sense. We also need to bring customer support services back to the United States of America and staff them with employees who are US Citizens.

The “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field! The whole idea of the tariffs is so we can pay our factory workers a decent wage and not be blown out by these other countries where they don’t play by the same rules.

Had Romney talked more about protecting American jobs earlier on in the campaign, rather than waiting for the last two presidential debates, I think voters would have thought that he had more substance and might actually be on the side of the middle class. When he finally talked about the use of tariffs, leveling the playing field, China's unethical trade practices and bringing manufacturing back to the USA is when I finally decided to vote for him. Before that, I couldn't believe what a joke he was and felt that he was the exact opposite of what middle class Americans (US Citizens) needed. It was also hard to get around Bain and that 47% comment, which just confirmed even more that he was who he was we thought he was. He came across completely different during the debates than he did during the bulk of his campaign. But even though I voted for him, I can't say that I really trusted him to enact tariffs and other measures that would protect the jobs of US citizens. Also his automatically attaching a green card to every college diploma that foreigners receive comment was an indication of how he thinks as well.

What should be dealt with? Illegal immigration and the drain on entitlements that are coupled with anchor babies and illegals.

OK, so you are correct, it IS a major drain. Now, how do we deal with it? How much would it cost to strictly enforce this law? We would need to hire tens of thousands of law enforcement officers to deal with the millions of illegals.

What happens when we get rid of a significant amount of illegals? Would the law enforcement personnel hired to handle the situation be scaled back, or would we have a new Homeland Security-type of government branch to deal with illegals into perpetuity? How much would that cost?

What limits would we put into effect to ensure a war on illegals does not turn into the joke known as the war on drugs? Incidentally this is why I am against a war on guns, where does it end?

Who would you consider an illegal alien? Are you going to grandfather in anyone? Would you support law enforcement going door to door to root out illegal aliens in hiding? What if someone who is legal gets deported on accident?

What will you do if their legal country of residence refuses to take them back? Do we go to war with them to force their hand. What happens if the host country doesn't view a child born in the US to be a legal resident of their country either?

Please take a moment and think about those questions.

The 2014 Congressional GOP campaigns are going to be fascinating to watch. It will finally make or break the Party for the next decade or longer.

To all working Americans, when you look at your paycheck in the coming months and see that more taxes are being deducted and the cost of your health care has gone up, just remember you can thank Mr. Obama for that.

When I look at my paycheck and see the 2% social security tax restored, I will only think of the republicans who refused to even consider letting the tax holiday continue. Funny how they fought against raising taxes for top earners though. Think about that for a second.

paws......

Big Oil welfare, Big Pharma welfare, Insurances Industry welfare, no-bid contractors welfare etc. etc. etc.

BillyBob

duplicity of federal agencies / departments;

Although I good idea on the surface, keep in mind that any removal of duplicate agencies is removing JOBS. That means more people will become unemployed, and those new unemployed citizens will not spend money at businesses (aka: job creation places).

So, I can support the idea of removing duplicate agencies, but we also have to be realistic. This will increased unemployment by the number of jobs removed, the new unemployed will not have money to spend in businesses, those businesses will lose customers and revenue, that revenue loss may contribute to higher unemployment. We do not live in a fantasy world where killing jobs will have no adverse affect. This is reality.

all of the pork -- no exceptions

Nice bumper sticker... do you have any specifics and details?

defense

Agreed, specifically in the budgets that the various military departments can not spend, so they end up wasting the money.

so-called entitlements including SS, Medicare and Medicaid; ACA

Given that senior citizens are the most active voting block (because they have nothing else to do with their life), this is political suicide. The reason we see so few details on HOW we cut from these programs is proof of that. Every GOP politician loves to talk about cutting these, but they all get surprisingly silent when asked for specifics. Why? Because they know they will lose votes as soon as they give the details to grandma and grandpa.

This is purely politics. Every politician knows we need to change it, but none of them want to suggest details because they are protecting their own job. Why do you think Romney and Ryan lost Florida? Because Ryan gave details on medicare changes and the old people freaked out. Politics 101: You touch SS or medicare, you lose a major voting block.

we do not need an education department at the federal level

Given that many GOP run states are pushing religious education over science, these states are raising a generation of morons who believe a man can live in the belly of a whale, instead of proper biology... or that the answer to a drought is to "pray" for rain. Hell, they might as well do a f***ing rain-dance while they are at it.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my money from my progressive state going to support these ignorant, inbred, trailer-park, republican morons ... because they decided to believe in a fairy-tale instead of learning real science, and now (surprise) they can't find a job.

So as long as we have states pushing the ignorance that is religion over actual science, they can not be trusted to get the job done themselves. We need an educated populace, not a fantasy-loving generation that tackles every problem with a cult-like chant.

the energy department, without a clear energy policy from an administration is a waste

Agreed.

the epa has outlived much of its need and can be significantly reduced

Unfortunately I disagree. Businesses have proven time and time again that, without regulation, they will pollute the F*** out of anything and everything, as long as it makes them a dollar. They simply do not care. Personally, I enjoy clean air and drinkable water... but I guess that makes me crazy.

This battle is not resolved, only forestalled. Those Republicans are likely to try their next act of blackmail in two months over the debt ceiling. Obama, in his remarks last night after the bill was passed, said to let's not frighten people any more over this. I hope he really means that because this standoff frightened many I am sure. It ruined the Christmas holiday as people sat in front of their TV's biting their nails wondering what they would get hit with. In two months, it will happen all over again. Don't make big plans for Valentine's Day because there will be nail-biting in front of the TV again as these crazy Republicans try more blackmail. This time they will frighten granny concerning Medicare and Social Security. Obama better rest up in Hawaii now because he will be having another showdown. No doubt, it will be the military vs. granny. If Obama has balls he will end all the overseas wars abruptly and close a few foreign bases. Now it is time to spare granny and cut our overseas adventurism (which is not working anyway).

I sure wish these Republicans would go away forever. They will never end their budgetary blackmail. They will keep holding the economy hostage over and over away as they extort more cuts. This is a form of economic terrorism. I think Obama should use the terrorism laws on the books and arrest these Republican crazies in the house as terrorists, ship them off to Guantanamo and water-board them after placing them in cells next to Al Quaida. I don't ever want to see them again. From now on I will call them the "Tea Party Terrorists."

Seriously though, those Tea Party sorts need to be voted out as soon as possible. The Democratic Party needs to target those districts specifically to get rid of them. We will never have peace until they are gone. When the congressional election comes up in two years, people need to be reminded of the hell they put us all through. Perhaps they should make a documentary about what they just did and about what they will do in two months and record it for all time. Then, in two years, play it in those districts. The Dems need to get every warm body out to vote them out in those districts. Dems better make sure they run their best candidates to oppose them and fund them well. We gotta get this cancer out of the body politic.

KingK

To all working Americans, when you look at your paycheck in the coming months and see that more taxes are being deducted and the cost of your health care has gone up, just remember you can thank Mr. Obama for that

The Bush tax cuts expired at midnight.

The President will sign into legislation the new bill just past giving the majority of American's the largest tax break in history.

The ACA will give Americans much financial releif after seeing the skyrocketing premiums from the insurance companies rape the American public.

Sorry to burst your Faux sNEWzzzzz bubble and continued Right-Wing media talking points BS, but this President is helping average, middle class and poor Americans.

Thank you President Obama, for continuing to stand up for the Middle class.

Shame on you for continuing to spread lies.

Salud

I read an analysis today of the tax provisions of the cliff legislation - the takeaway is that this will make permanent a significant majority of the Bush tax cut program. Bush tried without success to accomplish this without success during his presidency, and now a majority of Democrats have fulfilled Bush's objective in the name of fairness to the middle class and necessity for the economy. It seems a perhaps unintended consequence of the current legislative circus is a small step toward the rehabilitation of the Bush legacy - politics can be strange!

If anyone had any doubts about the tea party agenda being the political arm of America's nabobs, these should be removed by now. Boehner cannot lead these buffoons any more than one can conjure away warts by the recitation of Voodoo scripture. Just watch when they put forth the spending cuts they want. Won't be the wasteful military armaments. Won't be the purely duplicative Homeland security. Won't be all the Oil, and general corporate subsidies and tax credits. No. They desperately want to cut out all Medicare, Medicaid, and hopefully, position legislation that will finally allow their nabob masters to get their hands on Social Security Receipts. No gwaddamn wonder Boehner stays tight and weeps occasionally.

This has all been nothing but a huge dog and pony show by BOTH parties. We end up paying more taxes via raising social security taxes. And believe me they're not done yet. It's time for a new form of government without politics.

You know, or should know that something is very very wrong when a bill cant get passed unless there's billions of dollars in pork attached to it or when the wording causes you to pause and have to break out an abacus to figure out if you should vote yes or no, on a no means yes, and yes means no, piece of legislation.

Running this country really doesn't have to be this difficult. It's time the American people stand up and be heard. The government works for us, not the other way around!

No spending cut, not tax cut, no tax increase is ever permanent. All Permanent means is that it won't expire or rather kicked down the road.

Anything passes can be annuled by future legislation, especially cuts in spending.

The medicare 27% cut for payments to doctors has been blocked for about the 10th year in a row. The ACA makes that something like 33%. Bet that gets blocked annually too!

No matter what happens, there should be no deal of any kind without some kind of meaningful cut in federal spending. At the very least federal spending should be capped at 2012 levels. I am talking about at all levels of government. No cost of living, nothing. This includes discretionary and entitlement spending as well. If you are going to raise taxes on anyone, and they did, there should be cuts to go along with this that equal the tax increases. If democrats don't agree with this then shut down the federal government until they understand that deficit spending is killing this country. Time to man up.

Mac Forrester, that is why it might have been better if Obama let the cliff happen. If they had been the "economy crashers" we could have been rid of them. Now they will pull their %$@# again. Obama may have to let the default on the debt ceiling happen, but will he have the guts. He should call their bluff.

Another budget terrorist:

If democrats don't agree with this then shut down the federal government until they understand that deficit spending is killing this country. Time to man up.

They won't quit with this. Time to get rid of them.

I'm just saying...

TruePatriot, Paul Ryan did vote for it. Did you mean eric cantor?

Sorry if there was any confusion -- I posted that it's ironic Paul Ryan voted for it, but perhaps that's because he had a close race last time around. (And also since the cut-off was raised to $400-450K that covers a lot of members in Congress like Ryan who earns around that amount of income?).

But as someone else already pointed out, Senators have to win state-wide, unlike House representatives who gerrymandered their districts to create safe seats -- For example Eric Cantor. Thus the Republican vote in the senate was so different from the House.

mguy-478 -- BillyBob and the rest of his ilk get their panties in a twist over "ear mark" pork spending, though this spending is a teeny tiny drop in the bucket. Yet letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the richest 2% is not significant enough revenue to completely reduce the deficits, therefore why make any effort at all? Of course there is NO comparison -- The revenue generated from ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, especially the 2003 breaks on capital gains, etc. would have been a HUGE start toward balancing the budget.

Unfortunately, the Rule of Reason went out the window for the right-wing in the mid-1990s when FAUX Noise and Hate Radio began their roles as the GOP propaganda machine.

mojotech -- What are you talking about? You rightwingers have NO clue how Obamacare was funded, and you have NO clue about the FICA withholding (payroll taxes) for trust funds like Social Security. Do you think it is fair that the those who just received continued tax cuts on their first $400-450K earned should also pay into trust funds on only their first $110K? That's where it stands right now, and it is f'd up.

Every single piece of legislation seems to have short term lives (a year or less) causing an ever growing slate of legislation that must be debated and voted on annually (give or take) which will eventually strangle Congress.

Continuing Resolutions seem to have become the norm rather than the exception.

SS is not an entitlement. Medicare and Medicaid are,

They are all entitlements. SS and Medicare are entitlements you paid for, Medicaid is aid for the poor. "Entitlement" is not a dirty word. These are our rights. We are entitled to them because we paid for them. It is nothing to be embarrassed about.

I'm so tired of the Republican rant about entitlements. How about those subsidies for the oil companies????

Since when do the oil companies with highest profits in history need our tax payer dollars to subsidize them? Everybody should be raising hell about that.

@Empress-409341#1.49: Very much agree with you. Will the President have the guts? I hope so, but It remains to be seen. Regards

Moral of the story:The only one that can feel good about this is Obama. The rest of the nation will continue to be mired in high unemployment, increasing taxes, high gas prices, high utility prices, high food prices, etc... While at the same time Mr. Obama continues record pace deficit spending and debt building

You can thank Obama for the "record pace deficit spending and debt building." If he hadn't built up the debt, you would be in a Great Depression, not in a painfully slow but still steady recovery.

The deficit has been going down because of his policies. That is because tax receipts are up, which is the best way to raise taxes: grow the economy so that people are paying more taxes because they are making more money. Stop his "record spending" and the deficit would have been going up, not down.

As far as higher prices are concerned: in Obama's own words, "Well, if you elect Romney, sure gas will become much cheaper - gas prices are high because we are in a recovery."

When will the GOP say goodby to Grover Norquist? Until we remove this 'poopy-head' from the party ranks, we will never be rid of the uber-Right which has removed the Republican party's connection with the blue-collar middle class. And please send Todd Akin along with him it's time for an overhaul.

sorry so far down in the thread...

Bob James,

I hate to tell you this, but the election is over and Obama won. He isn't running anymore.

To those of you who think it is so simple to cut spending...want to eliminate the EPA or Education...peanuts. Like many have pointed out - look at where the money is. Defense, Social security, Medicare and Medicaid. The sequester cut defense 50 B for 10 years or 500B - I can still hear some Senaors crying. Cut the milk program...not a chance. Nobody wants to cut programs that favor their people.

The bottom line on medical spending is that it will never be cut until, as a society, we are willing to let people die. We can't afford to spend 500,000 on every baby boomer in the last 18 months of their life. We can't afford to give everybody every test or diagnosic proceedure.

Even though I am a died in the wool liberal, I am beginning to see Paul Ryan's voucher program in a better light. Maybe it is the right solution. Give every man, women and child a voucher redeemable at the medical facility or insurance company of their choice, and then when they make bad choices, let them die. It will be necessary to repeal the law requiring hospitals to care for the poor. They will have to die, just as Darwinian theory requires.

Considering that Congress has done nothing to address the fiscal crisis this country is facing, it's clear that the real losers are the American people. Every country that only has one political party has always oppressed its people. It is now clear that we have only one party in this country. They are the Socialist Party, a/k/a the Party out to destroy America, a/k/a the Democratic Party. I suppose that there could be an argument that there might be a second party, the Socialist Party Light, a/k/a the Assistant Party out to destroy America, a/k/a the Republican Party.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. The only people who have any sense of fiscal responsibility and really understand economics are now known as the Tea Party, a/k/a fiscal conservatives. It's clear they have no say in the Republican Party. We'll see how much of a say they do have in the new Congress. If the current GOP leadership is kept, then we know that there will be no fight to prevent Obama from continuing his destruction of the country (the term "rebuilding" has been used, which by necessity, includes first destroying what is there and then putting in something that is new).

Witchrunner,

What exactly is your point? Are you proposing the overthrow of our government?

As the republiClown's first goal, to make Obama a one term president, failed, I suggest they set a new goal to make President Obama limited to only two terms.

Now, there is a goal I think they can accomplish!

True, but now the GOP doesn't have to worry about Obama. He is gone in less than 4 years now and there is NOTHING he can do to stop it. True irony I'd say.. hehe.

SS is not an entitlement. Medicare and Medicaid are,

They are all entitlements. SS and Medicare are entitlements you paid for, Medicaid is aid for the poor. "Entitlement" is not a dirty word. These are our rights. We are entitled to them because we paid for them. It is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Beg to differ. Though we all pay for it, SS can only be collected by those who paid in (or their dependands if under 18). Medicare and medicaid are accessable to all who meet the criteria (not one being that they paid for it). Nitpicking, but it is different.

fiscal train wreck; 41 dollars in new taxes, for every 1 dollar in spending cuts; Congressional budget office; fiscal deal will add 3.6 trillion in new unfunded debt over the next 120 months, on top of the already projected 4.6 trillion in unfunded debts over the next 120 months; the train is going at full speed, no one in the engine, and sharp curb up a head.

rightwing:

It is illegal to use the military as a domestic force. That is what police are for. Would you really want the military to be used even if it was legal? How would justice be decided, according to civil justice, or military justice? Summary executions?

