Why didn't the Senate pass Obama's proposal?

After reading Bill's post from Austin, I suggest there may, perhaps, be hope left for Texas.

@ saxon. The president HAS submitted a budget proposal (that is what the law requires) each year for each house of Congress to consider. Because each of those budget proposals contained line items that offended members of both parties (eliminated a lot of their pork from the previous FY appropriations), those budget proposals were shot down in both houses. The "budget resolutions" that the HOR passed got nowhere in the Senate because there were not enough votes from either party to get past the filibusters/60 vote cloture issue. If you know you can't get past cloture to get to an up-or-down vote, why even attempt to bring it up on the floor of the Senate? That is the situation Congress and the American people has faced since 2009.

Most Americans, including myself (until recently) did not know that the DEFICIT has been DECLINING over the LAST 3 YEARS.

Obama and his team should be shouting this from the rooftops.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Jobs will solve that problem. We need another massive stimulus.

I don't understand how to resolve the sequester either. So for that reason, I will be running for Congress in 2016. Looks like my chances are improving daily...

Hey Farty, thanks for your service. I'm a Korean veteran and we fought the Red Menace (communism) to keep America free. Now the GOPTP defends all the CEOs that have sent jobs to China, a communist country. Ironic isn't it?

Again Boner doubles down on stupid. Tax cuts for the very rich do NOT create even one job. Trickle down economics has always been a failure and always will be. Its time those that need it least pay up. Its time for this country to move forward and its time for Mr. Boner to resign his position as he is no leader at all.

He means to say " I don't think how it can be solved when we are just not going to let it be solved."

Well, in my line of work, if you don't know what you're doing, you get FIRED!!!!! Time to throw Boehner and the rest of those bums out on their asses!

Do over, spending cuts are contrary to growth, see austerity, Europe is going into a triple dip recession caused by spending cuts. Don't double down on stupid, like the speaker.

Eric-913730

You do know that the Brits can pay over 50% in income tax on income over and also have a 20% VAT on goods and services don't you. They also pay an additional tax for their health care.

Here are their tax rates:

Basic rate

Tax is payable at the basic rate of 20 per cent on taxable income up to £34,370.

Higher rate

If you have more than £34,370 but less than £150,000 of taxable income, you will have to pay a higher rate of 40 per cent tax on the amount above £34,370 and below £150,000.

Additional rate

If you have more than £150,000 you will have to pay an additional rate of 50 per cent tax on the amount above this level.

He knows damn well how to fix the sequester, but his corporate lobbyist masters say no to closing the loopholes.

The GOP have no interest in doing anything that will help the country, there will be no closing of loopholes, there will be no compromise on increasing revenue of any kind no matter what it is called. The only way to fix this problem, is vote them out in 2014. In the meantime call your representatives to let them how you feel and what you expect them to do.

Our country has been bought and paid for corporations and their lobbyists and they are the masters.

I have a small start to cutting the budget. Lets start by reducing the average pay of a member of congress from 175k per year to around 45k per year and then tie it to the median income set by the SSA and limit it to not exceed it by more than 10%. that alone will save us 70 million. it may not be a lot but it is a start.

The GOP is completely up in arms because when they made the sequester deal they were SURE that they would be taking back the white house in 2012 and would be able to do whatever they wanted. Remember they thought they were going to take the Senate too. But now they are stuck in their own mess because the American people are on to their game. They broke this one too, now fix the damn thing losing party of "NO".

How about returning to historic tax levels?

How about eliminating all the tax loopholes for the 1%?

How about cutting spending on things like defense?

Yeah, that's really tough to figure out.

"You (congress) are all fired!" Perfect! Now remember this at voting time,everyone!

This interview was so predictable - he knows a fine democratic offer was filibustered by McConnell in the Senate, it passed with 51 votes. He can close just a few loopholes in tax code to put toward deficit. This is not new spending. Yes deficit has been greatly reduced from when President took office. It will also be reduced when we leave Afghanistan. You never hear how he and his collegues voted overwhelmingly in earlier administration to approve deficit. Now they don't even know that troops are overseas as was evidenced by their convention, they have totally abandoned the troops. Just another member of the Clown car.

Our public servants want us all to live like illegal immigrants...10 people to a house, eat cheap rice and beans and never complain about your job. The middle class has been destroyed.

WHAT IS AFFECTED BY CUTS in the sequester

National parks. Visiting hours at America's 398 national parks are likely to be reduced. Park service director Jon Jarvis has said visitors can expect to encounter locked restrooms, fewer rangers, and trash cans that are emptied less frequently.

Longer-term effects. The sequester cuts, if left in place, would restrain funding across affected agencies for 10 years. Some effects on ordinary Americans would appear slowly and perhaps in less-visible ways, some economists say. Cuts to investments in scientific research, for example, could dampen economic growth. Similarly, the Pentagon says the cuts come at a cost to military readiness, and the State Department has warned that the reductions would affect many efforts it takes to "advance peace, security, and stability around the world."

Many of you on this site of stressed that if they (the Republictaps) do not know how to do their job, then they should be fired. However, we have known that for over 10 years. We are all just realizing this simple fact.

Life would be much smoother if we did not have so many Republicraps in office. The problem with that is due to the fact that many of these Republicraps are in "Red" areas of our country and not heavily populated (areas in the south and out in many of the western states) Why should these lesser populated areas have the same voice in Congress as areas in NY, DC, California, Fl, as well as many others?

From the news:

Boehner says: 'I don't think anyone quite understands' how sequester gets resolved

Boehner admits his impotence here.

Why should you be even speaker? Go away, Boehner!

Which tax loopholes are you referring to? Get specific and explain a couple of them...

We know this, and we know why...

Eric Cantor confirmed that he and Paul Ryan talked John Boehner out of accepting a "Grand Bargain" with Obama in 2011. It was the rejection by the extremist House TGOP of the "Grand Bargain" that led to the sequester. Search: "Eric Canter,The Sequester and The Death of The Grand Bargain"

If all you a$$holes are so stumped on how to fix the budget, well I have a suggestion. Try asking a few average, everyday Americans. You know, the ones that have had to do more with less and choose between buying groceries or paying the utility bill. Here's a hint since you're so clueless, spend less money than you have coming in.

What did you expect from 300 Million idiots sending 400 Millionaires to represent your average 60K pay? You think a Millionaire is going to raise taxes on themselves to help you average taxpayer? Yes, you really are that stupid, America. How about voting in average people, to represent "Average People"? I know your feeble minds cannot comprehend that, because those "Rob/ Job Creators" have you believing that they know what is best for you. Politicians tell us what they are going to do. When's the last time they asked what we wanted them to do?

The sequester is simple austerity- as in "simple minded".

Austerity doesn't work; paradoxically, the empirical evidence has proven time and again that efforts to save money actually caused profound and lasting damage to the economies those tactics were intended to serve.

It's what the Republicans insisted on, and it belongs to them.

It's crucial to ask of any policy: " Qui bono (for whom is this good)?"

What possible benefit to the right to destroy jobs, damage recovery, and send a profound wave of disquiet through the majority of Americans?

The irony is, it doesn't serve the right at all, and they are in serious danger of losing their position as a major party.

Austerity has always served one group very well indeed: the rich.

The rich fund and own the right, and to an increasing degree, they now fund and own the left.

Destroying the middle class and creating a new peonage also destroyed populist funding, and gave the rich a disproportionate voice in politics.

The rich now decide who will run, and who will not- before we ever get a chance to vote.

No matter who wins, they already have the election sewed up tight- because every horse in that race now belongs to them, it makes little difference which crosses the finish line first.

This cannot stand forever- but it's likely to get far worse before it gets any better- those we "elect" no longer work for us, and they haven't for about forty years.

It's still important to vote- even if all candidates are increasingly dirty, there remain shades of grey to choose between- and some are much darker than others.

Ironically, I chose Obama- who still shines like a beacon of sanity against the dark madness of people like Romney...and Boehner.

I think we have all been laboring under the mistaken assumption that Congress is there to actually get something done. Obviously this is false, they have had so many chances and nothing has been accomplished except to shaft the country. We would be better off without a Congress, as then nothing would get done without shafting the country. Perhaps we need a new amendment to the Constitution disbanding Congress. This would definitely improve the state of the union!

It all boils down to that we the people keep putting the same sellouts back in office so we the people are our own worst enemy. I believe in workfare over welfare but as long as the USA keeps rewarding people for going to foreign countries for slave labor and the freedom to pollute their heart out people will keep losing their jobs and then there will be no one left to buy the goods, services or pay taxes. Greed is like cancer eventually it kills the whole organism. That's why I voted for independents, Democrat and Republican two sides of the same hand sold out. People say I wasted my vote but at least I voted my heart and didn't put either sell out in office. Stocks will be a poor choice as long as CEO's and insiders are allowed to take massive stock options, salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes all while they run the company into the ground leaving the workers and stock holders holding the bag. Insurance has become a big Ponzi scheme, it allows an industry to charge more for services then the market would allow. It is based on people paying far more into the system then they will ever get out of it while others take sweet profits from that pay while cutting services to those who paid for them. America anymore is now controlled by industrialized elitist that only care about profit not who lives or dies. The public is just as greedy and corrupt as the companies, that's why it goes on and that's why we continue to elect the same sellouts back in office. The whole idea of the trickle down theory was give tax breaks to the rich so that they would create jobs in the US and those jobs would widen the tax base so everyone wins. The people of the US are being played, now graft and corruption is the rule instead of decency and fair play. I don't understand what is so hard about rewarding people for investing in the US and taxing the hell out of them for not. There was a reason we had tariffs, Ross Perot warned of the big sucking sound with free trade agreements while our so called leaders promised prosperity for all. If you invest in jobs in the US the government makes more money to give you tax breaks and if you invest outside the US but want the comforts and security of the US you should pay more. You can't compete with countries that allow slave labor and the freedom to cut costs by not having any regulations. Instead of moving forward our so called leaders are taking us backwards to the days of slave labor, child labor, unsafe working conditions, products and pollution so that a select few can make massive profits while the majority suffer.If we don't have a mass exodus of incumbents at the next election we deserve everything we get.

Farty Redhead,,, you are so correct, however, no one wants to admit it.

Problem with this 85 billion,,,,,,,, 100 billion short and 15 years late.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmm

Dear John ..... You don't know how you got us in this mess? ..

You just stuck something in without knowing the consequences?

Sooooo you've just participated in the biggest "Gang Band" of the economy in history and you don't know what to do about the pregnancy? I know you won't support abortion .... you'd better run back and kiss him ... before your ass ends up in a "shotgun" marriage and you loose your position too!

Bye the Bye John ... both sides need to do the right thing ... there is 500 billion in available untaxed revenue that both you clowns are leaving out .... a new tax ... that the public will support ... and both sides will sit on your dead asses and let it slide ... until its too late!

A pox on both your parties ...

The problem is trust, only millionaires can afford to run for congress. Working people are to busy trying to just eek out a living. It would be great if we could replace Lawyers with coal minors, or Doctors with factory workers but it just can't happen. The next thing is to vote those millionaires into office that earned their way there. Not those that inherited or somebody else earned their millions for them.

What's preventing a deal is the GOP's unwillingness to budge one inch on their stubborn persistance that we must protect the tax loop holes for the super rich. This is the snag, point blank. Almost 90% of Americans want a balanced approach.

I think the unwillingness to produce spending cuts, AFTER, you just got 650 Billion Dollars in TAX INCREASES, prove that the president does not want a balanced approach. As for tax loop holes, get rid of them on everyone.

Republicans are literally playing games with people's lives. Here in America.

Ezra Klein/The Washington Post {snips}:

The bottom line on American budgetary politics right now is that Republicans won’t agree to further tax increases and so there’s no deal to be had. This is not a controversial perspective in D.C.: It’s what Hill Republicans have told me, it’s what the White House has told me, it what Hill Democrats have told me. The various camps disagree on whether Republicans are right to refuse a deal that includes further tax increases, but they all agree that that’s the key fact holding up a compromise to replace the sequester.

But it’s unpopular for Republicans to simply say they won’t agree to any compromise and there’s no deal to be had — particularly since taxing the wealthy is more popular than cutting entitlements, and so their position is less popular than Obama’s. That’s made it important for Republicans to prove that it’s the president who is somehow holding up a deal.

The interesting question is whether the possibility of a government shutdown, a debt-ceiling breach or simply the pressure of the sequester’s cuts will, in the coming months, break one side or the other. But as long as the GOP’s position is they won’t compromise, there’s not going to be a compromise.

______________

You give the GOP some power, and they will destroy whatever good has been accomplished. It's what they do, all for the sake of protecting the rich. That is the ONLY issue here. And until they get their way, people will lose jobs, incomes, health care and on and on and on.

And you know what? They don't care.

Call their offices. Go to their offices. Raise hell.

Louie Bee,

"Is he letting America be degraded because of his (feigned) ignorance?"

That's exactly what he is doing, just as they allowed our credit rating as a nation to be downgraded.

Poor liberal drones

Don't think so. More like poor, misinformed FOX drone.

This is the best thing that could happen... massive unemployment, more terrorism, and an even crappier economy. Finally, people will see what liberalism leads to. Then after a huge conservative mid-term election, we can get the country back on track with SERIOUS cuts, a high-octane economy, and big surpluses.

Right there says it all. Anyone favoring a collapse of the country's economy is a traitor. That kind of thinking is a prime example of why nothing gets done anymore. And btw, that trickle down theory doesn't work. At least not for very long. Once the credit card gets maxed and the rich people who benefitted the most from it have skipped town, it's we the people that have to foot the bill. You need to take an economics course.

"I can't figure out how to fix this, sob, problem I've created...but we Americans owe those tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to the ultra-wealthy job creators who run everything so well. If you have any more questions, call my favorite lobbyist or bartender." John Bonehead interview on Meathead Press

I think we should all form a class action lawsuit against all of congress and the President for "dereliction of duty" and remove them all from office after a special election to replace ALL of them!

Liberal drones? That's the best you have? If you can't see that members of Congress are catering to their donors and screwing the American population you are blind. We are no longer led by what is right for the country, we are led by what is right for the pockets of our elected officials. Liberal or Conservative, we are ALL being governed by a self-serving group of idiots.

Use emotional appeals ethically. Any emotion can be exploited in the wrong way.
Fear and loathing, desirable when targeted at an infectious disease, are reprehensi-
ble, even immoral, when aimed at a minority group. Unfortunately, some politicians
have demonstrated that creating or exploiting fears and hatreds can win elections.
If you are an ethical speaker, however, you will never let short-term gain entice you
into using such tactics. If, for example, you are trying to mobilize public opinion to
save an endangered species of bird, you will not demonize homebuilders who want
to build on the bird’s natural habitat; you will not foment hatred by falsely portraying
them as merciless killers. Instead, you will channel emotional appeals in appropri-
ate ways—by generating sadness over the possible disappearance of the bird or by
appealing to the happiness listeners might feel over saving endangered creatures.
To determine whether you are acting ethically, identify each emotion you
want to arouse and then answer the following questions.
• Do you avoid scapegoating any person or group?
• Does the emotion reinforce, rather than replace, solid evidence and sound
logic? (If not, is it because your case is unsupportable and illogical?)
• In arousing this emotion, are you treating the issue and the opposing side
with fairness? (Put yourself in the shoes of an opponent and see if your
treatment looks fair from that perspective.)
If you cannot answer yes to all three, your ethical footing is shaky. You should
omit the emotional appeal or alter the speech.

Gregory, H. (2010). Public Speaking for College & Career (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

And the sales pitch for 2016 begins!!!! Lower taxes, balanced budget because of us. Well, seen this story in 2000 Mr. Boehner. Newt has been preaching it since he was booted out of office.

“They expect Washington to live within its means"~Boehner

Unless that means closing loopholes and bloated military industrial complex contracts, just watch how the Pubs initiate bills to increase spending for those lobbyists and corporations that own them

"The president got $650 billion of higher taxes on the American people on January the first," Boehner said. "How much more does he want?"

Tell you what I want: the Bush tax cuts to go away. Even the ones affecting me. We could NOT afford those cuts when Bush made them. He had already squandered the Clinton surplus and had the hands on the debt clock spinning like fan blades.

Every year that I = and you = insist on sustaining those Bush cuts is a year that we all contribute to digging a deeper financial hole for ourselves.

You want tax cuts funded by debt? That's what you have.

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.

Apparently they DO matter when a Democrat wins the White House, @sshole.

Louie Bee "What is there about closing tax loopholes that John Boehner doesn't understand?"

What is there about the need for spending cuts that Obama doesn't understand?

Virtually every responsible expert recognizes the need for BOTH, so Boehner will use tax reform in negotiations with Obama over REAL spending cuts.

If Boehner just gave Obama his tax increases, Obama would NEVER agree to any spending cuts - trotting out his "The Sky is Falling" routine to block them.

It's interesting that Obama is no longer pushing his 'scaremongering' tactics to characterize the small 1.2 % cut in spending for 2013 as 'catastrophic'. I guess when reality doesn't live up to his rhetoric, it will be embarrassing for him that he sounded like Chicken Little.

Let me get this straight, republicans in the congress and senate during the Bush years voted to cut taxes during a time of war, borrow money for that war and keep the cost of that war off the books, created a whole new Department of Homeland Security that costs 78 billion a year (most of that money going directly to their supporters) voted for an expansion of Medicare and are now claiming we have a spending problem under President Obama? They create the problem and now rail against it? They must think we are stupid, of course they already take that for granted with the tea party, but the rest of us? Give me a frigging break, the only problem the U.S. has are the republicans.

Rorschach-558483 "Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.

When the Deficits averaged only $251 Billion per year (as they did under Bush), he was right because that amounted to only 2.06% of GDP.

When Deficits averaged $1,274 Billion per year (5 times as much, as they have under Obama), they DO matter because that gets close to 10% of GDP - clearly an unsustainable level.

PS - I agree with you that we should have let the Bush tax cuts expire for EVERYONE, because that would have helped cure the Deficit problem. I find it disingenuous for some people to claim that the Bush tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy, but letting them expire would devastate the economy. Their 'logic' seems inconsistent.

trust2112

How about voting in average people, to represent "Average People"?

That sure worked great in the 2010 midterms, didn't it?

Oh, that's right. The Teabags voted in were just pretending to be interested in serving "average people" long enough to get elected....

Better suggestion.

Get more interested, informed, and involved than the superficial. And for Christ's sake, quit letting Fox and Limbaugh tell you what to think.

Reply to damnyou;

Go ahead and take your companies out of the US. We are currently making legislation that will increase your taxes tenfold. Clearly you admit the destruction of this country falls on your head. When times get tough, cut and run.

People in Washington do know how to fix it, He just doesn't want to listen to them.

ROY WILSON-336103

When the Deficits averaged only $251 Billion per year (as they did under Bush), he was right because that amounted to only 2.06% of GDP.

