Republicans in November last year: "we have a terrible deficit, we must cut spending now."

Democrats in November last year: "we have a terrible deficit, we must raise taxes on those most capable of contributing more."

Republicans in January: "We can't figure out what the heck to cut spending on."

Democrats in January: "we have a terrible deficit, we must raise taxes on those most capable of contributing more."

Republicans in February: "It's up to Obama and the Senate to figure out what we can cut spending on."

Democrats in February: "we have a terrible deficit, we must raise taxes on those most capable of contributing more."

Republicans in March: "Obama and the Democrats are untrustworthy."

Democrats in March: "we have a terrible deficit, we must raise taxes on those most capable of contributing more."

GOP-TP just stop with your BS and do away with the loopholes for the mega rich and start working for the American people, get it right !!!

The problem has nothing to do with tax revenue which has increased 33% on a per person basis in inflation adjusted dollars since 1970. The problem has everything to do with our bloated government which now spends twice as much per person as it did in 1970. Spending has exploded and that's what has gotten us into this mess.

Were we to have only tied spending growth to something reasonable like population growth plus inflation in 1970 we would now have a $16 trillion surplus -- and growing by $1 trillion each year -- instead of a $16 trillion deficit OR our books would be balanced and 98% of Amerisans would pay no income tax at all...only the top 2% would pay anything.

In just the past 10 years federal spending has grown 75%. In 2003 the federal government spent 2.06 trillion, and this year we are spending 3.6 trillion, an increase of 75% in just 10 years. To claim the federal government doesn't have spending problem is ridiculous. Just as Obama claimed at the SOTU address that Americans know we cannot cut our way of this mess, he failed to mention we can't spend our way to prosperity either. So far Obama has cut exactly nothing, and trillion dollar deficits are projected as far as the eye can see. Sure Obama claims to have made all sorts of cuts, but reductions in planned increases is hardly a cut, and likewise is all back end loaded. Which means we will have to wait until 2022 to see if any of these Obama touted cuts ever actually happen. Our national debt is fast approaching 17 trillion, and Obama will leave office with our national debt well over 20 trillion. Obama will have added more to our national debt then every previous president combined. All we hear from Obama is that he will gladly cut spending next Tuesday, for a tax increase today. Funny but next Tuesday never comes, and our spending continues to escalate. Obama has this country racing toward bankruptcy, and he doesn't seem to care one bit.

I say let the cuts happen. I also agree with giving Obama some flexibility in how they are done...but they need to be done.

It's not like we're talking about a large percentage cut...$50 Billion out of a $3.5 Trillion budget is only 1.5%. Does anyone really think the federal government is so efficient at using money that it doesn't have 2% of bloat that can be cut without significantly affecting key services?

Mike in SA,

The problem is that our bloated government spends twice as much per person as in 1970. Spending has exploded and that's what has gotten us into this mess.

Exactly! The problem that I have with the Democratic Plan is that they continue to come back every week for more taxes, but refuse to look at any politically unfriendly cuts on the spending side of the equation. Don't they realize that one day the FED will hold a debt auction and no one will come? What are they going to do when the dollar is on par with the yen and they have to start distributing $20 bills on a roll in a 12 pack? What will a gallon of gas cost or a pound of ground beef? Will salaries keep up with this hyperinflation? I dare say that they will not.

Can any of these "Just Raise More Taxes" Democrats tell me what the magic tipping point of debt to GDP is where the lenders start charging credit card interest on sovereign debt? Is it 180% like Greece, 140% like Spain and Portugal, or just over 100% like the US? When will the lenders just say "This is too risky; I'm out'ta here"? It has happened before; just like in Zimbabwe. Another occurrence in recent history was called the Weimar Republic and the outcome of the ensuing little bar fight that followed didn't turn out too well for about 50 Million people. Don't they understand this is what really took Greece down? It wasn't that Greece couldn't borrow money, but that the lenders were charging loan shark rates because of the risk. The cost of short term borrowing went through the roof and it pushed Greece over the edge as it is now doing to Portugal, Italy, and Spain.

Perhaps they've also missed it, but for the past 50 or 60 years, we have raised generations of people that think corn and peas grow in a "Green Giant" can. In the 20's and 30's we were a mostly agrarian society; it ain't that way anymore. We have created a large portion of society that is dependent on the government's stipend in order to just survive. Don't believe me? Just go to any major city like Detroit, Chicago, Miami, or LA. What do they think will happen when the stipend goes away or inflation is so high that it won't buy anything? Do they really think these people will just sit on the curb and cry or will they turn into an angry Athens style rioting mob complete with torches, pitch forks, and a 1911A1 .45 Automatic for everyone? I wonder what the riots in Athens would have looked like if the rioters had been better armed than the police like the gangs in Chicago or LA are today. My money is 10 to 1 on the mob if the dollar tanks because of this out of control spending.

It has been my experience over my almost 65 years that civilization is a very thin veneer that we CHOOSE to wear. If you place people into the wrong situations and apply enough pressure, most of us will both quickly and cheerfully strip off that veneer faster than the dancer on stage at the nudie bar. Necessity, Hunger, and Survival are the most ruthless of our natural instincts and it won't take much for us to revert to the animals from whence we came. We as humans will do whatever it takes to survive at the expense of anyone or anything else. We are not a very kind or attractive species when the going gets tough. Western Governments as a whole have, for the past 60+ years told their constituency, "We will always take care of everything you need, no matter what"; What happens when they can't?

When people can't feed their kids and it takes a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread, normally sane and rational people will start doing some really friggin' crazy things. I have several very good friends from Germany. My friends are an intelligent, kind, thoughtful, and generous group of people, but about 80 years ago they, as a collective, followed a really crazy little bastard (literally) straight into the pit of hell for just that reason.

I served with the 3rd Marines in Quang Tri and Thua Thien provinces of Vietnam and have seen with my own eyes just what my fellow human creature is capable of doing when the going gets tough or the pressure too great. Do they really want to see what he looks like too? If they continue spending like a Drunken Sailor in the whorehouse with no responsibility and accountability and printing money with both hands and they will probably get a chance to see it for themselves. I can guarantee them from experience that it won't be too damned much fun.

If I think my pay is going up this year by 8% and I end up only getting a 4% raise..... according to Congress..... I took a 4% pay CUT.........

This small math tip has been brought to by Joe Biden.... "I did the math, I did the math, and it's literally true"

"We have a spending problem"

No we don't. If we do, then sit down, and tell us where to cut spending. It can't be done easily. That is the whole point behind the failure of the House GOP to identify a reasonable alternative to the sequester. Where you are being fooled is in the mix of social security and medicare into the total spending pot. That is where spending is rising, because we have more retirees and medical costs are ridiculous (see Time this week - hospitals charge $32 a night for blankets, and charge $39 for the cost of the doctor's gown during surgery, and a thousand other insane costs that they get away with because conservatives fight against government stepping in and saying "that is crazy").

If you look only at discretionary data, here it is:

1973 - 9.9% of GDP

1983 - 10.3% of GDP

1993 - 8.2% of GDP

2003 - 7.5% of GDP

2013 - 8.3% of GDP

The stuff that the sequester hits is all discretionary spending. They are having a really hard time finding cuts that don't hurt. Meanwhile, our income taxes (at 7.3% of GDP) which are supposed to cover discretionary spending, are insufficient. Back in 2000, income taxes were 10.2% of GDP (that's why we had the surplus). We didn't increase spending so much as cut taxes.

Hard data is at the cbo historical data - google it or look at my posts below for the link.

Conservatives are just massively ill-informed and misled.

noncoms, why does GDP have any tie to spending??? It's like the lottery winner who spends all he has because he has it and then ends up in bankruptcy...which is frankly where we are as a nation.