I would have responded to the rest of your post, but as soon as you used the word 'libtard' I quit reading your response.

BWnative - You're raving about big oil subs...Ok...I agree. I also say that Obama not give Solyndra $500 million when it's owned by a Democrat supporting billionaire. What company is so mismanaged that it can receive $500 mill and file bankruptcy within a year?

Bottomline is that all of these kickbacks should be eliminated. There's a big reduction in govt spending and that money could fund SS & Medicare.

This is the spending problem. Govt spends money in areas for agendas instead of spending what is right for America and being fiscally responsible. Both sides are guilty, but it is 100% a spending problem and that is going to be a major fight with all the lobbyists buying off your politicians right now.

The only people who have any sense of fiscal responsibility and really understand economics are now known as the Tea Party, a/k/a fiscal conservatives

Spouting off ignorant talking points without any substance does not make the tea party fiscally responsible or any good at economics. As an economics major, I would say their grasp of both macro and micro economics and especially money and backing is sorely, sorely lacking...

The FIRST budget cuts should go to FOREIGN AID. Aid americans first. The second budget cuts should go to the White House travel...we are in a recssion Mrs. O. you have to stay home. Sorry we can't travel because of th economy so you can't either. The $4,000,000.00 it took to pay for the travel and staff of the Obama's for Christmas in Hawaii is selfish and stupid. Obama should know this.

The EPA can be cut by 80%. ALL federal employee salaries and benefits (including congress) are frozen until there is a balanced budget IN PLACE. The Education department can be eliminated. Every other department cut by 20%...including the IRS so find another way to fine employers without OBAMACARE. Scrap ObamaCare. White House czars cut to 10. First lady staff cut to 2 as all others had. White House entertaining cut 50%. White House maintenance/staff/entertaining/purchases budget MUST be approved by the House. 50+ Christmas trees and they did not even spend Christmas in the White House as the Clintons and Bushs did????

Republicans claiming to be fiscal conservatives proved under Bush they aren't. Would a fiscal conservative raise our debt from 5.7 trillion to 12.1 as they did because they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave while never paying for anything? 2 wars, a 100 billion dollar drug plan and a 400 billion tax cut for, "job creators" that never created jobs? Funny that Bush's job creation record was the lowest since Eisenhower after his big giveaway.

Everyone is to blame, from the White House to Congress.

Why is the main stream media afraid to report the facts on Obama's wasteful spending and wasting our money for his enjoyment:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/02/obama-returns-hawaii-added-cost-3-million/

The Fiscal Cliff Illusion

Once you study the history of banking and finance; you will understand that the current US government consists mostly of self serving puppet lap dogs who kowtow to their international banker masters rather than serve the majority of citizens “We The People”. After financing both sides of every war since the conception of the United States, bastardizing commerce with their monetary system monopoly, benefiting only their greed and lust, the international banker cartel says we owe them a national debt. Now they figure they are entitled to take away benefits we worked for like slave laborers, to pay back FIAT money they created from nowhere by slight of hand mystical boga boo. The fiscal cliff is a crock, we owe them less than nothing. In realty those banksters owe us for centuries of illegal immoral unconstitutional monetary system monopolization by war profiteering bean counters; it's historical fact. For keeping our nation in perpetual utter moral default; it is they that are ethically bankrupt, we don't owe them, they owe us. It is time we follow our Constitution, Codes 18 USC § 242 and 42 USC § 1983 demanding a people's monetary system managed by our elected representatives based on the value of work and being humane rather than on corruption, usury and infinite greed.

Under Article 1 Section 8, assigning various powers to Congress, Clause 2 gives our Congress the authority to regulate commerce; impossible once they gave away the control of the monetary system to private international interests. In Clause 4 of this Section, Congress, elected officials, replaceable every two years, are to regulate the value of money, not a private for-profit banker cabal. On to Article 1, Section 9, clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published...” Under the criminal Federal Reserve, there is no public money, just public debt. Coincidentally on the day before the 9/11/01 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon lost over a trillion dollars. Monetary system monopolizers and war profiteers are the same 'klan'; if not, wouldn't the bankers find out where that money went? The next Clause begins, “ No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:”. Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman is also on the board of the Bank for International Settlements, the national debt is a fleecing of slavery. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional just like the First Bank charter to the Rothschilds. December 23, 1913 was not the first time we were sold out by our de facto lap dog government. Study Abe Lincoln and greenback interest free US dollars used to finance the Union Civil War effort. Study John F. Kennedy executive order 11110. For a short time, the US Treasury printed money independent of the bankster Reserve. Fair exchange of goods and services. We shall be free at last.

Ken Driessen

Hayward Wisconsin

The FIRST budget cuts should go to FOREIGN AID.

Bingo!

My reply to rightwingscrewball. The oil companies have had record profits for years. GM did not. That's the difference. Subsidies for oil doesn't make sense now does it? We saved jobs helping out GM. Big oil doesn't need any help now do they??

The Tea Party features people who have little grasp of history, economics and political science, let alone an accurate perception of the facts surrounding fiscal and monetary policy. This group is and has been ripe for manipulation by the demagogues in the media, or that have been elected to Congress over the last few years. The propaganda is so effective, that many folks vote against people and policies that would be in their their own best interests. One of the most important tenants of any propaganda machine, is not only to anger and mislead it's public, but to discourage it's followers from considering any other source of information as valid. Goebells did it in Nazi Germany and Pravda did it in the former USSR. Even the misleading titles of conservative propositions like Clean Coal or Clear Skies, seemingly take their cues directly from the aforementioned propagandists..as Pravda means "truth" in Russian and "The Big Lie" repeated often and with unswerving certainty, was a cornerstone of NAZI propaganda.

Pigotry

There is hope.

Such division among House Republicans is a good thing as least for those who broke ranks and voted to end this ridiculous self-imposed 'fiscal cliff.' At least these House Republicans put the country first, put aside their conservative dogma, and are willing to be pragmatic.

Stupidest statement out of the 3,600 so far. The fiscal cliff was put in to cut spending and the deficit. this manuever added 4 trillion in debt and simply kicked the can down the road for only 60 days. Complete waste of time and money, which is all DC knows how to do since Obama was put in charge.

Pigotry

There is hope.

Such division among House Republicans is a good thing as least for those who broke ranks and voted to end this ridiculous self-imposed 'fiscal cliff.' At least these House Republicans put the country first, put aside their conservative dogma, and are willing to be pragmatic.

If locking arms with the biggest spending president in history ($6 trillion and counting) and taking the next step toward economic Armegedon is pragmatic, then The GOP is pragmatic.

I'm just saying:

It is illegal to use the military as a domestic force. That is what police are for. Would you really want the military to be used even if it was legal? How would justice be decided, according to civil justice, or military justice?

Transition active military to National Guard and problem solved. Or deem illegals as a threat to our nation (which they are) and we can deploy them on our own soil for enforcement.... Not condoning this, but just saying....

You want to drive illegals from our country? STOP EXTENDING THEM SOCIAL BENEFITS, STOP ALLOWING THEM TO REGISTER THEIR CARS WITHOUT PROOF OF LEGAL STATUS, STOP TURNING AS BLIND EYE TO EMPLOYERS WHO EMPLOY ILLEGALS (Obama's own uncle who is here illegally and who was arrested for drunk driving openly works for a liquor store in Framingham, Ma and NOTHING has been done to the store owner who is paying him or his uncle who has been subject of a deportation order for 2 decades). Is it really too much to ask of our government agencies to enforce current laws and to stop making it easy for illegals to live here?

You people are funny. So hateful and partisan. Such classy actions from classy people.

If someone doesn't agree with a Democrat- they are racist.

If someone doesn't agree with a Republican- they are a "libitard".

Fact of the matter is, you are all to blame if you don't run for office yourself or vote another person in to make the change. But, let me guess, you're happy with your taxes or your entitlements or your status or your benefits.

Name calling makes you look like a fool. Telling someone they are stupid when they post facts makes you look like a fool.

To answer someones question earlier about what someone would cut: I would cut a little bit on everything. Just cutting 10% in my personal household makes a difference- does it mean I go without extra cable channels that I don't watch so I can cut my cable bill by $20- meaning $240 a year? Yes. Does it mean I don't have the super cellphone plan that covers everything I don't need to save $50 a month-meaning 600? Yes. Does it mean I put on a sweater instead of turning my heat to 70 degrees so I can save a $10-35 a month-$420 a year? Yes. Does it mean I cook at home, buy with coupons, buy on sale in bulk and store it, cutting my grocery bill in almost 1/2, but I can't have that steak every night-$4800 savings a year on groceries and cutting out almost $6000 in eating out? Yes. Does it mean I make sure that my kids wash their hands and use sanitizer as well as keeping them healthy so I don't have to use my new insurance plan of $900 per month for a family of 4, even with my deductible going from $500 to $1500? Yes. Does it mean shopping at Target and JC Penny instead of Macy's and Abercrombie? Yes.

There is no entitlement- another poster said earned benefits. I agree with this. I earned my SS so far, but I have another 20+ years before I can collect it. There are many people who never put a dime into SS and never saved for their retirement, yet they are still reaping a benefit that I am currently supporting. I have 4 children but I chose to have them so why do I need a Child Tax Credit? I had them and I should pay for them. I chose to go to a cheaper community college for my degrees so I didn't have loans I couldn't pay back- why should someone who chose to defer the payments of their loans, usually garnered through some crap organization, get a "break" on paying back something they rightfully owe? You wanted University of Southern Calf...now pay for it. Why should government be able to vote their own pay raises? Why should there be a Dept. of Education when we have them at state, county, and city levels as well?

Why do farmers get subsidies, even when they have a bumper crop? Isn't that the law of the land- you farm for a living and if you do not grow crops, you do not make money.

Why did we bailout the auto industry? I understand, there were jobs involved. My father-in-law worked for GM for 40 years so don't hand me that malarkey that I don't get it. They just bought back the stock at a $9B loss to the American taxpayer- that should NEVER have happened. It should have been paid back- in full and with interest.

Welfare was for people to get back on their feet, not for illegal immigrants and not for a lifestyle.

Unemployment needs to be scaled back as well. There are jobs in this world- I have a friend who works fast food and at a hotel, both part-time, because she has to pay bills with 3 kids. It ain't pretty but she does it because that is all that she is qualified for...but, as she says, "It ain't welfare."

WE should be embarrassed that we take handouts- during the Dust Bowl, farmers got up and left and moved when they couldn't do it anymore. But noooo, we can't do that anymore, can we? We can't try to do better for ourselves, not when it is so easy to make someone else who has more-because they earned it- pay for it but not be able to reap the benefits that they supply.

"Fiscal cliff deal a 'debacle' for the GOP." Surprising. I thought half of the whining would come from progressives like me, given that the President moved up the threshold and compromised on estate taxes. But apparently we liberals have learned to bite the bullet and swallow the medicine when we have to; I wish that was something our friends on the other side of the political spectrum could understand...

Back to business: We need to separate the budget deficit into two categories, as this will fix the currently-flawed argument over debt and deficits. The first half of the deficit is what economists would call the "cyclical deficit"; in other words is the deficit caused by recessions, which increases unemployment and thus increases spending on programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps and reduces revenue from a smaller tax base. The second half is the "structural deficit"; the shortfall caused by factors in the economy and/or government. We shouldn't be focused on reducing the cyclical deficit; that is necessary to keep the economy afloat until the recovery strengthens and is already decreasing since 2009. Instead, we ought to be focusing on the structural deficit. which in this case means growing healthcare costs, Social Security's long-term solvency issue, our massive defense budget, and the inefficiency of our tax code (which includes the Bush tax cuts). That is the part of the deficit that will not go away and will actually increase if we do nothing to deal with it.

Now on to fixing the structural deficit. Let me repeat that it is a combination of growing entitlement costs (and I only call them entitlements because it is a commonly-used word), a bloated defense budget, and inadequate tax revenues. The obvious first step is to reduce defense spending; that is something that Democrats want and that the Tea Party radicals want; and, if the Democrats can use the GOP's Tea Party leverage to their advantage, we could get significant defense cuts. We already have $500 billion in reductions; I suggest for something along the lines of $800 billion, something Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon could easily handle. And those defense reductions ought to targeted instead of lump-sum reductions.

Secondly, we have to get serious on taxes; we need more tax revenue to reduce the deficit in conjunction with spending cuts. Now since the Bush tax cuts have been made permanent for at least the next political cycle, I won't talk about them, at least not on the individual rates. Instead, I will focus on broader tax reform; I would propose keeping most of the Bush tax expenditures (deductions, credits, etc.) intact, yet I would fix other areas. For instance, I would seek to phase out the mortgage deduction over the next decade starting in 2014; I would also seek to remove the exemption of high-risk medical expenses. In addition, I would limit state and local tax deductions to 3% of adjusted gross income and total deductions to 18% of AGI for incomes up to $250,000, 15% for incomes over $500,000, and 12% for incomes over $800,000. Estate taxes would go to 55% for estates worth over $3 million for individuals and $5 million for couples. Corporate taxes would go down to 25%, along with the institution of a worldwide tax system, extending depreciation, and eliminating subsidies and tax breaks for extraction industries.

And finally, mandatory spending (entitlements) must be addressed. That goes to you, fellow liberals. But just because these programs are in danger of insolvency doesn't mean that we have to give them up like an Aztec human sacrifice. There are many ways to fix these programs without making radical changes. Social Security isn't a major issue, as all it needs are a few easy tweaks over the long run. A good deal on Social Security would have to include chained-CPI (as the Republicans demand that for entitlement reform), but we can get our revenge by raising the payroll tax cap for Social Security to $180,000, which would equal 90% of earned income and raise revenues. After all, as the President said, we cannot cut our way to solvency. Medicare and Medicaid is a tougher nut to crack due to the need for healthcare reform that is more comprehensive than Obama's iconic ACA; not that it need be repealed, only added to. For Medicare, I would allow them to negotiate for lower drug prices and get a rebate for drug manufacturers, increase Medicare Part B premiums to 35% for all but the bottom third of beneficiaries, raise the Medicare Payroll tax to 4.2%, reform Medigap coverage, and a gradual transition to a 100% shift from the expensive fee-for-service system to a more affordable bundled pay-for-performance mechanism, which would greatly reduce Medicare's costs over the long-term. I have little info on reforms to Medicaid other than block granting it to the states or putting a ceiling on federal matching funds (both of which would force millions off the program), so I would put Medicaid reform under the broader context of reforming healthcare and reducing poverty and income disparity in the nation.

All in all, this program would be palatable to both Republicans and Democrats. Democrats get higher taxes on wealthy individuals, far more revenues than most deficit plans have proposed, and entitlement reform that would protect social programs from privatization and means-testing and ensure their long-term solvency. Republicans get significant reforms to entitlements, deep spending cuts to both discretionary and mandatory programs, most of the Bush tax cuts, and the ability to boast that they significantly reduced spending and reformed government as a whole.

Lynn in Wyoming, since it's only Jan 2nd, the paycheck you just got was not your "first of the year" paycheck. Unless your employer pays you every day. Are you really that dense? No need to answer, it's pretty clear.

So these jack wagon republicans voted more for their own electabilty in the coming years. Rather than vote for the betterment of the nation. Any numb nut who voted NO and runs for a GOP presidental bid in 2012, just blew themselves out of the water. The sad part is they're too stupid to know it. These dummies need to turn off Faux News and get with the program.

SayWhat,

Transitioning them would be legal, but would cost billions of dollars as they would have to fill the ranks of the military that were left open by the transition. I know you are only throwing it out there as a suggestion, but trust me you don't EVER want the military policing domestically. That is how dictatorships arise.

Your point of preventing them from working is noted, but I have to tell you, I live in Floriduh where it seems lawn maintenance is the only thriving industry and I can't even begin to count how many trucks with a Nobama sticker on them are packed to the brim with Guatemalans each and every day. Trust me, if there is one thing republicans are great at, it is finding cheap labor.

Sorry Head....Your statement reveals you don't have a factual or historic grasp of the issues on which you comment. One example, you haven't "earned" your Social Security. You are "participating" in the SS program. It's not a retirement annuity or a personal investment. SS is an intergenerational compact, where the working generations pay for those whose working days are behind them. This is one of many important distinctions, that escapes far too many people these days, and makes them ripe fodder for today's propagandists in the media and in politics.