When Deficits averaged $1,274 Billion per year (as they have under Obama), they DO matter because that gets close to 10% of GDP - clearly an unsustainable level.

The economy, when Bush took office, was quite healthy and we weren't trying to fund two wars off the books. Nothing dishonest about that, eh, Roy?

When Obama took office, the war expenditures went ON the books. Unlike during the Bush years, when the deficit spending was being hidden. Did the numbers suddenly get higher? Yep, they tend to do that when you put all the numbers on the table... unlike President "Deficits Don't Matter" and his sidekick Darth.

When Obama took office, the economy was already in tatters and there wasn't much choice but to intervene. You know that, but it's not in the best interests of your politics to admit it... right, Roy?

What a great way to pretend the deficit's not happening: just hide the spending. Then play the ultimate political lie: promise and deliver tax cuts.... also on borrowed money.

Why did you leave that out, Roy?

Do you get dizzy when you spin like that?

@Mark-3140636Good post (#1.46). Everything we pay for has become more expensive and poorer in quality and/or quantity due to the "club" of greedy ceo's and executives who reward themselves with huge salaries and bonuses for making their companies a small profit, usually by downsizing and forcing the remaining employees to work longer and harder for less pay, outsourcing work, and importing from 3rd world countries. This is the GOP way, they are the "real constituents" as GWB said when he didn't know someone was recording it.
Healthcare is in the mess it's in because of them also, their newest "idea" is to replace MD's with nurse practitioners for a large percentage of appointments and again - paying them much less than the Dr, but charging the patient's insurance the same amount. Why does the insurance pay? Because they are owned by the same people that own the hospitals in most cases. The "bones" that do get thrown to the public are usually just to keep them from rising up in the streets against government, and you can't blame someone who is needy from taking them. They are now calling Social Security an entitlement, also Medicare and Medicaid. This is mass brainwashing and a prelude to huge cuts to the group of people who can not afford them. These programs were forced on the American people, no choice in the matter, now they are having a minimum of 99 dollars deducted from their SS and getting doubly screwed by whatever insurance they are required to obtain in addition.
Everything that we are suffering from is a result of decades of corrupt politicians selling out. They used to have good laws that were enforced on the books that went by the wayside so these people could get rich. Usury laws for instance - it was illegal to charge more than 18% interest, now the sky is the limit and a lot of people are using credit to pay interest on credit. The housing mess - they knew about the bubble for at least 10 years and did nothing, knew about the bundling of bad mortgages and did nothing until the bottom dropped out. Who has to pay - we do. I'm starting to think that it doesn't even matter who we vote for in this country, the wheels have already been set in motion to dismantle our society and turn it into a 3rd world country.

“You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” said the vice president. “We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”

O’Neill was, according to Suskind, left speechless.

But Cheney wasn’t done. He and the Bush-Cheney administration that he served as CEO piled up deficits and debts. Indeed, as The New York Times has well noted, “Under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.”

Now, a decade later, Cheney’s party is arguing that deficits matter. A lot. House Republicans are so fretful that they are willing to steer the country toward chaos by refusing the compromises that would avert across-the-board sequester cuts. Other Republicans uncomfortable with sequestration are pushing an austerity agenda that’s better organized than the sequester, but potentially even more painful.

So was Cheney right in 2002? Or is he right, now, when he cheers on Republican attacks on Obama’s spending and says, “I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on”?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173146/gotta-sequester-or-was-cheney-right-deficits-dont-matter#

Rorschach-558483 "The economy, when Bush took office, was quite healthy and we weren't trying to fund two wars off the books. Nothing dishonest about that, eh, Roy?"

Nice try at a 'spin'.

I guess you had a memory lapse about 9/11 and the 24 months of resulting job losses, and the nonsense about the 'on the books/off the books' doesn't hold water.

ALL of the spending for the wars under Bush WAS included in his Deficits, as they are under Obama. The misconception about 'on/off the books' was about the BUDGET for each year. Actual spending NEVER agrees with the Budget for each year. The actual spending (and Deficits) for each year under both Bush and Obama includes EVERYTHING - including the war costs.

PS - Obama handles extra war costs in EXACTLY the same way as Bush did - with an 'Additional Appropriations Request' - for proof, consider the following - requested 2 months AFTER Obama signed the 2009 Budget;

http://vcnv.org/president-obamas-war-budget-analyzing-the-numbers

Do you get dizzy when you spin like that? lol

Speaker Boehner should speak for himself only. He doesn't know how to fix or resolve the political problem. That doesn't mean that someone else, with basic math and reasoning skills, can't get the job done. He is a bombastic idiot.

I bet a Democratic controlled House and Senate could easily get it done.

I saw this morning's interview and Boehner was a tad patronizing at best due to being stuck in his own denial.

Basically Boehner boner got stuck in his mouth during the interview. And until both sides take blame for this sequester and begin to work together as ONE NATION, both sides will continue to fail this nation.

Haven't we grown up and past the He Said I said Agenda? Evidently we have children posturing for personal gain in the current administration and thus both sides are failing this nation in attempts to gain personal satisfaction!

Simpson/Bowles put out an extensive report, that was directed by the White House, but no one in Washington wants to take the report seriously. Obama ignored it. Congressional leaders turned their backs on it. Too bad, it was a good start in the right direction that crossed party lines. That's probably why no one wants to embrace the report.

The American people understand all to-well what the Republican party is up to, our patience are wearing thin !

Typical Democrats signed the bill but did know what was in it. Now they blame the Republicans for not telling them. Way to go Boehner in not backing down to the POTUS. He signed it he agreed to it. I say let the chips fall. The democrats complain that we are spending way to much money on our War Machine and making CEO's richer. Now the seem concerned about defense cuts. It seems that the Dems have decided that taxing the 1% will make everything go away. But for all that voted for Obama and the Democrats last year you forget one thing. The majority of them are 1%. You seem awfully naive to believe that they will tax away all of their money and then give it to you. They haven't yet. As a matter of fact most Democrats do not give as much to charity as Republicans. So the guys who say that they are looking out for the little guy have not really shown the morale capacity to do what they preach and you Libs defend them till the dying last word. Give me a break. The Dems agreed to and wanted the Sequester, Obama signed it and now it is the Republicans fault. I see this sequester exactly were it belongs. Another failed attempt by Democrats to lead.

Boehner is wiping tears from his eyes saying its all the Tea Bag people making me look like a A$$ !!!

When Obama took office, the war expenditures went ON the books. Unlike during the Bush years, when the deficit spending was being hidden. Did the numbers suddenly get higher? Yep, they tend to do that when you put all the numbers on the table... unlike President "Deficits Don't Matter" and his sidekick Darth.

***

Mr. Obama was elected in 2008 on the banner "troops home in 160 days, balanced budget in 1 year, no new taxes". I am sorry but facts and math work against you.

We don't need advisors of hate. We need talented policy makers and honest bookkeepers like Bush and Cheney, like Romney and Ryan. Doesn't matter, what party. Small enough to fail, but still get the job done.

May be we should have two Americas. One that works and the other one that... I don't know... lives free of mistakes?

Did you ever hear of something called the Great Recession? No? Didn't think so. Unemployment peaked in Oct. 2009 at 10% and has since steadily dropped to under 8%. The deficit has been going down for 3 years now in spite of the worst efforts of the party of Stupid.

At the rate Obama is going he might eventually start paying down on the national debt in a few years. The last Presidents to accomplish that were Presidents Clinton and Carter, both Democrats. Where did all of this debt come from? Republicons, the party stuck on Stupid.

National Debt Graph by President

miron or moron? Never said balanced budget in 1 year and honest bookkeepers like Bush and Cheney? Where you been? they put a 60 billion dollar war that ended up costing 500 Billion a year on the LOAN BOOKS for the past 10 years, and handed 200 BILLION in no bid contracts out to Cheneys friends at Haliburton so sit down and shut up about all your lies. Now onto the point at hand, BALANCE the Budget needs to be a priority but "Boner" ....yes that is the correct pronounciation- ask his grandparents who were not politicians....needs to realize that when American families need to live within our means we sometimes cannot cut enough out of the expenses and then need to get a SECOND JOB as well....similar to the Feds needing to increase their INCOME by taxes. He and all of Congress were elected to do a job and they need to do it or go back to the unemployment line themselves. They deny Americans health care despite the fact they get it free for life because they are special....they deny working Americans their hard earned pensions despite themselves having the best paid retirement plan in the free world. And all along they claim it is the other guy who causes the problems not them. B S is just plain old crap and needs to stop. DO YOUR JOBS. It was a Republican led group who scuttled the original Plan to cut the budget down to even and said the cuts were too deep. That is what has led to the Sequester and before that the Fiscal Cliff and before that the Budget Impasse....

I guess having deficts of 1.5 trillion, 1.4 trillion, 1.3 trillion as going down, but it's laughable. At that rate we will be at 20 trillion in no time at all. Then what, tax the American public more to match the government spending. The interest alone will be more than any entitlement program we have very shortly.

Who wants this debt?... Only Washington and people without a clue.

john1313, #1.24- YIKES! I replied to you (positive) but somehow it ended up on page 26 as comment #682!!!

As I had said in THAT comment, I have to leave for the afternoon into tonite but would check back in to see if you wanted to "reply". I'll check back to #682 later tonite, if you do want to reply. Thanks

Boehner is more full of it than ever, as amazing as that sounds. This is actually EASY to resolve...Republicans need to stop pretending that losing the election gives them a mandate for enactment of their full economic problem. That's what is happening here, that is where the block comes from. Republicans are demanding full implementation of the LOSER'S platform.

So GET. OFF. IT. STOP pretending that losing 3 of the last 4 elections makes you a majority. STOP pretending that controlling half of half of Congress and losing the Presidential contest gives you a mandate. STOP pretending that reducing revenue helps balance the budget. STOP leaving in a world that's entirely free of facts. JUST. STOP.

Cutting spending is a misnomer. It should be called cutting borrowing.

There is nothing wrong with spending, if you've got it. The problem is spending when you're broke. Slow down, recover, then gear back up. Avoid borrowing. Debt is an unnecessary self-inflicted drain that stalls recovery.

Cutting $85 Billion of borrowing over 10 months is a start but is only a fraction (16%) of the President's proposed $1.4 Trillion deficit for the year.

It took a sequester to fix only 16%.

Funny how everyone makes Bonehead out to be the villain in this. The speaker of the house traditionally has the power to lead, not so since the Tea Party. Boehner is just a bystander and is powerless to negotiate anything. The American people are getting just what they voted for, government by the minority, which mostly amounts to obstructionism. Don't blame Bonehead, he is impotent not important.

Unfortunately, there is no way to fix Bungling Boner and the Repuklecons, either.....

Everyone knows how the sequester is solved: by following the will of the public. A balanced plan to lower the deficit with smart, targeted revenue increases and smart, targeted spending cuts. That's what we voted for. That's what we should get.

How do we mollify the cry-babies who lost the election? Don't know, don"t care.

Boehner said he got 99% of what he wanted in the sequester and now he's whining. That pretty much says it all. There is a plan - has been a plan - on the table all along. The President's plan cuts spending and closes tax loopholes - something Republicans were for until the President agreed. Now they don't want it.

And, people have the audacity to point a finger at the President - as always. The right has no integrity and no morals. They would step over bodies of the poor as long as they can obstruct. What a disgusting group the Republican party has become.

dr821 - this has been explained over and over but we'll try again since you have difficulty understanding. President Obama had a FILIBUSTER PROOF majority in Congress for a scant 44 days before Ted Kennedy got sick. After that, Republicans used the filibuster more than any other time in history in order to bring everything to a standstill. See now????

This conservative says:

1. The Speaker is not a leader. If he was, he would never have signed on to this stupid "grand deal" called sequester. If he had a back bone not worring about the next election, in 2010, he should have just shut the federal government down until there was a budget passed and signed. To him and all others in congress from both parties, the founding fathers wanted congress to be a part time job...........not a career.

2. To those who believe our president is a socialist, wrong answer. He is worse. I believe him to be a Leninist. I'm not saying a communist, but a Leninist. Study Lenin and our president and you should see they are cut from the same cloth. This should bring the debate to, is Leninism a good or bad thing. Is this one of the 2 reasons he keeps his college records sealed?

I don't think anyone quite understands how the sequester gets resolved.

More honest Boehner: "I don't think anyone quite understands how I can be so bad at my job and still hold onto it."

John Kerry just said it is your right to be stupid in America as he spoke to a German crowd. Is that the kind of stupid leadership you want and voted for...evidently. This is just one example of how our "leadership" estimates the capacity of the citizens who elected them. Are you mad yet? Have you had enough of the politics as usual? Evidently not since so many of you sheep continue to support the same stupid legislators who not only brought us the current debt but are assuming you are stupid enough to by the lies about the sequester and reduced government spending. The fact is a $16 trillion dollar debt is more than they are willing to pay down due to the political fall out. So the only alternative is to call you stupid as they kick the can down the road and earn about $14,500 per month in the process. Nice job most of us could manage with our eyes and ears closed...as theirs are apparently.

I don't want to bust the Liberal bubble but, if you're an informed Liberal with a thinking head on your shoulders, here's some info on the current budget and balance sheet for the U.S. in 2013.

Currently for the year 2013 our biggest cost items on the budget are:

Healthcare $811 billion

Social Sec $775 billion

Defense $667 billion

We have tax revenue of $2.5 trillion with deficit spending above revenue of $1.2 trillion for the year 2013...Clearly almost half of are budget spending is on Healthcare and Social Security. These are personal entitlement programs.

On a long term Balance Sheet for the U.S.:

Combined Unfunded liabilities (medicare, perscription drugs, social sec) $123 Trillion

Current Total National Assets of U.S. (valuation) $94 Trillion

Entitlements are breaking the financial back of America. It's there as plane as day for anyone to see. It was not the recession that broke us. The recession is a product of our fiscal mismanagment caused by entitlements. Go online and check out the U.S. National Debt Clock if you dont believe me. Don't hide behind the media spin. Do your own research and then get back to me. I'm all ears if you have a better scenario. I've had to do budgets and balance sheets for businesses for 35 years. The U.S. is by no means in a healthy position, primarily caused by over-spending in the entitlement portion of the budget. Although we spend a large amount on national defense (and could stand some cuts in wasteful spending), the defense budget pales in comparison to the spending on personal entitlements. Please go research and make your own decision as you vote for candidates that you feel have your best interest at heart.

Keep in mind though, if you break the bank you won't have any money to spend on things you truly need in the future.

dr821, have you stopped to wonder why Social Security is a big cost item in the federal budget, given that S.S. taxes are taken out of workers' pay? Could it have anything to do with the federal govt. "borrowing" from the S.S. pot and leaving IOUs? What should the feds do? Stiff Social Security recipients?

Regarding Healthcare, perhaps you should get a copy of last week's Time magazine - it will open your eyes on the healthcare situation, which, by the way, has been arond before Obama was president.

Finally, you didn't mention anything about Defense - there's lots of opportunities for saving $$. Check this out: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense

djo_34

tonybeeerm, what are you talking about? Reagan's economic policies didn't work??? They carried the country for 20 years. If Bush 1 didn't raise taxes and go back on his word, Clinton would have had to wait and wouldn't have inherited Reagan's economy. Clinton also had a Republican congress to balance his budgets and make him look like a hero. He had it easy. And Obama could too, if he would just listen to reason.

First of all, Reagan's economic policies did not carry the economy for 20 years; the Reagan economy was actually one of the worst economic records in the post-World War II record, if you count in the high unemployment, high inflation, and the ensuing late 1980s recession from the S&L crisis and other speculation. Bush 1 HAD to raise taxes to pay for the Reagan deficits (hell, even Reagan raised taxes 11 times), lest interest rates go up and hurt the economy. Clinton managed to balance the budget with Republican help, but a major part of that deficit reduction came from the 1993 tax increase. He didn't have it easy; no Republicans voted for the '93 tax hike (which only passed because of the Dem Congress), and Republican intransigence led to two government shutdowns, both of which ended in a victory for Clinton. Obama can't balance the budget because it is Republicans who won't listen to reason: Republicans say that if Obama offered chained CPI and means testing to entitlements, they would come to the table. Problem is, Obama HAS put those things on the table; those were on the fiscal cliff deal (which Boehner screwed up again via the Plan B vote) to the consternation of many Democrats. Republicans couldn't just deal with their anti-tax Tea Party caucus to man up and strike a deal. Hell, according to Ezra Klein one of the top Republican advisers argue that Obama has to offer entitlement reform AND lower his demands by 100% in order to get a deal.

Max out the credit cards??? It's the liberals who are spending. It's the liberals that want to tax rich people and corporations and raise the minimum wage and drive jobs and money and business AWAY from the U.S.

Actually, if you take the past 40 years into account, it has been conservatives who have been spending and liberals who have cleaned up the deficits. Let's start in the 1970s: Jimmy Carter, your party's official punching bag, had a very low deficit even in the midst of stagflation, and had a very low debt-to-GDP ratio. Then Reagan came along, cutting taxes dramatically and hiking up defense spending, leading to the deficit crisis of the 1980s and early 90s. Debt to GDP rose to 50% from 40% and the nominal debt tripled; hell, Reagan had to change course and raise taxes to reduce his deficit. George H.W. Bush comes in the midst of the Reagan bubble burst and had to clean up the mess by hiking up taxes, and was then defeated by Bill Clinton. Clinton, facing high deficits and a stagnating economy, raised taxes in 1993 (with no GOP support) and began trimming spending, culminating in the budget battles with Newt Gingrich in the late 90s which led to two unpopular government shutdowns. He gave us a huge surplus, which was later squandered by George W. Bush via tax cuts and spending increases and hindered Obama's efforts to aid the economy via the rise of GOP deficit hawks.

I don't need the economics course... I earn my money. I invest my money. I contribute. I'm not a taker like you. Your concept of economics is how much can I "redistribute" from achievers and earners. Liberals need conservatives to balance their budgets and give them jobs and support them. Conservatives just need liberals to go away.

Actually, you do. Most liberals aren't "takers," and neither are the American people; most people are "makers" in that they contribute to the economy via providing demand and contributing via their jobs. The "liberal" concept of economics is not redistribution (at least not entirely); it reason and equity. Liberals argue for social programs to help those who cannot help themselves and argue for an economic system that is efficient and prosperous, yet distributes that prosperity across the board instead of into the wealthy. Based on the facts I've listed above, conservatives need liberals to balance budgets and raise taxes so that they can try their misguided experiment the next time the GOP takes over the White House.

And you may want to look up the word treason. It's the guy you voted for that lied about Benghazi. It's the guy you voted for that doesn't want to enforce illegal entry into our country. It's the guy you voted for who is maxing out the credit card with 6T in new debt, 1T+ deficits each year, no budget, foreign aid to Islamic countries that harbor and support terrorism.