Like I said earlier were we to have only tied spending growth to something reasonable like population growth plus inflation -- NOT GDP -- in 1970 we would now have a $16 trillion surplus in our accounts -- and growing by $1 trillion each year -- instead of a $16 trillion debt OR our books would be balanced and 98% of Americans would pay no income tax at all...only the top 2% would pay anything. How abut that Mr. 99-percenter?

The 'Sequester' Was A Brilliant Idea And Obama Should Be Proud Of It

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-sequester-was-a-good-idea-2013-2#ixzz2M7IN90b7

Yup, we put the tax issue behind us! It won't happen, but if the repubs ever want to prevent this country from going the way of the Soviet Union, things are going to have to change, and quick! Coloradaman, you are right about Obama, he can't be trusted. Until the repubs realize that Obama and the dems are in full out assault mode against the repubs and America, things won't change. The only way to change the course is a full out assault against Obama and the dems. After all, no one ever won a battle playing defense. The way to do it is simple. Obama gets nothing that the repubs aren't in full agreement on. In other words, Haggle should never have been confirmed. Kerry shouldn't have been confirmed. Funding for Obamacare should be denied. With the coming debt limit, the repubs should set forth a bill that makes the cuts they actually want to make and that is consistent with putting the government back in line with the Constitution. There's so much pork in federal spending that it can easily be pushed back to 2008 levels (before TARP). Pass that in the House and stand firm. Of course, they'd have to fire all there liberal consultants (I think they are referred to these days as moderates). Then they go on a full scale publicity campaign to educate the public. We know Obama and the dems would stand firm, because they want to spend tons of money and make everyone equally poor (well except for themselves and their big money supporters). But, the repubs should stand firm. Hey, if the dems don't negotiate, then we have a balanced budget! So there is good news in going that route.

But, alas, it's just a dream. Nothing to date gives any indication that the repubs will do anything other than roll over. It's time for a third party. A country with only the Socialist Party and the Assistant Socialist Party can not survive for long.

BTW...referencing post #1.9 regarding if we had tied our exploding spending to more reasonable benchmarks. Were we to have only the top 2% of Americans pay income tax and the other 98% didn't, it would add $1 trillion in private middle class dollars into the economy each and every year. Think about it, that's more than an entire "2009 stimulus" package in consumer spending annually.

"why does GDP have any tie to spending???"

Seriously? In absolute dollars, the federal budget 60 years ago was $24 billion million. Dop you think it makes sense to compare that $24 billion to today's $3.8 billion and conclude that in 1943 we spent less than 1% of what we spend today? You might come to some stupid conclusions.

However, if you say, in 1943 the government spent 44% of the GDP compared to 23% today, that comparison leads to far different conclusions.

And no, we are not headed to bankruptcy. The national debt is almost flat as %GDP (as opposed to Bush's last budget year in which it rose by 14% of GDP). We are taming the debt slowly and surely without doing this stupid recession-threatening sequester stuff.

Conservatives are just massively ill-informed and misled.

witch: you are paranoid and misled. There is no danger of socialism taking over. There is a far greater risk of corporatism, as defined by Mussolini (google it). Mike: discretionary spending is and should be constant as %GDP. See my post 1.8. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand how things work.

Its amazing to me how many people split among party lines ACTUALLY believe that ANYONE in DC has their true best interests at heart. All ANYONE in DC is interested in is serving themselves and their high dollar contributors.

The difference between not and years past is that EVERY branch and member of the US government stopped serving the "Greater Good" and started serving themselves.

I would tell everyone to wake up, but unfortunately its far far too late.

Sorry - 1943 was 24.8 billion, today is 3.8 trillion

Spitfire - tell me, how is Obama, who turned down multi-million dollar law salaries to become a near minimum wage ommunity organizer just "interested in serving himself"? You can criticism Obama for other reasons, but it is pretty clear he chose a path in life without all that much monetary return (compared to private practice) because he truly wanted to do things like get the uninsured medical coverage. It is unfair of you to say otherwise with zero evidence.

If the federal govt were to confiscate 100% of income from those making $200K and above, the Federal government could run for 189 days at current spending levels...just over half a year. So yes, we do have a spending problem.

The farther we've strayed from the original intent of the Constitution the bigger mess we find ourselves in.

Tell you what, I'm perfectly willing to end oil and corporate jet subsidies if my friends on the left are willing to ditch their "green" energy subsidies. Sorry but corporate welfare is corporate welfare no matter what side to the aisle supports said welfare. In Sen Kent Conrad's (D) farewell address to the Senate, he laid out the cold truth that the Federal government gives out $1.2T through the tax code.

noncoms- Obviously you are misinterpreting my post. You must be so used to Obama being blamed for EVERYTHING that you didn't notice that I spread the blame all around.

He didn't get elected by himself, no one does. He has contributors that he answers to just as everyone else in DC does.

I said "serving himself" because of some of his ideas on gun control, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and many other subjects. He is trying to impress his viewpoints onto our society instead of listening to the opinions of the citizens of the US. But so is every other politician in DC, so I'm not singling him out for anything, in fact I am lumping him in with the rest of the "public servants" in DC.

I said "serving himself" because of some of his ideas on gun control, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and many other subjects

I'm pretty sure Obama is accepting of gay marriage because he is thinking of our gay population that wants to be as free and equally accepted as the rest of us, not because he wants to serve himself and get gay-married. I'm also pretty sure he is not that interested in smoking dope or having his guns confiscated. Don't confuse the promotion of political ideas with self-serving. Self-serving means getting laws passed to profit one's self. Like, say, getting a sweet deal for defense contractors, leaving the House, and getting a high paid job as a defense lobbyist (or doing the same for the medical industry). Obama, and in fact, Democrats in general, fight to give more money to the poor and public wokers. Unless they want to live the life of a welfare bum or a middle school teacher, they are not self-serving in these goals.

Spitfire, almost all politicians look out for #1 before the American people... that much is true. But some politicians really want to make changes (for the better) but get stonewalled at every turn.

It is truly unfortunate, because in the end, it is the taxpayers that pay the heaviest price. It would be great if the government could provide all of these great benefits and programs for everyone... but it just isn't possible. So people have to take some responsibility for their health and raising their kids, etc.

So sure, everyone feels the pain, but the taxpayers more so. Taxpayers are soon to be a minority in this country, picking up the slack for all of the lazy takers. And what do liberals do when they can't pay for their utopia... they raise taxes. And why not, none of them work, so let's get the rest to pay for them.

Obama's tax increase at the fiscal cliff will only generate 40-50B a year. If Obama had done what Republicans suggested and reform the tax code, he could have generated 80B a year. So now, Obama wants to have both and generate 120-130B a year in new revenue. But this will further kill the economy.

Sequestration cuts are not baseline cuts, but cuts to the budget increase. And 85B is the same amount of money that the FED is injecting into the economy via QE4 PER MONTH. That's right, the FED is spending 85B a month to keep our economy sputtering along. What a recovery!!!

But the real kicker is this... We have 1T deficits each year. That means our debt grows 1T a year plus the 225B in interest on the debt. If we balance the budget, our debt still grows 225B a year. So we need to not only cut 1T from our budget, but cut another 225B just to prevent the debt from growing.

If we want to pay the debt off in the next 20 years, we need to cut 1T to balance the budget, 225B to cover the interest and another 750B to pay down the debt, which is a grand total of 2T per year.

It doesn't all have to be CUT. Some can come from economic growth. But of course raising taxes kills growth. So the 50 or 100B you create in taxes causes a loss of 200-800B in economic growth. So you can't tax your way clear. You can't if make a dent in the problem with taxes. In fact cutting taxes will actually help you faster than raising them.

So if you want to pay our debt off in 20-30 years, we need economic growth and lots of CUTS. The combined total of revenue and cuts must be 1.5 to 2T a year. Did you get that... 1.5T to 2T per year. Obama talks about 100B over 10 years. It is nonsense!!! We need serious cuts and economic growth.

If you think this can be done via taxes, you should move to France. It can't be done. If Obama won't cut responsibly, then will have to do it the irresponsible way... which by the way was his idea anyway.