I have 4 children but I chose to have them so why do I need a Child Tax Credit? I had them and I should pay for them. I chose to go to a cheaper community college for my degrees so I didn't have loans I couldn't pay back- why should someone who chose to defer the payments of their loans, usually garnered through some crap organization, get a "break" on paying back something they rightfully owe? You wanted University of Southern Calf...now pay for it. Why should government be able to vote their own pay raises? Why should there be a Dept. of Education when we have them at state, county, and city levels as well?

Best. Paragraph. Ever.

Chzhead

Welfare was for people to get back on their feet, not for illegal immigrants and not for a lifestyle

This is a common Republican talking point with no facts to back it up. Most people DO NOT use welfare for a "lifestyle", because it provides for a horrible lifestyle.

Are there a few that take advantage of the welfare system and live on it? Yes.

Are there a few 1% that take advantage of the system and screw over other people? Yes.

Why you are outraged by the poor taking advantage of the system, but you drop down on your knees to worship the rich who take advantage of the system, is beyond me. I guess it is "ok" to screw over everyone else, as long as you are rich, right? Ironically, the 1% taking advantage of the system ended up screwing over everyone, destroying the housing market, and created a recession. Yet here you are, completely ignoring that fact, and giving those people a free pass... all while lumping every poor person in with the few who take advantage of that system, and blaming them for all our problems.

I think it's too funny, the damage that the Tea Party loonies have done to the GOP...

At first they annoyed me, but anymore I'm glad for their contribution... They surly have put Grover Norquist in his place... Maybe they can get more representatives of the house to sign pledges against the interest of the American people...

First time in decades that taxes are raised on those that can afford them...

oldman: My point? Just pointing out the fact that for the next 2 years Obama will be getting what he wants, just as he has for the last 4 years. Actually, the dems have gotten pretty everything they've wanted since 2007. Bush signed everything the dems passed during his final 2 years. In the last 6 years our federal deficit has increased from about $7.9 trillion to about $16.4 trillion. Heck, if that actually gave a true picture of things, that'd look pretty good in comparison to the reality that we have in fact over $80 trillion in unfunded mandates facing us. With baby boomers getting older and more people eligible for Social Security, and all the other benefits that Congress has bestowed on people, there is no way that over the next 10 years things are going to get any better. And what has anyone in Washington done to address this? NOTHING! We've become a nation of financial illiterates. We are also a nation of political illiterates. Romney was right! We have a bunch of people who are only interested in what the government can take from other people and give to them. The politicians are only interested in cementing their own power. They do this by shifting money around and buying votes. It has been often said (by conservatives who understand history) that a society declines when they discover that they can vote themselves money out of other peoples' pockets. That's where we are today. The libs know that they can't support what they do based on facts, so they resort to name calling. So called moderates buy into it because they hate to be called names. The end result is that the people end up losing and the country deteriorates. Unless people are willing to stand up and fight against this insanity, we'll deteriorate sooner rather than later.

Make over 75K? You just lost $1,200 this year, bud. Good old Obamacare. I'm already paying over $500/month for my own family healthcare, now I have to shell out another $1,200 more? Yeah, make us ALL pay because some loser doesn't have insurance.

Not to mention Small Business taxes are going through the roof this year. If you were recently hired by one, chances are you won't make it through the year as due to their massive tax increase, they will have no choice but to start laying people off or crumble.

Democrats who can't stop spending at their best. You won't have a job....but they'll make sure some African country gets their trillions in aid.

Jeffery,

Anything that I am forced to pay for with the "promise" that I will receive it back better is an earning in my book, and not a participation. I would prefer to get my money back and invest it where I see fit and not have to receive a check from the government every month, but they won't allow me to do that because it is for the "better good" of everyone, including you. I am also using the words of another poster when I say earned benefits- I see it as a free loan to the government with really crappy return and most likely, a wash at best and a loss at most. And many, many people receiving SS benefits haven't participated in the "inter-generational compact" but they still reap the benefits, as does the government who uses this money as a personal piggy bank.

I have no problem making sure that my elders are taken care of- my grandmother, my parents and in-laws, and aunts and uncles. That is what a family does. They do not look for handouts to take care of the people that took care of them.

I am not a propagandist- I think quite frankly the Republicans in the House sold out. They should have gone over the cliff. I think that Congress, not just the President, are the problem and the people on these posts are proof that there is no personal responsibility any longer. "It's the government's fault that my house payments, on a home I bought in 2006 in the midst of the bubble for $500K, are so much more than I can afford so the banks have to bail me out and all the middle class folks out there need to support me in my stupidity."

As a mother, a full-time worker, a former business owner, and a wife, I can honestly say that I understand distinctions well. Stupidity does not escape me, however. I will be entitled- is that the word you would rather- to a set sum of money from SS based on all I have put in if it is still there. I would rather have back all I paid and let me invest it my way. I would rather see spending cut on defense, even with a child and friend in the military. I would like to see personal responsibility for choices. I would like to see more people be logical instead of emotional. I don't get that a lot and I am quite sure you don't either.

Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan: Congress is not a solution to our problem, Congress is the problem.

And that thought posited, there is no problem with the current collection of rogues, scalawags and rascals who infect the formerly august chambers of the United States Congress ...that a well-placed and well-timed, low-yield thermonuclear device could not resolve, in the best interest of our Republic.

One can almost here the voices of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, et al screaming to us from their graves in unison "JUST DO IT!"

;-)

TO: KingK who wrote:

"To all working Americans, when you look at your paycheck in the coming months and see that more taxes are being deducted and the cost of your health care has gone up, just remember you can thank Mr. Obama for that."

What? Like that wasn't going to happen if Republicans got in?

I didn't want a Republican in the White House because Republicans don't work for me, Republicans could care less about protecting me, and if it were up to the Republicans they'd rob me blind by reducing my wages and stealing my retirement money.

All throughout the history of the United States, both taxes and everything else has "gone up".

The only thing that doesn't "go up" when Republicans are in office are workers' wages.

if you really want to cut spending you have to look at where the money is spent. people talk about all these cuts they want to pbs, and education dept. those don't cost nothing. they don't save you nothing either. if you want to cut spending you have to look at the 3 biggest expenditures. pentagon, ss, and medicare. the president offered and the gop turned down 400 billion from medicare and the adjustment to cpi saves billions from ss and saves even more in the future. the cpi alone almost completely fixes ss for our lifetime. the one big speding area the gop refuses to even consider is the pentagon. we have to save some and no matter how you feel about defense spending you can't deny there is huge waste there. just 10% off the top and freeze the defense budget for 5 years saves 100's of billion of doallrs and would have no effect on our ability to defend this country

@rightwingscrewball:

Your suggestion to use military personnel to enforce US immigration law would require a significant change in current federal law. I suspect that a great many people in and out of the military would object to tossing out the prohibitions against using the military to enforce domestic law on US soil.

If you want to know more about it, stick "posse comitatus" into your Google.

Incidentally, to those of you who think that current fiscal policy is going to cause inflation, you might ask yourselves two questions:

(1) Why is it that actual economists and bankers -- including the governors of the Fed -- disagree and are in fact continuing to hold what you fear is an inflationary pedal to the floor?

(2) Who is right, the actual economists or the right-wing talking heads? In other words, we've been pouring borrowed money on this stagnant economy since 2008, so where is that inflation right about now?

@just sayin, I might point out that Medicare is paid for both in income deductions as well as the $104 per person per month for parts A and B after retirement. Subsequently you should take another look at your hateful term "entitlements". The SS trust fund was robbed by the congress and not repaid, similar to the Post Office. Both would be tottally self supporting if not for the Trust Funds being robbe. Seems congress can not stand to see money in any fund that they can't spend somewhere outside what it was gathered for.

mguy-

I am not a Republican or a Democrat, but based on your judgement call, I see where you lean. I didn't say everyone did that with welfare but as someone who deals with it on a daily basis through work and employees, I can tell you this, if someone is on welfare and working a few hours a week but still manages to have an apartment with groceries and heat, 3 kids with government-funded health care and day care, a nice car, an iPhone, and looks down their nose at me when I managed to go to college, support 4 children, have a nice home and can speak well and earn a respectable job then yeah, you better believe there are some folks that want it for a lifestyle. Why else would you stay on it and not work 2 or 3 jobs like I did, while sleeping in your car and going to school? It's horsedung- it smells, looks, and feels like it so it very well is.

There is a lot of waste in the hand-out department, just as in every other department. I believe in cuts- all across the board. Obviously, you do not. Why shouldn't someone on welfare still have to produce, even if it is in the form of highway trash cleaning? Why shouldn't we eliminate some government jobs, such as Dept. of Education and Homeland Security? Why shouldn't we cut back on Medicaid/Medicare, especially for people my age (in 40s) by revamping health care by making immigrants educated outside the U.S. in medicine serve as doctors and dentists to the poor and under-insured and by expecting us to be more proactive with ourselves than the government doing for us?

I am not against more taxes- I never once posted it. I work for a small company who is being affected by these new mandates, even though we operate on a shoe-string budget as it is. Therefore, we do pass along the costs to our employees and to our clients, who will in turn go to someone even smaller than us. My company is not selfish and they treat their employees well. But costs are costs. Those do not change.

I am outraged by the very people who don't have griping about people that do have. I, sir or ma'am, make less than someone in my position just 1 hour away from my location. I chose that because I have peace at work and job security- the dollar has never been my lover. I can not qualify for the very benefits I pay for someone else to have, even when I needed them. I would be too embarrassed to take a hand-out but the problem is, we are indoctrinating our society to not be embarrassed to not work, to watch and act like human garbage, even though we live in the best country in the world.

And lastly, how exactly does the 1% screw you over? Did they hold a gun to your head and tell you to get on welfare? Or to not work 2 jobs to pay your bills? Or to buy their overpriced junk to make yourself equal to someone else?

To all working Americans, when you look at your paycheck in the coming months and see that more taxes are being deducted and the cost of your health care has gone up, just remember you can thank Mr. Obama for that.

KingK - when my health insurance costs doubled and then quadrupled from the time I left my parents house until now, was it always the President's fault?

Yup Head...Rational people with different opinions or beliefs, can always sit down to collaborate and compromise to find solutions to problems we all face. I'm certain we could. As a Moderate and a Centrist, I always try to get people to first agree on the definitions of words and phrases, to minimize the miscommunication. One of the hallmarks of today's conservative media, is to assign different meanings to words or to vilify words or phrases to polarize and/or distract people from finding common ground and identifying solutions which may not be ideologically "pure", but are actions when truthfully assessed, are ones in which we can all agree. That's why I focused on the SS statement. After I read your fleshed out your thoughts, it's obvious you have educated yourself and have ideas worthy of discussion. But remember the context under which many legislated programs have been created, is often far more complex than meets the eye. Most importantly, it's critical that we don't assign middle class work-ethic dogma, "embarrassed" to take benefits etc, when the socioeconomic situation behind many Americans lives, are FAR different and more complex than overly simple emotional dogma can articulate. The narrow Republican idealogues in the House are a perfect example of some of the most overly simplistic antiConstitutional and unAmerican ideas as these neo fascists reject the most fundamental tenant of our Constitutional republic, ...COLLABORATION and COMPROMISE. We ALL need to steer clear of this kind of thinking. Pax to you my friend.

Swallow, I think I may not have gotten across to you what I was saying. First, I am not saying entitlements like medicare and medicaid are bad. I was just trying to point out the difference between SS which I do not consider and entitlement and M&M which I do. The difference being that only those who paid into SS can draw on it (or their dependants if under 18 and the parent is deceased). M&M do not require payment into them. For instance in the rare case that someone never worked in their life, they would still be able to collect medicare at 65, but not SS. I was just pointing out the differences.

As a Moderate and a Centrist

I think we are in the very, very minority Jeff.

Actually, I believe that when we take the political survey phone call, the self-identifying oneself as a this or a that out of the discussion...and speak about each issue in a pragmatic way, MOST of us are actually centrists and moderates...more conservative on some issues and more liberal on others. It's only when we get bogged down in the overly simplistic labeling of the media propagandist, are we polarized or extreme. Passionate moderation may seem a juxta-posed phrase, but within it, lies our political-economic salvation.

Fiscal cliff deal a 'debacle' for the GOP, sets up bigger fight in months

News flash for those of you who only get your "news" from MSNBC. The deal is a debacle for the country. All our taxes went up and we added $4 Trillion to the deficit spending. Folks, Washington is selling you down the tubes - we are broke - no ifs and or buts.

Obama: "We can not cut our way to prosperity..." - this from a man who has never run a damn thing... The government does not provide prosperity, Americans do... The government is a burden to prosperity - look at history, it is ripe with failed countries taking this approach. Look at Greece, look at Spain, look at California!!!

And for those whining about the Sandy bill - it was loaded with 30% pork spending on pet projects around the country - that's right, Sandy victims were "used" by the esteemed politicians to fund even more waste. So that's right it should not have been voted on until it was purely for the victims...not to bloat the deficit under the thin veneer of a Sandy Aid Bill - it utter BS and you all fall for it. Read the facts before you whine. You are the reason this country is going down - your emotional knee jerk fawning of the hypocrites in office...

American girl, if you think it is only under republicans wages dont go up, we have seen average wages in the last 4 years go down i think somewhere around 4,000 per household.

Neither party works for you, they are all self servant for what is good for them in the short term and the next election cycle. A few good ones on both sides but most just tow the line and look out for themselves.

Taxes did indeed go up for everyone(not counting SS withholding), as more of the 300-400 Billion in 20 some odd new taxes in Obamacare kick in. The media NEVER talks about them, even though 75% of them effect ALL tax brackets.

Jeffrey-

Most excellent rebuttal and I appreciate your comments. I agree with some of the nature and thought behind your statements, but not all. But I am also not calling you a name, either, like so many people on these threads are doing. It belittles us all when people do that. There is actually a State House seat in Georgia that is opening in my district and I think I will run. Why not?

I do agree that we must be careful to not assign blame or stigmas on folks but sometimes, when someone says, "It's not that easy", it really is. Not all the time, but sometimes. No, it wasn't easy for me to crawl out of the financial debt I put myself into but it really was simple. Pull myself out was the simple solution. Couldn't afford the 2 children I had young without government assistance but they would not give me any, no matter how destitute I was, so it was simple- quit having young'uns and get to work to pay for them.

Everyone is different and so is their story. But we have forgotten that in the race for bigger and better government- no one is an individual and you cannot research the cause to someone's misfortune. If they are a chronic drug user and can't keep a job- you still can't take away their benefits nor can you force them into rehab. If you need health care, then fine. But if you choose to smoke and develop lung cancer, why should you get cheap government health care that Americans are paying for so you can waste your lungs smoking? Why should teachers/ superintendents of a sub-par school district make more money than 90% of the parents whose taxes pay for their salaries?

I totally get it, but we are no longer a society of responsible people. We are auto-bots that do not do what is necessary to take care of ourselves and our families. That's basically my point.

Hello folks, let me preface my comments by saying I’m a political atheist, I don’t care what political religion a person wants to attach themselves to. The GOP nor the Democratic party will ever go away they are needed by the powers that be to keep the country divided, distracted and in fear. While the Republican Democrat blame gamers contribute to the monomaniacal dysfunctional government, it’s always the middle class and poor who pay for this intransigence. They have the blame gamers battling for what type of austerity is to be imposed.

The US economy is caught in a no-win feedback loop.

Corporate wealth translates into political power through campaign financing, corporate lobbying and the revolving door of jobs between government and industry; and political power translates into further wealth through tax cuts, deregulation and sweetheart contracts between government and industry. Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth.

There are four key sectors of US business and their control mechanism that exemplify this feedback loop and the takeover of political power in America by the ”corporatocracy”.

First is the well-known military-industrial complex. As President Eisenhower famously warned in his farewell address in January 1961, the linkage of the military and private industry created a political power so pervasive that America has been condemned to militarization, useless wars and fiscal waste on a scale of many tens of trillions of dollars since then. If you don’t think those in power won’t start useless wars to maintain the military economy you have been sleeping.

Second is the Wall Street- Federal Reserve - Washington complex, which has steered the financial system towards control by a few politically powerful Wall Street firms, notably Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and a handful of other financial firms. We have a two headed one party system serving their masters the banksters/Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

These days, almost every US Treasury secretary, Republican or Democrat, comes from Wall Street and goes back there when his term ends. The close ties between Wall Street and Washington paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis and the mega-bailouts that followed, through reckless deregulation followed by an almost complete lack of oversight by government.