No, its you who may ought to look up the word treason. It's the party that argues for letting Wall Street run wild and destroy the economy and then call any attempts to regulate them "anti-free market." It's the party that runs up deficits when they're in office and then pin the blame on the Democrat who inherits the mess. It's the party that demands concessions from the president in exchange for coming to the table and then make it their #1 goal to unseat him and mess up everything he does. It's the same @!$%#ing party that thinks gays and illegal immigrants are aliens from outer space, that regulating private bedrooms is a top priority, that corporations are people and deserve a say in government, and that wealthy speculators who outsource industries and cause devastating financial crises are "makers" and "job creators" and that the people who they put out of work and forced to take government help are "takers" and "moochers." That, my fellow American, is treason.

So you think injecting 85B a month into the economy is the right move? Bailing out GM, giving money to failed companies like A123 and Solyndra is the right move? Adding 6T in new debt is a good thing? Who's the traitor?

Yes, injecting money into the economy IS the right move. It's what Reagan did when he grew the government via spending increases and hiring more government workers; its what FDR and Kennedy did in making progressive tax cuts and spending money during the Great Depression and the 1960 recession. Bailing out GM WAS a good idea because it saved the auto industry, which is a much more productive sector than the financial industry that Republicans have constantly bailed them out. Investing in Solyndra and A123, while not necessarily successful individually, were good ideas because they promoted the development of clean energy industries, which the U.S must do if we want to stay competitive and is what we haven't done while other nations have. Obama didn't increase the debt by $6 trillion; technically it was only around $4-5 trillion, and most of that was a continuation of Republican policies (Bush tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, TARP, etc). Only about $1.8 trillion were genuinely Democratic policies (the stimulus, surge in Afghanistan, bailouts of auto industry, second round of TARP).

The unemployment rate was 7.9% when Obama took office and is 7.9% now. Only 3.7M people are not counted because they have been out of work for 6 months or more. When you take them into account, the unemployment rate is 15%. But I'm the traitor. When a bunch of colonists threw tea into Boston harbor to protest unfair taxes and a corrupt government... they too were called traitors. But without them, we wouldn't have a country.

People who have been unemployment for more than 6 months are not discounted; those who have quit searching for work have. Technically, the unemployment rate is around 14% only if you include underemployment and/or those who have quit searching. The Boston Tea Party protested taxation without representation and corporate welfare (the favorability that Parliament extended to the East India Company), not taxes in general. Their spirit is embodied in the Tea Party (who I disagree with but acknowledge) and the Occupy movement. Unfortunately, you would probably call the Occupy protesters "socialists" and "lazy bums."

Get you head out of Obama's dirty @ss and try thinking for yourself.

I would, if my head wasn't lodged in Obama's ass and if you would actually start thinking for yourself as well.

Repubs don't want new revenues and dems don't want entitlement reforms. Therefore an agreement requires either both or neither. Let's make up our mind which it will be (both or neither) and then get on with it.

You know what, I think America finally woke up!

This is what you voted for. Obama who is looking to 2014 instead of what is in front of his face.

Good Morning America!!

"Boehner voted for the law and urged his members to do likewise." Of course NBC fails to mention that the law was Obama's idea in the first place.

Another feeble attempt by the so-called news network NBC to make republicans look bad.

Nice spin, NBC. Perhaps that's another reason why NBC was tied with the Comedy Channel for LAST PLACE when people were polled to identify the most trusted news network. And why NBC came in last place for Feb sweeps month.

Is that a flush I just heard? NBC are you there? NBC? NBC???

@dr821 - Social Sec $775 billion Social Security- is paid for by citizens and employers and not the federal govt. sorry this is not a budget expense other than the fact it was spent by earlier administrations

I think Detroit, Michigan is the current example of the Progressive Democratic poster child for economic policy. I think Michigan is also home of the greatest populations of Muslims, if you want to check the pulse of how civilization is advancing in the western world cities as well. Then of course there's Chicago, who's middle class is primarily the government salaried, who keep literacy low and crime rates high to justify their jobs. Those two still remain neck and neck in the "examples race" however there are numerous other contenders for low literacy, high crime rates and no middle income jobs in the private sector due to past tax burdens built up by prior municipal Democratic administrations.

Boehner always says "I don't think I understand how the sequester gets resolved" every day after his 5th martini. Standard procedure here for the drunkard Speaker Of The House.

We have reached a strange place when a bill last week put up by the opposition party (Reps) would give the preisdent MORE authority over spending in sequester, and the president turned it down. I have not a clue as to why the president would not want this as he could easily soften any furlough effects.

Doug, the tax increases you mention were not supposed to be a part of this at all. When the 2011 deal went down it was agreed that in order for the president to get his trillions of extra spending, there would be a certain amount of cuts and both sides agreed to NO tax increases. Now the Prez for some reason is blaming the lack of a deal on not getting tax increases, although he agreed to no tax increases for the cuts?????? DOH!

Freshiee ... if you look at spending by congress, when republicans have both, the dems have both and when it is mixed ..... by far the largest spending gaps and spending period came when dems have all of congress.

Obama can't balance the budget because of republicans? LOL Name one thing he did to even try to get a balanced budget? His budget proposal last year had the CBO projecting us still having a 700Billion deficit in 10 years. Thats just his propsal, nothing to do with republicans. By that time we should have well passed 25 trillion in debt if we haven't defaulted by then.

Miron1 "When Obama took office, the war expenditures went ON the books. Unlike during the Bush years, when the deficit spending was being hidden."

More nonsense. For the TRUTH, you need to review Post #1.78

Both Bush and Obama handle the actual war spending in the exact same manner - it's ALL 'on the books' in their actual spending figures.

John, John, John, Pull your head out if your arse. You, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, all of your TEA PARTY members and FORTY REPUBLICAN SENATORS voted FOR sequestrastion. Now your precious wasted Defense spending is being cut and you are having convulsions.

“Boehner: I don’t think anyone quite understands how sequester gets resolved”

That’s fair enough. A bit of honesty from a politician is a rare thing these days. And he is right. Does the president know, I don’t think so!

The whole thing is out of whack, while we are continuing to spend like drunken sailors, way in excess of our income, no matter what measures are put in place, nothing will be resolved until the spending is under control.

As I see it, President Obama is the problem here. He is the one driving the gravy train and he is the only one who can engage the breaks to all this madness. Problem is, he doesn’t know how and where to stop spending as he fears a backlash from his support base. For him, it’s easier to blame the republicans for the troubles his administration has found themselves in. While this is going on the country is sinking deeper into chaos.

As for comment #1, smoothoperator…….”So they (Congress) put the country in the mess and don't know how to fix it. You (congress) are all fired! You do not have qualifications to perform your job.”….thank you, you’ve made my day, I‘ve not laughed this much for a long time.

BigATC

Freshiee ... if you look at spending by congress, when republicans have both, the dems have both and when it is mixed ..... by far the largest spending gaps and spending period came when dems have all of congress.

True, but that isn't entirely the fault of Congress. For example, the Reagan tax cuts were designed by the Reagan administration and endorsed by the Republican Senate; the Democrats in the House agreed to it mainly because they were either (A) desperate to do anything to help the economy and recover from the 1980 election drubbing or (B) able to exact enough concessions from the GOP to make the tax cuts seem palatable. In the 1970s, under the relatively moderate Carter administration, the United States had one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio since the end of World War II, something that had been maintained by previous Democratic Congresses and Democratic/Republican presidencies. It was only after the neoliberal/monetarist rise in the late 1970s and early 1980s (promoted by conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman) where debt levels rose significantly, from the normal levels of 25-35% of GDP to well above 50-60%. This was primarily the cause of large supply-side tax cuts and spending increases brought on by the supply-side conservative movement. Entitlement spending (other than increasing health costs) cannot be blamed because (A) healthcare spending as a percent of GDP is much lower than it is now and (B) the Baby Boomers were in their prime working ages in the 1980s and early 90s, fueling growth in payroll tax receipts and keeping outlays low due to a primarily young population.

Obama can't balance the budget because of republicans? LOL Name one thing he did to even try to get a balanced budget? His budget proposal last year had the CBO projecting us still having a 700Billion deficit in 10 years. Thats just his propsal, nothing to do with republicans. By that time we should have well passed 25 trillion in debt if we haven't defaulted by then.

I can actually name you several things that Obama did to reduce the deficit: Obamacare (wasn't intended, but it does reduce the deficit by about $150 billion over 10 years), the Budget Control Act, the fiscal cliff deal, and now the sequester. Technically speaking, the reason why the CBO projected a $700 billion deficit in 2022 was mainly because of two reasons: the large medium-term deficit (a combination of high defense outlays and reduced tax receipts) and growing entitlement costs. Obamacare was dealt in part to deal with the healthcare costs, and it may be bending the cost curve, although it will probably not be enough to deal with entitlement programs as a whole.

The problem with your argument (which insinuates that Republicans are gung-ho about the deficit and Obama is apathetic at best) is historical fact. If we go back to 2001 and 2003, we will find that the largest single driver of our medium-term deficit are the Republican-inspired Bush tax cuts, which reduce potential revenues by about $4 trillion over the next decade. Now, since the American people have dealt with these tax cuts for a long time (and are thus relatively opposed to ending it), ending them is a virtual political impossibility (thank you Republicans). If Republicans were really serious about deficit negotiation and knew that they would have to negotiate with Democrats to actually reduce the deficit (and government spending), they would have to put three things on the table: ending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, further revenue-positive tax reform (as opposed to revenue-neutral), and significant defense cuts. In return, they would get the invaluable concession of entitlement reform, which (compared to raising taxes) is political suicide and a major sacred cow of the Democrats. However, your party seems to adhere to the notion that taxes cannot and should not be on the table and that the entire problem is on the spending side, despite evidence to the contrary. Your party's anti-tax ideology prevents you from achieving significant deficit-reduction and sharing credit in reducing the deficit, something that you were unable to achieve during the Clinton deficit talks because you opposed any and all tax increases and were the cause of two major government shutdowns. In short, the Republican Party's anti-tax agenda and its over-reliance on its ultra-conservative base is hindering it from achieving major legislative successes, such as reasonable tax and entitlement reform, immigration reform, and reasonable gun control laws. You can continue to whine and bitch about Obama being a "Marxist Kenyan" hell-bent on "obliterating" the Republican Party, but you cannot deny your party's self-destructive tendencies. Hopefully, your party will resolve it's internal and ideological problems before you end up destroying the legacy of a once-respected political party and the world's first true democratic republic.

“I don't think anyone quite understands how it gets resolved,”

Yep, they didn't understand it when it was proposed, and still don't. Sounded good, that's why Boehner said they got '99% of what they wanted'. Totally unable to come up with any idea that isn't just a recyling of the policies the GOP campaigned on (and lost with), until it gets through their 'boneheads' (pun intended) that the majority of citizens aren't buying this crap anymore, things won't get better.

I still say that any cuts should be concentrated in GOP house districts first (hey, they want less government, give it to 'em), then start cuts elsewhere. But according to the GOP dogma, it's always the 'others' that are causing problems, not them...

The liberals just got tax increases, now they're already calling for more. The really sad part is that they are so blinded by their greed of what someone else has, they can't even comprehend the simple fact that you can take every dollar away from everyone in this country making over 500K a year, and it wouldn't even pay off the deficit for ONE YEAR of Obama's spending. Not even one year. But liberals, being so obsessed with what someone else has, actually, think taxing more is the solution to the problem. I guess when faced with 17 trillion in debt, and Obama insists there's no spending problem, they are actually stupid enough to believe him. Amazing to watch their stupidity in action. Absolutely amazing.

When Maxine Waters says the sequester, which is only a small reduction in the growth of the INCREASE of spending is going to cost 170 MILLION jobs, it really is painful to watch the stupidity of the liberals in action. Should these kinds of idiots actually take back the congess. This stupid woman would chair an important economic committee.

In the meantime, someone should tell that idiot, Waters, that there are only somewhere between one hundred thirty and one hundred fifty million working Americans. Even if you double counted those working more than one job, you couldn't make up the difference. And, while someone is telling her that, they can tell Biden that the word "jobs" has four letters, not three, and tell Obama there are only 50 states, not 57.

170 million, jobs is a three letter word, 57 states....are we seeing a pattern here? Why yes, yes I do believe we are. A pattern that liberals are idiots and don't know how to count, much less have any credibility when it comes to economic policy. Oh, for the record, I think Republicans suck when it comes to spending as well. They lie just as badly as the idiot liberals.

Well if nobody there 'now' can figure how to fix this mess..guess all have to get the hell out of that job we the people elected you to do..stop running if you have no idea what the F__K you're doing!!!

Get 'ALL' new blood in there and lets see what they can do...beats nothing being done!

What about supporting the MIDDLE CLASS?

Over the last 30 years, we have seen an immense shift of wealth from the middle class to the top few. One fact: take the ratio of the richest in America compared to the average of the middle class and you find that the wealthy have over 25 times more wealth than do the average of the middle class. They are 2,500% wealthier than they were in 1980. The middle class has remained stagnant. This is what the Greed Only Party does. They do not realize or care that the economic engine of this nation is, was, and always will be the Middle Class. The periods in history where the economy of the United States was at its strongest, were all the ones where the Middle Class was at its zenith of strength and economic security.

For the fourth consecutive year, the rich got richer. In the 25th annual edition of The Forbes 400, the collective net worth of the nation's wealthiest climbed $139 billion, to $1.18 trillion. All but 26 people on that roster are billionaires. Surging real estate and oil prices drove up several fortunes and helped pave the way for 33 new names on the list.

The Grotesquely Obsolete Party only wants to do one thing: Divide you by giving you a target on which to blame your problems: The other party.

They use hateful labels designed to make you believe the Democrats are bad. They attack from behind patriotism, they have no empathy for the common man, and they state that the desire to see that everyone has a chance is "welfare mob mentality."

The Greedy Obstructionist Party is only interested telling you who is to blame for your problems, and making you afraid of those problems. That’s how they win elections. They gather together a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and they talk to them about family, morality, and American values. They don’t offer any real solutions, because they don’t have any to offer. They say whatever they think their audience wants to hear, so that they can garner a little bit of local support. They make comments designed to take advantage of groupthink, mob mentality, and social proof, for no other reason than to manipulate elections. They badmouth the other guy. They say that he's "destroying America" without giving ANY evidence or examples of it whatsoever, and they manipulate the facts to suit whatever it is that they're saying at the moment. They tell half-truths, they spread rumours, and they try to convince the population that they're just a regular guy, when none of them know what it is like to walk into a grocery store knowing that they cannot spend more than $50, else they wouldn't be able to pay their electric bill.

How can they claim to love America, when they clearly, and repeatedly prove they hate the average American?

Hey here is an idea... maybe the public isn't spending because the government is spending too much of the publics money and they feel like they can't. So stop spending (gvernment) and give breaks to companies that hire based upon their hiring and their pay raise scale (for middle and lower incomes). When I say stop spending I am talking about on frivilous spending, federal and state workers pay and benefits to bring them back in line (down) with the public sector. Stop the scare tactics telling your going to lay off twenty times your budget cuts, we all know that a million dollars only pays for about four federal employees at janitorial level pay. The government couldn't manage a household budget which is why the just keep adding zeroes and printing money. If you or I did that we would be in prison.

I love how the headline of this article on MSN.com makes it sound like it's Boehner who doesn't know how to fix the budget crisis, while the real story is that Boehner is saying that all of Washington (including our idiot-in-chief who hasn't passed a budget in 5 years) doesn't know how to wrap its collective heads together to figure out how to fix the budget.

And the primary reason is that the dems won't even recognize that we have a spending problem. Just like the alcoholic who doesn't feel (s)he has a drinking problem.

Just another misleading article from a biased so-called news network (who sadly once was a trusted news source).

Yet another reason why NBC was tied with the Comedy Channel for LAST PLACE when people were polled to identify the most trusted news network. And why NBC came in last place for Feb sweeps month.

Is that a flush I just heard? NBC are you there? NBC? NBC???

It's simple to balance the budget! Stop all forein aid! Stop sending our FORCED TAXES to every country for any reason! And get rid of ALL REPUBLICANS !!

Too funny:

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

And:

From President Obama's 2013 Inaugural Speech:

We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16626094-obamas-inaugural-speech-the-full-text?threadId=3650897&commentId=73569137#c73569137

Too so sad that they do not make Philosophy (Logic) part of Manditory US Education. Or all of you would have figured out a Causative Timeline (What the Cause(s)) are and what the Solutions to those Cause(s) are.

I am tired of using Facts to argue against emotive non factual opinions (Defintion Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason.),

All of you can go figure this out (using Logic and Facts) of yourselves or suffer the Conseqences (Results).

We'll either get rid of the republicans and that pack of right wing thugs sitting on the SCOTUS, or, we may as well surrender to the Chinese and become one of their colonies. Keep 'em around much longer and we won't have a choice.

model railroad man - And get rid of ALL REPUBLICANS !!

Mac Forrester - We'll either get rid of the republicans and that pack of right wing thugs sitting on the SCOTUS, or, we may as well surrender to the Chinese and become one of their colonies.

Definition: Facism - dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

"President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b!tches out and give America back to an America where we belong," US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during President Obama's Reelection Campaign.

President Obama addressed the crowd shortly after US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior. US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior not arrested for "Terroristic Threatening of US Citizens", "Conspiracy To Commit the Murder of US Citizens", "Homegrown Domestic Terrorism Against US Citizens", etc..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

"Chancellor Hitler, we are your Army. We are ready to march. All Loyal German's Must take back Germany from the Jews". Chancellor Hitler's Brown Shirts, Sturmabteilung, Armed Paramilitary; and his Political Labor Union, National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NAZI.

Chancellor Hitler Ordering the elimination of other Political Parties (and did by Armed Force of his armed private Army, 1933), US Democrats demanding the elimination of the Republican Party.

Interview of McCullough Nov. 11, 2012. Morley Safer CBS News; McCullough: "We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate".

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.- George Santayana

"Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them". - Sir Edmund Burke

YO, BARRACK HUSSEIN AND JOHN BOEHNER, LET THE SEQUESTER RUN!!!!!!!

As a matter of fact when you buffoons start your adolescent blame game on the debt-ceiling next month do us real Americans a favor, CREATE ANOTHER SEQUESTER EVEN BIGGER THAN THIS ONE!!!!!!

We Americans who understand basic math, budgeting and economics know our great Republic will survive despite your incompetence. As for the Liberal/Progressive unwashed masses who don’t understand, it really doesn’t matter because they don’t contribute anything to our prosperity anyway.

Now, the FIRST thing you should all be doing is PASS A FU**ING BUDGET!!!!!

We American’s are sick and tired of you stumbling and bumbling your way around our economy with NO GUIDANCE! Contrary to your own self-aggrandizement, NONE OF YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH TO RUN A $3.65 TRILLION BUDGET OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD!

Then you need to start earning your wages.