This is ridicules all those that keep saying the rich should pay their fair share. I say we all need to pay our fair share if you don't pay taxes at all how can you say someone else should pay more. By that way of thinking pretty soon we will be a country that has over fifty percent getting government assistance on the backs of those that actually work in this country. Obama is a failure plain and simple he already got a tax hike on the rich last year and it is only the end of the second month and he is calling for another tax hike. Here is an idea quit letting people into our country to suck off all our programs just so they can send the money back to where they are from. It is pretty sickening that the president acts like a teenage kid instead of an adult. It will be the best thing for the country once the sequester starts and people realize that it does not affect them like the president is saying. I know it is hard Mr. Obama but if you could control your spending this country would be a lot better off.

noncoms-

You completely sidestepped the point of my post. he is trying to impress his ideals on the citizens of the US instead of serving the will of the people. Yes or No? Also can you say with 100% certainty that he has done everything perfectly since he took office? I think he has done some good things and other things that are not so great, but he deserves his slice of the blame pie just as everyone else does.

In just the past 10 years federal spending has grown 75%. In 2003 the federal government spent 2.06 trillion, and this year we are spending 3.6 trillion, an increase of 75% in just 10 years.

As usual, Republicans lie!

let's look at that a little different, eh?

George W. Bush was elected in 2000. His first budget, in 2001, federal spending was $1.8T. His last budget, 2009, federal spending was $3.6T!!!

Federal spending increased 100% in just 8 years under Bush. As usual, though, conservatives ignore this.

"EXPLODING OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING" is just another ReThuiglican LIE, one they have been very successful at selling . . .

remember Norquist and his tax pledge - he said he wants government (services) to shrink so small you could drown it in a bathtub . . .

That's because wealthy people depend less on government services than the middle class.

Here is a DISGRACEFUL EXAMPLE:

REMEMBER OUR VETERANS, WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR US IN THE MIDDLE EAST???? IT TAKES THEM MORE THAN A YEAR TO GET THE VET'S BENEFITS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO, BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH GOV EMPLOYEES TO PROCESS THEIR CLAIMS . . . IT IS EVEN >>WORSE<<< FOR THE MANY WHO ARE DISABLED!!!

.

We need a government that WORKS, efficiently . . . we do NOT need the anti-government party taking away meals from seniors and education from children so they can get a tax break on yachts & private jets.

.

WE NEED TAX FAIRNESS NOW!!!

.

FORWARD! :-)

PS, the wealthy will still buy their yachts & private jets if tax deductions return to Clinton-era levels.

.

TAX FAIRNESS NOW!

.

FORWARD! :-)

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.

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.

We still need to keep our national defense strong - Our national defense must still be our 1st priority. Efficient, non-corrupt defense spending is critical.

Also bringing manufacturing back home to the USA is going to end up being not only a key to restoring our economy, but to maintaining our security as well.

China has been crushing the USA in a war without even firing a shot.

And what about the Chinese extreme pollution issues - We all live in the same world, but not every country plays by the same rules.

When we finally bring back our troops from the Middle East, how about then using them to help protect our borders from intruders (ILLEGAL ALIENS).

Liquid Tension Experiment

"Seriously? In absolute dollars, the federal budget 60 years ago was $24 billion million. Dop you think it makes sense to compare that $24 billion to today's $3.8 billion and conclude that in 1943 we spent less than 1% of what we spend today? You might come to some stupid conclusions." - noncoms

Talk about stupidity. You don't seem to know the difference in between GDP growth and adjusting for inflation or are too vapid to understand the words "inflation adjusted" when you read them over and over. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to catch on with the fact that I say "inflation adjusted" several times in my post. I'll even give you time to go look up what it means.

First of all let's clear this up...at $72 billion, federal spending 60 years ago was 3 TIMES what you say it was. Try to at least have some accuracy in your argument. (I'll also ignore the fact that you say a "billion million" which is a quadrillion. We've never spent anywhere close to that.)

Secondly, you never answered the question. How is GDP growth tied to spending growth? What in GDP growth intrinsically drives a government to spend more -- in a linear relation -- based on that GDP growth? The answer is nothing. Inflation intrinsically causes a government to spend more (in non-inflation adjusted dollars). Population growth intrinsically causes a government to spend more (in inflation adjusted dollars). Heck even the expansion of borders intrinsically causes a government to spend more (in inflation adjusted dollars). However, GDP growth absolutely does not. It has no intrinsic relation to how much a government spends. Politicians just get extra money because revenues ARE intrinsically tied to GDP growth and they feel entitled to spend the extra money taken in because it gets them more votes in the next election cycle.

"And no, we are not headed to bankruptcy. The national debt is almost flat as %GDP (as opposed to Bush's last budget year in which it rose by 14% of GDP)." - noncoms

A) Again with the inanity. The Dems purposefully refused to pass a budget until Bush was out of office because they knew he wouldn't sign their bloated spending. This being the case, Bush's last budget year was 2008. Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 budget. That was passed by the Dems and only by the Dems. Don't like it? Blame the Dems for politicizing the budget process. B) As of Q3 2012 the Federal Debt to GDP Ratio showed that our debt is now 101.61% of our entire GDP. And that's after Obama's non-existent recovery raised the GDP portion of the ratio. We are indeed headed quickly into bankruptcy.

"And no, we are not headed to bankruptcy. The national debt is almost flat as %GDP (as opposed to Bush's last budget year in which it rose by 14% of GDP)." - noncoms

BTW, noncoms, please tell me how debt going from 64.8% of GDP to 101.6% of GDP in Obama's 5 budget years is flat.

Here NonComs:

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html

or

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm

When your economy blows and hardly grows and your debt goes up 40%, so does your debt to GDP ratio.

A country is like a business. The United States “business” at this time is
top heavy.

Only when the country balances its budget is it not top
heavy. The United States right now needs
to reduce the appetite of the mouths to be fed at the top, or increase the
revenue coming from the bottom. Since
our President dearly wishes to continue all programs, and pay everybody at the
top wages and benefits they have become accustomed to, growth at the bottom is
the only option.

Taxing kills growth, so the right way to grow the bottom is
provide good paying jobs for everybody.
About 5 million jobs minimum are needed to start righting the ship . Thirteen million new full time equivalent
jobs is a robust goal for 2013, and would do a tremendous amount of good.

The 150,000 jobs per month rate of new jobs is anemic at
best. It only provides for 40% of the 2.2 million new
college graduates each year and completely leaves out the unemployed, the underemployed,
new workers not college educated, ten million workers that have recently given up,
and a million illegals recently invited to compete for jobs by executive order.

This is the non-sense of this Administration. Obama visit a shipyards in VA to do a political speech bashing Republicans for not raising taxes in order to increase spending . Obama also said agree to do cuts , but the cuts he wants, are coming from the Defense Department , the same Department the shipyards are working for. Why to visit the shipyards if their are going to suffer the consequences anyway. Propaganda, scare tactics?

Obama visit Congress to have a compromise with Republicans to avoid sequestration, to Honor Rosa Park. Where is the leadership?

noncoms

You are kidding, right?

You are playing with numbers based on flawed reasoning that has gotten us into this mess. Let's stop playing foolishly with the books to make them look good and just look at a few facts:

A couple of things you must realize: During the stock market crash of 1929, the wealthiest people in America could have paid off the national debt. Now they could not keep the federal government running for even a year, never mind the debt. Uhmmm. You see nothing wrong with this? No warning signs or problems?

We never paid off WWII !!! or our other debts after for that matter, we have just relied on inflation and printing more money to decrease the value of the dollar to dwarf it. (Hence your argument and every other economists flawed argument that you cannot compare money from 1970 to money today) Nonetheless, the debt is real and remains and has never been paid.