Third is the Big Oil-transport-military complex, which has put the US on the trajectory of heavy oil-imports dependence and a deepening military trap in the Middle East.

Since the days of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust a century ago, Big Oil has loomed large in American politics and foreign policy. Big Oil teamed up with the automobile industry to steer America away from mass transit and towards gas-guzzling vehicles driving on a nationally financed highway system.

Big Oil has consistently and successfully fought the intrusion of competition from non-oil energy sources, including wind, solar power, fusion and Magrav technologies.

It has been at the side of the Pentagon in making sure that America defends the sea-lanes to the Persian Gulf, in effect ensuring a $US100 billion-plus annual subsidy for a fuel that is otherwise dangerous for national security. That is why we attack, kill, overthrow regimes and displace millions of people in countries around the world such as Yemen, Oman, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

And Big Oil has played a notorious role in the fight to keep climate change off the US agenda. Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries and others in the sector have underwritten a generation of anti-scientific propaganda to confuse the American people.

Fourth is the healthcare industry, America’s largest industry, absorbing no less than 17 per cent of US gross domestic product.

The key to understanding this sector is to note that the government partners with industry to reimburse costs with little systematic oversight and control. Pharmaceutical firms set sky-high prices protected by patent rights (there is no money in the cure only in treating the disease), Medicare (for the aged) and Medicaid (for the poor) and private insurers reimburse doctors and hospitals on a cost-plus basis, and the American Medical Association restricts the supply of new doctors through the control of placements at medical schools.

The result of this pseudo-market system is sky-high costs, large profits for the private healthcare sector, and no political will to reform. While health care remains a privilege in the US wealth remains a birthright for the elite.

There is absolutely no economic crisis in corporate America because to maintain these behemoths, austerity is imposed on the middle class and poor through some form of taxation. Unfortunately the sheeple contribute to this psychopathy by blaming themselves through the propaganda of the bloodsucking leeches that caused this mess to begin with.

Consider the pulse of the corporate sector as opposed to the pulse of the employees working in it: corporate profits in 2010 were at an all-time high, chief executive salaries in 2010 rebounded strongly from the financial crisis, Wall Street compensation in 2010 was at an all-time high, several Wall Street firms paid civil penalties for financial abuses, but no senior banker faced any criminal charges, and there were no adverse regulatory measures that would lead to a loss of profits in finance, health care, military supplies and energy. These same groups perpetrate irrecoverable atrocities on the global community and are immune to the laws that govern the rest of us.

All the while the most vial corporation ever imagined and created, the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal nor a reserve is bankrolling these industries through near zero percent loans, subsidies or outright taxpayer bail outs through their central planning role that has been granted to them via our government’s abdication of control of the creation of our countries currency.

Unless we remove the tentacles of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, and Big Pharma and cut the head off of this monster that is the Federal Reserve we will all be pulled under only to suffer egregious taxation through the underhanded chicanery called austerity.

Chzhead

So you work with a few people who take advantage of the system, so in your mind, everyone on welfare is the exact same.

Ok... fair enough.

The westboro baptist church are christians who want to protest the funerals of the child victims of the last shooting. Therefore, by YOUR logic, ALL christians are just like them. I'm guessing you might have a problem with that statement.

You see, I understand that there are people who take advantage of the system across ALL levels of society. My problem is people like YOU who focus on one specific group, while ignoring the other groups who do the same thing. You see a few people on welfare who take advantage of the system, and blame our problems on them, while ignoring the other people who do even worse.

I am in the upper class, I was not affected by the recession. In fact, I have made more in the last 4 years, in the private sector, than at any other point in my life. But I am also an honest person... brutally honest, at that. So I don't bull-s*** around and blame other people. I fully admit that the people I know take advantage of the system. Whether its the guy who makes seven figures, while claiming deductions he does not actually use, but he has a "back-up" plan if he ever gets audited... ya, he has not paid a penny in income taxes for over 10 years, and he is a millionaire. Or we can talk about the "vulture" capitalist in my family who jokes about the money he makes after taking over companies and laying off people. He literally profits by putting people on the streets.

You see, my point is that there are people who take advantage of the system across all levels. YOU focus on just the poor, while ignoring the rich who you apparently worship. I am honest enough to admit that the rich are just as bad, if not worse. There will ALWAYS be people who take advantage of the system... ALWAYS. That will never change. I just wish people would look at EVERYONE taking advantage of the system, but instead we have people like YOU who only focus on those at the bottom.

Therefore, we do pass along the costs to our employees and to our clients, who will in turn go to someone even smaller than us.

Guess what, sweetheart. That works BOTH WAYS. You pass along extra costs to your customers? Well guess what happens when you cut entitlements, or government jobs? They pass those cuts along to businesses by not buying products.

Again, you are only focused on one side instead of seeing the big picture. You focus on additional costs to businesses, and how they will pass those costs along. But when you cut, those cuts are passed back to businesses in the form of people not having money to use in a business.

You know those welfare recipients you hate? Where does there money go? To a BUSINESS when they spend it. You know that government worker you want to cut, because you don't like their department? Where does the money from their paycheck go? To a BUSINESS when they spend it.

When you cut that welfare, or that government job, and those people no longer have money... what happens? They don't give their money to a business, and that business losses customers and revenue.

What is your small business going to do when they lose customers and revenue?

It's all connected. All that government spending on entitlements and government salaries is money that eventually goes back to businesses. All of your cuts will be passed through to businesses, and companies will have less revenue.

Look at the big picture.

Get real, you are right the deal did little of nothing. That wasn't a cliff but a very small bump in the road. The real cliff is the DEBT. We pay now 1.75% to borrow our money. When, not if, the debt tops 20 trillion in the not so distatnt future and rates go back to normal (4+ percent) we will soon be paying a trillion dollars a year in JUST INTEREST. All these programs people say we can't cut any, we will have to basically gut by then. That is the real danger to the country. Then only way out will be to trash our currency by printing massive amounts of money and as someone mentions above.... $10 milk. Poor will suffer most.

Freshieee,

A great post, but I think you are still working around the edges. Before I start, I'm a Democrat through and through, and liberal too.

I like some of Herman Cain's ideas. We should abolish FICA and the Corporate Income Tax. Institue a sales tax.

On FICA, it is regressive...that could be fixed by removing the cap and apply it to all income, then it would be a flat tax. but I still don't like it. Let's just make Social Security a safety net for old poor people and fund it out of general revenue, simpler, cheaper to administer. Let's agree to forget the idea that it is a social investment program. A person's contribution stream bears almost no resemblance to the stream of returned cash. In summary, if you insist on keeping it, make it a flat tax on all income, raise the eligibility age, fix the inflation adjustment mechanism and means test it. Those steps will keep it solvent.

On to the Corporate Income Tax...this is one of the worst taxes, because the true incidence of the tax does not match the visible incidence. The Corporation pays it, but it is passed to the consumer. I've worked closely with corporate tax people and investors. Corporate tax is treated as an expense and is minimized through all sorts of means. When investors look at a stock, they look at things like after tax earnings per share or free cash flow. To the extent that a company can minimize tax, it increases those other measures. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Our economy pays dearly for Corporate Income Tax. It is expensive to administer and creates all kinds of dislocations both domestic and international...throw it out.

Institute a sales tax to primarliy fund the government. Currently, we tax productivity (income) when we should be taxing consumption. Add a luxury addon for things like yachts. If we had a decent sales tax, people would consume less and invest more. This would be a true growth package.

Since I believe in redistribution/progressivity, and sales taxes are regressive unless we complicate them with exemptions. We would have to keep the current income tax, but it would have a secondary funding role and be primarily designed to redistribute income and wealth. Before people start shouting, let me explain what I mean by redistribution. I do not believe in taking stuff from some people and giving it to other people. My concept of redistribution is achieved by equal opportunity. I believe if we ensure equal opportunity, redistribution will take care of itself. That means, good nutrition, good education and good healthcare for ALL of our children...but once you are through college/trade school, you are on your own. I believe our culture will not allow people to starve on the streets, but surely, we can come up with something more productive than our current welfare system.

Last but not least, I would add a surtax to the income tax rate. If the budget deficit was beyond a fixed range, there would be an automatic surtax added to the annual tax rate. It would not be progressive. It would be x% added to large and small incomes alike. As Freshiee points out, it would apply to the structural deficit. I bet that if the politicians had to explain a surtax to their constituents, there would be fewer and smaller deficits.

This is the last item in this post, if you think the deficits are bad for the next ten years, give a look at the projected deficits between 10 and 20 years out. That's when the baby boomers hit the medical system.

OldMan

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I will make one point...

If we had a decent sales tax, people would consume less and invest more. This would be a true growth package.

If people consume less, that is less money being spent in businesses. When less money is spent, businesses make less, and have to cut costs to stay in business. Those cuts usually come in the form of lay-offs.

That would be my only concern. People always talk about how taxes influence business, but taxes are nothing compared to the impact of losing customers and revenue.

Our deficits are the result of collapsed economy; there is no chronic deficit problem.The president's and Congress' priorities at this time MUST be to put people back to work and to bring the economy back up to speed.

Oldman, as a conservative, not republican, i agree mostly with the system you described, we have to have a major tax and system overhaul.

Taxing yachts has already been done. Look up the luxury tax in the fall of 1990. It taxed all sales 10% over 100K. Sounds good on paper? Well the result is is almost decimated the industry and we had LESS revenue. Thousands lost jobs in the boat and supporting industry. If you account for unemployment benefits it took that net revenue to almost nothing. It was repealed by a wide bipartisan basis in 1993 and the boat industry slowly recovered.

What people that just want to tax more of everything don't take into account is ......BEHAVIOR. When you tax more of something people don't just sit there and take it. Same thing is happening with the medical device industry tax in Obamacare. They estimated more revenue. Same thing is happening that happened with the boat tax. History repeating itself. For example, Cook medical in Indiana, my state, canceled 5 plants that were to be built because of it. Lots of lost jobs in that industry, construction, support business, etc. Also lost revenue to local, state and federal coffers.

Chzhead2004 -- I like that health insurance companies now have to refund 80% of my premiums not used for actual health care.

I'm just saying... -- Disability is the exception and main reason Social Security needs to be strengthened, since minors go onto SS disability usually all their lives without paying into the system. Survivor benefits can be another example of this.

Medicare is also a trust fund paid for via payroll taxes (FICA withholding) and then seniors also pay a premium at minimum $200-300/month depending on their health and prescription plan. It's NOT free.

Medicaid can be used by folks who don't pay into the system, but this is used mostly for nursing homes and Hospice at end of life.

All of these programs require a valid Social Security number. For Social Security you have to work a minimum amount of time to be eligible. Illegals have paid into these systems knowing they can never collect unless they become legal.

Assistance like Medicaid is very strict, as well as other programs such as food stamps, which are temporary for most people (per proof of income on a quarterly basis). The only people who can collect much for very long are the working poor -- YES the work requirement is still there.

My big beef is the cap on payroll contributions to trust funds, currently at around $113K of income. If the richest 2% ($250K) are to collect these benefits, they should pay into it on all of their income up to the new tax break of $400-450K. That solves the problems with these programs immediately and makes it fair for all.

It is the nature of democracy that politicians bend to the will of their constituents. To gain credence in this new epoch of information, the republican party will need to discontinue it's alignment with social conservatism. The politics of social conservatives are patently divisive, and, ironically, largely irrelevant to the basic functions of government. Any political party should recognize that as culture ebbs and flows through its trends, people will always entertain the option to support whichever party they feel most accurately represents their views. But too many people will never support a sectarian party of social conservatives, no matter how dire the circumstances. To them, there will always be a lesser evil.

TruePatriot...you must have been too busy giving Obama a bj when you should have been paying attention in history class otherwise you would be more informed and educated as to the meaning and intent of the US Constitution. Any and every liberal is unAmerican by way of the Constitution. The US Constitution has virtually no bearing on the course of America nowadays. More civil liberties have been destroyed in the past four years than in the entire history of America; liberties that the Constirurion was supposed to protect. Obama hates our Constitution and the freedoms the American people have and all you Obamazombies praise him for it.

OldMan457

Freshieee,

I like some of Herman Cain's ideas. We should abolish FICA and the Corporate Income Tax. Institue a sales tax.

On FICA, it is regressive...that could be fixed by removing the cap and apply it to all income, then it would be a flat tax. but I still don't like it. Let's just make Social Security a safety net for old poor people and fund it out of general revenue, simpler, cheaper to administer. Let's agree to forget the idea that it is a social investment program. A person's contribution stream bears almost no resemblance to the stream of returned cash. In summary, if you insist on keeping it, make it a flat tax on all income, raise the eligibility age, fix the inflation adjustment mechanism and means test it. Those steps will keep it solvent.

Thanks for the compliment. I have considered abolishing FICA, mainly due to its regressive nature. Raising the cap is my idea of a compromise; eliminating the cap or simply just replacing the payroll tax in general is probably too far to the left for this current political spectrum; 40-50 years ago, it would have been far more centrist (although still pointedly center-left). You remind me of myself about 2 years ago, when I first came onto this vine. Back then I was a Democrat, but I preferred to call myself a "moderate liberal progressive," aka a center-leftist. Nowadays I'm more along the lines of the left wing (like Bernie Sanders), which used to be the center left a while ago. I would replace the FICA tax with a far more progressive wealth tax on all wealth in the country (provided we could pass an amendment to the Constitution to do that, which might have support if the GOP seeks to please businesses with a tax cut for businesses and the labor supply), which according to recent estimates would raise perhaps $570 billion a year per 1%.

On to the Corporate Income Tax...this is one of the worst taxes, because the true incidence of the tax does not match the visible incidence. The Corporation pays it, but it is passed to the consumer. I've worked closely with corporate tax people and investors. Corporate tax is treated as an expense and is minimized through all sorts of means. When investors look at a stock, they look at things like after tax earnings per share or free cash flow. To the extent that a company can minimize tax, it increases those other measures. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Our economy pays dearly for Corporate Income Tax. It is expensive to administer and creates all kinds of dislocations both domestic and international...throw it out.

I'll agree that corporations don't really pay the tax; consumers do. Then again, the corporate tax is merely an excuse that corporations use to raise prices, leaving the customer none-the-wiser.

Institute a sales tax to primarliy fund the government. Currently, we tax productivity (income) when we should be taxing consumption. Add a luxury addon for things like yachts. If we had a decent sales tax, people would consume less and invest more. This would be a true growth package.

It would be a growth package, but the sales tax (or VAT, as I would prefer) would have to be very large to primarily fund our government, assuming that 80% of all revenues would be raised in this manner. Even if we were to reduce government expenditures to $3 trillion (a $600 billion spending cut in one year), we'd need one that is well north of 60%. Most nations that have a VAT have an income tax with it, so I'd argue for tax reform with lower rates for lower-income Americans (somewhere south of $100k-150k) and a sales tax.

This is the last item in this post, if you think the deficits are bad for the next ten years, give a look at the projected deficits between 10 and 20 years out. That's when the baby boomers hit the medical system.

I haven't heard of the projected deficits past 2023, but according to current law (post-fiscal cliff), they're gonna be massive. Stupid Bush and his goddamn tax cuts; if we had just kept the Clinton tax rates our structural deficit would be half as much as they are today.

Head...You have some preconceptions about government, public education and personal responsibility, to name a few, that keep you from accurately assessing the problem, therefore understanding the solutions possible. Teachers on the whole are underpaid, relative to the education levels and on going professional development required to stay current and relative to their overall value to society. Don't just use the worst case scenario(in a huge society like ours, anything has examples even flat Earthers)The countries that are passing us on the education ladder, understand that accurately valuing and rewarding the professional educator, attracts the best people and produces the best results(better educated kids) Earn more than "90% of those who pay their wages" is a total misconception. Depending on where they teach, American teachers earn about the national average income and far less(as I stated earlier) than other professions with similar educations or relative to nations that are passing us in educational performance. You've swallowed too much talk radio propaganda whole and need to objectively research issues that you feel passionately about. In closing, to the reactionary right, "Bad Government" seems to be that which benefits others, but never what benefits them. Those at the lead of this movement are slick propagandists, who effectively wield the powerful media tool. They count on you not having the time in your life, or the skill set needed to refute their emotionally compelling but usually factually lacking exaggerations and propaganda. I could go on, as I find this discussion rewarding a you well-meaning and motivated fellow citizen, but my Son and Grandson just arrived and I need that face time with my future. Have a good day Head...you're a good soul.