REFORM OUR CRIMINAL PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM:

Get rid of this massive morass of bureaucracy. We have over 76,000 pages of tax code and over 1,100 different forms to fill out. It’s time to take a chainsaw to the forest of credits, deductions, shelters, loopholes, exemptions and other distortions to the tax code. This will allow people to make decisions based on good economics rather than clever tax planning, which usually decays into avoidance and evasion.

It’s time to STOP the unconstitutional double-taxation that capital gains, death taxes and dividend taxation creates. It’s time to STOP the IRS from abusing hard working Americans by taking more than one bite out of the apple. Even socialists and Marxists agree that capital formation with savings and investment is key for long-run wage growth and higher standards of living.

It is estimated that taxpayers pay $431.1 Billion annually, or 30% of total income taxes collected, just to comply and administer the tax code. Over 6.1 billion hours are spent by individuals and businesses complying and completing their taxes. A reduction in tax code complexity would help reduce the National Debt by $1.4 trillion over a decade.

Eliminate the criminals in our Congress from changing the tax code based on cronyism rather than good economic policy. Between 1986 and 2005 Congress passed over 14,400 amendments to the tax code, this equates to almost 3 changes every day for 19 straight years. There have been about 4,400 tax code changes in the last 10 years. There were approximately 580 changes in 2010 alone.

It’s time to eliminate the oppressive Internal Revenue Service. No government agency should instill the fear that this mob creates on good honest hard working Americans. Especially when the IRS proves its incompetence every year. In each of the last 2 years the IRS received 110 million calls from taxpayers and they were unable to answer 25% of the questions. And we wonder why it’s so difficult to generate revenue.

Replace this massive morass of inefficiency with a simple Constitutionally amended Flat Tax or a Fair Tax. If we are going to persist and remain a consumption based economy a Fair Tax is the only feasible way of taxation. This also has the added benefit of taxing the estimated $2 trillion in black market revenue lost annually.

REFORM OUR IRRATIONAL TRADE POLICIES!

We don’t need “free-trade” we need “fair trade”. Our current trade policies are more about “managed-trade” rather than free-trade. Smoot-Hawley and other protectionist tariff attempts during the Depression proved to be disastrous, yet true free trade was never reestablished. Managed trade with its sprinkles of protectionism has continued since.

NAFTA is the epitome of managed-trade disguised as free trade. The most obvious reason is its size. NAFTA is 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates! The reigning king of managed trade is the World trade Organization (WTO). Developed to replace GATT, its 29,000 pages are a bureaucrat’s wet dream come true. All these pages say little about deregulating trade, its initial intent, but they regulate just about everything else. From minimum wage protections to clandestine price controls to anti-dumping laws, control was more important to the bureaucrats than significant trade reform. We must be cognizant of the new 21^st century economy we will need to lead. Our current trade agreements will never allow us the flexibility and transparency to be competitive.

REFORM OUR MASSIVE AND ECONOMY CRIPPLING REGULATIONS!

Investors.com reports:

"If the federal government’s regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined".

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis. That's at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

The Government Accountability Office reports:

As of October 2010 , 1,827 rulemaking proceedings were completed, 37 of which were classified as "significant" or "major," meaning their expected economic impact surpassed $100 million per year. According to estimates by regulatory agencies, 15 of these new major regulations have combined annual costs on business of a whopping $5.8 billion.

From the Federal Register:

This is the 144,000 page book of regulations and rules added by the Federal government. Since Barrack Hussein took office the number of pages rose by 18% in 2010 alone. There are more than 4,200 regulations in waiting. These do NOT INCLUDE new EPA clean air rules, Obamacare mandates, new fuel economy standards or Dodd-Frank regulations.

Not surprisingly regulatory costs for small businesses are worse than the large corporations. From Inc.com:

Businesses with 20 employees or fewer pay 36 percent more than their larger counterparts (defined as those with 500 or more employees), says the report, called "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms", from the SBA's Office of Advocacy. This is because a lot of costs are fixed, the same whether you have two employees or 2,000. Total annual cost of following the rules for a small business: $10,585 per employee, or about $2,830 more than big business. Businesses with 20 to 499 employees paid about $7,454 per employee, or about $300 less than the largest companies.

Small business is the driving engine of our economy. To penalize small business this much is suicidal.

From the SBA:

By 2011 the cost of regulatory compliance for the private-sector exceeded $1.75 TRILLION Dollars!

We don’t need more regulations, we need better regulations that are enforced! Good regulations will promote business creation instead of restrict it. Our economy was built on the genius and ambition of entrepreneurism, NOT government.

UNIONS MUST BE INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE RATHER THAN DESTRUCTIVE:

If not they will be a footnote in history. Unions have lost tremendous support because Americans realize the harm they have caused since their inception. Their contributions to our industries are well known but over the past 3 decades they have done nothing other than harm our domestic exportable manufacturing base. Their claim to fame has been their improvements in workforce safety and management, however they have done nothing to improve these areas in the recent past. The most recent workplace benefit was the “Family and Medical Leave Act” of 1993, this was a government driven agenda.

WE MUST EXPLOIT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES:

In 2011 the Congressional Research Service reported that the United States has the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. According to the new report, an updated version of a 2009 paper, the United States’ resources are larger than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada, combined. The report estimates that the U.S. has 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country’s demand for 90 years.

The only reason we aren’t benefitting from this massive wealth is ideology. We have a $16.6 TRILLION National Debt and over $122 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. These resources need to be exploited. The world needs energy and we should be providing it. Renewable sources need to be promoted and could be funded from a portion of the massive revenue generated from the reserves available.

FINALLY, WE MUST COMPLETELY REFORM OUR INCOMPETENT EDUCATION SYSTEM:

This is the most important issue facing our Republic. We spend more than any nation other than Switzerland, on education yet we rank in the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of all OECD nations in math, science and reading. Our government driven public education system is an embarrassment. We will never be competitive in the 21^st century if we keep graduating illiteracy from our primary and secondary educations systems.

Promoting college education is an exercise in futility when most Americans read at an 8^th grade level. More shamefully, 20% of our high school graduates can’t even read their diploma.

We need to promote a well organized voucher system that allows the free market to create the competition that creates success rather than mediocrity in education. The new global economy has 7 billion people in it. We can look at this as 7 billion competitors or 7 billion consumers. Either way we MUST be competitive and education is the only way we can do this. The future of our economy will be based on advanced degrees. Establishment of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) curricula is essential to success for out future generations.

One more thing.

If Barrack Hussein and John Boehner have such a hard time finding areas to cut spending, perhaps they should look no further than their own government oversight agencies for guidance.

In FY 2011, the federal government reported $115 billion in improper payments. This is only an estimate; the total amount of improper payments is unknown. Our own government doesn't know how much it actually overspends. I bet you know when you overspend, don't you?

The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $140 billion in potential spending cuts.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regularly issues a compendium of budget options to help inform federal lawmakers about the implications of possible policy choices. This volume—one of several reports that CBO produces regularly for the House and Senate Committees on the Budget—presents more than 100 options for altering federal spending and revenues. Nearly all of the options would reduce federal budget deficits.Federal budget deficits will total $7 trillion over the next decade if current laws remain unchanged, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects.

Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs. This report identifies more than $100 billion to $200 billion in annual government spending on 1,500 different programs that are wasteful, duplicative, or inefficient.

A recent study by the Institute of Medicine shows health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $750 billion annually. The committee calculated that about 30 percent of health spending was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems.

This last one should enrage even the most rabid big government loving Liberal/Progressive.

Government auditors spent five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. (emphasis mine)

Nearly 25% of our federal social programs DON’T DO ANYTHING FOR THE POPULATIONS THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE!

This isn’t just embarrassing, it’s criminal!

Good Lord are these freaks full of fraud or what? Not even a cut in the rate of growth is possible? If the socialist freaks had a clue that this corruption is paid for by social security debt and tax would they get a clue? I look forward to the day when Baby boomers reap what they have sowed.

This is the equivalent of owing money to a loan shark.

The Republicans were bought by the Super Rich long ago. The rich have managed to get their tax rate down by more than half starting with Reagan and have things like commodity trading down to 15% and had controls almost disappear and have some sweet loopholes for the mega-rich.....causing a devastating disparity in wealth and the depression/recession during the last year of Bush Jr's term.

They let greed overtake everything, love of country and and concern for any employees disappeared.

Now, although the Republicans probably know that you can only tax disposable income and the super rich have almost all of that, BUT if you owed powerful people millions in personal payoffs and donations to your campaigns, would you risk your legs or life or career by raising their taxes even if you KNEW it really needed be done?

Bull@!$%#.

All they have to do is repeal the stupid thing.

Of course they won't unless people get mad but fortunately for them most people are ignorant and brain-washed by 30+ years of "free-market" hogwash poured into the eyes and ears from time they were old enough to crawl in front of a TV set.

It's amazing, the Tea Party idiots scream class warfare when anyone picks on their favorite billionaire but when the billionaires induce their stooges in congress and the White House to attack the poor and middle class like this (because that's what it really is) you don't hear a peep out of anyone.

And when I say "repeal" it I don't mean substitute Obama's "smart cuts" either. Those supposedly smart cuts are really a devious way to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The corporate servant's "Brass Ring".

Mac Forrester

We'll either get rid of the republicans and that pack of right wing thugs sitting on the SCOTUS, or, we may as well surrender to the Chinese and become one of their colonies. Keep 'em around much longer and we won't have a choice.

Hey Mac, you may want to start with your Liberal/Progressive poster boys GE and Apple if you’re so concerned about China.

Have we heard about GE touting themselves as champions of the factory worker?

Of course we have. GE has also recently closed more than 20 factories, shifted avionics and radiology businesses to China according to Reuters, and pushed for public policies that will allow them to continue that course. GE is self-identifying "core" manufacturing interests, as though its other manufacturing interests simply vanished from the books. The truth is, they closed many of those plants here in America. According to GE's own records and statements, it had 125,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs in 2000 compared to 50,000 in 2010.

Hmmmmm, wasn’t GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, the head of the Economic Advisory Board? The “Jobs Czar” for Barrack Hussein?

Immelt has referred to China as GE's "second home market"

Now let’s do Apple, that Liberal Shangri-La you all worship so much.

Apple claims responsibility for creating, or supporting, 514,000 jobs in the United States. 304,000 of those jobs are described engineering to manufacturing to transportation. 210,000 jobs are from their applications mobile operating systems. Among indirect jobs counted in the supporting category are jobs conducted by other corporations toward theirs such as FedEx, UPS, Corning and others.

But more importantly are the 230,000 jobs in China. These workers are subjected to long hours, coerced overtime, improperly disposed of hazardous waste, falsified records and harsh working conditions at the plants that build the bulk of iPhones, iPads, Macs and other Apple products. More than half of the factories had violated at least one of the company’s codes of conduct and in some instances violated the law. Last year, two explosions at iPad factories killed four people and injured 77. Apples total overseas presence including contractors is estimated to be over 700,000 jobs.

By the way, you may be interested in this little fact seeing how you Libbies keep blaming Republicans for opposing tax deductions for multinational corporations.

Apple has been a pioneer in creating subsidiaries in low-tax places such as Ireland, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands. Now why would Apple do that? To cut taxes it pays around the world. According to the New York Times, Apple was among the first tech companies to designate overseas salespeople in high-tax countries in a manner that allowed the company to sell on behalf of low-tax subsidiaries on other continents, sidestepping income taxes. Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean.

Try to keep up Spanky, you’re making yourself more insignificant than you already are.

@JimSpence#1.137: Damn Jim, you're slipping. You usually post 2 or 3 pages of your bullsh^t. Stay true to yourself Jim. Let it all hang out.

Freshieee "the Reagan economy was actually one of the worst economic records in the post-World War II record"

Really? Let's see now;

The economy (GDP) for 1980 (Carter's last year) was $2.724 Trillion.

The GDP for 1988 (Reagan's last year) was $5.009 Trillion. That's an 84% increase in 8 years, for an average increase of 10.5% per year.

The average number of jobs in 1980 was 90,528,000.

The average number of jobs in 1988 was 105,345,000, for a net gain of nearly 15 million jobs.

Now let's look at Obama's record;

The economy (GDP) for 2008 (Bush's last year) was $14.394 Trillion.

The GDP for 2012 (Obama's 4th year) was $15.602 Trillion, a gain of only 8.4%, an average of only 2.1% per year.

The average number of jobs in 2008 was 136,849,000.

The average number of jobs in 2012 was 133,735,000, for a net LOSS of over 3 million jobs.

Perhaps you should pick another President for comparison, but no matter which former President you choose for comparison, Obama will be the worst for economic growth. Even Bush grew the GDP by 47% in 8 years - nearly 6% per year.

Source - Obama White House 2013 Budget - Historical figures for GDP, and BLS.gov for Employment.

Mac Forrester "@JimSpence#1.137: Damn Jim, you're slipping. You usually post 2 or 3 pages of your bullsh^t."

Translation;

I can't dispute your information, so I'll just distract the issue by calling you names. Or as the saying goes "Profanity is the weapon of the witless,"

Speaking of names, I cant help but notice how aptly named Speaker Boehner is.

Why don't Democrats in the Senate just pass it? Seriously Boehner?

1. It takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate and there are not 60 Democrats in that body.

2. Democrats know that if they act unilaterally, you'll just turn around and run deceptive ads about the programs they agreed to cut, like how in 2012 Republicans ran ads blaming President Obama for cutting Medicare when you've demanding exactly that (and are still demanding even more cuts today).

@Roy Wilson-lotsa no's: Course I could dispute Jim, like I've disputed you so many times in the past. Never changes the stench of bullsh^t people like you wallow in though. Keep sticking those numbers up Roy, along with your warped commentary. You're funnier than a Billie goat herding brood sows.

Its amazing that some of you can look yourself in the mirror with a straight face when you post some of this.

Nobodies hands are clean with this. Not the president not the republicans and certainly not the democrats. They all drove us to this hole we are in and people like you let them.

Get rid of all the fools in Washington on both sides of the aisle and elect calmer middle of the road thinkers. To many in Washington far right and far left so nothing can get done. To many politicians and not enough representatives. It is simple but neither side wants to admit it. They act like this is rocket science. They apparently never took math. Revenues - Spending hopefully leaves some surplus to pay off debt. How many of you can build up debt before you are bankrupt? The government is no different except they can rack up bigger numbers.

The fix is easy but no one here wants the punch bowl taken away from them.
You can start with overhauling the tax code and taking away all loop holes for all. Go with a flat graduated tax system with deductions for children and that is it. For business it is revenue minus business expenses again with no loop holes. You take away all loop holes and apply it evenly to all income sources and the result should be higher tax revenue. You then bring spending levels down to 2000 levels. Overhaul the new Obamacare to actually address the rising health care issues. Set up a balanced budget amendment and force everyone to stay within budget. Both sides need to give up the whining and get down to business. Personally American tax payers should tell them they have 90 days or we start forcing across the board recalls and start replacing the idiots.

I'm happy to join Jim Spence and be called names by you - It proves the accuracy of that old saying ""Profanity is the weapon of the witless"

By the way - I quote my official government sources for my numbers, so that gives you a perfect chance to prove me wrong.

@Kevin Oxner#1.144: I believe your post is well meaning, however, It's ignorance based. No one would ever hold still for a flat tax. Very damn few could afford to pay a flat tax. Sounds good though, until you find out what it entails.

Kevin Oxner "The fix is easy but no one here wants the punch bowl taken away from them.
You can start with overhauling the tax code and taking away all loop holes for all. Go with a flat graduated tax system with deductions for children and that is it. For business it is revenue minus business expenses again with no loop holes. You take away all loop holes and apply it evenly to all income sources and the result should be higher tax revenue. You then bring spending levels down to 2000 levels. Overhaul the new Obamacare to actually address the rising health care issues. Set up a balanced budget amendment and force everyone to stay within budget."

That's a good start, but I would adjust the spending at the 2000 level for inflation and population growth. Other than that, I like your thinking.

Mac Forrester "@Kevin Oxner#1.144: I believe your post is well meaning, however, It's ignorance based. No one would ever hold still for a flat tax."

I think you misread him - he said a flat 'graduated' tax rate, meaning that higher incomes would pay a higher tax RATE., as is now the case.

So Boston, you quote Ezra Klein, who is by all accounts the most liberal idiot around. It is the same old bullcrap from your side of the fence, it's the republicans who wont compromise. Show me one instance where democrats ,especially Obama, have compromised. But democrats dont have to because they are for the poor and republicans only care about the rich. I have many republican friends who are not rich and I dont hear them say let's tax the rich more. Republicans care more about the poor in this country than liberals ever will. How is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor , caring? How about lowering corporate tax rates and repealing job killing regulations to get the job market back on it's feet? People I know don't want handouts, they want jobs. All this Bullsh t from the left that republicans only care about the rich, is exactly that, Bullsh t. The reason Obama doesn't compromise is because he needs higher taxes to pay for his give away programs to keep the POOR under his control. He doesn't have to worry about all you people posting here, because you gave up thinking years ago, and will blindly approve of anything he does.

@Roy Wilson-lotsa no's#1.145: If the word "bullsh^t is "profanity", then, you are a very profane person. Over the past few years I've seen you caught more times than a street peddling junkie. The correct meaning of numbers, especially numbers calculated from administering a state or nations government can only be determined by incorporating all the particular circumstances peculiar to the cause of the numbers. Even when such are accurately ascertained, their meaning is, more often than not, at the very least, arguable. Generally, I ignore you, and would have this time had you not called me for poor "Jim Spence". Regards

@Roy Wilson#1.148: You're correct. I did misread "Kevin Oxner's" post. Thanks for pointing it out. I apologize Kevin. Sincerely, Mac Forrester

Smoke and mirrors by both parties to try and keep our attention on the $90 billion or so they are fighting about instead of the trillion dollar deficit they know they can't fix.

I would like to add this. We have real structural problems with our economy. There are about 41 million Americans who are either unemployed, or, underemployed, with those employed being so at depressed wages. At the same time we are lending Investment banks money at 0% interest. China buys our bonds at a yield of 2 to 2.5 % interest. These investment banks are using that money and gaining 4 to 5 % per quarter on that money, often much more, and generally paying nothing to 2 or 3 percent per year taxes on the profits. This doesn't really allow enough, derived from taxes on profits to pay China the interest on the bonds they buy, much less any to add to the treasuries general fund. This stranglehold held by Wall Street on our government must be broken, or, everything else is meaningless. Additionally, this country cannot continue to sustain itself, no matter how much we continue to hunt wiggle room until we again gain FULL EMPLOYMENT.

ROY WILSON-336103

It's amusing reading some of the comments here on Newsvine from the Liberal/Progressive unwashed masses. I get the same convoluted arguments on the Huff-N-Puff Post, Menial-Matters and the Daily Kuss.

