E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn an opening bid for possible negotiations with House Republicans that might lead to a compromise budget resolution this summer, Senate Democrats on Wednesday formally unveiled their budget blueprint for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
The Democratic entry into the budget fray will help shape the same kind of battle in Washington over taxes and spending that has become a familiar sight in recent years.
The plan, offered by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., would seek $975 billion in spending reductions over the next 10 years as well as $975 billion in new tax revenue, which she said would be raised by “closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the tax code for those who need it the least,” according to Murray’s prepared remarks opening her committee’s consideration of the plan.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s projections, from 2014 to 2023, the federal government will spend $47 trillion.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd shares a preview of the budget.
So Murray’s $975 billion in spending reductions, if enacted, would amount to about a 2 percent cut over the full 10-year period.
The CBO estimates that federal revenues will amount to $40.2 trillion over the 2014-2023 period, so Murray’s tax increases would be about a 2.4 percent increase on that CBO forecast.
Echoing some of President Barack Obama’s ideas from a 2010 infrastructure investment proposal, from his 2011 American Jobs Act, and from his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2013, Murray’s blueprint also calls for a $100 billion stimulus package that would include hiring workers to repair the “highest priority deteriorating infrastructure, and fixing crumbling schools and installing critical educational technology, like broadband, that our students need to succeed.”
As Obama did in 2010, Murray calls for the creation of a public-private infrastructure bank which would raise capital to pay for the building of highways, transit projects, and other public facilities.
The House Republicans’ budget plan offered Tuesday by Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, calls for a redesign of the Medicare system beginning in 2024, a cut in the growth of future spending on the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor, and cuts in the national debt.
Ryan’s plan aims to lower the ratio of publicly held debt to gross domestic product (GDP), to 55 percent by 2023, down from its current level, 76 percent of GDP.
Ryan’s plan seeks no tax increases.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., expresses his concern over a $1.5 trillion tax increase that he says is included in Senate Democrats' fiscal plan.
In response to Ryan, Murray said, “We reject calls to dismantle or privatize Medicare by voucherizing it.”
Murray also rebuffed Republican calls in the House GOP budget plan for repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
The Murray plan also would scrap the automatic spending cuts, also known as the sequester, which are required by the 2011 Budget Control Act, and replace the money from the sequester with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts different from the ones required by the sequester.
The Senate Budget Committee is scheduled to vote on her plan Thursday, followed by a floor debate next week.
“I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will join us at the bargaining table and we can work together toward the responsible and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve,” Murray said.
But she added, in a slap at Ryan, the 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate, that
His fiscal approach “was on the ballot last November, and voters across the country rejected it.”
Senate Democrats and House Republicans at this point appear so far apart in their budget plans that the chances of them devising a compromise budget plan seem minimal.
Under a budget process known as “reconciliation,” tax increases and changes in entitlement programs could be approved with a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 vote requirement needed to advance legislation.
Most federal spending is mandatory and is on a kind of automatic pilot and isn’t subject to annual appropriations decisions by Congress since the benefits in the entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare go to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria.
But nonetheless the congressional budget resolution is a statement of policy goals and principles for each party. And a budget resolution can sometimes serve as a device for raising or lowering spending levels on discretionary spending items such as the National Park Service.
Leave a Comment:
Tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend. Debt and Deficit - unchanged
At least they put one out there after what? Three years?
Their are no spending cuts as headline purports Lies Lies Lies
What are the spending cuts?
What are the entitlement reforms?
TO: Q22 who wrote:
"Deficits don't matter." [Republican Dick Cheney]
Based on passed proposals (both Rep and Dem) the numbers used for growth will be unrealistic, making the overall plan look like it would work.
TO: News or propaganda who wrote:
Well, going straight for the theft of American Workers' retirement money are you?
They're going to pay down the debt by confiscating 401Ks and other private retirement plans and use that money to pay down the debt.
The "reform" is, if you come after our Social Security retirement money, we have the right to come after your 401Ks.
American Girl
Sorry to inform you but YOUR money(SS) was stolen by Congress starting back in 1965 or so. You can thank LBJ for unlocking the Social Security lock box.
The return of troops from Afghanistan should not be the only spending reduction, it is already a given.
Where's the beef?