We could save billions of wasted dollars if the Congress would just allow the DOD to close and consolidate unneeded bases around the country. But every time this is brought up there is a shout from the House, "Not in my district" and nothing is done, again. The DOD has been trying for years to close bases it doesn't need, it says, "We don't need any more tanks, A-10 fighter planes, unarmored Humvees, etc but it gets them because they are all made in someone's district. Let the DOD run itself for a while, it knows what it's doing.

If you put enough money into a welfare program and then invest in a business that funnels that money to your pocket... you are a Republican Congressional Mench!

MGuy - The theory is that if they consume less and invest more, it works to lower interest rates which triggers productivity increases. In today’s world, lower interest rates is not particularly useful. In the future, any source of liquidity which serves to lower interest rates, may be more attractive. To be fair, the theory was developed when we had a more capital intensive economy. In today’s service oriented economy capital is less important.

BigATC - I understand the impact of luxury tax on yachts (I just used them as an example). The question is if they weren’t buying yachts, what were they doing with the money. They may have been buying real estate, investing in stocks, or growing their businesses. So although the impact on the luxury goods was negative, they may have been other impacts that acted in a positive way.

Freshiee – Yes , raising the cap on FICA is a compromise that I could accept…if you raise it far enough, it approximates a flat tax. The left wouldn’t like it because they prefer progressive taxes. I really like the idea of a progressive wealth tax because I fundamentally believe it is the primary mechanism where the really rich get really richer. I believe in equal opportunity and making it on your own. Concentrated wealth works against both ideas.

In terms of a VAT versus a Sales Tax, I think the sales tax better affects behavior, and therefore, it more effectively reduces consumption. People see a sales tax. The VAT is behind the scenes and more difficult/expensive to administer. There would need to be a balance between income and sales taxes.

Witchrunner above says there are 80 T in unfunded mandates. I don’t know if that is true, but I think all agree that it is a big number.

I was against the Bush tax cuts at the time, but let’s face it, tax cuts were definitely on the agenda. What angered me more was the political rhetoric. I was trading currency at the time, and it seemed that every day, there was talk about the weak US economy (should have kept more Yen). In the end, I believe the 2001 recession was a self-fulfilling prophecy…which justified the tax cuts. The deficits weren’t helped by Medicare Part D and two unfunded wars. One thing people never attend to, early in the Bush presidency, as a result of the budget surplus, a strong (compared to Europe) US economy, and the dot com bubble, the USD was trading at .8375 EURUSD, the USD bottomed at about 1.62 late in the Bush presidency. You could say it was the financial meltdown, but Europe had its own problems at the same time. Basically the USD’s value was cut in half (against the Euro) during the Bush years…gives you an idea of what the world thought of our economic policy.

Makes no difference how high you raise TAXES if you keep SPENDING more than the taxes bring in....

Just look at this so-called compromise..... How much were taxes increased vs how much spending was reduced?

Enough said...... where's Joe when you need some BASIC MATH.......... oh that's right... SPENDING our money...........

The House GOP have exposed themselves as incompetent losers...no surprises there, right?

Anyone can say "increase revenue" or "cut spending." What is politically hard is actually increasing revenue (we voters don't reward tax increasers) or cutting spending (the only real options are to cut corporate pork, and corporate porkers are who pay for campaigns these days, or social security checks or medicare coverage - none of those cuts will get a politician re-elected).

Of the two, increasing revenue is better. Why? First, it spreads the pain over everyone, so the impact is less harsh. (Everyone giving up $100 is roughly the same as everyone on social security giving up $600 - one in 6 Americans is on SS.) Second, no one loses their job or house because their taxes went up 3% (as opposed to those who get laid off by deep spending cuts). Third, spending cuts that cause unemployment increases result in more unemployment costs, less tax revenue, and a shrinking economy. Spending cuts are economic suppression, as opposed to economic stimulus. Fourth, raising taxes is actually technically easier - all you do is say the rate goes up 3% - whereas spending cuts get fought over on a project by project basis.

That is why, as a practical fact, we can do revenue increases that balance the budget (see the 1990s) but when we rely on those who promise spending cuts, all we get are massive increases in the deficit (see Reagan and Bush II). We cannot make any progress on the deficit through spending cuts. It is politically and practically impossible.

Ebeneser Howard

TruePatriot...you must have been too busy giving Obama a bj when you should have been paying attention in history class otherwise you would be more informed and educated as to the meaning and intent of the US Constitution. ...Obama hates our Constitution and the freedoms the American people have and all you Obamazombies praise him for it.

I scrolled through this thread and can't see why you replied to me with this. Regardless, anyone who posts crazy talk about how the president hates our Constitution and freedoms... It tells me right there who is a Hater -- YOU are! So puleeze don't lecture me on learning history or the Constitution, because it's obvious you get all your information from conspiracy theory websites and viral Emails.

I'm just saying...

If you look up federal entitlement you will see that medicare & medicaid that they are entitlements. You pay into them and therefore you are entitled to them when you retire

oldman: I was very much in favor of tax cuts, but not happy with the way they did it. Right after 9/11 the economy slowed down quite a bit. The tax cuts did save us from being in a lot worse shape and helped us to recover quickly. The problem is that the way they did it started a whole new way of looking at things. They put "sunset" provisions in that tax cut and it became the norm afterwards to do that with almost every change in the tax law since. It didn't take a genius to figure out that this is a recipe for disaster. Reality has proven this to be the case. What businesses want is stability. They make plans based on what they can reasonably expect in the future. When the political climate dictates that there is no way to predict what will happen from year to year then businesses have a tendency to hold on to their cash so that they are in a better position to withstand a downturn. Currently, we have businesses playing Russian Roulette rather than planning on running the business based on what the economy would naturally do.

You are right about the political rhetoric. And that does take a toll on the economy. The fact is that the Bush years consisted of 7 strong years for the economy. You'd never know it by listening to the media a certain politicians. In addition, Bush warned of the looming crisis in the secondary mortgage market early on, but couldn't get anyone to listen to him. The passed legislation to address the looming crisis but the measure was filibustered in the Senate, never to heard of again.

The unfortunate thing is that the public is really not all that educated in the way the economy works and the politicians don't seem to think that it is their obligation to educate them. You know what they say, knowledge is power. Well, keeping the masses in the dark gives the politicians more power. All you had to do was listen to the "fiscal cliff" debate. There wasn't anyone who sounded as if they had any brains. The only thing they seemed interested in was repeating mantras that they think will get the public to agree with them. And, I have to admit, the dems definitely understand this better than the repubs. That's why they won the debate, in Congress and in the minds of the public. But, the sad fact is that nothing has been "solved." The deficit is still spiraling out of control. As you pointed out, the US dollar has been growing weaker against other currencies. Although there are natural fluctuations, we currently are experiencing a total lack of understanding regarding this. Unfortunately, I fear that the US is going to get hit with a big bombshell within the next 4 years.

When Obama came out early in his administration and started talking about the US Dollar shouldn't be the international standard, that's when I realized he is either really stupid or he really hates America. As soon as some other currency becomes the official currency of the world, then the US is in really deep doo doo. Yet, the public is basically clueless.

Another problem the country faces in terms of dialogue is, as you pointed out, some of the problems with Bush. Fiscal conservatives know he spent way too much money. He did in fact give the dems most of what they wanted. Yet, the dems have been very successful in blaming the collapse on the repubs. Yet, it was really the dem policies that caused it. The same can be said about Clinton. Although the repubs vilified the guy, he was actually much more willing to enact repub ideas. That's why there was an ability to pay down the federal debt under his watch.

The really sad thing is that right now there isn't anyone on the national scene that shows any hint of understanding what our economic problems are. Obviously, those in power have no desire for the people to understand the problems we face as they'd all be voted out of office if the people did understand. I guess time will tell, but based on history, I wouldn't bet on us coming out of this on top. Especially when those in charge aren't comfortable with us being on top.

Perhaps the real culprit behind our current fiscal issues has been the failed theories of Supply Side economics. Traditionally, the biggest driver of economic growth, therefore increased tax revenues, has been middle and working class demand. But for nearly 30 years, living wage middle and working class jobs have been systematically downsized and outsourced and wages flattened, despite workers being 4X more productive than just 20 years ago. Despite this trend, middle/working class folks kept spending with the help of more liberal credit card limits in the 90's and then credit lines on the increasing value of their homes. But when the housing bubble burst and credit tightened, it revealed the hole the middle and working classes were truly in. The drive to ever lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans and more importantly, lowering rates on capital gains by those who believe in a philosophy that disproportionately rewards the investor and management classes, has further reduced tax revenues and created more debt. Furthermore, many of these self-proclaimed "free marketeers" seem to look on workers, the communities in which they live and even customers as necessary evils to be marginalized, rather than essential partners in business. Perhaps this is why over 50% of current corporate profits come from capital investments in"financial services" that provide nothing the economy wants or needs, rather than from traditional entrepreneurial activities. Today, conservatives who have been the main proponents of Supply Side economic theories, fail to look at the real world, factual failures of these fictions when they call for a "doubling down" on these policies. They claim we can't tax our way to prosperity. But instead of embracing common sense, practical solutions, it seems they suffer from a cognitive dissonance that keeps them from seeing how Supply Side economic theories have structurally damaged our economy. We didn't get in this situation overnight and it will take time to recover. But the best start is to shed Supply Side dogma, in favor an economic philosophy that rebalances our economic mindset, first by fueling business to make things and providing services people need, want and will be able to afford, because more are working and earning more. By igniting middle/working class demand, the fuel that made ours the greatest economy the world has ever known, we will be able to balance the annual budget, start paying down the debt and make the "fiscal cliff" a concept our grandchildren think is a geologic formation.

Fiscal cliff deal a 'debacle' for the American people, sets up bigger fight in months.

Well, I can hardly wait to see what the Liberals/Progressives do in a year or so when the economy really starts to tank because of the spending and ignoring the spending cuts needed to attack our debt.

Moody's already warned today that our outlook remains negative.

Barrack Hussein has no interest in fixing the economy. He is a statist ideologue. Historically this will mean further downgrades and subsequently increased interest rates and finally collapse of the economy.

Progressivism in combination with political correctness creates the obsession of social and economic justice for the collective which has never worked in a nation our size or diversity. It has created the unwashed masses that believe it is the successful achievers fault they failed in life. The class warfare/envy meme of Barrack Hussein has been exploited by the adoring bobble-head media and promoted as the new American Dream.

What used to be achieved by hard work, ingenuity and risk-taking has been devolved into groveling and demanding someone else takes care of them because of their own pathetic nature and insignificance. The once proud "Ask not what your country can do for you", has been insulted into "Give me free stuff and make the rich pay for it".

Most of the poor lost Libbies who actually believe any of this are the same ones who believe we are a Democracy and the Constitution ISN'T a charter of negative liberties. This, of course, until they need to be protected by the principles of a Republic.

Nothing will change as Barrack Hussein has no idea what to do. His only preoccupation is to spend as much money, redistribute it to his rich cronies and the unions goonions and leave his legacy as the biggest spender in history, who also ruined the biggest economy in history.

It's just a shame that so many once proud and hard working Americans willingly submit to a life of dependency and slavery to a criminal and corrupt government that has no concern for their benefit, only the statists prosperity and power. The parochial "Life of Julia" cartoon exemplifies the pathetic nature of this inbred hostility to succeed.

The tragedy is that most Liberals/Progressives don't know or, worse yet, don't care.

This is the shame of progressivism.

The biggest fiction of Supply Side economics, is its companion social dogma. This philosophy falsely labels a huge segment of our population as lazy do-nothings, that want a free life of stuff, provided by hard working tax payers, through government, simply because they exist. This fiction is told as a bedtime story to those predisposed to believe that it's true and to those without the skill set or education to know differently, with no factual support or objective data as support, much like an urban myth or legend. This fiction is designed to distract and divide those who normally, rationally, would put aside their superficial differences to unite and reject Supply Side economic policies, especially when they see how it has hobbled our economy, to benefit a relative few, at everyone else's expense.

The tragedy is that so many otherwise rational people, not only believe this myth, but are ferocious advocates for a set of policies that have hobbled our economy and are diametrically opposed to their own best interests. Worse yet, they don't care they're being manipulated. But that's why the myth is floated in the first place.

That's the shame of reactionary conservativism. Many were once intellectual conservatives, until the visceral reactionaries ran them out of the Republican party

@Jim Spence:

You don't do yourself a service with your post. The shame of America right now is that, if we repealed just about everything George W. Bush ever did, we'd be in much better shape. Two wars -- at least one of them completely and fairly obviously unnecessary -- at the same time that we swallowed a right wing ideological tax cut, that was fiscal insanity, unprecedented in American history.

The Clinton-era tax rates were working just fine. Restoring those rates is a "tax increase" only in some multi-millionaire's masturbatory fantasy: one that you, freakishly, seem to want to take part in.

You seem to like to label liberals as something worthy of middle-school name calling. Well, I hope you can see by now how well that is working out for people like you. A majority of Americans, including business owners like me, reject your ideological nonsense and want sensible government policies based on something you pay no attention to. Wait for it. Reality.

You predict the economy will start to tank in a year or so? Really? Is that all you've got? And who are you that we should listen for half of a second to your predictions?

By all indicators, the economy has fought back into positive numbers under the policies that Obama has fought, tooth-and-nail, to implement against your party's obstruction for the last four years.

Did you ever hear the expression "put your money where your mouth is"?

Kindly explain to all of us reality-virgins which President had more stock market increases (as opposed to stock market drops) on the first trading day of each year in which he would be President.

And then please explain whether the implicit predictions of those stock market moves were proved right or wrong by actual economic facts on the ground.

What you will find, if you examine the facts objectively, is that your political and non-economic ideological prescriptions are economic suicide for this great republic.

So, you know, that thing that John Boehner said to Harry Reid?

Salut. A vous.

jeffrey: I'm not sure exactly what you call "supply-side economics." But, it appears that you are great at criticizing and have nothing to offer in return. From your posts, it appears that you prefer the government to dictate everything. The problem with that is that the government, in the entire history of mankind, has been the most inefficient mechanism ever devised by man.

The fact is that the "free-market" system is the most efficient system ever devised by man. Why? Because each individual gets to decide for themselves what they want to buy and for how much. The fact is that the "invisible hand" as described by Adam Smith exists and it makes sense. Whenever government gets involved, nothing by inefficiency happens. In other words, everyone gets less bang for the buck.

I realize that you hate private enterprise, but the fact is they are the ones that create all the wealth. There is no way government can create wealth. We've seen it repeatedly over the centuries. Just look at the old Soviet Union. Could they buy a loaf of bread cheaper than we could here in the US? Sure! But, they were allotted a loaf a week and they had to wait hours in line. Why? Because the consumers (and yes, they are still consumers even though the government despised the idea of consumerism) wanted the bread and thought it was well worth the price. The problem is that the government couldn't produce enough of it at that price to make it worthwhile for the government. So, the same concepts are in play whether you have a government run operation or free-market system. Liberals (a/k/a socialists) seem to think that the government can just dictate things and because they so decree it, that it must be best for everyone. The thing is, how does government decide how much to charge. The fact is that they will end up following the free-market system as much as possible, at least if their constituents don't like to wait in lines. Don't know if you remember the oil embargo during the Nixon years, but Nixon went along with a price freeze and the only thing that happened was long lines to pump gas. Why? Because the price of gas was up because it became a scarce commodity, yet people still wanted (needed) it. Producers need to make money to survive. They just can't sell something at a price of less than what it costs them to make. Socialists seem to think that, well, sure you can, especially if it is made by the government. The problem is that the more money the government puts into one thing, the less money they have to put into something else. Again, that is something that socialists don't understand. But, I suspect that in spite of Obama's distaste for the free-market system, he does have a basic understanding of this. That's why he threw out his comment about some people taking a pill rather than going through the expense of being treated.

Witch - Like too many that post here....You assume facts not in evidence and assign attributes that aren't true and couldn't even be inferred from statements made. Love government, hate private enterprise etc and other hackneyed rhetoric doesn't enlighten or move the discussion forward. The fact that you claim to not know what Supply Side economics is about, is somewhat disturbing, because a pure market economy supporter like yourself, should find many of it's theories, disturbing in real world application. Unless one fully understands Supply Side theories and how their misapplication has structurally damaged our economy and taken the once well paid middle class consumer out of the economic "driver's seat", one has a lot to learn about how to improve modern American economics

As a moderate, a centrist and an avowed supporter of intelligently balanced marker economics, I'm dismayed that a critique of imbalances and dysfunction that exist in our economy and our political system are viewed as having "nothing to offer". The world's economy and social systems has evolved since Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" in 1776. or since Marx wrote in the 1840's. That's why many economic systems have been tried, but only one has a chance at succeeding in the long run. An intelligently regulated, market-based system, that serves customers well, encourages a savvy, thoughtful entrepreneurial spirit, rejects monopolies, oligopolies and most of all, rejects a plutocracy or a government that gerrymanders what could be an elegantly balanced economic system.