It gives me no greater pleasure to destroy their "facts", often times from their own sources and then see their little brains explode. Then their usual barrage of profanity, rage, hate, anger, racism and vitriol spews out. I have to admit the level of hate here on Newsvine is somewhat tempered as compared to Huff-N-Puff Post, it's downright violent on Menial-Matters though.

Here you get comments from some of the indoctrinated bobbleheads that are a paragraph or two with no context other than parroted talking points. Once in a while you can get a reasonable discussion, but it's rare.

I know when you or I provide sources they never look into them, they just try to discredit them with their programmed vitriol. Of course they never provide sources from the Treasury, the CBO, the OMB or even Barrack Husseins own sources they use the New York Times, especially Krugman or WaPo's Ezra Klein and of course Rowing Stones Matt Taibii.

Like you've said so often, "It's hopeless to overwhelm most Liberals with real facts, their minds are already made up". It's a shame most of it is based on emotions rather than policy.

Never Stop Asking Questions wrote:

"Most Americans, including myself (until recently) did not know that the DEFICIT has been DECLINING over the LAST 3 YEARS.

Obama and his team should be shouting this from the rooftops.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Jobs will solve that problem. We need another massive stimulus."

Yippee (sarcasm). I won't say what I really want to say... Still over a one trillion dollar budget deficit. Nearly 16.5 trillion in national debt and we are supposed to be elated. Do you have any idea how much that is? Any??? Do you have children or grandchildren??? Selfish people. As far as I am concerned the budget should have been balanced yesterday, but I would be happy if it happened within a few years.

Obama makes a complete F'ing IDIOT out of himself about the Sequester and MS/NBC is trying to ignore it.

S.O.S.

Same Old Socialism

Bdubs1975 wrote:

"If all you a$$holes are so stumped on how to fix the budget, well I have a suggestion. Try asking a few average, everyday Americans. You know, the ones that have had to do more with less and choose between buying groceries or paying the utility bill. Here's a hint since you're so clueless, spend less money than you have coming in."

Bdubs I agree. Unfortunately Obama and the democrats do not want any spending cuts. They only want to raise taxes. They have proven this many times over. Most conservatives/republicans have stated they are willing to fix the tax code...this can be done by creating a flat tax rate that would close loopholes.

Corporations and their boards have effectively raped and pillaged all of America and most of the World.

They own everything, the dollars, the resources including us slaves called the work force. They will fight tooth and nail to hold every penny and every bit of criminal legislation their puppets have managed to jury rig. Anyone who tells you the 650 billion tax increase over the next 10 years is their fair share, "and is all the top hoarders should be responsible for" These individuals are plain and simple liars and snake oil salesman. The money supply is not in the hands of the 99%. It's been fleeced from all of us into the hands of a few psychopaths and some with criminal intent. These individuals continue to hoard everything and piss on the general public and infrastructure. Follow the trillions .. Follow the money supply Trillions have escaped taxation. Find it and tax it. If they won't pay taxes on it freeze those assets or confiscate them. The monopolies that America has made insanely rich now give a sh!t about you and our country. Kick these flock of Boehers to the curb in 2014 and take our country back from these fascist psychopaths.

I think the best way to handle this loss of funds due to this Sequester thing is to give Egypt about $250 million dollars and Syrian rebels about $60 million. Maybe we could also give Egypt more, say a total of $1billion, later this year. This would make the most sense, I think.

Ahhh, Roy Wilson, I love how you spin...

All of Bush's spending was on the books, eh? And Bush's deficits only averaged $250B per year, eh? Let's just look at the numbers (source here and here)...

Year Deficit Increase in national debt

2003 $470B $555B

2004 $501B $596B

2005 $373B $554B

2006 $282B $574B

2007 $178B $501B

2008 $488B $1.02T!!!

Gee, now how did that happen? If all of Bush's spending was on the books, then why the huge discrepancy between his deficits and the addition to the national debt, eh?

I also love your numbers about Bush and the GDP. What you kind of ignore there is the state of the economy as Bush left office, don't ya?

Source here:

In the third quarter of 2008, GDP contracted 4%.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, GDP contracted 9%!!!

In the first quarter of 2009, GDP contracted another 5%!!!

This wiped out all the gains Bush made during 8 years of his presidency! But that is not convenient for you to mention, is it?

You are truly the spokesperson for the new Republican talking point. Now they want to convince us that Bush was really good for the economy during his 8 years, if only the American people weren't too stupid to see it.

BULLCRAP!!

@EEngineer#1.160: Roy Wilson likes to dazzle the ignorant. Folks like the rather pitiful "Jim Spence". He's also quite sensitive too. Calls bullsh^t and bullcrap profanity. Mostly though, facts and logic scare and confuse Him. Good post "EEngineer". Regards

EEngineer "Ahhh, Roy Wilson, I love how you spin... All of Bush's spending was on the books, eh? And Bush's deficits only averaged $250B per year, eh? Let's just look at the numbers (source here and here)...Year Deficit Increase in national debt"

You obviously don't understand that the Deficit for each year is NOT THE SAME as the increase in the National Debt for that same year. That would make too much sense.

If you added up all of the Deficits for the last 40 years, they would be $10.068 Trillion, but the National Debt for those same 40 years increased by $15.924 Trillion. The difference of $5.856 Trillion is essentially the 'borrowing' from the Social Security and Medicare 'Trust Funds' which are treated by the government as 'Revenues' when in reality they are just more borrowings. To be specific, for the three years (1998, 1999, 2000) of 'claimed' Surpluses under Clinton totaling $431 Billion, the National Debt ACTUALLY INCREASED by $259 Billion, producing a net 'discrepancy' of $690 Billion.

The $5.8 Trillion difference between the two over the last 40 years is essentially $2.9 Trillion they 'borrowed' from those 'trust funds', but claimed they 'reduced the deficits.

Crazy, but true.

As for the war costs 'On/Off the books', those were battles over whether to include those costs in the Budget for each year, and had nothing to do with whether they were included in the actual expenditures - which they were. Bush used 'Additional Appropriations Requests' to fund the war costs as needed, and interestingly, so does Obama, as the following link demonstrates with Obama requesting additional war spending 2 months AFTER he signed the 2009 Budget in March 2009;

http://vcnv.org/president-obamas-war-budget-analyzing-the-numbers

Rust dreams,

Correct. Very good points.

ROY WILSON-336103

Freshieee "the Reagan economy was actually one of the worst economic records in the post-World War II record"

Really? Let's see now;

The economy (GDP) for 1980 (Carter's last year) was $2.724 Trillion.

The GDP for 1988 (Reagan's last year) was $5.009 Trillion. That's an 84% increase in 8 years, for an average increase of 10.5% per year.

The average number of jobs in 1980 was 90,528,000.

The average number of jobs in 1988 was 105,345,000, for a net gain of nearly 15 million jobs.

Okay, let me clarify on what I should have said: the Reagan economy was one of the worst economic records over the long-term. For one thing, two recessions left millions of people unemployment and/or underemployed (the recession of 1979-1980 and the recession of 1982). These recession haunted the economy for several years, and revealed how Reagan's tax cuts DID NOT produce any substantial economic stimulus. For another, the REAL reason why the economy came back after the recession was not because of Reagan's economic guidance, but because of the actions of a Carter-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve: Paul Volcker. Paul Volcker caused the 1980 and 1982 recessions by raising the interest rates in order to wring out inflation; he later reduced rates from somewhere near 20%, which provided a massive boom to the economy. Reagan later took credit for the Fed Chairman Volcker's actions, providing the ammunition modern conservatives use for their support of supply-side economics. And lastly, the "Reagan boom" turned out to be a bubble, as the economy collapsed after the S&L crisis and the speculation that ensued the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation.

Now let's look at Obama's record;

The economy (GDP) for 2008 (Bush's last year) was $14.394 Trillion.

The GDP for 2012 (Obama's 4th year) was $15.602 Trillion, a gain of only 8.4%, an average of only 2.1% per year.

The average number of jobs in 2008 was 136,849,000.

The average number of jobs in 2012 was 133,735,000, for a net LOSS of over 3 million jobs.

Perhaps you should pick another President for comparison, but no matter which former President you choose for comparison, Obama will be the worst for economic growth. Even Bush grew the GDP by 47% in 8 years - nearly 6% per year.

Source - Obama White House 2013 Budget - Historical figures for GDP, and BLS.gov for Employment.

First of all, nobody grows GDP 6% a year; average is about 3-4%, with 4% being a good growth number. You're not providing an accurate measure of annual growth rates. In addition, you didn't account for inflation when tabulating the Reagan growth rates, grossly overstating the annual increases in GDP under Reagan. And finally, Reagan's recessions were mild compared to the wild fiscal shock that we faced in 2009. In addition, Reagan wasn't hampered by an opposition party hellbent on sabotaging his every move; even his regressive tax cuts got at least a few Democratic votes. The size of government grew TREMENDOUSLY under Reagan, as the federal workforce expanded considerably and spending increased dramatically. Under Obama, we had a conservative GOP that forgot everyone that happened under Reagan and refused to do what every rational-minded person knows what to do in a recession: spend money. Under Obama we had one stimulus, and then when it didn't do as much as we wanted it do to (it was too small anyhow) we abandoned the entire concept of stimulating the economy and turned to austerity, which (while not fatal) prevented us from actually helping the economy. It led to the debt ceiling debacle, the periodic shutdown crises, the fiscal and sequester cliffs, and the collapse of the American system of government. Obamanomics did not fail America; it was Reaganomics. And the minute you get that inside your party's thick and hollow collective brain, the minute things will finally turn up for this country.

PB KNOWS How to fix it. Replace EVERY one of those @$$H0LES in Congress by April 1st. WITH COMPETENT AND LOYAL Money Wealth Managers. Nationalize the Oil Companies; Confiscate their treasuries, confiscate supply, double the pay of All those workers who will keep the oil corporations operating, with supply flowing , arrest and imprison for trial the ceos of these oil companies, take America OUT OF OPEC, We have enough crude to make it on our own while nationalizing these bastard's natural gas companies and supplys to service America's energy needs; Military Force Needed Here. Impound 70% of the Rich Corporations Treasuries Back to the US Treasury. Impound ALL aristocrat rich overseas accounts, $50Trillion Worth Here, back to our Treasury and strengthen our military homeland divisions to maintain law and order and to totally avoid anarchy.A decent Start.

Freshieee "Okay, let me clarify on what I should have said: the Reagan economy was one of the worst economic records over the long-term. For one thing, two recessions left millions of people unemployment and/or underemployed (the recession of 1979-1980 and the recession of 1982)."

So you're blaming Reagan for the 1979-1980 recession when Jimmy Carter was still President?

And the recession of 1982 was factored into Reagan's figures for the beginning and ending figures for GDP growth, meaning that Reagan had to absorb the effects of that recession and STILL had the economy grow by 84% over his 8 years in office.

And if you're trying to attribute economic changes to Reagan for the 'long term', then are you suggesting that the economic growth under Clinton should be credited to Reagan?

As for the economic 'growth rate', if I invest $100,000 at 10% per year, that can be expressed as 10% 'simple interest', or it could be reflected at a slightly different 'compound rate of return'. Either way is an accepted practice, so I used the ''simple' rate of growth rather than the 'compound' rate of growth to avoid confusing people like you.

It's time to go to bed, so have a nice night :)

OK, enough nonsense about Reagans economic record.

First of all let’s state the facts about what Reagan had to deal with.

In 1981, Reagans plan for revitalizing the economy was a simple 4 step process:

1. Reduce tax rates across the board.

2. Decrease unnecessary regulations.

3. Work with the Federal Reserve to maintain stable monetary policy.

4. Slow the growth of federal spending.

His tax-cuts passed through Congress but because they were being phased in gradually the economic pain they were designed to lessen lingered well into 1982.

As the deficits remained high there was pressure to raise taxes. Reagan’s team began meetings to compromise a plan with then Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, to agree on a deficit reduction plan.

Thus began the disaster of 1982. After a long compromise it was agreed that there would be a combination of tax increases on business, similar to today, and reductions in federal spending.

the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) was created. It consisted of $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, Reagan and most of the president's colleagues signed on.

THE CUTS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

Of course the tax increases were quickly enacted, the Democrats had no problem accepting that part, but the promised tax cuts never materialized. After the bill passed some Democrats even claimed that there was no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio. In fact, spending for fiscal 1983 was $49 billion higher. Tax revenues actually went down with the increased tax rates. Fortunately the individual income tax-rate reductions that passed in 1982 remained intact and the economy began its incredible recovery.

Today we see the same deception from Barrack Hussein. There will never be any cuts in spending unless they are linked completely with the revenue increases. Barrack Hussein will use the typical Liberal/Progressive move of dealing with emotions rather than real substantial policy. Most likely because he has no economic policy. His “Warren Buffett Rule” nonsense is nothing more than the ongoing class-warfare/envy-of-the-rich meme.

The simple fact is that there is no plan from the Democrats other than raising taxes. We have had this administration tell us for 4 years that they are “focused like a laser” on the economy and they still have nothing to show that even resembles a realistic plan. It’s been 1,403 days since the largest economy in the history of the world has had a real budget. We have essentially burned through the $2.1 TRILLION debt-ceiling increase from last August in a matter of only 17 months. This of course will be another argument about needing this money to pay Social Security benefits, even though the Democrats claim there is some mysterious $2.7 trillion in some even more mythical “fund”, and Medicare recipients.

Now, this is what Reagan “Inherited” from your boy toy Peanut Boy Carter.

One of the worst recessions in 1981-1982

Unemployment 10.8%

Inflation (CPI) of 13.5% (Carter tried to convince everyone inflation was now endemic in the economy)

Prime interest rate 21.5% in 1980

Poverty rate of 15.2 %

Decreased home values by 10% from 1978-1982

Family income decreased by 10%

From 1968-1982 the stock market lost 70% of its real value

Hmmmmm, looks a LOT WORSE than what Barrack Hussein inherited.

What did Reagan do? Did he whine like a child about what he “inherited”. Cry about some mythical car in the ditch? Blame everybody but himself?

Nope.

He got to work.

Decreased tax rates from 70% to 2 rates of 28% and 15% by 1986.

Decreased total Federal spending from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.2% in 1989, a 10% decrease.

Created an anti-inflation monetary policy by reducing money supply growth compared to demand to stabilize the dollar.

Deregulation which saved an estimated $100 Billion. Eliminated the idiotic price controls Carter placed on oil and natural gas, the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

Four simple steps created 92 months of uninterrupted growth. That’s almost 31 quarters. The longest peacetime expansion EVER!

During this time economic growth was 33%, the amount of West Germany’s entire economy (they were third in the world at the time). 1984 had an unequalled 6.8% of growth, the highest in 25 years. The highest was 7.4% in 1959.

Nearly 20 million new jobs were created, increasing employment by 20%

In 1989 unemployment was 5.3%.

Inflation dropped to 6.2% by 1982 and 3.2% in 1983. Contraction (NOT EXPANSION) of the money supply created the recession of 1981 that he inherited from Jimmy Cahhtah.

Per-Capita disposable income increased by 18% between 1982 and 1989, a Standard of Living increase of nearly 20%.

Poverty levels decreased by 13%.

The stock market more than tripled from 1980-1990.

From 1982-2007 America experienced the greatest period of wealth creation in history. Adjusting for inflation more wealth was created in America in that 25 year period than in the previous 200 years. Debt increased simply because we were in the end-stages of the Cold-War. I’m sure you Liberal Progressives just discount this as a minor inconvenience. You should ask your boy JFK what an “inconvenient truth” it really was.

I’d be happy to compare Reagan’s accomplishments against Barrack Hussein’s up until now if you’d like but I don’t think you want to go there do you.

He embarrasses himself enough alone, he doesn’t need me helping him.

Right?

anti-trust proponent (1.13) has it mostly right. The two powers that be are so busy protecting their jobs and pork that they don't want their piece of the pie cut. Thus, both sides are now happy and get to point fingers at each other. However, this has been going on for much longer than 2009. It goes way back. Our congressional budgets have been loaded with "extra" pork for decades. We allow this to happen by not standing up and saying enough. They care more about their personal interests and getting re-elected than us.

Jim Spence... something staunch Republicans fall back on with Ronald Regan is how he lowered the poverty level. He sure did. He manipulated the #s. It's on the books. In 1979 you were considered in the poverty level if you made $3912 (single person). In 1989 the poverty level was $6451 (single person).

And that folks is how you make people believe you are a genius. Cook the books, and voila, you have saved millions from poverty. Oh and Mr. Spence if you think I made these up, these #s come directly from the govt.

www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh89.html

No, Roy Wilson, you are the one that doesn't understand the numbers. They still don't add up!

Source here:

2001 Total Debt = $5.8T, Held by Public = $3.3T, Intragovernmental = $2.5T

2008 Total Debt = $10.6T, Held by Public = $6.3T, Intragovernmental = $4.3T

Now, if as you claim, Bush's deficits averaged $250B per year, then that would only add up to $2T over 8 years. Instead, we see an increase of $3T in Public Debt!

Maybe if it was just me and just recently, you could make your lies stick. But it isn't:

Boston Globe, March 5, 2007

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION has asked Congress to approve $93.4 billion in emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of 2007 and another $141.7 billion for next year. This, on top of a proposed 2008 defense budget of $481.4 billion.

Please note that the two supplemental appropriations requests are termed "emergency," which ought to mean unexpected or unpredictable costs. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began. You might think someone in the Pentagon or the White House Office of Management and Budget could project costs for a year. Apparently not.

Why is a supplemental request the budget vehicle of choice? Because as an emergency measure, it doesn't count against the budget ceiling that Congress adopts to guide spending, and therefore isn't figured into government estimates of our annual budget deficit. So, for the last four years, these emergency spending bills have helped President Bush obscure the true cost of the war.

Washington Post, May13, 2005

But the $82 billion emergency supplemental spending bill that Congress just approved cannot fit within anyone's definition of honest, sensible budgeting. For the third year in a row, the Bush administration has chosen to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a grab bag of other programs, outside the normal appropriations process. To call this emergency spending is farcical. Though the precise cost of military operations was not known, there was no reason, especially as the war continued, not to budget for most, if not all, of it in the ordinary course of business. After a single emergency supplemental, the war in Vietnam was financed through regular appropriations.

The current budgetary end run undermines congressional oversight and makes a mockery of claims of spending restraint. Lawmakers and the administration set strict spending limits, pat themselves on the back for their alleged frugality -- and then proceed to bust those limits, with no tough trade-offs required, when it comes to the so-called emergency spending. It's no wonder that the military likes this approach. Keeping war costs off the regular budget books protects other defense spending; it also gives the Pentagon a second chance to win funding for projects that may have been turned down once but can be recast as war-related. But partly for the same reasons, the system is bad for taxpayers: It masks the scope of deficit spending and avoids a serious discussion of what is and isn't affordable.

There are many other examples. Bush was under fire about it for his entire two terms - not that it changed anything.

Nope, sorry, Roy, emergency spending measures are NOT added to budget deficits.