We started this mess with Reagan's tax breaks for the rich supply side trickle down coupled with feeding hogs at the trough with the Pentagon, now the GOP is STILL beating that dead horse.
Republican history: Cut, Cut, Cut, Spend, Spend, Spend = Economic crash and current deficit....
Seeking - reform entitlements so that they will actually be around in the future. Instead of out of money and being even more of a burden on the American taxpayer.
maybe nows the time to pay back the IOUs in the SS and put the lock back on the SS box...
When you are running $168 billion deficit and have a growing economy they don't matter because the growth will take care of the shortfall over time. When you are running a $1 Trillion deficit and the economy is stagnant then, yes, they matter an awful lot.
um, did you even READ the article? It's in like the first two sentences... WTF?!?
TO: slodon who wrote:
Wrong. Democrat President Bill Clinton replenished Social Security and carried a $40 billion dollar surplus in Social Security when he left office in January 2001.
AmericanGirl For Your Info Cheney no longer works for the government please update your mind, I know that is a hard thing for Liberals to do because you actually need one
Yes Slodon
LBJ unlocked the box because he didn't want to raise taxes to pay for the Nam
So less than 2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years? This is a terrible plan.
In response to Peppermint Patty, Main Street Americans TOTALLY REJECTS your Progressive budget by dismantling the military, calling the draw-down in Afghanistan a "SPENDING CUT", and INCREASING TAXES on Middle America a good thing.
NOTHING the Progressives submit will reduce our National DEBT nor National DEFICIT.
Typical Progressive.
TO: Q22 who wrote:
["Deficits don't matter." [Republican Dick Cheney]
Is that you, Dick Cheney?
I thought that meant as long as Republicans are running deficits, which they ALWAYS do, it's ok, but when a Democrat is in office it's time to criticize.
when the troops come home what will they do? There are no jobs to come back to. This will be more of a drain on the economy but I'm all for the troops coming home and maybe put on our boarders. I say this but wonder where in the article this was mentioned. What I read about the 100 billion for infrastructure will not go very far but it does give a fuzzy feeling and sounds as if it will help
Tax cuts DO NOT create jobs. Taxes are at a 70 year low.
I thought that meant as long as Republicans are running deficits, which they ALWAYS do, it's ok, but when a Democrat is in office it's time to criticize.
Its never ok to run up huge deficits, I don't care who is in office. It's bad economics. The republicans are as guilty as the Democrats and thats why things will never change.
American girl glad you like crooked politicians taking care of your retirment money (SS) and yor health your such a brave little girl, do you also have a crook running your checking account?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_social_security_trap.html
Just think you could actually do better without the government pacifier (read the article)
TO: viknat who wrote:
Republicans trying to re-write 8 years of corruption and domestic terrorism the American People suffered through, and now Paul Ryan is trying to figure out how to stick us with the bills Cheney rang up too.
Republicans will call any increase in revenue "raising taxes", Democrats will call it "cutting tax expenditures". Okay, so now we have two plans - neither of which has enough votes to pass. Next we'll get a series of number crunchers and politicians telling us why one (or the other) plan is (or is not) stiuationally appropriate - and Republicans already lost that debate with the November election.
TO: viknat who wrote:
Bill Clinton replenishing Social Security is "crooked" to you; and Republicans raiding Social Security to pay for their Lie Called the War on Iraq is what?
If there's no money in Social Security, which I vehemently deny, then it's only because it was replaced with an I.O.U. signed by George "Curveball" Bush.
You got your a$$ on backwards.
To the Progressives:
That is almost as good as:
Yep, this is the way
LiberalsProgressives argue:Then, it that doesn't work, just call the opposition names.
What is becoming clear:
If the public wants Washington to do something, they will need to get a republican in the white house. This is because democrats actually value the will of the voters, and believe that compromise is the method for getting things done. So even if dems control the Senate, they will negotiate with the pubs and get something done - which will be job-killing austerity and more strain on the middle class.
If the public wants Washington to do what the public wants, they will need to put democrats in control of the House. This is because republicans don't care about what the public wants, and they think that compromise is a dirty word. So if pubs are in control of any branch, they will burn down the government before they'll allow the public will - which according to the polls is a measured, balanced approach to deficit reduction and economic growth with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts - to move forward.