I'm perhaps the last poster than needs a lecture in political economics. I take the time to post to encourage people with passion, but with a somewhat muted understanding of the sweet science, to take the time to move away from dogma and especially from the fragmented understanding they have, of what is a complex and often highly propagandized field and look to collaborate and compromise, so we encourage our leaders in business and government to do the same. Even those that are fabulously wealthy Witch, like Warren Buffet, understand that the nonsensical dogma pushed by those who want Supply Side economics to persist, needs to be illuminated as the poison it is to our once powerful market economy. A system that strikes a harmonious economic balance, where as many of us as possible can be successful contributors to the economy, where we have intelligent relationships between entrepreneur and customer, between business and government and a responsible media that chooses to enlighten the citizenry, rather than doing the bidding of any group, whether it be government, a political party, or vested special interests, should be our goal. Remember, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Enjoy your holiday season.

Jeffrey,

I'm sorry...a little late in responding to your post. I really enjoyed it...felt like I was back in grad school listening to a friend.

As G. Bush the First said...supply side economics = vodoo economics. In hind site, I respect him, I think he was a good president. He had the guts to raise taxes which set up Clinton to balance the budget. He got beat for it...although I continue to believe if Perrot hadn't run, Bush would have won.

To witchrunner, I believe very strongly that the free market best allocates resource and certainly better than planned economies. The problem with the free market concept is that it doesn't exist in reality. It exists in text books. The problem with free market theory is that a number of the fundemental assumptions required for free markets don't exist. In some cases, are not even approximated. The most egregious example is health care. Politicians offer free market solutions to health care when there absolutely no basis to believe that people operate in free market ways. Going to the doctor is nothing like going to the grocery store and choosing between apples and oranges.

Back to supply side economics...my problem with it is that anyone with common sense knows that it can't work because even if a business man's cost were reduced to zero, if he couldn't sell the product, he wouldn't produce it. My experience tells me that although tax is certainly a consideration, it is a minor consideration in the decision to expand a business. The more important considerations are...will it sell?, and at what price?. Once the demand and pricing is determined, the next question is ...can I make it? and what will it cost? Tax is a cost...added in with all the other costs.

Another interesting and somewhat misleading concept is "Job Creator". I have a question, "Was Steve Jobs a job creator when he was working with his buddy in his garage in the late 70s or Was he a job creator when he invented the iPod?" I would say he was more of a job creator in 1978. Clearly, he was a job creator in both cases, but my point is that if we want to stimulate job creation, we should spend more resource helping the small garage businesses (they are part of the 98%). They are the businesses that will expand jobs by 1,000Xs.

Old Man... Very astute analysis my friend. I especially enjoyed your comment about health care and the "free market" and how the "free market" doesn't really(and perhaps can't) exist in a real world scenario. What is labeled "free market" by Supply Siders, is a misnomer to disguise a system that discourages a true entrepreneurial spirit, that's rigged to disproportionately favor the investor and management classes, to the detriment of the all important demand engine created by a confident and well-paid middle/working class consumer.

In health care, like education, Supply Side/ Faux free market principals are applied with the wrong target in the sights. The result is that the true benefit to society and the economy is lost in the hub bub. The real target, should be a healthier citizen- premium payer (or a well educated student), not a more profitable insurer or a less well paid educator. To have the healthiest possible (therefore more productive), best educated (therefore more employable and wise) society, we need to make those goals national priorities, as free as possible from overly simplistic or misapplied economic dogma, that are always part of a well-financed misdirection campaign. Far too many people these days, lack a solid formal education in economics, history and political science. They lack the time, inclination or skill set, to be immune from the misdirection sold daily by slick propagandists, that use these powerful media tools to distract and misinform folks into passionately supporting ideas that are often diametrically opposed to their own best interests

Keep up the good fight, Old Man. I try to add your well thoughtful examples to my mind set and on-going political-economic education. One can never bring too much good logic and data to the table of solution-oriented collaboration. Have a Happy and prosperous New Year, my friend.

Thanks to all who found my earlier post of all the votes informative. I was a bit hesitant about posting it because a lot of people don't like long posts.

Don't you wish that with every story about some Congressional vote had a link in it that included how everybody voted? It would be so easy to do and would be informative. The more we know about how our Congressmen vote, the more educated voters we will become.

Jeffrey,

I'm a day late and probably a $ short on the response but I was very sick and stepped away. I am very passionate about my beliefs and I do research things. I appreciate your discourse- you've been blunt and discerning when making your points, but never cruel. And you most certainly didn't call me sweetheart, like another poster did. But I digress...

I do see a lot of sides of the coin. I, for one, am most definitely for free birth control. Prevention is a lot cheaper than the cure. I, however, am not for government-funded abortion- not because I am a christian or religious (even though I guess I fall into that category being Catholic), but simply because people should be responsible for their actions by 1. having insurance to pay for the abortion, 2. taking the pill so as not to get pregnant, and 3. not having a child that will be in the system instantly- but since it is all a nasty cycle of one thing leads to another, then it seems like things will never get solved if we don't set up rules, limitations, and boundaries. But again, we can't do that because we have to paint things with a broad brush.

I am all for Medicaid/Medicare...etc. I will be old one day and I am not aware of a way to see my future, sa of yet. But, since everyone is required now to have insurance, whether individual pay or government-funded, then WHY do we have duplicity of these things?

Teachers do not make enough. I work/ed very closely with my children and their teachers to get the most out of public education. My oldest graduated college with a Masters and on a full-ride scholarship because of his exceptional grades. My 2nd is in college now- getting loans that SHE will pay back, not me or the taxpayer. My 3rd is almost done with HS and is in the top of her classes. My 4th, well, he's just started. But, I demand from the teachers what I demand from myself. Not because they are "government", but simply because it is their job and I am happy to do my part. Money will not solve the education of my children. Throwing money at that doesn't make my children smarter- education does. But, I don't expect you or anyone else to pay back their college loan obligation because they went and signed a 25% interest loan. I don't expect you to bail them out when they buy a $500K house on a $25K a year job and default.

And to the person that called me Sweetheart- let me explain something to your chauvanistic attitude...everything I have, I earned. The business I owned and sold- I did it. The credit hole I dragged myself out of- I did it. The children I raised- I did it. NONE of that came from the government or the taxpayers-all around me people were getting free stuff. I wasn't eligible or it would take too long to even be approved.

I will state again, in very easy wording: I never said ALL did that, meaning the welfare attitiudes and actions, but I see it. If I see it, then it will stand to reason that they aren't the only 10 in this country doing it. The companies that are on the news DAILY, defrauding the government dole don't really exist? Just because you don't see it means that the wonderful programs in place are exactly that-wonderful. Chicago teachers picketing in the streets, making a lot more than teachers in Georgia I will add, just cheated kids out of schooling, even for a few short days. But they got paid.

So, SWEETHEART, how much more government do we need to pay for when people need to be more responsible for themselves? This isn't a racial issue, or a partisan issue- this is cold, hard economic reality. I didn't vote a party line but I guess you assume I did-or is it because I am a woman who refuses to accept mediocrity and irresponsibility that you felt the need to assume?

I have no problem helping my fellow man. I do have a problem in the way it is going now however.

All such well written posts... by the left hand and the right, too. Maybe there is hope, after all.

An intelligently regulated, market-based system,

Yes, that.

Savage... Agreed..wholeheartedly. More than hope, it is a certainty.... As a passionate moderate and a solution-oriented centrist, I too believe there is reason to believe that there are people out there, who are the perfect example of a diverse group, that are willing and able to collaborate, compromise and craft some great solutions to the problems we face. The dogmatically narrow, unwilling to do so, need not apply.

Additionally, to build on your point, if the least cynical, enlightened, open and rational minded of we who posted here (conservative, liberal and moderate), were to be charged with finding the most functional solutions to many of the problems and identifying and retaining the things that already work well (Don't fix it if it ain't broke) I'm convinced that we could most certainly do so....

A good New Year to all !

Respectful discussion and civility, is key to people (and our leaders) being able to converse about important issues, without name calling or assigning labels to people that may not agree with one's original mindset. The attitude that says if you don't share my POV, you are a so and so, with these beliefs etc., is exactly what the propagandists in the media and politics want to have happen. This keeps regular folks divided and squabbling about semantics, rather than collaborating and finding those things on which they can agree. The faster we can identify the reactionaries and demagogues in the media and politics, that are a BAD influence on the conversation, the sooner we can kick them to the curb and reward those among us willing to collaborate and craft intelligent, functional solutions to our mutual problems.

Head- Growing from our mistakes is perhaps the best example we can set, when raising our children. Raising happy, successful children, who are their own people, who find their first best thing to cultivate, is the most important contribution we can make to society at large.

I'm sorry that some people use the relative safety and anonymity of the internet, to insult others and you in particular Head. But as BloodthirstySavage points out, there are many, intelligent, educated, articulate people, from all walks and points of view, that are the very embodiment of a hopeful future America, that can set a very satisfying example of respectful collaboration.

Returning to a point you made in an earlier post, go for the gusto and file to run for your state legislature seat. Certainly, the influence of outside big money, that only wants narrow-minded special interest influenced candidates to be elected to office, has reduced state level partisan politics into a distasteful venture. But independent-minded, educated people, that passionately wish to represent the needs of ALL the people of their home districts (and not simply be talking point driven autobots, unwilling to collaborate and/or compromise) are desperately needed to run for office. Who knows what could happen ?

Yes you are.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 3 remaining "fiscal cliff" like episodes to come between now and April.

More cliffnotes...More suspense...More clearly we can see when Republicans Behave Badly.

Agreed..

Ninja-yes you are. Your father would be so proud.

Actually, if the President and Democrats can just stay on message the way they have since the election, each of the cliffs coming up will just offer more opportunities for the GOP to divide even more in factions that will hurt them in both the short term in midterm elections, and also in the long term as they become more irrelevant to the majority if voters. Unless the GOP can stop pandering to the Tea Party and special interests groups and return back to a more moderate party, they will doom themselves to continually lose supporters and be the minority party for many years out.

Republicans behaving badly...? What nonsense is that? This Bill that was passed last night also included $400 million... or what was that $400 billion TO HOLLYWOOD Producers thus giving them a FREE HANDOUT TOO! WTF kind of closet dealings are going on up there?!? That is absolutely horrendous and HAD NOTHING to do with any fiscal mess. So what was the point of taxing the high dollar earners! *shakes my head*

No wonder this country has massive problems.

and don't forget there was this included to that passage too:

" A number of corporate tax breaks and loopholes would be extended, including the "active financing" tax exemption for major corporations (cost $9 billion^[66]), a rum tax supporting Puerto Rico rum industry ($547 million in 2009) and a tax benefit for NASCAR racetrack owners (around $43 million).^{[67] "}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff

: )

Dear Congress,

Yes, cuts are in order. However before you touch your so called entitlement programs lets address some additional costs.....

1. Runaway spending by Home Land Security

2. Runaway cost of Public Sector Workers

3. Runaway costs of Foreign Aid

4. Runaway cost of Military Hardware

5. Runaway cost of CONGRESS

6. Runaway cost of EPA

7. Runaway cost of TSA

When this is done then we can talk about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and Unemployment…..

“This is the story of this Congress, “ NBC’s Chuck Todd said on Wednesday’s “Today” show. Chuck Todd had it all as us against them. Who the hell is Chuck Todd anyway?

Of course the whips voted against this as it was a protest vote. The next agenda from Obama is let the Illegal immigrants into the system you have paid for your whole life and lets take away your guns. You reap what you sow.

This is what happens when you elect people to represent you that do not have to live by the same rules you do.

@Ninja:

Picture this one shining moment: You sat down at a computer more powerful than the entire Apollo program. You were connected to a world-encompassing and transformative information network. You had access to literally dozens, perhaps hundreds of NBC News readers. They came to the place eager for news and discussion of an event that had just caused the stock market to have one of its best days ever.

Think of that. Ever.

You reached for the keyboard.

This is your moment, Ninja. Swing for the fences.

Eric-913730 wrote:

"It will be interesting to see what happens with the 3 remaining "fiscal cliff" like episodes to come between now and April."

Pigotry wrote:

"More cliffnotes...More suspense...More clearly we can see when Republicans Behave Badly."

Indeed. You know, I think that if we really want to solve our nation's financial issues (budget deficit, national debt), the implementation of absolute term limits for Congress is probably 90% of the problem. Example: Say that if Senators and Representatives know that in their lifetime they cannot under any circumstances serve more than either one, six-year term in the US Senate, or two, 2-year terms in the US House (not both) the entire impetus for focus on the preservation of their seats in that body will be eliminated, and they can focus on the work of the people. No more fiefdoms of power and influence in the Congress.

The other 10% of the problem, the money, can be addressed by making illegal political contributions to a candidate from ANY source whatsoever (individual, corporate, PAC, etc.), exceeding $1,000 in a single Congressional election cycle ... and the implementation of a 10-year ban on any Senator of Representative working for any industry, corporation or special interest which they were responsible for overseeing while serving on Congressional committees.

The US Constitution was amended (following FDR's election to the presidency four times) to limit presidents to two lifetime terms. The same should be true for the US Congress.

Remove the personal financial incentives, you remove the corruption. Remove the corruption and you are left with an assemblage of individuals wishing to serve in Congress in the interests of 'we the people' ... because they feel duty-bound to do so.

We should SPLIT the country for 10 years..... Blue states go your way & Red states go the other.....

After 9 years apart, we'll see who wants to change sides.............

Remember, the USSR has already tried the liberal side and LOST...........

They passed the least legislation, and anytime I hear a "tea wacko" talk on television I'm surprised by the inane comments that have little to do with what American's want for America.

There are extremists on both sides, don't let them get too much under your skins. The GOP has been hijacked by them but there are a lot of reasonable GOP in office [u.e.: former Snowe]. The thing to do now is to let your elected ones know [often] that you expect them to be reasonable and work together on solving issues that are truly important to us.

VooDooEcon thinking is wrong. Again. Big suprise...

Obama will go down in history as one of the best Presidents in history.

As Bill Clinton pointed out: 66 million jobs created since the 60's.....42 million by the Dems....and 24 million by the Repubs.....whose looking out for America?

eric -- is your measure of a congress the number of new laws passed? if so, which laws do you believe the house failed to move onto the senate? and let's consider the other direction from the senate to the house?

california has over 800 new laws that went into effect yesterday. is that the model you would like to follow?

President vacation days first term==65 days, opposed to W==169 days, total days for W over 900 days, including 77 flights to the weed infested ranch, renovations for the crab grass ranchero, over 900 working vacations days, all on the tax payer dime Congress in session less that 120 days out of 365 and the President is begrudged some time off--pfft!

VooDoo-

Do you realize how stupidly petty you guys sound when you talk about Obama and his vacations? Or maybe you don't even read your own posts. I was about to document your president's vacations vs former POTUSs, but then I thought, "why waste my time" because these boneheads will go to their graves raving about things that have no bearing on anything, no matter how many facts and how much reason is shown them.

But you serve a purpose in that I believe you learn as much from bad examples as you do from good ones. So the more of your inane prattle is put in front of rational people, the more they will turn away from you and your right wing associates. Maybe thanks are in order for unknowingly doing something positive.

voodoo......

g.w. will hold his title of worst president ever forever. most irresponsible administration ever. Started 2 wars and lowered taxes at the same time. EVERY war we had fought was funded by raising taxes. The federal Income tax was created to fund the Civil War. Lincoln DOUBLED the tax rate on the highest wage earners well into the war to provide additional funding. you can blame more than the majority of our debt on mr 'national guard no-show' bush and mr dickless '5 deferment ' cheney for their ultimate irresponsibility.

Where have we been? How did we ever reach the point where we have blindly placed such self serving pompous @!$%#s in charge of our once GREAT nation? The leaders of our Country no longer have a clue of what life is really like at the "street" level (nor do they care). This Country is doomed for failure due to their greed. We are being run by "lawmakers" that remind me of whining, crying babies in a daycare nursery........... and by the way, we really should get off the Presidents ass and look to the real cause of our problem, the so called lawmakers of our Nation!!!!