I guess you had a memory lapse about 9/11 and the 24 months of resulting job losses

Oh, that is just priceless. George W. Bush gets a pass because he had to fight a "recession".

Just for perspective - The Great Depression began in the summer of 1929. It continued until early 1933. Real GDP fell 30%.

In 2001, the recession began in March and ended in November of that year. GDP fell 0.2% in the first quarter, 0.6% in the second quarter and 1.3% in the third quarter.

In 2008, the recession began in the third quarter. In Q3, 2008, GDP fell 4%. In Q4, 2008, GDP fell 9%. In Q1, 2009, GDP fell 5%.

I think Obama is fighting much bigger problems than Bush ever did. And for those who still claim that this is "the poorest recovery in history":

Politifact -

Job creation. We compared the number of employed Americans at the start of the recovery to the number employed at the end of the 23-month period. Then we calculated the percentage increase (or decrease) in employment over that time period.

By this measure, there were two recoveries weaker than the one we’re currently experiencing -- the one from November 2001 to October 2003, under President George W. Bush, and the one from July 1980 to June 1982, under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The George W. Bush recovery is especially striking, since the economy actually lost more than 700,000 jobs during the first 23 months after the recession ended.

So by this measure, Romney’s claim that "this is the slowest job recovery since Hoover" is incorrect. It’s the third slowest.

Unemployment rate. We compared the unemployment rate at the end of the 23-month period to what it was at the beginning of the period.

By this measure, too, the current recovery is not the weakest. Three recoveries actually saw an increase in the unemployment rate after 23 months (ones under George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Carter/Reagan), while another (under President Richard Nixon) produced a smaller decline in the unemployment rate than the current recovery has. (Because a budding recovery can entice discouraged workers back into the labor force, it’s not unusual for the unemployment rate to rise in a recovery.)

So, depending on the measure you use, there are either two or four recoveries since Hoover that were weaker than the current one.

Jim Spence... something staunch Republicans fall back on with Ronald Regan is how he lowered the poverty level. He sure did. He manipulated the #s. It's on the books. In 1979 you were considered in the poverty level if you made $3912 (single person). In 1989 the poverty level was $6451 (single person).

And that folks is how you make people believe you are a genius. Cook the books, and voila, you have saved millions from poverty. Oh and Mr. Spence if you think I made these up, these #s come directly from the govt.

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

In the US, the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index and other factors. In 2010, a single person needed to earn a minimum of $11,139 US Dollars (USD) (more in Alaska and Hawaii) a year to stay over the threshold. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $22,113 USD. According to these guidelines, more than 46.2 million people in the US were living in poverty in that year.

What, do you thing the poverty threshold level is some static number that Reagan magically manipulated?

LMAO!!!!!

You limp-wristed Libbies are pathetic.

Could it be that the economy was improving so much that the OMB and Census Bureau increased the poverty level. See, that means the economy was significantly improving.

I’ll leave it up to your Liberal/Progressive “genius” to figure out the rest. Hint: It’s in the link you gave me.

And that folks is how you make people believe Liberals/Progressive are incapable of critical thought.

Try to keep up Spanky, the adults are talking here now.

#1.173 My side is better than your side.You are mentally ill for being on the other side.

My grandparents said, "It's cutting off your nose to spite your face."

My parents always said, "If you make a mess, you clean it up. And it'd better be right."

I say, "Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg, or the only thing you will have is a cooked goose."

I guess old adages have more validity than our current Congress.

The problem we have - began with the election of 2006 - when a Democrat Controlled Congress - began their "crazy spending" in 2007 that led to the torching of a robust economy we were experiencing - fact - check the numbers

They were spending billions - from the start of 2007 up until the crash in 2008 that they fueled.

Hiding behind their Bush Band-Aids - the Democrat Controlled Congress of 2009-2010 continued the Bizzaro World Spending led by the new President - Barack Obama - fact (crisis-crisis-crisis)

It was only with the election of 2010 - that some accountability came to Washington - spoiled the Democrat Spend-a-holic Party - pissing them off - fueling their rants of hate and racism - fact

As we found out on Friday - the Congress - controls the purse strings - right?

To see it any other way - you'd have to be a Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews fanatic - don't go bashful now

What's to fix? The sequester is good for the country. Pass another one and lets make it 5% this time.!!!!

It's the only way to control the out-of-control spending.

Heck, Obama will still spend more this year than last year, so what are you liberals whining about?

“Boehner: I don’t think anyone quite understands how sequester gets resolved”

Yet he says: "You can't spend your way to prosperity" and, recently, "You can't cut your way to recovery" (yes, he said that).

So why won't he let those that think they know at least give it a try? (Like the President's economic advisers)

Answer: Because Boehner serves too many masters, which includes big money and the Tea Party... and EXCLUDES the American people.

New spending for the sake of spending is useless, but new spending on infrastructure and general capabilities (education) seems reasonable. Cuts for the sake of cuts is damaging to the workings of the government and the health of the economy, but well structured and targeted cuts aimed at recovering individual plan fiscal responsibility and viability are needed and welcomed.

Start with THAT for God's sake and get out of the way of this recovery.

I know, I know... the GOP is just doing all this blocking and killing consumer confidence so we don't grow too fast for our own good... nice plan d-wades.

And the Obama Drones and Slaves continue to spout there garbage, as there too illiterate to understand what there Lord and Master is even doing to them, amazing, they cant see the fire for the smoke, from the Worst Con-Man since Hitler.. Shameful and Disgusting, So many Traitors and Un-American...

So its settled then, democrats good, republicans suck.

Under extreme pressure - from an agressive press - The Obama Administration and it's corruption - would crumble quickly

Exposure and transparency - don't seem to agree - with the liberal Obamanation machine

JimSpence, #1.154- "There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul." Arnold Bennett (1867-1931), England/France [page 33, 365 Inspirations: Self & Spirit]

Regarding some of your other posts, I'm sorry that I can't give you "a fraction" of a vote. Sometimes 50%, sometimes 30. Sometimes 20% or even 90; sometimes 10 or only 1! Sorry to see that you've "devolved" to join Roy Wilson in condescending mentality to try inundate any "Common Person" communications, conversations and speech. Sorry it's not all up to your "SNUFF".

But, HAVE A GOOD DAY!

EEngineer "No, Roy Wilson, you are the one that doesn't understand the numbers. They still don't add up!"

Perhaps you should change your 'moniker'. I assumed that you were an engineer and thus able to grasp simple concepts.

I will give you the direct link to Obama's own 2013 Budget, which includes the Deficits by year for Bush and Obama and confirms the total Bush Deficits of $2.005 Trillion over his 8 years in office.

The source is the Obama White House 2013 Budget - Historical Tables - Table 1.1. It lists Deficits by year for almost the last 100 years. Here are the figures from that site for the Bush & Obama years;

2001 - $128.2 Billion Surplus
2002 - $157.8 Billion Deficit
2003 - $377.6 Billion Deficit
2004 - $412.7 Billion Deficit
2005 - $318.3 Billion Deficit
2006 - $248.2 Billion Deficit
2007 - $160.7 Billion Deficit
2008 - $458.6 Billion Deficit - 8 year total = $2,005.5 Billion, or $250.7 Billion per year
2009 - $1,412.7 Billion Deficit
2010 - $1,293.5 Billion Deficit
2011 - $1,299.6 Billion Deficit
2012 - $1,089.0 Billion Deficit (latest estimate) – 4 year total Deficits = $5,095.2 Billion, or $1,274 Billion per year.

Link is as follows; By the way - your quote from the liberal Washington Post deals with BUDGETING, not actual spending. The costs of the wars under Bush WERE included in his final spending, as they are under Obama. Budgets are estimates of spending, actual spending is, well, actual spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

EEngineer

You're seriously quoting from POLITIFACT? The same far-left outfit that says that Bush was responsible for the "stimulus' spending for 2009 that was signed by Obama and helped push the Deficit to more than $1.4 Trillion in 2009?

Try a CREDIBLE source.

By the way - you claim that 'In 2008, the recession began in the third quarter. In Q3, 2008, GDP fell 4%. In Q4, 2008, GDP fell 9%' - a total drop of 13% for GDP.

If that's true, then how was it that the Obama White House gives the following GDP figures;

GDP at end of 2007 = $13.892 Trillion.

GDP at end of 2008 = $14.394 Trillion, an increase of 3.62%.

Your credibility is worse than that of POLITIFACT. Incidentally, economists say the recession started at the end of 2007 - not 2008.

LMarcT "So why won't he (Boehner) let those that think they know at least give it a try? (Like the President's economic advisers)"

Well, since Obama was inaugurated on December 20, 2009, we have had to borrow more than $6 Trillion to 'stimulate' the economy, so I think we already DID 'give it a try'.

At what point do we say "Trying to spend our way to prosperity isn't working?"

The REAL answer to your question is "Because we need to stop mortgaging our children's future".

• Crying Speaker Tan Man --- there's a whole boat-load of things you just don't understand.

Reality:

I encourage everyone to patiently view this distribution of wealth:

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=upw1

Roy wilson is a well known liar who spins numbers to fit his agenda .......besides being a troll

RI Mom

Reality:

I encourage everyone to patiently view this distribution of wealth:

So?

I encourage you to patiently read this article.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Let me highlight the pertinent information for you.

Table 4. Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

In 1922 the bottom 99% held 63.3% of the wealth, in2010 they held 64.6%.

In 1922 the top 1% held 36.7% of the wealth, in 2010 they held 35.4%.

Figure 10: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay,

In 1994 the ratio of CEO to production workers average pay was about 40:1.

In 2000 the ratio of CEO to production workers average pay was over 400:1.

Due to the dot-com bubble and 9/11 the ratio dropped to about 175:1.

In 2005 the ratio rose to about 300:1.

So, the most prolific disparity of wealth occurred in the 90’s, during Clintons presidency.

Where was the outrage during those GREEDY days of Clinton?

Your point is?

Re: "Your point is?"

That's why they hate Bush. He took from them and gave to those who needed.

That's why Obama killed banks who loaned to "have nots" when Bush was out of the office.

Not poor, no. Those who do not have a lawyer on retainer, the "middle" class.

One fact about this "sequester" law tells the whole story.

When writing this law in 2011 the members of Congress EXCLUDED THEIR OWN SALARIES from the across-the-board budget cuts.

So although they have had 18 months to work out a budget compromise to stop this, ... and they in fact did nothing exept fritter-away a year and a half, ...they will not lose one thin dime of their own pay despite the impacts they have forced upon American families and our economy.

For members of the US Congress, their personal interests come before all else.

Exactly. Every country that has implemented austerity in the teeth of a stubborn recession has gotten precisely the same result - a worse recession. What makes them think that it will be different this time?

The Republicans get it wrong every friggin' time. In tough times, they want austerity. When times are good, they deficit spend like drunken sailors on shore leave. Tried and true economic theory tells us that this is the opposite of what we should be doing. And no, your household budget doesn't work the same way, nor should it. Unlike a sovereign nation, your family doesn't control its own money supply. Big difference.

We really, really need to get these clowns back into the minority in the House in 2014.

England went into a double dip recession with the "cuts only" approach.

Do Republicans not learn from others?

That's the whole point....they are not there to help this economy. They are there to push forward an extremist right wing agenda, come hell or high water and the rest of the country be damned.

As for the rest of the GOP, this fits right into their politics of stopping the president no matter what he tries to do. This part I can at least forgive....this is typical party out of power politics....focus on "out of control spending" as a way to stop the president from spending on things you don't like.

But, they are making their beds with a group of folks that they better be VERY careful with.....

Yes, the constitution says PROMOTE the general welfare. DemocRATs think that means PROVIDE the general welfare.

Lets end ALL handouts, and give them a small advertising budget like the founding fathers intended. This Marxist path that FDR began will lead to our collapse, now that those who don't work can vote themselves the paychecks of those that do...

The WAY TO FIX IT is to get a moderate third party in office. Both parties are to blame because they played politics two years ago waiting to see who would be president and sticking to party lines and ideals. Both sides are playing politics and both sides party IDEALS are obsolete for the 21st century, global economy in which the US is now a part of. I am an independent, and we need a THIRD independent party badly.

Excuse me,just what do you know about corporate hand outs. How about Facebook paying zero taxes. Your a fool if you don't think these big businesses aren't getting over. So I suggest you hand back your s.s. and get the hell off my roads. We the tax payer willing paid for. I'm sure some where in your back round you stolen money from someone. You don't understand what a society is all about. You have to pay your fair share, and yes some get over, but big tax ripoffs by corporate America is just inexcusable. Make sure you don't spill any crumbs on the floor someone may eat them. Listen to God's words and find some sympathy in your heart.

WHAT IS AFFECTED BY CUTS in the sequester

Airports. Fewer flight controllers on duty could mean fewer planes can fly. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicts flights to cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco could have delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours.

Programs for poor or vulnerable citizens. The White House estimates that 100,000 formerly homeless people would lose access to shelter, 373,000 people diagnosed with mental health problems would face service cuts, and 4 million fewer "meals on wheels" would be served during the current fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30). Child-care subsidies for low-income workers would reach some 30,000 fewer children.

The one thing I will say is this: The sequester is a step in the right direction. It is an example of how a difficult and tough decision can be made by this extreme left and extreme right congress. Put a tough decision on the table with a timeline and terms that no one wants to take responsibility for so their constituents will hopefully not fire them (play politics) for making a painful decision, and it will happen anyway.

Welcome to the operating mode of the 21st century 2 Party Congress.

Mirage. "Austerity breeds more austerity." Louie Bee

As for who is promoting Communism, perhaps you might want to look at all the companies and their CEOs who have sent jobs and built factories in China, a communist country.

Mirage: "Austerity breeds more austerity."

I agree with the quote you got from from Mirage (#2.10)... Who is Mirage? An ancient sage?

"@Rob...where in the Constitution are Handouts and Entitlements? I for one will promote Growth, not Waste."

These "Handouts and Entitlements?" you refer to are needed in many cases because of the mismanagement by the banks and the fleecing of America by the money changers on the steps of Wall Street. How much of the abuse is by the businesses that deal with Medicare and Medicaid and falsify billing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? It's not the mother of 4 kids on welfare who is double dipping. That is spare change when talking about the problem.

Another person writes "Lets end ALL handouts," Are they referring to handouts to individuals OR handouts to large corporations who make billions and still receive govt aid? We give Egypt billions which they get through weapons donated to them by our govt and paid for by the American taxpayer while the defense industry profits. CORPORATE WELFARE at its finest. That person might even work for a company that supplies goods to the defense industry or someone close to him certainly does. "end all handouts"? I am not sure if that poster knew of what he speaks.

Pig,

I am out of money paying for someone else to live. Free phones,,, free whatever else they get. I am out of money for that. Some say, well the government needs to do that for those,,, well, I am out of money.

I think many are missing what is really going on. The way I see it is that the Republicans don't want a bandaid solution. If a small tax cut were agreed to then it would equate to kicking the can down the road. They don't want to agree to tax cuts when the whole system needs to be revamped. Making the hard call is what it is. Some people are more capable to see past the end of their nose. The entire tax code should be revised. Spending must be curbed. My issue that I have with the Republicans is that they lack the ability to communicate effectively. If they could just suggest something and get even a few democrats on their side then the ball could start rolling. I agree with the path they have taken for now. Something substantial needs to be done and miniscule tax increases aren't going to get us there. Anyone that thinks we don't have a spending problem is extremely naive. Simplify the tax code and get rid of loopholes and deductions all together. Tax revenue problems will go away.

Boner....No one knows how to fix it............Huh?...kidding right?....Translation......Bonehead wants to keep all the tax loopholes for the rich 1%...like all the offshore accounts and the accounts in the Caymen Islands where the rich 1% hide their money to avoid paying AMERICAN taxes.....Welfare for the rich must be preserved......

The Rich because of their GREED just wiped out the middle class and poor savings and forced many to use up all their reserves(401 etc) and many had to take early retirement at a lower rate...just to feed themselves.......and BONEHEAD does not know how to fix this????????...How about making Romney type people pay their fair share off taxes by removing tax loopholes...like the Cayman Island accounts!!!!!

Do Republicans not learn from others?

Nope! And they don't care either. Their only goal is to protect the wealthy people who keep them in power. But they know the right buttons to push that ignite the wingnuts that support them.

We can blame anyone we want to blame. Congress passed it, Obama signed it a few months ago and now it is an emergency. Yup, smart on both sides of the isle. NOT

I am out of money paying for someone else to live. Free phones,,, free whatever else they get. I am out of money for that. Some say, well the government needs to do that for those,,, well, I am out of money.

Ill need to see some proof that you yourself pay for those things. If your "out of money" chances are your not paying that much in taxes. If everyone was "out of money" you can kiss your local fire department, police station, roads, parks, and everything else that gets collectively paid for by people in your city that may never use them. the government is just a larger scale. So sorry if some of "your" precious tax dollars gets spent on stuff that doesn't benefit you. I think ill take a refund on the part of my taxes that went to Iraq......

Wasn't it not but only a year ago LIBBIES were talking about that over-inflated military budget and wanted cuts, and the wonderful PHOTO OP by Obama to say he wanted to curtail spending. NOW the tune changes, can't afford to cut just raise more money to spend more?

A simple history lesson - since history is perhaps our greatest teacher. It was a Democrat who started that Military Industrial Complex, It was a Democrat that signed into law NAFTA which was responsible for the migration of hundreds of thousands of jobs. It was a Democrat who signed into law tax loopholes and tax perks such as being able to claim the interest on home ownership, charitable contributions, foreign tax credits, etc. It was a Democrat that instituted what has become our modern day Welfare Program - which by the way accounts for 28% (THE LARGEST CHUNK) of government spending and IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERATIONAL WELFARE CASES. It was a DEMOCRAT that devised the plan for this Sequester as a stick and carrot for an increase of the debt ceiling. It is most certainly a DEMOCRAT that unsurprisingly continues to take the vacations, the golf trips, the sending Michelley Poo off to buy a new dress, etc without worry, without care on the backs of taxpayers.

It is the uneducated masses embroiled by thier puppet masters that are too busy arguing and bickering amongst themselves, to be blinded to what is really going on. That somehow if we demonize those that have money that all of a sudden our financial problems will miraculously just go away. But the huddled masses are too jaded with thier partisanship to realize or even care about the double standards of those puppet masters. The bullsht here people is that Obama got his 650 billion tax increase, and promised to curtail spending and didn't. Do we easily forget Obamacare and now EVERYONE is required to have insurance - which as I recall the LIBBIES were estatic about, and now that people don't have a job, don't have the means (as was foretold by those evil Republicans) what we will now have fines imposed (even less money) for not having that mandated insurance.