We keep comparing the size of the debt to the overall GDP and say don't panic and the the ratio percentage is fine, while not taking into consideration that in a global economy our GDP need not, and will not continue to grow as it has in the past.!At the same time we are doing this ratio with the inflation dollars that I mentioned!

Now the real big one: The GDP is not as big as it seems, it is perhaps only 60% of the BS GDP number. How? You saw it during the bank collapse: It is based on creative book keeping of debt and borrowed money! Money which borrowed over the time of the loan relies on inflation to wipe out the debt!

The economics are flawed and based on continuous growth, continuous inflation, and continuous debt. It cannot be sustained. The race we have been playing for the past 60 years is run. New thinking and new approaches must be used if we are to survive.

kc: Will all know what your idea of "fairness" is. That means anyone who is making more than you is rich so they should pay all the taxes and not you. Personally, I don't care who you are, if you are using a term like "fair" than you are not very good at articulating your position. The fact is that not one person who has argued for higher taxes has voluntarily paid higher taxes. So, they don't practice what they believe, which means that they are lying to you. And, like a good little muppet, you buy it hook line and sinker. It's not unlike the global warming BS. Sure, Al Gore likes to talk the game, but he does more to pollute the earth, according to the global warming fanatics, in one month than the average person does in a lifetime. As a wise Priest, counselor once said, if you want to find out the truth, turn off the volume and watch what they do. Now, tell me, is Obama concerned about the environment or fiscal responsibility?

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is making threats to US journalist who don't toe the line. Anybody caught exposing Obama's incompetence via exercising their free speech rights will be subject to the wrath of the WH. Hmmmm, is Obama taking lessons from the former leaders of the Soviet Union?

BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing

Brett LoGiurato | Feb. 27, 2013, 6:53 PM | 859,026 | 842

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligenceheadquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Last weekend, Woodward called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2#ixzz2MCFbR4rv

And here is yet another Obama attempt at intimidation and suppression!

by BREITBART NEWS 28 Feb 2013, 4:43 AM PDT

Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, told Washington, D.C.'s WMAL this morning that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked. Davis, a centrist Democrat, is sometimes critical of the Obama administration's policies.

Davis was speaking with Breitbart News editor Larry O'Connor, who co-hosts a morning show on WMAL. Davis said he had never spoken publicly about the threats before, but they seemed relevant after the White House told legendary reporter Bob Woodward that he would "regret" insisting that the White House had come up with the idea of the budget sequester, which President Barack Obama is now urging Congress urgently to revoke.

The White House has vehemently denied the claim in Woodward's book, though the claim has been in the public domain for several months since the publication of the book, The Price of Politics, in mid-2012. Democrats and a slew of sympathetic liberal journalists have joined the White House in attackingWoodward--a remarkable turn of events given his elite status in the media as part of the duo that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1973.

- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/28/Lanny-Davis-White-House-Threatened-Washington-Times-Over-My-Column#sthash.HEXax2VM.dpuf

But , of course, the lap dogs like Chuck Todd and the rest of the gang at NBC, MSNBC and ABC will circle the wagons and defend Obama's intimidation and suppression, because that is what bum sniffers do

Good call, @KingK

Chronic, unfettered arrogance + idolatrous enablers in media and population= Obama administration's madness.

Noncoms, is NONSENSE...

Mike in SA, thank you for putting making a cogent rebuttal- I tend to just go ballistic and get unhinged when I hear such nonsensical crap from the left. I've got a Bachelor's in Commerce, and when I have to listen to these idiots spew their "factual" economic and monetary talking points I get so incensed I don't even know where to start the rebuttal. None of what most of them say- like Noncoms, has any basis in fact or economic theory.

Government spending tied to GDP? Is he for real? How do you even come up with crap like that?

I'll tell you how- the tax and spend liberals will "create" anything to support their point of view.

Perhaps, the Federal Budget should be tied to the number of pairs of nylon panty-hose sold...

The FED is running us to the brink...

And combined with this President's about-face on deficit reduction- which the MSM won't even confront him on- we are headed for the perfect storm.

You can't get liberals to comprehend the effect of just a TINY interest rate increase on our cost of borrowing...nor, the effects of compounding of interest.

We COULD educate the Public- but the MSM is complicit in their lapdog relationship with Obama- and in doing so (and not living up to the RESPONSIBILITY of a free press) is intentionally keeping the American public uninformed.

I SO wish Obama were a true leader- but he is nothing but a politician, and worse, a politician that is putting Party above Country. He should be impeached, and tried for High Treason.

kingk: No doubt Davis is right. I can't remember who it was, but if memory serves me right, about a year into Obama's first term, a correspondent had the galls to complain during a press conference that the reporters shouldn't have to submit their questions ahead of time. If you google the concept, you'll find that there are quite a few occasions where questions appear to have been coordinated with the WH. Quite frankly, you'd have to be totally a totally clueless dimwit or have had no access to the news for the past 4 years to not realize that intimidation and thuggery are par for the course for this administration. And, I do believe that most of these Obama media folks, who thought they were in the investigative news reporting business, will look back at these eight years of Obama, and wonder what the hell happened. How did they become such lapdogs to these guys and why didn't they fight it? But, then again, maybe they got into the news reporting business to be political hacks?

No time for a lesson in economics. Just a second to point out a bit of the Democrat and Obama fraud:

"... higher taxes on the oil industry ...". Don't you think your paying enough at the pump right now?

Who do you think will end up paying these "higher taxes"? But if they are hidden behind the oil

companies, no one will notice. Sorry Barry, that trick is very old and America has caught on.

KC_NC

"EXPLODING OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING" is just another ReThuiglican LIE, one they have been very successful at selling . . .

Really $6.2 trillion in new debt in four years is not out of control spending. Well Obama does not see it that way; he called President Bush unpatriotic for spending $4.5 trillion in 8 years, not 4 years like Obama. I guess, I can say I finally agree with Obama on an issue. It is unpatriotic to spend $4.5 trillion in eight years it must be treason to spend $6.2 in four years. Where is the lie KC. If you mean your statement is drivel and untruthful, then, yes, yes it was.

@ colorado man...

You got it backwards.

He said he supports a Senate Republican effort to give Obama and his aides some flexibility in how they administer the cuts “so they can make the least disruptive cuts possible.”

Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to control spending. How can it be that he repugnican wanna-be gods use the purse strings to choke off regulation but now that it comes to unpopular decisions on what to cut, these gutless, cowardly chicken-$hits want to pass the ball to Obama. What gutless invisible little cow piles. Further, if thy distrust Obama, why would they hand off the descretion of where to cut to Obama? You guys are like a dog chasing his tail when it comes to going after Obama. You are pathetic.

@Bill1488

Since you're so attuned to the math, sir, perhaps you would be good enough to tell us how much of this 6.2 trillion went to pay for the wars started by bushco in Iraq and Afghanistan and to the VA for paying out claims to the VA because of these wars. And how much was due to the stimulus that was necesary to try and stimulate the economy that the shrubbies had killed and were flushing down the toilet? Further, as we lost nearly a million jobs in Bushcos last month and closer to TWO MILLION in his last few months, how much of the 6.2 trillion went to unemployment benefits for people that your repugnican douchebags put out of work? I'm also curious how much of it was to fund bushies unfunded Pharma reform. Do you have those numbers, Pally?

thomasblue: Well, you are partly right. Most of the repubs are gutless wimps. After all, they've given Obama everything that he has wanted, after kicking and screaming for a while. It appears that the repub leadership consists of the moderate dems who have been booted out of the dem party by the radical, socialist left. How else to explain any repub wanting to give Obama the authority to decide where cuts are made. I suppose that their thinking is that maybe, just maybe, some of the destruction that Obama has been causing to this country will actually stick to him. But, he is Teflon to the left. The left wing media is so vested in this guy that any admission that Obama's policies have delayed any recovery and are in fact making things worse would mean that they are admitting that they've made a mistake in building him up and giving him a free pass for two elections.