The GOP Clown Circus continues!

Wouldn't it be ironic if we all chipped in and bought them a Fisker Karma to use as a clown car? However; if you include their entourage of pundits, we'd need a fleet of A380's - all coach seating.

I continue to be astounded at all the opportunities that the GOP has thrown away to secure a Simpson - Bowles level debt reduction; ruined because of their stubborn ideology. It's not principles folks - it's non-existent negotiating skills.

Eric, Thanks for the laugh on the Obama greatest pres. in history comment. BWHAAHHAHHHAHHHAHHAHHAHHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHHAHAHAHHAH!!!!!!!!!!!

And your democrats are not clowns too? Your party clowns just want to raise taxes and keep on wasting our money, but hey there's really no debt crisis. That is just something Republicans made up, right? We can just keep on borrowing more money from China or just print more money. Anyway, everyone taxes just went up and government waste along with it. Of course you godless liberal progressive democrats will just blame everyone else. Happy New Year!

Obama made up the term "fiscal cliff" to scare the public into demanding the GOP sign the democat led tax raises for the middle and upper middle class, without spending cuts. America, you are the clowns if you bought into that and verbally attacked your GOP.

I love all the name calling on these post. Makes everyone feel so superior and lets me know that I have indeed met my intellectual matches, no need for me to comment as I will undoubtedly get called several names by people who have never met me nor will ever meet me. So post away you name callers and may your day forever be great as you try to tear someone down who does'nt think exactly like you do.

I hope America gets its head out of the dark stinky hole its in and realizes that no matter who is in office they truly are only looking out for their own greed, re-election, and backsides.

Make over 75K? You just lost $1,200 this year, bud. Good old Obamacare. I'm already paying over $500/month for my own family healthcare, now I have to shell out another $1,200 more? Yeah, make us ALL pay because some loser doesn't have insurance.

Not to mention Small Business taxes are going through the roof this year now. If you were recently hired by one, chances are you won't make it through the year as due to their massive tax increase, they will have no choice but to start laying people off or crumble.

Democrats who can't stop spending at their best. You won't have a job....but they'll make sure some African country gets their trillions in aid.

Told you so,Actually the term fiscal Cliff came from non other than Mr. Bernacke. Either way,I am sick of that term. The only taxes that were raised for the middle class was the Social Security tax and those were brought back to the same level as before the cuts.

Laker Steve - no idea what you are talking about.

I'm already paying over $500/month for my own family healthcare, now I have to shell out another $1,200 more?

If you were paying $500/month for family health care (more than two people) you were getting a steal or you are just full of BS, $1200/month sounds like more the norm pre ACA. If you look at the rate of increase in health care insurance over the last 10 years you might find that in fact you are paying less now than you would have without ACA.

Not to mention Small Business taxes are going through the roof this year now

How is that? Just because you said so does not make it so.

Laker Steve Like most Lakers fans, you're so used to a disproportionate of success, that paying your dues like the rest of us blows your up your ego. The Health Insurance business model isn't based on serving the customer(patient), it's about returning profit to investors or rewarding management for screwing or excluding claimants. $500/mo for to cover health insurance for you and your family means that you and your family are young, healthy and have had no accidents or no acts of god that have affected your health. The increase isn't paying for LOSERS Steve. People don't have coverage for a variety of reasons(Job doesn't offer it, unaffordable or unavailable because of health reasons.). If you have a private insurance carrier, your premium increase of $100 mo or 20%, is your carrier hedging their bet and making YOU pay(because they don't want to cover people unlucky enough to have a preexisting condition, or a life threatening illness. They are making sure they can still pay their dividends and support their stock price for the benefit of upper management (who''s paid with stock). Remember as well Steve. Some day you will have health issues that affect you or your family. I doubt you would want to sell your house and/or cash out your IRA early, to meet your health care expenses after your carrier dumps you. Health Care/health care ins. shouldn't be only affordable for those who never file a claim(healthy and/or lucky) and their business model shouldn't be adversarial. Someday you'll find out why.

@Griff, hmmmm......18 votes (3:00pm MST) to 1 vote.........bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!

And Barry has had FOUR YEARS to fulfill his promises to get us OUT of war......

Wonder how he's doing on that one?

You are correct, Jack, just as the President was elected to represent BOTH Democrat and Republican constituents. However, just like the President, these elected officials work mostly for those people who elected them, not everyone. It's called democracy. Majority rules. Our President said he had a "Mandate" from the people because he was re-elected, yet I seriously doubt most people voted for him JUST because of the raising of the taxes on the 2%. There were other reasons.
So we all must face the reality of the situation.

Gee, Obama was elected by a wider margin than Bush in '04, yet Republicans then said Bush had a mandate......

think -- is any margin of victory a mandate? do you agree with obama that he received a mandate and that the nearly 60,000,000 that did not vote for him need to be silenced and not represented?

And look where that got the Republicans, Eric...

Well, billybob, everyone votes based on THEIR desires from their elected officials. And ALL politicians think they have a "Mandate" when they win. Try and convince any politician their election is NOT a referendum on their policies and you've solved the problem with Congress.

you mean the problem with congress where the senate refuses to do their job? i cannot understand how a leader can simply refuse to do his job with no consequences.

for example, the law requires the passing of a budget but for more than 3 years the senate has refused to do so. that kind of leadership is appalling and yet the constituents in nevada returned him to the senate where he imposes his will on all Americans. that is a problem for me. i believe the speaker could do better as well but do not feel he has been nearly as derelict in his duty as the senate's majority leader.

voodoo.........

trickle down economics is voodoo economics. ask the people of greece. it's never worked. NEVER. even reagan had to raise taxes. Top rate 50%.

Eric

Obama was re-elected by a smaller margin than in 2004 on 7 million less votes than he had in 2004. So much for any real "mandate".

BillyBob,

It's only the majority of people who actually voted that count for electoral votes, so yes, there was a mandate there, but that's only part of the story. Anybody who didn't vote by definition agreed (in their absence) to accept whatever the results of those that did vote decided. Not voting is a choice as much as voting is. In my book, every non-voter is a vote for the incumbent, since the status quo was apparently fine to them or they don't care either way which also says the status quo is fine. Adding all the non-voters in as citizens who apparently had no major issues with the first term gave Obama a truly huge mandate to finish the job he started in 2008.

@DBAkron, as usual you are the fountain of misinformation.

"As of now, President Obama’s popular margin of victory is bigger than both of George W. Bush’s election wins in 2000 and 2004.

According to the numbers compiled by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama now leads Mitt Romney 50.81%-47.48% in the popular vote. President Obama’s popular vote margin is now bigger than both of the last two successful Republican presidential elections. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, 48.38%-47.87%. In 2004, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in the popular vote, 50.73%-48.27%. Obama is currently posting the biggest margin of victory since Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole, 49.24%-40.71% in 1996."

http://www.politicususa.com/obamas-margin-victory-bigger-george-w-bushs-wins.html

Sorry Bud...... but when I ELECT a CONSERVATIVE.... I EXPECT a conservative vote.......

And this country is DIVIDED by Mr Obama.........

job -- did this bill meet obama's balanced requirement? wasn't he going to veto anything that was not balanced? do you think he should veto this bill given the reported $41 dollars in new taxes for every $1 in reduced spending?

Job 1 taxes are going up for 77% of wage earners. Check your next FICA deduct on your paycheck.

"Taxes are going up on the top percent and we have added a little more fairness to the landscape"

Fairness? That's your problem Job1, you don't want solutions, you want fairness. We spend too much in this country, and we refuse to fix the problem, but we don't focus on that. As a Democrat we need to make things 'Fair'. So that lazy high school dropouts and welfare suckers get taken care of, because it's fair. We need solutions to make people and government accountable, and stop just handing out money that fixes nothing.

Your thinking is what Jobs1...? Like most others I have seen posting on these threads and were SO concerned about taxing the top earners.... now what??? That SHOULD have taken place at the same time all this trumped up ' cliff mess ' was being taken care of. It is absolutely appalling to hear ' fairness '. I remember listening to a lady on the radio talking about how the wealthy needed to pay their fair share, yet to her ' their fair share ' was well over 50% if not more. Is that what stems your logic too?

Yes, Jobs, there is quite a bit to do yet, like controlling spending. That's where the biggest fight is yet to come and the biggest challenge that is needed. Whether it's the military or "entitlements", cuts need to be made in both programs or else the tax increase on the 2% will translate into a tax increase on all. Someone has to pay the bills.

Why didn't Van Hollen address the Democrats drug problems?

They are addicted to spending and the remedy they seek is more drugs.

If that's the right way to treat addiction, why have we spent $150 billion on the "War on Drugs"?

John yes the taxes are going BACK to what has always been the requirement for social security 6.2 % to be exact. The drop of 2 % was just another Bush gimmick. all of which did nothing but put us more in debt. and make social security more of a mess.

Gee I thought President Obama introduced the 2% cut. Silly me.

It's called compromise. For me as a Progressive, I wanted to see anyone at $250,000 and above taxes go up. However, we needed to compromise. So, moving forward this President and Vice-President are going to get more Great things done.

And yes the payroll tax on SS is going back to 6.2 % as it should. By the way the stock market has shot up today.

job -- so you believe that the $60 - $80B to be raised by the new taxes over ten years solves a problem other than playing to the progressive base of which you are a part?

do you believe any spending cuts, true spending cuts not just reductions in the standard increases, will happen during obama's term?

has anybody noticed how we were all distracted from gas prices. a barrel of oil went down to $80 meaning gas at the pump should of dropped to below $3. so the oil industry once again got over on us. and they will still get their welfare check.

Anti-trust proponent,

I agree that we (the constituents) need to help Congress with choosing the programs that need to be debated and reduced. I know there is fat in the Defense budget when you have military experts say they don't need

1)a backup engine the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

2)single source contracts (does Haliburton ring a bell)

Wage increases

3) the Congress should not be able to give themselves pay hikes. If the rest of government has a salary freeze then they should too. Better yet, Congress should only be paid the countries average wage which is around $50k. This should provide an incentive to work for the average citizen when they review bills for high expenditure items.

4) This one is a spending one - I'm an engineer and see that the countries infrastructure is failing through neglect. I think that we need to have a concerted effort to bring new technology to the power grid and repair the existing bridges in this country. This would put people to work and add to the revenue.

5) means testing for social security and medicare - (even Lindsey Grahm (R) SC mentioned this on the floor) the common argument is that "I paid into this system so I should be able to take from it". Well, I thought about that for a long time. I pay taxes at the gasoline pump for revenue to repair roads and bridges. I still pay that money even if I don't travel on all the state's roads. This tax is the cost of maintaining the roads so that I can get gasoline at my local station and food at the local grocery store. I pay city & county taxes for the schools. I don't have any kids going to school. I am maintaining the schools and teachers so that there is an educated work force that will have jobs to pay federal taxes that will in turn pay my social security and medicare. Wealthy people don't need to have the deep discounts that other retirees need to afford insurance. Let's be realistic, if I had a million dollars in retirement funds why do I need to get social security and low cost medicare? I can afford to pay it. And for those wealthy retirees complaining that they paid into the system. Well, it's the cost of having a sound government and keeping retirees out of homeless shelters.

I'm all for discussions on give and take. What are the loop holes? Does the oil industry need the credits since they were originally put in effect when the price of crude tanked to below $30 a barrel. Do we need to give incentives (tax code allows write-off of expenses in the given year) for moving production or services off-shore? Let's start a conversation and then push this up the hill to Congress.

When the American economy more closely resembles that of Greece I will be happy to give all liberals credit. Most of you can't see beyond party loyalty to know what is good for Americans and what isn't. You will be given full credit for your stupidity. Obama is an arrogant liar and you just got taken yet again by him. Pathetic. Kudos to John B. for telling Reid to go @!$%# himself. Priceless!!!!!!!

Job1

It's called compromise. For me as a Progressive, I wanted to see anyone at $250,000 and above taxes go up.

Everyone's taxes did go up, even those making $50,000.00 a year. Happy now? Happy New Progressive Year!

Chzhead2004

Great post. Totally agree with what you wrote, because it makes sense, but there are not many people who post comments here that want to read or hear what you wrote, because that would mean personally responsibility and that is lacking today. Most people want to just blame someone else for their problems instead of themselves. Sad thing is that will never change. Don't you know this is the new age of Progressives.

Make over 75K? You just lost $1,200 this year, bud. Good old Obamacare. I'm already paying over $500/month for my own family healthcare, now I have to shell out another $1,200 more? Yeah, make us ALL pay because some loser doesn't have insurance.

Not to mention Small Business taxes are going through the roof this year. If you were recently hired by one, chances are you won't make it through the year as due to their massive tax increase, they will have no choice but to start laying people off or crumble.

Democrats who can't stop spending at their best. You won't have a job....but they'll make sure some African country gets their trillions in aid.

Wow Laker....I'm not even going to respond with anything but a sigh and the hope that I never have to meet you in person. You are one delusional guy.

Quiz: Who made the following quote in 2008?

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” ... “That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,”

Speaking of Means Testing for SS, how about this: No means test until you have received as much as you and your employer "contributed" in your name, after that impose a means test.

Why wait to 2014? No deal is always better than a bad deal. O got everything he wanted, Dems got 85% of what they wanted... GOP got Scre@#$ed and felt that they DID THE BEST THEY COULD but ended up with inceases in taxes, increased spending and no RESPECT.

Before you bury the Republican Party, please remember back in 2006 when Democrats swept into Congress (both the House and Senate) with a "Mandate". Four years later, they lost the House overwhelming and still couldn't wrestle it away from the Republicans this year. Politics ebbs and flows.

Daniel: GOP lost all respect some time ago!

@Gilboagirl,

Dems lost respect around 1964 when Johnson was in office.

.

Could the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Medicare Legislation of 1965 have something do with the Republican obsession with repealing same?

@Skyparrot

Circa 1964 problems have more to do with LBJ raiding social security funds, his "credibility gap" and his pretext of utopian vision covering his very racist views--not to mention his vindictive nature toward greater minds, such as Bobby Kennedy's.

That's when the democratic party ceased to be a credible party and when it began to survive based primarily on handouts in his so-called "great society."

Blackbeered

Why didn't Van Hollen address the Democrats drug problems?

They are addicted to spending and the remedy they seek is more drugs.

If that's the right way to treat addiction, why have we spent $150 billion on the "War on Drugs"?

Blackbeered

When Republicans talk about "Fiscal Responsibility" it is a slogan, like "Things Go Better with Coke", it has nothing whatever to do with their behavior. They are largely responsible for the deficit.

Of the $14 Trillion in debt incurred up to the middle of the first Obama Administration $9 Trillion was incurred by a combination of Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. The additional $6 Trillion was spent to prevent a second Great Republican Depression and was advocated by every reputable economist on the planet.

If you were to look back in history you would find that Republicans are responsible for our economic problems and they are advocating the exact same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

1978-2005 Democratic Federal Spending Increase 9.9%
1978-2005 Republican Federal Spending Increase 12.1%

1978-2005 Democratic Federal Debt Increase 4.2%
1978-2005 Republican Federal Debt Increase 36.4%

1978-2005 Democratic Gross Domestic Product Increase 12.6%
1978-2005 Republican Gross Domestic Product Increase 10.7%

As you can see Republicans spend more, increase the debt more and produce less, all while claiming to be "Fiscally Responsible".

john, you are completely full of @!$%#. Site some sources next time.

The Tea party wants no tax increases on any taxpayer. Now 77% of taxpayers will see their taxes go up.

Trying to discuss logic with a liberal is like trying to teach your 2 year old to do your taxes. All they know is hatred and name-calling.

VooDooEcon, no plainer truth has been presented.

• Libs would live in a world where things are "fair," and everyone gets a "fair share."
• Dems live in a poli-superstitous world with fear of things not familiar to them, like guns.
• Dems live in an academic world surrounded by information that has been presented to them instead of experiencing the real world.
• Dems would live in a world where things are "what they should be" instead of what things are.

talk about not living in the real world

Great comeback, Lori W.

You no doubt are surrounded by many admirers of your overwhelming gift of extemporaneous wit.