Is it the libby stance that the supposed Party of NO is tired of seeing a few work and toil while the roles of the too lazy to get a damned job, sit back and enjoy a lifestyle of handouts for doing nothing. That they are OWED something because it is easier to spit out kids they can't afford, that there is a reward for such behavior, that they will improve the chances, improve thier paydays of free giveaways? To give you an example that may better illustrate the assininity of this mindset, take $50 bux of your check for the next year and increase that by 50 bux next year and 50 more the third year and just give it away. So in a mere 3 years time, you have pissed away $1,200 bux this year, $2,400 bux next year, and $3,600 the following year for a total of $5 Grand to people who DON'T contribute to your sweat, DON'T appreciate the fact YOU are providing for them, and EXPECT even more from you, then have the audacity to bitch that you aren't doing enough, then have the balls to turn around and say you are the demon, the very cause of the problem...

Now, Republicans are not blameless, nor are they not driven by the same ailment that affects all of us - Greed. There isn't a single one of us that don't desire having more money. That we don't desire that Huge House, the big backyard, and the lap of luxury. And most certainly common sense would suggest these things don't come without sacrifice, but it is being increasingly more obvious that we EXPECT these things without having to work for it. Maybe we should just scrap current government, all sit on our asses and elect David Copperfield and have him magic us up some free money. Until we stop this SPENDING ISSUE, we will NEVER have the things we desire. UNTIL WE SAVE MONEY we can't afford the stuff we want. That is the reality, and it is about time the LIBBIES come to grips with that.

Sam, I am happy to pay for fire and police,roads and parks, not happy about paying lazy 2nd generation couch potatoes to collect free stuff. Also I will take a refund of money that went to the stupid wars we are in. I would also like to get some of my money back that was over spent in programs in all parts of the government.

And you have no idea how much I make or pay in taxes. You kind of sound like a bleeding heart type, but I don't know that about you either, do I.

Will the watcher,,,,,, one comment,

Amen to that.

You guys are happy to blame the liberals for everything.

But this was an interview with John Boehner, a Republican. He said "I don't think anyone quite understands..." This is after he said "I got 98% of what I wanted."

If he got what he wanted but still doesn't understand, there is a problem.

Hey Boehner, to resolve the sequester you need to take back some of the stolen wealth from the rich. The 39.6% tax rate is a joke and you Republicans know that. Tax loopholes, offshoring profits and investments, unfair capital gains tax rate, and so forth circumvent the higher tax rates imposed on those who continue to steal the wealth of the middle class by rigging the stock market ups and downs, rigging the price of oil, and using high speed computers to bilk wealth from the stock market and peoples IRA accounts. Enough. Raise the capital gains rate to 30%, remove all but those tax loopholes that middle class taxpayers can actually use, and penalize offshoring of profits to avoid taxation. GE, DuPont, Boeing, Wells Fargo and 26 other U.S. companies have a negative tax rate. We taxpayers pay them! Enough!

The median wealth of a House member is $765,010... For a senator it’s $2.38 million. Yet, incredibly, they still enjoy all of this:

• $174,000 salary
• Free company car
• Free gas
• Free parking (even at airports)
• Free flights almost anywhere in the world
• Per diem travel allowance... up to $3,000 a trip
• A month’s paid vacation
• 3-day work-weeks
• Free membership to a top-flight gym
• Pension plan and 401K plan
• Full retirement benefits (including up to 44% of their six figure salaries) at age 62
• Free top of the line health insurance with 10 plans to choose from
• Fully covered – even with pre-existing condition

Being a member of Congress is the most lucrative "Public Service" job in the world. Really, are these people that out of touch with real America? Should Congress live like the rest of us? Should voters be asking why we keep sending these same people to Washington?

As Filden Says "You guys are happy to blame the liberals for everything", but aren't the libbies still there blaming BUSH now 5 years later? Hypocricy knows no bounds...

And yes, Boehner got what he wanted - the deal was the 650 billion in tax revenue (that OBAMA wanted), in exchange for the CUTS (Boehner Wanted). That was the deal, and only 1 person is now bitching about how THEY have to live up to thier end of the bargain. Now quite honestly I am no fan of Boehner or any politician for that matter. I am not a person that believes the fault lies with just 1 person. Truthfully it is with all of us. You see, like many of you, I love getting a raise. Love having more coin, but if we apply COMMON SENSE, we would know that those pay raises increase the costs of not only producing the product 5 or even 10 fold (it costs more money to pay workers to obtain the materials, costs more money to pay the workers to produce the product, costs more money for the truck drivers and transportation of that product to get it to market, costs more for the stock boy putting that product on the shelf, costs more to hire that cashier to take your money to buy that product, costs more to pay that bank teller to take the receipts from that business to deposit in the bank, costs more for that accountant to square the books and file the taxes, and costs more for the monkeys to process those tax forms). You see ONE pay raise equates to higher end costs, but we are too stupid, too self consumed, too damned Greedy to understand the basic concept. Businesses are not in business to give sht away. They are there to make some money. They, those that engage in that endeavor to build a business assume the risks of failure, of paying employees, of having to provide benefits to thier workers, of having to assume liability for thier products and the all too often lawsuits over thier product. I mean let's be honest here, for a person to go to a coffee shop, purchase a cup of coffee, and accidently spill that coffee on themselves, only to turn around and sue that coffee shop because the coffee was HOT, is assinine. But it happens, and of course the business pays. But where we seem to think the buck stops is with the judgment. It doesn't. That cost of that judgment (the business loss) is passed along to the customer when that 25 cent cup of coffee increases to 50 cents for that business to recoop that loss.

The same holds true with medical expenses. Don't you think the costs of malepractice suits inflate the malepractice insurance rates, which in turn increases the cost of the office visit? Or the costs of that hospital who is linked to the economy in which they pay thier workers and buys equipment that is being produced by those who are demanding pay increases isn't passing the costs of said increases along to patients, which in turn the medical insurers who are now paying more aren't passing the costs of higher payouts (claims) onto the very people that are filing the suits through premiums? How utterly assinine and niave to think these things are not circular. You see, the point here is when you make more money, you spend more money, because the cost of those things MUST INCREASE. You can not by any way, shape or means expect that 1 is not directly linked to the other. THIS is the fallacy of our greed. We seem to think when we make more, we should have more, and therefore the prices of things should either drop or stay stagnant. In the case of Washington, increasing taxes, which is making more money will be passed along down the line in the way of it costing MORE to produce the product, which in turn is passed down to the end consumer (US), fueling yet more "END USER GREED". In order to "come out ahead" of the endeavor, one must curtail the spending of the funds available in order to see the growth (lowering of debt, amassing wealth) they desire. This is a concept lost to liberals, and one that apparently does not seem to fit within the kumbaya mindset.

It's not that we don't pay enough taxes. We just don't have enough taxpayers, thanks to the Obama economy. We are almost to the 4th Anniversary of Recovery Summer.

We can either cut spending or go bankrupt, which Obama somehow thinks will be a political victory. Talk about twisted priorities.

Will the Watcher, great comments. It is nice to know there are intellegent people out there, to bad not enough.

This is just like a family earning $40,000 per year, and yet they're spending $45,000 per year - so they have a $5,000 'deficit' each year, which they put that $5,000 on their VISA. Then after 10 years of doing that, there's $50,000 in this accumulated debt, plus all the interest - so lets say there's a $80,000 ''debt'' on the credit card.

The problem, is now there's $10,000 per year in interest on that $80,000 - which does two things. 1) You really only have $30,000 of your $40,000 in earnings - because $10,000 is going straight to the interest payment, and 2) if you still want to spend $45,000 / year, and you only have $30,000 left after paying the interest, now you need to borrow $15,000 extra every year on the credit card instead of the $5,000 you used to.

SO - flash forward another decade or two, and the Credit Card is totally maxed out, and you're paying 1/2 your income just in interest payments - and the ''solution'' is NOT to simply get your credit card limit raised. You need to be an adult and figure out how to cut the spending DRAMATICALLY, and to create more jobs and more business's in order to raise revenue (without just begging for more money from your super rich parents) so that you can keep bumping the credit limit and keep spending more than you earn.

So, for me - if they both can't come up with an agreement where the spending is less than we earn, so we have not only deficit reduction, but DEBT reduction - then I say 'sequester away' until we get it fixed. It'll be uncomfortable and difficult, but simply raising the debt ceiling yet again and just kicking the can down the street is NOT a solution.

Scapegoating Congress as ''just not wanting to raise taxes on the rich'' is not an adult solution either - we could take 100% of all the income of the super-rich and it wouldn't solve the problem - the problem is that we spend more than we earn.

Pigotry,

Is there anything you can do to increase you knowledge of economics and fiscal responsibility. My high school son has a firmer grasp on our economics, the deficit, and deficit spending then you do. Seriously, find the time and somehow go educate yourself.

Dear Rob In Warwick NY,

To cut the size of government and spending is the only correct thing to do.

You asked for a example, how about 2. One good president from both parties.

1. JFK..........The late 50's and early 60's, our economy was pretty much stagnate. Same as now. He pushed legislation lowering the top tax rates and the economy started to take off. He was then, prior to his murder, was working on how to lower our debt and trying to get us the hell out of Viet-Nam.

2. Ronald Reagan came into office with a stagnet economy, high unemployment and killer interest rates. He did the same as JFK and was promised cuts by Tip Oneal, that the then speaker of the house, did not keep his part of the deal. Even so, the economy took off.

How about a "what if". What if JFK was not killed and LBJ never got in office starting his stupid Grand Society. What if Tip O'Neil kept his promise about spending cuts. He did however keep the part of the agreement raising some taxes, but not the cuts.

Should make all stand back and wonder what our economy would look like today.

Where is the leader of USA? Obama will continue to be a do nothing president and keep playing the blame game with Congress. Mr. Hollywood we are a shame of you.

Mike Nielsen,Ronald Reagan perpetuated the recession of the 1980's.He cut things like mental healthcare funding so those people had no place to go but the streets.He cut a federal tax deduction of the sScial Security and Medicare contribution.He also had the tax code disallow people to deduct interest from personal loans and credit cards.I lived through these tax cuts and had several neighbors who were becoming unemployed in droves scrambling for job.All of those tax deductions fattened up the Feds coffers at the expense of the middle class.

Paying down on our debt, balancing the budget and putting our fiscal house in order is something which is never seen on the progressives radar screen (I'm a Blue Dog btw).

When times are bad the talking points are, "This is no time to cut spending, the economy is poor and any reduction in spending will hurt it and cost jobs". When times are good the talking points are, "Now with our economy booming we can afford to do all those things we have postponed when times were bad" (except pay down what we borrowed when times were bad).

The truth is that our economy is currently neither good nor bad, it is mediocre. It is not in recession, nor is it growing sufficiently to offset new entries into our labor market. When a company adds one employee by hiring someone in at the bottom that's good, but when someone retires at the top and that company promotes many people...and...hires one at the bottom that's better.

A poll last year found that 1 out of 3 eligible to retire were not going to do so, many of them citing the reduced value of their 401k's as the reason.

Now is the time to put our fiscal house in order, and as part of that enact tax legislation that will encourage people to retire (oh no another give away to the rich?....ask those people delaying their retirement if they think they are rich!!!)

And in 2014 elect Blue Dog's to congress (google Blue Dog Coalition if you don't know what a Blue Dog is). If we are going to solve these problems we must return to a time when "someone" was both willing and able to forge consensus and compromise!

I love how the headline of this article on MSN.com makes it sound like it's Boehner who doesn't know how to fix the budget crisis, while the real story is that Boehner is saying that all of Washington (including our idiot-in-chief who hasn't passed a budget in 5 years) doesn't know how to wrap its collective heads together to figure out how to fix the budget.

And the primary reason is that the dems won't even recognize that we have a spending problem. Just like the alcoholic who doesn't feel (s)he has a drinking problem.

Just another misleading article from a biased so-called news network (who sadly once was a trusted news source).

Yet another reason why NBC was tied with the Comedy Channel for LAST PLACE when people were polled to identify the most trusted news network. And why NBC came in last place for Feb sweeps month.

Is that a flush I just heard? NBC are you there? NBC? NBC???

Dear Cleaning Lady,

I am not a spring chicken. I also live in those days of the aftermath of J. Carter.

What you speak of about changes in the tax code, raising taxes are correct. However, it comes right back to a broken promise made by Tip O'Neil for cuts in spending. That was the compromise made at that time. Each were suppose to get some of what they wanted. I believe Ronnie did pretty good considering the broken promises and his party did not have either house of congress.

Hey, remember how he was called "Ronald-Ray-Guns" because of his foresight about missile defence? That for the most part worked pretty darn good in the days of conflict with Iraq. Now it is called "The Iron Dome" in Israel. Russia is extremely concerned about this system around its boarders today. Also today, now the talk is putting it around our west coast because of the nut in North Korea.

For his greatest accomplishment, bringing down the soviet union without a shot fired. As a vet, I can say anyone in the military wants peace and not war more than anyone. They understand it is their neck on the line

Another thing Ronnie did was getting the funds for the B-1 bomber. When that gem was rolled out, it sent a shock wave in the entire Soviet system. Do you have a clue how many times we came close to war with them? The B-1 kept them at bay for the last days of the Soviet Union.

Yep, Ron had vision and goals to keep this country safe, strong and sound.

Our present leader has made his goal also known.

1. Socialized medicine

2. By his own words more than once, income redistribution

I do not know about you, but give me a man or woman Like President Reagan any day over what we now have. Yes, I know BHO won the election. That election was Mitts to lose. He never offered hope, better ideas (hell, any ideas), or a plan. For my point of view, Jesus could have come back, running the same campaign as Mitt and He also would have lost.

Under extreme pressure from an agressive press - The Obama Administration and it's corruption - would crumble quickly

Exposure and transparency - don't seem to agree - with the liberal Obamanation machine

Agreed...fix the friggin tax code and make some smart cuts.

Great proposal Anti! The only other thing I woudl add is a 1% decrease in the Federal budget each year until we have a surplus, and then once we pay off our debt, we adjust.

anti-trust,

Do you, or anyone else here, have a calculation on how much revenue you proposal generates compared to the current structure and rates?

BTW, your "first $25K of an individual's income is tax free" is technically a credit or exemption.

No, but I did submit my proposal to the White House many months ago for them to consider and determine how much such a rate would generate, or whether the percentages would need to be changed. And yes the first $25K tax free is in reality an exemption (not a credit). What it does do is say that if an individual wants to get married and/or have ten kids, it is that person's responsibility/problem, not the rest of the taxpayers. If you want to make the "tax-free" portion smaller, let us know at what cut-off you would insert. But it has to be above the current poverty level. That is how the $25K was chosen in discussion with many people on the issue. I almost made it $15K, which is almost the average for SS (not SSI) recipients. Since all other deductions would be eliminated (mortgage, child care, medical, etc.), that was the basis for the tax-free base amount.

anti-trust,

If you add eliminating all "corporate welfare" (farm subsidies and so forth) and all effort to influent bahavior with tax reductions (for green energy and so forth) and ratio your %'s to balance the budget, you have an extremely powerful proposal.

It would, of course, gore everybody's oxen.

anti, your tax proposal would be devastating to incentivizing economic growth. Example: an income of $210,000@ 15% tax rate would generate $31,500 tax and leave net income @ $178,500 and according to your plan an income of $251,000@ 30% tax rate would generate $75,300 tax and leave net income @$175,700. I think this type of thinking would leave us stagnant and stop US innovation. Why would an individual be willing to have less net income to achieve the next level of status?

Fold up the circus tent. Send the elephants and the donkeys out to graze, for the People are not animals. End the oppression one state at a time under the freedoms of foundational Constitutional law. The political power of Washington has become unfettered, manipulated, illegal control. Power to the People.

Flat tax is the only equitable way, but we'll never see it. Even if the numbers remained the same they would save many billions by downsizing the IRS by about 95%. Anybody want to cry about that? Not me.

I love how the headline of this article on MSN.com makes it sound like it's Boehner who doesn't know how to fix the budget crisis, while the real story is that Boehner is saying that all of Washington (including our idiot-in-chief who hasn't passed a budget in 5 years) doesn't know how to wrap its collective heads together to figure out how to fix the budget.

And the primary reason is that the dems won't even recognize that we have a spending problem. Just like the alcoholic who doesn't feel (s)he has a drinking problem.

Just another misleading article from a biased so-called news network (who sadly once was a trusted news source).

Yet another reason why NBC was tied with the Comedy Channel for LAST PLACE when people were polled to identify the most trusted news network. And why NBC came in last place for Feb sweeps month.

Is that a flush I just heard? NBC are you there? NBC? NBC???

I notice those of you spouting the tea party bs about where does it say in the constitution to blah, blah, blah, miss the point entirely.

There is a TIME AND PLACE to cut spending, and there is not a reasoned economist in the world who would tell you the time to slash gov't spending is when the economy is weak. NOT A ONE.

You want to know why? Take a look over at Greece...and Spain....and England.

Idiots.

I like it, it makes sooooo much sense. So they will never do it. With your tax code neither side could pander to their money base. If no crisis, there is no way to blame the other side and spin things. So we have a country lurching from crisis to crisis.

Drunk half the time and tanning the other half.

His next visit to Face the Nation should start with the question, "What will you be doing for a living after 2014?" This insanity can be fixed at the ballot box.

August; He will retire with full benefits and full pay until death do us part.

This is one of the deals that they voted for themselves. He won't be on "Obamacare" either.

August - the irony about what he'll and every other politician do - is that they will be drawing federal retirement and have all the benefits they'll need courtesy of "we the people - tax paying - citizens". NO worries. Then consider all of the insider trading they've done like Pelosi.....Its mind boggling!

Let's rename both parties to something that represents their attitudes: DemoCANTS and RepubliCANTS!!!!!!

They will let the cuts happen to productive, employed, tax paying families that live check to check.

But we will never hear them cut any of their own entitlements.!! Ever meet a poor politician.??

Yeah, it's all Boehner's fault.

Seriously, are you guys so full of Welfare juice that you believe this crap that Oblama spouts? The man is no leader and is truly over his head. He just has no clue as to what action to take.

hjack, Romney lost. Its time to get over it and move on.

This insanity can be fixed at the ballot box.

That's not as easy as it sounds. The little sh!ts have been busy gerrymandering districts to keep people like this in office. It can, and hopefully will be done, but it's going to be tough to do.

tony

Both sides gerrymander districts. It is the spoils of winning the states the year of the redistricting mandated by the Census. Every time the process is complained about by the other party.

The differences are. When the republicans complain, they are portrayed as just sore losers. When the Democrats complain, it's because the republicans are racist. bigoted, corporate shills. Plus if there is any remote possiblity the democrats can take it to court.

You don't know how to fix it? How about DOING YOUR JOB! Congress is getting nothing done. All they do is fight with the "other" party, and reject anything the other party wrote. How about working for THE PEOPLE?!?!?! Not your party, but the people!

And quit spending so much money on a bunch of useless junk. The taxpayers can't afford the ever increasing taxes. Start trimming the fat, start doing your job.