As long as repubs feel like they want to be liked by that media, then the country will continue on the path to destruction. So, yes, the way the gop has been has been pathetic. And, unfortunately, we Americans come out on the losing end of it.

@ tobnpr...

It's hard to know where to start in addressing your specious nonsense. There are none so uneducated as those who are convinced they know everything. Let's start here:

The FED is running us to the brink...

And combined with this President's about-face on deficit reduction- which the MSM won't even confront him on- we are headed for the perfect storm.

You can't get liberals to comprehend the effect of just a TINY interest rate increase on our cost of borrowing...nor, the effects of compounding of interest.

We COULD educate the Public- but the MSM is complicit in their lapdog relationship with Obama- and in doing so (and not living up to the RESPONSIBILITY of a free press) is intentionally keeping the American public uninformed.

As is usual for knuckle-dragging conservatives, you deride the liberals for all of the world's ills but the reality is that this economic catastrophe was put in place by bushco and a repugnican congress. I suggest that we should educate Congress and conservatives. Clinton left us with a budget surplus. Common sense said to me at the time, we should use that to pay down the debt. But instead, your boys (that's with a little "b") pissed it away by giving massive tax cuts to those that didn't need it and started 2 unfunded wars and then gave Pharma a massive cash gift, all unfunded. And even though his own Treasury Secretary said that they were wrecking the economy, these jackasses gave a second gift to the rich. It's amusing to me that people like you parade around flouting your "education" and claiming to be conservatives while blaming liberals for the FACT that Ronnie Raygun and his minions and successors are the ones who put us on the road to financial ruin.

You should think about suing your school to get your money back. Just FYI, Brainiac, I don't have a bachelors in commerce but I have a ton of experience in the real world as a business owner and employer and I saw this train-wreck coming years beforehand when eggheads like you talked about the "jobless recovery" under bush's failed "leadership". Why didn't you?

@Bill1488

also, sir, how much of this 6.2 trillion went to service the 10 trllion dollar debt left by the shrub?

@HNL, not true that the GOP thinks the country is freer and better off with less central control. Just look at all the women reproduction bills, (abortions, probes, etc) that the GOP has proposed, and in GOP control states, actually passed most of those bills.

So explain that HNL, how they can think we women are freer and better off with those laws? You are a typical GOP control freak, right? Otherwise you wouldn't be spouting such drival.

The GOP has no interest in cutting spending if it affects business or the rich. I was absolutely amazed that they even allowed a minor increase in taxes for the rich. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class is out of control and at the largest point we've seen, yet they still wonder why we can't pay our bills. Corporations are paying executives thousands of times the average salaries of it's employees. Insane amounts for bonus packages. No one is worth millions in Bonuses at the expense of the workers who made that bonus possible. We give billions in corporate wellfare to the Oil Industry, yet they never put that on the table. The Department of Defense has outright admitted they don't know where they spend their money, where any waste or fraud it, and they can't audit their books, yet Congress keeps throwing money at them, even when they tell congress they don't need it.

Instead, the GOP always wants to cut social programs, education programs, health and wellness programs.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who the GOP represents here. If your own children just kept asking for money, and refused to tell you where their last handout came from, would you keep giving them money? We outspend the rest of the world in defense spending. Why is this? Of course they can't answer that question.

Stop giving the Department of Defense taxpayer money until they can audit their books.

I'd say, instead of republicans think the country is better off with less central control, that republicans think business interests are better off with less middle class clout. With no unions, no government oversight, and less taxes, you can have what Carnival Cruises has (they are not an American company). Carnival pays almost no taxes, makes many billions in profits for shareholders and the top management, and pays workers about $5/hour with no benefits. That is the ideal model for Republicans.

The gop sheeple / base always try to frame the left as wanting to "take from those who have, to give to those who do not". What they forget is the system that so Overwhelmingly favors the wealthy, financially, to make and keep so much of what they make at the expense of average income earners. The gop never wants to address that. The numbers are more than clear. The rich are getting richer(At an amazing rate), while the poor are getting poorer as usual. Our country is not immune to what is happening in other oligharchies. Take what little, a lot of folks have to live on, and wait and see what happens. Pretty short sighted imho, but hey go for it.

Money is upper class power. Democratic government is middle class power. Eliminate the second, and you get more of the first. Eliminate the second, and the middle class weakens, and eventually, the nation weakens.

I agree, the Republicans are working for the 1% and they don't care about the middle class !!!

DJ-422465

I've got several issues with this whole mess.

1) $44B is less than 1/2 of 1 month of deficit spending. Think about that. It's less than 1/2 the amount we're going into the hole each and every month.

2) With approximately 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring a month, how long can we afford to spend the amounts were spending IF we're going to keep the promises that were made?

3) Most of the people screaming about the damage this will do to our national defense were among those decrying the increases in military spending throughout the war years. President Obama even voted against raising the debt limit in 2006 because we were showing these costs, not as budgetary items, but as add-on spending measures (think about the irony of our current CoC voting against raising the debt limit, and get back to me later). You'd think that these folks would be happy that spending was beginning to revert to pre-war levels of funding.

4) Finally, only in Washington DC, would a limit to the automatic funding increases be called a, "cut." I don't no many folks who receive compounded increases on their funding (i.e. pay) every year. What is really needed is to freeze spending until the budget returns to the correct ratio against GDP. The last Democrat in office, President Clinton had it (historically) at around 18%. The current trajectory has us heading toward 75% according to Chairman Bernanke's testimony, yesterday.

Tax the rich and Corporations at 100% (in theory) and you can't solve problem, because they don't have enough income to achieve that goal. The real answer is in everyone paying Clinton era rates again. But our current leadership only wants to blame a portion of the population, and since most of us don't even know folks in that tax bracket, it's easy to lay this problem at their feet and run the other direction. But it's ignoring the bigger issue and attacking any percentage divides all of us. We need to share the pain in order to feel part of the solution and to demand more of our leaders.

Do the math and try to fathom the depth of the problem. It's staggering. You notice I didn't blame anyone, I just laid out the issue. We didn't get to this mess in a short time period (Congress started raiding SS in the 70's), but if we don't start now the effect of compounded interest on the debt will create a government ponzi scheme that will haunt our future generations just fufill our obligations we've left to them. It's not fair.

Greg Shep,

Good post. We have real fiscal problems in this country, and the only way I see to solve the problems is to have calm, logical discussions based on facts and not partisan politics.

Every department affected by the sequester cuts is already spending more this year then they did last year. Even with the sequester they will still be spending more then they did last year. When every department in our government knows that if you want to ensure a raise you have to spend your entire budget, how is that not a system that promotes waste?

What Shep and Rick fail to understand is that government spending is not like household spending. In your household, if you cut spending, you have more money. It doesn't work like that for government spending. If the government quits spending, you have less money. The economy shrinks. More people are unemployed. Ironically, that means more spending on unemployment and other social safety net costs at the same time as you get less tax revenue.

Yes, we need to get spending and revenue in line, as we did in the 1990s, but it needs to be done intelligently, and when the top 1% is getting literally more than half of all profits (according to the IRS, 56% goes to just the top 0.1%!!! Insane) and 35% of all earned income, then it only makes sense to look at them for revenue. You can't get money out of a stone. You have to go to where the money is. And cutting off money to our struggling middle class now is not the right thing to do.

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $231.7M
• Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) $143.2M
• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) $101.1M
• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. VA) $99.1M
• Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $85.6M
• Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) $73.2M
• Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) $69.0M

Why would they need ANY of my money?

Greg2#7/ You are stating the same ridiculous argument that all of shills for the super-rich cry.Don't tax the rich because they can't pay down the fiscal mess by themselves.The ordinary tax payers are tired of seeing that excuse of yours.The super-rich have been getting far too much of a write off for far too long.No one is asking the rich to pay all of our tax burden. We are insisting on them climbing off their free ride and have them pay a fair share to this country's debts,that were not caused by we, the ordinary citizens but by the tax dodging power brokers.The super rich and their lackeys have increased their wealth at an unacceptable rate whilst we,the tax paying working people have born most of the burden. The gifts to big business and the unreasonable costs of over-bloated Defense spending has to be reined in. Thank heaven that we have at last found a leader who is trying to stop this madness.

thank you, listoire.