The so called president wants a balanced approach. Yes, maybe with the ever declining educational standards in this country there is someone out there who thinks over $600B in tax increases paid only by 1-2% higher income people, combined with only $12B in spending reductions and then adding in additional spending to actually increase over the levels before the "reduction" is "balanced". The deficit will now be around $20 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. The chickens will come to roost on the national debt. It won't be pretty and you can thank the community organizer for not having the guts or comprehension to deal with it. But Oprah and Chris Mathews will love him anyway.

Trying to discuss logic with a liberal is like trying to teach your 2 year old to do your taxes. All they know is hatred and name-calling.

I don't know how you raised your kids, but my children weren't like that at two years old. I guess if that's your experience, though, it's no wonder you expect the worst out of everyone you disagree with.

If only the "rich" (small business owners willing to put everything on the line) got their taxes reduced before.... How is it that only the "middle class" get to keep their Bush tax cuts??

Obama helped his very wealthy friends in the end. Would have been much better to cut out loopholes that only the true multi millionares get to use/abuse. All those Hollywood types that love to spend time at the whitehouse already have their money hidden: overseas in banks and homes. Cut the loopholes on those and tons of taxes come in....

Why is it people have to be told they need to pay " a little more"? You can always pay more taxes if you want. Don't need a law

dnick, better check your facts. It's Billy and Franklin Graham, John Haggee and the other fundalimited who have been bought and paid for by the repugs.

Better than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakan

Both sides pander to religious groups, because they are a large voting block.

Personally, I cringed every time someone went after Romney over being a Mormon. There were plenty of reasons to dislike Romney other than his religious beliefs. But our politics are so heavily dominated by Christian beliefs that it isn't even funny. I point to all the wack jobs in this country that still believe in their hearts that Obama is secretly a Muslim. While still trying to nail him to a cross over the reverend Wright comments.

No one is more intolerant of religion than the religious.

Actually they do...did you not witness most moderate Republicans LEAVING???

Smoke much weed today?

Drink much Kool-Aid today VooDoo?

Bob, VooDoo's perception and insight, although extreme, are correct.

I also agree with Oh_no's comment in principle, but anyone who believes society can be a utopia with everyone getting along and working for the greater good of mankind is working on the level of Pollyanna.

inMY - what I am suggesting is far from naive or utopia. What I am suggesting are four major goals that our elected officials should be working on ...abortion, religion, individual lifestyles are not issues that will save our collective azzes. You and I should be demanding our elected ones to focus and on the few and get the job done.

Oh_no,

I can't argue with you there. Apologies for over interpreting your original comment.What 4 issues do you refer to?

That's true, but nobody remembered that because both parties realized it had to happen. The real tough task will be when the reforms are made. Like do they raise the eligibility age for Social Security? Do the cut Medicaid? Food Stamps? Watch the fireworks in two months!

Why wait two months? Just rewind the DVR. It is the same arguments that they made since the election that they made a year ago that they will make 2 months from now.

Nothing has changed, they just found a new way to kick the can farther down the road. The sequester still looms. A few things got extended for another year, but even those aren't looking like they should. They did the bare minimum to push it off on the next Congress. Which starts when? You guessed it February.

Exactly, Kent. Congress (Both the House AND the Senate) in action.

I think the new Congress starts tomorrow, Kent.. I maybe wrong though.

Please, please, please! Somebody make posters stop with the "kick the can down the road" cliche. It is sooooooo yesterday! Let's make a resolution to come up with a whole new set of stupid metaphors for 2013. And yes, the new congress is seated tomorrow, followed by the departure of Boehner as Speaker, replaced by Cantor, his good buddy who always had his back as majority leader. All of which ensures a record setting landslide for Democrats in 2014.

The real tough task will be when the reforms are made. Like do they raise the eligibility age for Social Security? Do the cut Medicaid? Food Stamps? Watch the fireworks in two months!

why not put some cuts in DOD, homeland security

dksouthern, thank you for saying this!

For those who tend toward the trite, please refer to George Carlin's perspective, shown on wikiquotes for the modern man.

that's obama speak for a lie...payroll deduction increases ARE tax increases

we all paid 6.2% SS tax for 20 years. There was a two year tax holiday to 4.2%. The holiday is over. Deal with it and quit crying.

most people don't mind contributing to their social security. they just hope congress doesn't steal it.

Depends on who you have baking the new "bread" of politicians.

@dk, the Philistines will never improve, whether by Mrs. Baird's or Wonder.

Keep - our politicians old or new will not change until we as a people stop being dysfunctional. The TP folks get their new guy in and the liberals get their new guy in then what do you think happens? The problem is us, our representatives do a good job in representing us.

Until the GOP can come up with some real leadership (not the phony ones they presented in 2012), They are going to be producing many, many debacles to the American people.

Obama never made any offers that included spending cuts. He will make no such offers in the future either.

VooDoo...

That's just a lie or you're ill-informed or just in denial.

VooDoo, that's just DooDoo.

I have to agree with VooDoo. The President didn't offer any real cuts in spending. And while I understand why he didn't, it still the fact that we must face. Real cuts are painful and no President wants to be remembered for cutting costs to people. He simply will wait for Congress to do the dirty work and then "compromise" and say to the people, "I tried".

Splain to me if you will just how BamBam would have been willing to cut new spending...... make that if you can.

I just did Minnesota. He punted down the road to Congress along with the Blame.

The President actually offered a bill that had more spending cuts than the republicans. the republicans wouldn't bring it up for a vote because of the $250,000 limit of no tax increases. they also wanted the cuts to come from the middle class and seniors. they didn't like the elimination of welfare to Big Oil, Big Pharma and other big industries that contribute to their pockets.

minnesota, voodoo, etc., your comments are stooooopid lies. The progressives, liberals, and old-line Democrats were outraged that Pres. Obama offered Boehner the reduction in Social Security benefits that would have been generated by changing to the "chained consumer price index." The discussion was in the print media, on all of the talk shows, and well covered even by Foxaganda. That is just one (1) substantial cut in spending of $122 billion that the White House offered. The apparent reality that you don't know about this indicates you're far too uninformed to be discussing fiscal policy, taxation, and budgets on a comment thread.

In addition, Pres. Obama's media flak, Jay Carney, was asked 3 different times by ignorant reporters just what real spending cuts the White House offered. Carney referred them to pages 17 to 45 of the 2011 White House Budget Summary in which $1 trillion of spending cuts were detailed by Cabinet department, agency, and program or project. Every one of those items was offered, in writing, to Boehner during the negotiations, and the final offer had additional cuts that raised the total to $1.2 trillion.

Boehner, his boneheads, and the baggers turned the deal down--4 times. Again, the fact that you seem not to know these things indicates a total inability to pay attention. Even Foxaganda sort of covered Pres. Obama's offer of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and revenues. One of the largest program cuts that was specified reduced grants to airport improvements, Dept. of Transportation, from $3,350 billion to $2,424 billion which is $926 million savings. One that would have pleased the spiteful, wealthy GOP reduces low income home energy assisatnce from $3,472 to $3,020 billion which saves $452 million and let's a few thousand New England po' folks freeze in the dark.

There are/were hundreds of other very specific, named, numbered cuts in spending. Your comments are foolish.

Along with more wasteful spending of money. It is complete nonsense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/from-nascar-to-rum-the-10-weirdest-parts-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/

Just one more do nothing accomplishment for a do nothing administration congress.

MOMINNJ, i fixed that for ya. No need to thank me.

MOMINNJ...

You haven't been following along, have you.

This accomplishes a great deal.

Yeah, taxes will go up on 77% on taxpayers not just the "rich" 2%.

MOMINNJ,

Stop your hate speech and get with the program. We as a Nation are moving Forward with our President.

job -- what hate speech? is disagreeing with a politician now considered hate?

fump...........

take a jump...........the cliff is still there..........we saved it just for you.

LMAO Don!

And Dumb Fux News is fair and balanced.

Ha...I almost thought for a second, you were 100% serious..

Good one Don! Nice original thought!!

C'mon, BigBadBob, show me any news outlet that is NOT biased and I'll show you a Journalist! Something sorely lacking in ALL media coverage.

No Don, what this is showing is that Republicans are starting to break ranks as they realize their agenda of no compromise is killing them.

Not that I don't agree that the Democrats also tend to vote entirely along party lines as well. Both sides have become incredibly polarized and neither can function very well at this point. As the Republicans continue to move farther to the right they force the Democrats farther to the left and vice versa. It is an endless cycle that is killing our government slowly but surely.

Oh, Don-

You're not really being serious here, are you? Sounds like you've OD'd on Foxcrap.

Replace every use of Republican with DemocratIC, and vice versa, and you might have something resembling reality.

why would they oppose drunken sailor spending and more welfare for their victim constituency?

KENT FROM IOWA: After reading your sensible post......

You need to contact your Senators and a lot of your Reps and let 'em know how you feel about cooperation.

Of the 8 "NO" votes in the senate....25%....BOTH IOWA SENATORS....voted no. Yeah, Grassley AND Harkin.

Ya'll are fine with them as long as they get 'pork barrel' money to fund a study of controlling the smell of PIG FARTS around hog farms.

towards social security funding.

correct

Which would still be funded, if not for that racist idiot LBJ. Regardless, you can call it what you want, it's still a tax despite the almighty bho's incessant pandering...

MinnestoaJQ So you have called your congress people about the huge debt and reduction of defense spending, correct? Remember both parties in the congress vote so make sure they are doing as you wish!

I'm just saying...

We shouldn't cut any overspending, but just spend more and raise taxes on the wealthy so they go broke and everyone loses their jobs and can collect unemployment, welfare, or work for the government. We can just borrow more money to pay for those things or print more money. The government could just print enough money where we all could be millionaires. Then the government can tax that money too; problem fixed. I know you and everyone else who agreed with your post have a unlimited amount of credit where you can just keep putting things on your credit card and never pay on it and they just keep increasing your spending limit each year. That is how are government operates; it's just too bad it doesn't work like that for us. Our government will continue with it's reckless over spending and borrowing, increasing our national debt and countries will keep giving us money will never pay back. There's just no way out house of cards will ever collapse, right? This is just something those you hate made up. When our government implodes due to our debt someday, you and those who share your beliefs will just blame everyone and anyone you disagree with. Too bad we didn't go over the "cliff" and get it done and over with.

2 of the 8 Senators voting against the compromise were Ioweenies. Harkin and Grassley. Republican and Democrat.

Birds of a feather, nest together....in Iowa.

You have GOT to be kidding! The republicans are nitwits, no doubt... but Obama has done a very nice job screwing up on his own.

He is a proven liar and he has created a very wide divide within this country that will take years to heal. He spends without any idea where the money is coming from to pay for it. I'm 60 years old, make less than 100K and just had my insurance premiums upped by $600 / month because my coverage didn't fall into the plan set forth by Obamacare. His leadership skills are non-existent. After his promise of no tax increase -we all see a 2% increase starting today. After this lie, the dweeb in the whitehouse gave the good for nothing congress & vice president a raise.

To be fair - there isn't a good leader nor honest individual in this government. This country is a mess with no hope of getting better unless there is an overthrow - which I would fully support.

you gop types crack me up. your last resort is always to say both sides are awful, the GOP is bad but Obama is just as bad. well guess what you are wrong so is the gop so are most republicans and anytime any gop member wants to come on over where we speak truth to stupid they are welcome in the Democratic party. love to have them.

Maybe you don't understand. The Social Security tax rate was 6.2% for twenty years. We were given a two year reduction to 4.2% (which I believe was dead wrong) and now it is returning. Deal with it.

As for your insurance, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you are employed, what does Obamacare have to do with your insurance premiums? Obamacare is for the uninsured.

Hey IDIOTS..

Do you understand that Obama promised no tax increase for anyone under 250K???? He lied! You deal with the fact that your Lord Obama is just like the rest of the garbage in this lousy government.

Frequent - why don't YOU do research about obamacare before you show your ignorance. Obamacare affects everyone.

I believe they are ALL crooks. Not a leader amongst them. That includes every democrat and republican. They should all go to hell.

the majority of them deserve the plight they created for themselves.

Data please.

I remember....when the SocSecurity was dropped 2%....I remember thinking, how can we be talking about the program going broke, then lowering the amount we kicked into it?

Kinda just like here in San Diego, voting all kinds of increases to public employee pensions without voting any funding for it. Thus, our current budget crisis.

What happens to a representative's "fiscal sense" when they get elected?

TRAFFIC: A post that begins with "Hey, Idiots" is always followed by immature nonsense...you didn't break the rule.

As the republiClown's first goal, to make Obama a one term president, failed, I suggest they set a new goal to make President Obama limited to only two terms.

Now, there is a goal I think they can accomplish!

I have health insurance with Anthem. I have (had) pretty good coverage. I was notified my premium was increasing $576 per month. I called to find out why because neither my wife nor I have high medical costs.

I was told the reason is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are guidelines set for coverage. If your plan doesn't fall within the guidelines - you will be paying more. My choices are to pay more or to take less coverage (that fall within the guidelines) for the same premium I was paying.

Tom,

I normally start a post with "Hey Idiots" when posters have no clue as to what they write. When they just post the same crap they have heard - without doing ANY research for themselves. They just regurgitate the same BS - biased on party lines. I truly believe this ignorance contributes to the problems we have today. I do get frustrated.

FYI - I fully support raising taxes to pay the debt down... but I expect the government to be accountable for what it spends. For anyone - even Obama - to tell people one thing and do another is wrong. Do you acknowledge he said no taxes would be raised on people earning less than 250K? Did he fulfill his promise?

Traffic-fanatic... That is correct. It states in the Obamacare facts (which there are MANY) that BCBS rates are being taxed too.

This is only the beginning.

Traffic-fanatic

If the money taken in by raising our taxes would go to paying down the debt, more of us would agree to a raise. But it never works out that way. Id doesn't matter how much we give them, they will always spend more than what they get. Our fault. We keep electing the same partisan hacks and expecting different results.

Obama should never have been reelected based on his performance. But the same can be said for almost all members of both houses of Congress who were reelected. The 2 party system is broken. Too often, instead of doing what is best for the country, both cons and progs follow the party line.

The bills are coming due sooner than we think. Might already be too late to save our republic, but I hope not. Common sense is desperately needed, and just as desperately lacking, in both our elected officials and those who vote for them.

I got an idea...how about we suspend all of these idiots pay & benifits (both parties and houses of congress) until they can make some meaningful decisions. Granted I have my own ideas how I would like things to go down, but this is ruining the country. So many undecided and unresolved issues. I bet if we suspended all the private planes, dinners, pay and benifits they would come around...

And another thing! The house and senate NEED term limits.

Are people here so foolish that they don't understand the difference between income taxes and payroll taxes? The payroll/SS tax reduction of 2% was a temporary reduction as part of the 2010 tax relief act that expired as of Dec.31. It had to be renewed by Congress, and it should be obvious that the 'fiscal cliff' legislation was too complicated to include it at this time. Guess what - the Sandy Relief bill didn't get approved by the GOP either. It should be obvious that the congressional GOP is internally dysfunctional at this time, so getting anything approved by Congress is a major feat in itself. It's no longer GOP vs. the Dems - it has become the GOP vs. the GOP as the larger sideshow.

Pass this along and we can start to take back our country.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and ba#$%$ to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

From Warren Buffet

I am doing everything I can to put this on the ballot. Lets take back America on congressman at a time.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and ba#$%$ to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

From Warren Buffet

Let me make this perfectly clear! SS IS NOT an entitlement!! I have paid into it my whole working life! It was a promise by the government and I expect them to honor it!! The rest of the cuts that really are necessary should be done! Defense spending and fraud is the first! Pay raises for Congress should go! Who here has had a pay raise in a while much less a job? You get paid for the work you do! So far they spend more time adjourning than meeting! The rest I leave up to the one's that should be well learned in finances, not congressmen!

calipoolside - totally agree!! will never happen but absolutely should!!

Highpckts,

I agree with you - for the most part. I too have paid into SS all my life. All I have seen is the age I can get full benefits go up and the amount of benefits go down. Social Security wasn't supposed to be an entitlement program but our government has bastardized it.

It becomes entitlement when a 23 year old gets $802 / month for life from Social Security Disability Insurance because he has an anger issue. He'll get this the rest of his life.

It's an entitlement when a 34 year old gets $1700 / month for life from Social Security Disability Insurance because he has lupus. I know this person - it doesn't stop him from drinking, playing volleyball and doing DJ jobs (for cash). His wife works full time and he has kids.

There many cases like the ones above. When people draw more from SS than they put into it - it's an entitlement.