At this point, I think every member of Congress needs to be voted out, and get new people in. The current people are getting nothing done.

The differences are. When the republicans complain, they are portrayed as just sore losers. When the Democrats complain, it's because the republicans are racist. bigoted, corporate shills. Plus if there is any remote possiblity the democrats can take it to court

D B Akron: You've either not seen some of the blatant gerrymandering recently by republicans or your assuming no one else has. The courts have blocked some recent because of blatant gerrymandering. Expanding or shrinking one district a little is one thing placing area's as small as a city block wide running miles skipping and missing blocks like dog legs is absurd. There's a limit to what's reasonable.

Steve - what about the tax loophole that let's over 40% of income-earning Americans to pay no tax and for some to get more money back than they paid in? I'm all for closing the loopholes and making all income taxed as ordinary income (no more carried interest, dividends, capital gains loopholes), but the entire tax system needs to be revamped. "Shared sacrifice" means everyone must participate.

We saw how tax the rich works... DemocRATs think anyone with a JOB is rich, therefore they TOOK MORE OF their pay to support the LEECH class...

...and the Dems are complaining about $85b in cuts (while trying to scare the uneducated/uninformed)? The admin just got a revenue increase in taxes and Obamacare increase (reflected in 'take home' checks as of January 1, for those of us that actually work for a living). These cuts should go deeper and the fat should be trimmed.

If these idiots can't figure it out, I pray the others in the country realize what they can do to replace them.

the 85 B will have little or no effect on us. It is just a scare tactic that the hard left media is going to hype with stories about specific cases and so and so.

What washington is most scared about is that the impact will not be that large on GDP or taxable income (85 B that is dumped by the Feds only has a 10 or 20 B impact on the economy) This will expose the fact that government spending is wasteful and that government is not really doing it's job. What we should do is shut down congress for six months and we will all see that the country runs just fine and they are doing absolutely nothing except pass laws that we cannot afford to implement any longer, and SPEND money on programs and send the money overseas, because after 70 years of this mindset, that is all they know how to do.

Gboy, you obviously have never been a member of the working poor. Those Americans who you say "pay no tax" pay sales taxes which are a greater proportion of their income than the wealthy pay in Federal Income Tax. Some of them also pay some State Income Tax - again at a much higher proportion of their income than the wealthy pay in Federal Income Tax. When the top 2% of the nation EARNS more than 70% of the income in the Nation, then they should PAY greater than 20% Income Tax Rate on ALL of their Income. They should PAY greater than 50% of the Income Tax coming into the National Coffers. What part of THAT proportional Income Tax do you not understand? Instead you would have someone making $25,000/year pay a part of THEIR income in Income Taxes?

Let's break down how much disposable income there actually is at $15,080/yr, (40 hours a week at minimum wage) shall we?

$15,080 per year breaks down to $1,256.67/mo. Out of that, $188.50 is going to Social Security/Medicare leaving 1068.17. Now, let's take out rent which in 2012, the rough median rent NATIONWIDE of $800/mo - which leaves our taxpayer $268.17 A MONTH to pay electricity, buy food, pay for a phone so they can be reached by their landlord, transportation to work ... oh, and let's not forget that the Republican party wants to ABOLISH a Federal Minimum Wage. But you think that the person making minimum wage should PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES beyond what they are actually paying?

Let's now go with a wage of $10/hr which translates to $20,800/yr or $1,733.34/mo. Again, FICA comes off the top and is $260 leaving our tax payer $1473.34 per month. Now let's subtract our rent which is still $800 in the MEDIAN leaving $673.34 per month for food, utilities, transportation to work (which if our taxpayer isn't living in the city means GAS, INSURANCE, UPKEEP on a CAR)... And I'll tell you something ... if that person making $10/hr is single THEY ARE PAYING TAXES.

The Standard deduction for an individual is $9,750 this year, which means that our single taxpayer making $20,800 using the 1040EZ would have a TAXABLE INCOME of $11,050 which means that the TAXES PAID on that amount are $1,219. Our single taxpayer making MINIMUM WAGE would have a taxable income of $5330 and would PAY TAXES of $533. That's after we've already established that they CAN'T AFFORD TO pay taxes on it because they can't afford to perform all of the functions of eating, paying for utilities and can't afford to GET TO WORK.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

A fair tax is a tax of the same percentage on every income - everybody gives equally. That's if you want income tax, which is a just another issue regarding federal government overreach.

Obama suggested eliminating tax breaks for corporate jets and special oil company breaks. Boehner responds by saying American families can't afford any more tax increases. Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't know nay families that own corpoarte jets or oil companies.

A fair tax is a tax of the same percentage on every income - everybody gives equally. That's if you want income tax, which is a just another issue regarding federal government overreach

Alim: A truly fair tax is for every individual to pay the same amount. With 320 million people every man, woman and child would need to pay $10,000 for their share of the budget and $2400 for their share of our military budget alone. So a family of four would need to pay $40,000 a year to pay their share. No one with a brain believes you can enact a tax of 24% or so on a widow on social security getting $800 a month or a Walmart worker making $20,000 a year. The rich either pays a larger burden or we dismantle our military and nearly all government programs. Do you pay $10,000 for each member of your household? Under your flat tax if you make $40,000 a year you'd pay almost $10,000 in federal taxes alone. Do you really want to pay several times your current rate so someone like Romney can continue to pay 2 million on 21 million income?

Cat ... you are good at math, but lousy with common sense. Minimum wage was never intended to be the norm for a person in this country. It should be but a bridge to use while going after a more substantial income. Everybody (except you) knows that a minimum wage won't carry a person, or a family, through life. Minimum wage equals minimum skill. Smell the roses and get of that Kool Aid.

ED, the problem is that many Republicans are pushing to ELIMINATE the minimum wage, which would allow employers to pay whatever they wanted to pay - and some would pay much less. The problem is that an alarming percentage of jobs out there are at or near minimum wage. Trust me ... I know that minimum wage won't support a family. But there is a segment of the far-right who WANTS to allow employers to lower wages to a below subsistence level. They WANT to go back to company stores where employees become indebted to the employer so they CAN'T leave.

I am medically disabled, but before I became disabled I was a Contract Mortgage Underwriter and was making $27.00/hr. My husband is an over the road trucker and makes much more than minimum wage. I have a bachelor's degree with TWO minors (one is actually a mini-major). Every single one of my parents' children went to college. I do not lack for knowledge or experience in the world. I even have experience from within the military community as a childhood-long military dependent, which not many people have.

The truth of the matter is that in order to have an economy like ours, there are people who HAVE to work minimum wage jobs. There are people who lack the opportunities to get the education and experience to qualify for those jobs that pay more ... and with the de-funding of education, the fight to "sanitize" text books, the religious home-schooling push, the skyrocketing cost of higher education, these all conspire to DUMB DOWN our populace and make for MORE minimum wage earners.

Do people really want to follow Britain, Spain, Greece and the other countries that followed the austerity program? The people of those countries, no matter their party association, are suffering due to their austerity programs and their debt went up not down. I have already taken over a thousand a month pay cut and cannot do any more. I say the games have to stop and I DON'T care which party started it or what each party has done in the past. FIX THE MESS BEFORE WE END UP LIKE EUROPE. Each side knows the approach must be balanced and they know what the balance is. Neither is willing to sacrifice their rich donors under the bus of progress. So the poor and near poor like me get thrown under the bus because we have no political clout. Well, I have feet and they can walk door to door and build a consensus on getting rid of both sides. Our founding fathers said a government by the people and for the people, its time that became true again.

Nina-Texas, you are so right. If they cannot do their jobs they need to be fired. They just don't think that we will remember when elections come around again. They don't listen to us unless its an election year. I don't know what would make them listen now that there are no immediate elections.

Yes Nina, but it will never happen because they have given themselves all the power to do it and write it into law. The exact same thing exists at the local, county, and state levels all across the country. In Michigan they had a millage put on the ballot because the Detroit Zoo was going broke and would close. The good citizens here voted it in, then found out that ALL of that money goes into their collecting agencies (cities, townships) general fund, to be used as they see fit. Mine used the money to increase their own salaries across the board by 10%. There was a huge outcry about it, but they showed the law on the books that makes it legal for them to do so, and we are out of luck.

The start to fix everything is to mandate term limits for members of congress. If the President can only serve 2 terms then the Congress and the Senate should be on the same platform. That would get rid of the old fatcats who have been stuffing thier pockets with special interest money and not compromising on what is right for this country. It takes compromise from both sides and neither is willing to budge. Write to DC and mandate that they follow the will of the people and impose term limits on the jerks who cannot do their jobs.

Yes, Nina, it is time to put their feet to the fire and call for a reduction in pay and benefits & furloughing all of them until they return to work and offer relief to Americans who are greatly impacted; i.e. Seniors' 'Meals on Wheels' program, Moms & babies in the WIC program, our National guard who will suffer 20% reduction in pay + furloughs....it goes on and on with hardship to so many more!

That was my favorite line, too.

1. It's all the president's fault.

2. We don't know how this works.

aka: Don't blame me, I'm an idiot.

Whatever it takes to protect big oil funding, I guess.

@bojap-- Guess what, neither do the democrats. Why dont you have a conversation with Harry Reid on the matter. OH, That's right, you dont hear a f-in thing from the senate or Harry and Nancy, unless they want to spend more money, or address any cuts which will affect the "Dignity" of their pay checks.

No one in the federal government gets a pass, unless they are for strictly following foundational Constituitional law. The government defines obese. Render the fat from that pig.

Is there anyone that believes there's not a single deduction that should be eliminated? How about gentlemen farmers who've never farmed anyway being paid millions not to farm when there's shortages of corn, wheat and soybeans due to the drought? What about ethanol subsidies for corn when corn supplies are so low cattlemen have to slaughter cattle early because they can't afford feed?

well maybe there just to busy doing the jobs of other they don't have time for bull NO MORE NONSENSE

For a family to survive they must do things to do so. This would include making cuts to things and also picking up some overtime, if possible, to bring in more revenue. How do I know this? Because I have had to do it before and my parents before me.

The country needs to cut but also revenue as well.

Cuts only will take longer to recover but having both cuts and additional revenue will speed up the recovery process. We ALL got into this mess together, now we need to get out of it together.

I agree, Dave. The problem is that their constituencies elected them to run the country, that was the founder's vision, but to keep being reelected, legislators had to bring home the bacon, as in PORK. Pork for you local district or state has become a giant wedgie in every national budget. And those that are proponents of pork and other special interest legislation, the lobbyists. Google spends $1 million per month lobbying in Washington and, I'm guessing, they are not really big players. 535 members of Congress - and their staffs - golf holidays for bureau or department heads...sounds a lot like Tammany Hall graft to me, the name just got sanitized. There are laws, winkwink, to prevent this (Menendez - won't help with pedophilia though) but they are routinely ignored and paid with alacrity and seeming heart felt remorse when caught, as that will help reduce further investigation.

Income in the U.S. dropped by 3.65% last year; Republicans have given Obama a tax increase, although there were no spending decreases in return. That sounds like more than a 6% cut in our budgets.

To start off on the right foot, EVERY member of the House and Senate, the White House politicians and cabinet along with their political support staff, upper management of the CIA, NSA, EPA, USDA, FCC, ATF, FBI, HUD and every other TLA (Three Letter Acronym) government agency should get a 6% cut in pay. This will, at least symbolically, brighten the public outlook and snap the politician's heads around. Worth a try.

Well said and sadly you are correct.

As someone IN Cantor's district who DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, I am frankly ashamed of my fellow constituents. I am ashamed that this poor excuse for a supposed human being is the one who is supposedly representing ME in Congress.

The illegal nature of the status quo in government crosses party lines. Those few in politics who know they are required to legislate within the lawful limits of foundational law are the only legitimate representatives of the People. The rest, from Presidents down, are criminals - know matter what they promise they're going to 'give' you.

All my life the buck has always stopped with whoever the President is. We give the credit are the blame to whoever the President is. Clinton got credit for the surplus and Bush got blame for the reccession and Iraq war. Bottom line is the buck stops with Obama its his siganuture on the bill that was signed into law. This is a fact we cant blame the repuks now unless we are going to give them credit for the surplus ( reouks controlled congress from 94 to 00). Also the dems voted for the war in Iraq and controlled congress from 06 to 10. This crap of changing the way we judge now is bogus. Bottom line we the american people voted for Obama and the buck stops with him.

You bet Evil -- Let's do whatever the President wants, let's spend like drunken sailors (apoligies to all drunken sailors) continue to run huge deficits and continue to pile on the national debt. Who cares that we bakrupt the country for our granchildren?

Gboy - You must be confused, Dubya isn't the President any more. Hasn't been for a while.

"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Darth Cheney.

upset - Your short list is does not serve as a waiver for bad governing by someone you like.

Yes, the president won by less than one percent after HIS DOJ forced all states to let illegal vote, people like the democratic poll leader in Ohio vote six time etc.....

But the republicans who are office WON THEIR ELECTIONS ALSO... So they have just as much right to vote their way even if YOUR FUERER thinks different...

The red states, who generally are much better off financially then the blue, have just as much right to do what they think is right, even if the neo-nazis's get out and make people "regret" what they say or do!!!!!!!

The sequester was Herr Obama's idea... He forced it down our throats by going out and playing golf, wasting 200k a pop touring the country stating how awful the country will be if HIS sequestration goes into effect and spewing polutants into the air with air force one and what comes out of HIS mouth!!!!

He could have gotten a bill that reduces spending, you know HE already got HIS tax raises, or even just finished off ONE BUDGET in the four years HE'S been president@!!!!!!!!!!!!

But no, doing real work, working with anybody to complete anything, or just NOT FORCING the release of HARDEN ILLEGAL ALLIEN CRIMINALS back into our country would have been good!!!! But not HIS-ROYAL-BRAT-IN-CHIEF!!!!

And I'm SO glad that Tiger Woods's golf game went to hell this week! After hanging around with Obama for a few days his game should have rotted@@@ Everything else around this SHEET-HEAD should rot after a few days!!!!!!!

Disagree! Boehner gave Obama 650 billion in taxes and hell Obama hasn't moved on one cut. Democrat moving to the Republican side!

Super = You seem to X out any recognition of a 30+ year increasing wealth gap as an issue to re-balance. This country has enabled the wealthiest to get wealthier while the country as a whole has remained stagnant, marginally improved or declined. Look at the gap charts. No recognition of this?

Agreed - lack of leadership on both sides. What we need is a balanced budget ammendment, at least then we know we aren't going to spend more than what we have.

For 12 years you have cut our income and you wonder why we can't pay our debts. Face it trickle down doesn't work. The Republicans are wrong. Cut waste, fine. Cut subsidy's, fine. Cut congress pay, Fine. Let's get at it.

I agree with you, super x. While I am an Obama fan, I'm deeply disappointed that the democrats have yet to propose a specific spending cut as part of a "balanced" approach to the problem. I can understand why. Their voter base would hate them for it, just like many republicans hate tax increases or any new taxes.

Compromise starts with proposals and counter proposals which then can be refined until an agreement is reached, but where are any, just one?, specific spending reduction proposal from the democrats?

It was Obama that was elected to lead the nation not Boehner. Obviously Obama lacks the will or the ability to do so. Obama proposed the sequester, had plenty of time to try and fix it. Republicans gave Obama a tax increase on the rich two months ago. Spending reductions are needed and long overdue. Republicans offered to give Obama flexibility on how the sequestered is managed. He declined because it would have reduced his ability to take cheap shots and photo ops going forward.

You feel better but none of what you propose will happen. It is what it is. Have not supported Boehner but he has a point that after 650 billion in tax increases why hasn't Obama made some cuts?? The Democrats want to save the world and the money isn't there to do it! Glad the cuts took effect!

@super x: Agreed. -$85b, +$650b. Cut more and trim the fat. Wokfare, not Welfare - states will now benefit by decreasing costs and Federal funds requirements while cleaning up communities, socializing with others, and increasing the education for those who can't read their own diploma (for those that have one).

I agree with you that obama and his gang of so called congressmen need to feel the burden that they have placed on the American People. It is obama who is supposed to work with congress (BOTH SIDES) and bring up some sensible plans that all can work with! Actually, the president and the congress should all be sequestered until they accomplish their task at hand....NO MORE BREAKS NO MORE VACATIONS, NO MORE PARTIES, and NO MORE PLAYING GAMES WHILE AMERICANS ARE SUFFERING UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS' INABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS!!

The president and Congress should LEAD BY EXAMPLE!! They should NOT get a paycheck until they do their job and get this country back on track towards prosperiety! They should NOT receive any kind of reimbursement for the time it takes them to get their mess straightened out!! After all, that is basically what they are doing to the American People so what's "good for the gander to is good for the goose"! I would be willing to bet that these so called leaders would get their act together and get their job done!!

I don't believe that laying the burden on the wealthy is the answer to the problem since most of them are big employers and they will take their business to where it will be profitable for them. Along with them will go the jobs that currently are filled with the citizens of this country, which means higher unemployment for this country!!

People really need to WAKE UP and realize that this current administration doesn't have a clue as to how to fix this mess AND the president `is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT PASSING THE BLAME TO EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT HIMSELF...HE'S THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING WITH BOTH SIDES OF CONGRESS RATHER THAN TRAVELING AROUND THE COUNTRY CAMPAINING, PLAYING HIS GAMES, AND CUTTING DOWN THE REPUBLICANS FOR HIS LACK OF ABILITY TO BE A PRESIDENT!! OBAMA HAD 4 YEARS TO LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY AND HE CHOSE TO TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD AND RUN UP THE TAB THAT HE EXPECTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PAY! iT'S TIME THAT HE STARTS TO WORK WITH CONGRESS OR GET OUT!!

david122 - Some people are working to fix 'the problem' - which is federal government overreach and manipulation of the law. Fire those who support overreach. Hire more of the ones supporting the law of the land.

Yeah, they only care about balancing the budget -- who needs that?

@schwtz72, Yeah, fire reid, his staff, and all the Democrats. You'll save alot of Money! The Democrats just want to keep the greedy, hand em out freebie's coming and argue against any sound proposals the republicans put forth. I am so sick of do nothing (no budget passed ) Harry Reid and his Posse, and Pelosi, (my jobs "Dignity") will be affected by a cut in my paycheck. Your point is what schwtz72? Your president signed this sequester into law. Signing means he agreed to it. He received 650/ in revenue from the most recent tax hike, yet can't compromise on cuts? Sorry, but you libs are clueless, the president needs to lead.

That's right! Just roll over and do whatever the President wants! Who cares if he bankrupts the country? I mean, he pandered to the 40+% of the population by promising they won't pay any income tax - and they think that is a good thing!

Just curious, IF a republican had won the election, would you be calling for your elected democrat representatives to lay down and just do what the president wants???

I know! When do we get our free stuff?

I want my X-box.

I know, but kids that hypocritical are entertaining inregards to the candy!