Greg - go to any of a number os sites to see that the combined wealth of the lower 50% of Americans amounts to just 2.5% of total national wealth, while the top 1% alone has about a third of all national wealth.

Why does the GOP insist on taking only from those 150million whose combined wealth is 2.5% while working hard to protect the few whose wealth already is 33%?

When EVERYONE has a stake in the game, they play better..... using someone else's money is never a good idea........

Steve, So why go after the middle class so hard????

If the government quits spending, you have less money.

You do realize that government can only spend what it TAKES from us?

Great point jinsd, liberals actually want you to believe that the more government takes from us and spends, the more money we have. It is logic that defies logic. Unlike the reality of when people get to keep more of the money they earn, they have more to spend. Which is better for people or the economy? Our government spending our money, or you spending your money? About the only thing Washington has proven it can do better with our money then we do, is waste it without concern.

@Steve-446003

When EVERYONE has a stake in the game, they play better..... using someone else's money is never a good idea........

That's an excellent point. So you're saying, then, that when the rich fire up these companies with tax breaks and stock offers and IPOs that they're not playing their best because they're playing with OPM. Yeah. I get that. Kinda like why the banks all pissed away my money in the 2007-2008 crash. They would never have done that with their own cash.

@Truthcomehere,

Wrong name for you to be posting those lies on this web page. If you would care to really check, you will see that Obama has spent less money than any POTUS since Reagan. I know, you don't believe in FACTS, so will refuse to even look for the truth. That is part of being low informed does to a person.

Also, the House controls the purse strings, and the house is controlled by the GOP. Therefore, it's the GOP who is spending the money, not the POTUS. Why can't you low informed GOP base tell the truth, at least most of the time? Yeesh.

SallyAnn, you spew this garbage and expect people to believe it? "Obama has spent less money than any POTUS since Reagan" This has been debated into the ground and you are wrong, your potus is a POS who came up with the sequester and now has the gall to say the only way out is more taxes? If you are looking for a low informed voter, look in the mirror and see the coolaid drinking sheep looking back at you.

SallyAnn-4595694,

Well, you certainly don't speak the truth. The federal outlay during the last Bush year was $2.37 trillion. Last year, the federal outlay was $3.21 trillion (in constant 2005 dollars). The FACT is that every single year, Obama has broken the previous all time spending record.

The country grows. We get more people on social security. Medicare costs go up. Every president in almost every year since WW2 ended has broken the all time spending record inabsolute dollars.

However, as %GDP, which is the measure that makes sense, it is perfectly correct to say that Obama is one of the least spending presidents (Reagan and Bush increased spending fastest as %GDP). Obama has actually decreased spending as %GDP, something not achieved since Clinton.

Facts from the CBO - Clinton took spending from 21.4% to 18.2% (1993 to 2001). Bush increased that to 25% (2009). Obama has brought it down to 22.8% make his term the actual biggest decrease in spending.

Poor conservatives don't know anything except the misleading stuff that they are fed.

When our taxes rise, it will cost the government that much more to cover it's day-to-day expenses.

Socialism; is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and
the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery.
-Winston Churchill-

Why can't conservatives grasp the use of the apostrophe!

Churchill was good things for winning a viscious war, but he was a lot of bad things as well. Most Americans view Churchill through rose-colored glasses. He was a terrible man to minorities, the Irish, and the lower classes, and he was sadistic, conducting the firebombing of Dresden when it had zero military or strategic value just to get in one last lick of punishment before it was over. The British wisely voted him out as soon as the war ended.

Republicans run up the bills and when the Dem's get in they pay them off, so you call that Socialism !!!

How did the two unfunded wars from GWB get pay ???

I hope people realize when any changes in the taxes on the Oil Companies will result in higher gas prices. Does anyone believe the Oil Companies will keep gas prices at current levels when their costs (more taxes) go up? And who does that hurt the most? The poor, then the Middle Class. For the poor, it cuts deep into their survival budgets, Food, Shelter, Clothing, etc. For the Middle Class it cuts into their discretionary spending, New Cars, furniture, electronics, etc. All of this makes the hit on the economy, which in turn, companies cut back on hiring, benefits for the employees, hours, etc, which in turn, reduces tax income for the government. And this is one of the supposed tax increases on the "Wealthy, Oil Companies". Imagine the impact on other Corporate tax rates. The people who can afford it the least, will be impacted the most. Yet, the term, "Taxing those who can afford it", doesn't tell the whole story.

C'mon Seaskip, Republicans AND Democratics voted for the money to pay for both wars. And before you go on about a Republican controlled Congress, the Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate in 2006 and could have cut funding any time. But they didn't. Get over the war issue. It's called history.

Think about it - youdon't understand how economics works. Prices have only indirect relation to costs. If you found a $20 bill, are you going to sell it for $10 because you had no cost in obtaining it?

There is a massive margin between costs and price in the oil business. The average barrel of oil costs about $15 for an oil company to pull out of the US ground, but it is sold at $100/barrell. If the cost was $5, they would still sell if for $100. If the cost was $50, they would still sell it for $100.

You're the one that needs the history lesson Think About It. Republicans had control of all three branches of government in 2006. The democrats swept the elections, but they didn't take office until 2007. Next time take your own advice and go learn some history.

Deficit spending:

2009 (Bush) 1.4Trillion

2010 (Obama) 1.3T - 2011 1.3T - 2012 1.1T - 2013 (est) 900 Billion

Deficit spending is going down. I attribute 2009 to Bush because spending on the Cheney wars and without the stimulis, the Bush recession would have actually pushed us into a depression and according to economists was absolutely necessary. Irregardless, you can see from the numbers that deficit spending is headed down. Do not believe the Republican lies about this. The numbers don't lie.

you are 1000% correct Logig_al

Since 2009 our deficit has decreased by almost 50%. But the gop doesnt want to discuss that. They want to keep the people in a state of panic and spin propaganda on the public. The deficit has gone down by almost half since Obama took office..every single year he has spent less. The amount of spending the government is expected to do this year is 0.6% for the entire year. How is that being out of control on spending?? The Tbag GOPers dont want anyone to no the truth. Making stuff up about how horrible things are and how we are gonna all gonna crash and burn if we dont get them back in power. They got the energy to make all these fictional scenarios up so they dont have to talk about why they arent focusing on the real problems they should be addressing. All the crap the GOP is spinning is all pure fiction. They dont want to do what they were elected to do because they lost the election (waaa, boohoo) and they dont like the president, so they are gonna act like a bunch of babies and make stuff up to keep us from the truth. Its called lying to us.

I got this to say...if they are not gonna do their job then they need to be replaced. This isnt summer camp. REAL PEOPLE are sick and dying out here and these guys just want to lunch with their rich buddies and go on vacation and stall so they dont have to work.

Logic and Elaine if you want to give the 2009 Deficiet to Bush go ahead fine but also look in the mirror and see that budgets are made by Congress and which party controlled Congress in 2009,2010 and 2011 it was the Democrats and in 2012 and 2013 the deficiet has fallen why maybe the answer is that the Repblicans took control of the House and stopped the Democrats from their spending spree.or do you just always blame Republicans because as your Fearless leaders does just blame someone else and if tyou keep repeating the lie long enough the uninformed will believe it a page right out of Mussolini, Goebbels and Aulinsky.

Funny, my middle class pay check is less this year than last year. Only the taxes coming out of it went up. That was a tax increase to me. The cuts were set to expire years ago too, but they got extended, and many wanted them extended permanently instead of just temporarily kicking a can down the road. The country's true problem is spending. If I spend more than I make I go into debt. I can either go get another job, just live with it and eventually bankrupt myself, or I can cut spending and dig my way out. I cannot tell my boss I am taking more money home.

abbynmac,

"It is past time to stop spreading the lie that Obama "got his tax increase" earlier this year" Seriously? What are you smoking and where do you get your info? He got his tax increase and now wants more to give to the muslim brotherhood and worthless bailout programs, wake up.

abbynmac,

Don't forget the tax increases due to raising the medical deduction threshold on everyone, or the medical device excise tax, or the increase in capital gains taxes.

MEH - your paycheck went up because the Obama payroll tax holiday went away. That was something that the Republicans did not like. Michelle Bachmann, for goodness sake, spoke against it on the House floor because it decreased the Social security trust fund.

During the fiscal cliff fight, the GOP did not offer one word of argument against your paycheck taking a hit. They devoted all their effort to fighting for keeping taxes lower in the range of $250,000 to $450,000, and they were proud of their victory there. They don't care about poor people to whom the payroll tax is a burden. Their payroll tax stops at the first $110,000, something that occurs in mid-January for the typical big CEO.

And the typical conservative "intelligence" is evidenced by the comment "He got his tax increase and now wants more to give to the muslim brotherhood and worthless bailout programs, wake up."

Even intelligent conservatives must see at some level that they are in the company of idiots. That is why intelligent people are fleeing the GOP. It is just too wacky and lunatic.

abbynmac

Actually, let's not frame this in fantasy language. Bush era tax cuts were voted in to counteract the effects of the end of the of the 2000-2001 recession. Both party's overwhelmingly supported the 10 year plan that was set to sundown at the end of 2011.

That was extended at the request of President Obama since he felt it would only make the 2009 recession worse. So, since President Obama fought to keep those cuts (for all initially), he too should get credit for them, since their expiration would have greatly reduced the deficit. So now they are the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

This year, President Obama made permanent the Bush/Obama tax cuts for all those making less than $400,000.00. Since this codified the Bush/Obama tax rate (thus becoming the new normal), it is a tax increase on those affected.

It was just like a long version of the payroll tax holiday that just went away. I see that 2% difference in my weekly take home. I guarantee you that if ALL tax cuts had been allowed to expire (as they should have), your increase in taxes and decrease in pay would certainly feel like a tax increase.

If it acts like a tax increase (your effective rate rises) and it talks like a tax increase (you have less to spend), it's a tax increase. Just because we want to sugar coat it because we weren't directly affected by it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Wow, I think I would get hurt if I tried to twist myself in those multiple directions your logic just went...

Kehnn13,

It is useless to argue with people like that who can make up their own "facts". The Bush taxcuts enjoyed bipartisan support? Then why did VP Cheney have to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, even when the GOP had control? The real story is that they were opposed by nearly all Democrats and a number of Republicans (including McCain). Obama requested to keep the tax cuts in place, so they should now be his? Obviously they don't remember the battle between the President and the GOP House, and the Debt Ceiling Hostage negotiation. Like I said, when the real facts get in the way, they just invent their own.

Troublet 55

Quit acting like a child. You are being childish.

When their is a problem of this magnitude Government has to step in to fix the problem. Business proved that Business is good for 2 things;

a) Making money for themselves.

b) Making money for themselves.

Lack of restrictions and controls allowed them to scalp the economy and commence a land grab.

Their is also the problem of oil. Less oil and more people end result is less products for everyone. I can do without much of the crud in my apartment. I can't do without an apartment. Serious workers should not be lumped into industry standards forcing you into a classification where the standards dictate earnings. What happened to the team spirit of sharing the companies sucess. Open your books and pay the loyal workers who have to work based on your profits.

One reason we have such a huge military is to keep the military industrial complex workers employed. It hasn't slowed down since we outbuilt the Soviets under Reagan. A large part of the problem is Congress attitude I spend what he spends. Fair is fair. If everyone is running up the deficit then no one is.

It is Governments job to fix the problem. Even more so its our job to vote politicians in who are willing to fix the problem. Not squabble over how the money used to keep buying the elections. Right now the Jihadists have taken a back seat to the economy. They will never have the ability to fight the arsenals of conventional weapons at the US or other modern countries disposal.

Unconventional weapons are used against the Jihadists while conventional weapons are built for modern industrial nations. The military industrial complex provides good paying jobs. Take that away and the problem worsens. Create jobs outside of the conventional weapons industry to move some of the employees into and the problem is fixed. What is the US Government waiting for. The people are the leaders of this Country not the Government. It is funny how the military industrial complex is paid by the Government yet the profits are private. I see the problem they see the problems. You can't have the best of both worlds.

@SallyAnn,

You saying that I have been "exposed" means about as much as the other garbage you spew as facts with no data to back it, GOP/baggers have submitted budgets that are still sitting with your boys not getting voted on, and Oblamo's single budget that he presented recieved zero votes from his own party. So tell me how does Oblamo go from compromise to more taxes to avoid the sequester?

@troublet55

Blaming everything on one person, even if that person is the President is just foolish. He has a hand, just as Congress and the Senate all have a hand. All of them are more interested in serving themselves and their high dollar contributors than they are in serving the general public.

The real problem is that no one in Government is willing to do the right thing and serve the greater good, not themselves.

spitfire,

If a corporation is failing do you blame the CEO or the 500 low level managers? He is supposedly the LEADER of our country, so why does he feel he has to get out of the oval office and run around the country giving speech after speech to accomplish anything? Past LEADERS had no issue addressing the country from the oval office on matters that affected the country. Also I have had my fill of everything being blamed on the guy who left over four years ago.

noncoms

So can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that the president single handedly is to blame for ALL of our problems with zero help from congress and other government officials? I'm not saying he is not partially responsible don't get me wrong, but put the blame where it truly lies, at the foot of everyone in DC.

If you truly believe that I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

@ Rick-3416939,

Our Government is not spending more now than before with Bush during this administration. FY 2009 (July 2008- July 2009) had a Federal deficit of $1.4 trillion. Bush exited the W.H. in Jan. 2009. FY 2013 (July 2012- July 2013) had a Federal deficit of $901 billion. This is a decrease of Federal Government spending by $499 billion during the Obama administration compared to the last Republican Presidential administration presiding over FY 2009. Never the less, deficits accrued before this administration along with it's present curbed spending still amounts to deficits we must pay down. Your argument Obama spends too much seems bizarre when his spending is less than Bush's was. This is why Republicans like yourself are so mislead about spending and our debt. US debt is NOT a direct reflective consequence of Government spending like you assert. The Federal deficit is a direct consequence of Government spending within it's budget......not the public budget insured by Federal Securities. Get your story straight.......

Yes cuts will have to happen and significant ones at that as well as taxes will have to go up on everybody. I am in the top 10% of tax payers and I will pay more but everybody needs to pay something just so they have a stake in it all. We have to have tax reform, simple easy and everbody pays something. I am an independent and have voted against the nuts that took over the GOP in the last two elections. Both parties rejected Simpson/Bowles which could have at least been used as a starting point. The sequester was passed in August 2011 where is the plan from anybody. The Republicans have to take on their base as do the Democrats. The biggest driver of debt in this country is the increase of health care all the rest is little stuff on the side. It has increased in double didgets for years now. Tort reform, Obama didn't have the guts to put that in the Affordable Health Care Act. Defined pension plans for govt employees is done get over it and payroll taxes will have to go up to save SS. There are a lot of hard decisions ahead, I know the govt doesn't have the guts to make them, I wonder if the american people do??????????

Your facts are wrong. We were spending 25% in 2009 but it has declined to 22.8% in 2012 according to the cbo. Also, please recognize that is primarily because we have more retirees and medical costs have gone through the roof in medicare (see Time magazine this week detailing how HMOs, hiding behind conservative anti-Obamacare media, do crazy things like charge you $32 for the temporary use of a blanket). Our discretionary spending in 2012 was 8.3% of GDP, from 1975 to 1986 it averaged 10%.

Do you understand? Discretionary spending is down nearly 2% of GDP from what it was 30 years ago. That is why the sequester is so hard. No one can identify any cuts that don't hurt, seriously hurt, cause more unemployment which, ironically, will cause more unemployment spending and not do a damn thing to help our deficit.

Actually history shows that higher taxes do NOT stifle the economy. The economy actually grows during those periods of higher taxes. And the president who had one of the highest tax rates AND economic growth was the very one I quoted above. He was the ONLY GOP president in the last century to accomplish that feat.

noncoms,

And your source for this little jewel of info? Conservatives are against Obamacare since they actually read it before they voted on it. It is nothing more than a TAX on working America and a handout for illegal immigrants and people on the dole. Wake up and get over the hype.

The facts are from the cbo historical tables. When I post links, they don't show up, but you can google cbo historical budget data, or you can add a w to the front of ww.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43904-Historical%20Budget%20Data-2.xls and cut and paste. My data comes from worksheet 3, Outlays by Major Categories, in rows 97 to 110.

Obamacare was really aimed at Obama's number one concern, which was covering all Americans with insurance. But all the provisions of controlling costs were stripped out of it during the battle (like a public option, or early buy in to medicare). Even so, medical costs have risen more slowly since Obamacare passed than at any time in the last 50 years. Need a reference for that, too? Google "US health spending grew more slowly in 2009 and 2010—at rates of 3.8 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively—than in any other years during the fifty-one-year history of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. ... The rates of growth in overall US gross domestic product (GDP) and in health spending began to converge in 2010. As a result, the health spending share of GDP stabilized at 17.9 percent."

But see Time Magazine this week, with it's cover story on medical costs. Hospitals charge the equivalent of the old Pentagon's $1000 toilet seat. Time uncovered some hospitals charging $32 for the one-night rental of a blanket. The for-profit health industry is unregulated extortion. Patients are told that they need a procedure, the patient is afraid or too distracted to ask the cost, and suddenly finds himself with a giant bill which is only partially covered by insurance. It happens every day. The only way to stop it is with government.

Look - I have never seen a time in my long life when all the facts, ALL THE FACTS, support just one side of the debate. Conservatives are wrong wrong wrong on just about every issue. I can't understand it really.

noncoms,

I will check out the links provided. The old $1000.00 toilet seat is a little used up don't ya think? In case you were unaware, most of those overpriced items were a way to funnel money to "Top Secret Programs" such as Skunkworks that brought us the SR71 Blackbird (which top speed has never been released even though it is "retired".

As screwed up as our health system is nothing changes the fact that Obamacare is a TAX on the working class Americans that actually pay taxes. Nothing will change for the illegal immigrants and the people who refuse to provide health care for themselves or their families. To them it will remain status quo, and hospitals will continue to overcharge TAX PAYERS to cover the revenue loss from NON TAX PAYERS.

All the facts lead back to your POTUS and the liberal sheep bringing us closer and closer to socialism, your POTUS has continually ignored the constitution, allows a wide open border, and continues to pick and choose what laws he feels like enforcing if he does not have "bigger fish to fry". A leader would step off the campaign trail and LEAD. Not point fingers and run around the country giving speech after speech because he "cannot get anything done from the oval office".

In my long life of paying taxes, raising four kids, providing health care for myself and my family, putting myself through school to make a better life for myself, I have never seen so many people willing to give up so many freedoms that so many have died for.

Liberals are wrong wrong wrong on EVERY issue. It sickens me really. Doesn't have much substance does it? But hey I figured I would try it out since the liberals use it all the time.

troublet - your cry of "socialism" is a little used up, doncha think? Obamacare was tried in the Supreme Court and found to be perfectly constitutional. The POTUS has never ignored the constitution. Crying that over and over is like crying wolf over and over.

In fact, the big law that the supreme court turned down as unconstitutional was the Arizona papers, please law. Now that was a violation of the constitution! And that's why the SCOTUS shot it down.

In my long life of paying taxes, raising two kids, providing health care for myself and my family, putting myself through school to make a better life for myself, I have never seen so many people willing to give up so many freedoms that so many have died for. Only I see those people giving up freedoms like those described by FDR. And the people taking these freedoms are not the government, which after all, is made up of we the people. The people taking these freedoms are the wealthy few using conservative media to misled and misinform:

We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

People who think that Obamacare is a tax are stupid. It is a matter of efficiency. My insurance, meaning me has been paying for people without insurance for a long time. It is called bad debt expense, they can't collect from you then they charge people extra that can pay. Health care is the root of this whole thing, tort reform, clinics paid for by the people that dont' give insurance like walmart, mcdonalds etc. We subsidize them now so what is the difference if we pay more at their store, you can bet Walmart would be much more efficient providing health care than the govt. Obesity, lifestyle decisions also cause problems and tell me, if you are getting money from the govt, why isn't it mandatory that you take birth control. Man just some common sense and more emphasis on responsibility rather than your damn rights.

Recovering has been drinking the Kool-Aid.

The President does not seek to destroy the free enterprise system. He seeks to strengthen it and make it more fair.

Uh..., speaking of Kool-Aid...

Steve, we have no choice whether to pay taxes.

And eliminating wealth or income as a standard for voting eligibility was one of the reasons for our Revolution.

Invisible Hand,

I seem to recall the Boston Tea Party was principally about an unfair TAX on tea! I disagree about the choice on paying taxes. We have all sorts of choices on taxes, including setting limits to control or prevent excessive spending. It could well be that gridlock is the new revolution on unfair, or perhaps, excessive taxation.

Don't miss read my message as to imply wealth or income being the standard about voting, because nothing can be further from the truth. I'm all for voting process we have in the nation today - especially for the method of voting for the three components of government we have today - a President, a Representative, and a Senator. I can vote with my emotion for a President, with my pocketbook for a Representative, and my intellect with a Senator. Remember no single element rules the day, which is why we don't have a King. Bless the Founding Fathers. They didn't make it easy for a reason.

Now as a taxpaying turtle, I just want to be sure if the passenger I am carrying across the river is an ant, a grasshopper or a scorpion. Just seems there are far too many scorpions scrambling around these days looking for a free ride and complaining about it. Ants can ride any day. As for grasshoppers, sometimes you just need entertainment. But, you never need a scorpion.

Obama doesn't give politicians a raise. Congress sets its own pay.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/27/executive-order-adjustments-certain-rates-pay

That thar be an eegseguteev erder.

Yeah..., brilliant idea Einstein...

It ain't over until the Fat lady sings, Buddy Bozo.

Frank you are really that dumb. First of all do you even pay federal income tax. Not your payroll tax but federal income tax, some 50% of you aren't. Reagan started cutting taxes, no lets go back to Johnson, Vietnam and the "war" on poverty and we keep doing it. If we get back to a small surplus, lets start paying off the debt, which lowers the interest payment (about 10% of our budget). We have totally screwed our children and grandchildren. You are a gutless wonder Frank, we cut taxes put the war in Iraq off budget, which means we told our young men and women who fought, you fight it and then when you come back you can also pay for it. We all need to pay for it. I make 6 figures, I pay the max on SS, I can't deduct student loan interest or my two childrens tuition. I say a 2% consumption tax that goes up when we go to war and is then a war tax and tax reform with simple rates were everybody pays something.

blah blah blah

doubled the deficit? Obama Obama Obama... No not yet but George W did. I know the radical right hates this but Obama has been paying for wars he did not start, and dealing with the lost revenue of the Bush Tax Cuts. Not sure if this will make sense since it did not come from FOX or the Heritage Foundation but lost revenue means you are less able to pay bills so you have to borrow to pay the bills and the deficit goes up. Try giving up some of your personal income and then try and pay your bills and continue your lifestyle, it does not work.

Beisdes Congress spends the money, not the President.