Once again liberals show why we have CBO baselines. The actual numbers against the CBO baseline are 800 billion in deficit reduction: 1 Trillion in tax increases and 200 BIllion in actual spending increases.
Democrats are once again counting cuts to spending that never existed, such as savings from not fighting a war. The CBO has laughed at this routine each time it has been used.
Against the CBO baseline, spending increases. All the cuts in the Senate proposal are fake, not in the CBO baseline.
Why must liberals lie? Tax is expected to be at 19.1% of GDP next year, this is 1% above the historic average. Stop lying.
If I have to choose between tax and spend Democrats and borrow and spend Republicans I'll opt for the former. At least it's honest.
This may shock you, but liberals are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar.
Or say, Ryan using the already planned 700 Billion Medicare REduction in Obamacare and calling it a new cut in his plan....Sorry...but...FAIL!
What a delusional moron... Oblunder is borrowing at a rate that no one ever has....
What are the odds that the Senate will actually pass a budget this year?
Americangirl.... do you have proof to your claim that Clinton replenished SS? If you do please provide a link.
Ido:
What is your problem with Biden's statement? Look online, or walk into any gun shop, and ask about home defense. You will find near unanimous agreement that the shotgun is far superior to any other weapon for this purpose. They pack a huge wallop, and you don't have to have lots of training to use it effectively. I disagree with the double-barreled variety, however. The 4-1 pump action 12-guage with .00 shot gives you four chances to blow away your intruder with enormous power, you can leave it loaded without a shell in the chamber so that it's both safe and quickly accessed, and if an intruder doesn't run as fast as they can when they hear you rack that thing, then they deserve what they get when you pull the trigger. Sane people will not wait around when they hear that sound.
The full Darth Cheney quote is this: "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
Reagan TRIPLED the national debt! Tripled it! Cheney's quote is very clear. He stated very clearly that he believes deficits don't matter. Excusing that nonsense and blaming the other party is silly. We had a balanced budget under the last democrat. Bush the lessor exploded spending and the size of government and every republican was in lock step behind him. Everybody knows that. Blame Obama all you want - the guy inherited a $1.4 Trillion annual shortfall and republican sponsored policy that extends deficits long into the future. Ryan's plan is all smoke and mirrors. Cutting taxes on the rich will never solve this problem. It will make it much worse.
Sorry, Jesse, you didnt disprove Charlies assertion. Wages have been flat ort falling 30 years now. We have lowered TAxes including the Bush TAx cuts which did relatively little.
Its consumer spending that is the culprit. Corporations, even if given a lowewr rate wont hire just because they have lower taxes. That just hasnt proved to be true. Consumers with flat or falling wages, outsorcing, H1B insourcing, automation and the refusal of the GOP to up the minimum wage just means that WE CANT AFFORD TO BUY PRODUCTS BEYOND SUBSISTENCE LEVEL.
Honestly, if you weree a Corporation and we lowered your taxes but no one is buying your product because they can no longer afford it, then would you hire anyone? The answer is no, but you would do what every other business does these days, pocket the money for the execs or leverage the extra money to automate or outsource or elminate the labor.
The problem is that Workers arent assets anymore, they are costs to be reduced, outsourced, automated or eliminated. What happens when we say we cant afford the products anymore and stop buying. Then all your tax cuts dont mean @!$%# (as if they ever did)
Thank you Senate Democrats..., but we pay enough taxes already... Respectfully, The American People
Theohwy101OR
We are currently borrowing or printing over 40% of what we spend. Your post is a mis-informed, yet often repeated lefty talking point.
American Girl-724855
TO: slodon who wrote:
Wrong.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year
Year
Ending
National Debt
Deficit
FY1993
09/30/1993
$4.411488 trillion
FY1994
09/30/1994
$4.692749 trillion
$281.26 billion
FY1995
09/29/1995
$4.973982 trillion
$281.23 billion
FY1996
09/30/1996
$5.224810 trillion
$250.83 billion
FY1997
09/30/1997
$5.413146 trillion
$188.34 billion
FY1998
09/30/1998
$5.526193 trillion
$113.05 billion
FY1999
09/30/1999
$5.656270 trillion
$130.08 billion
FY2000
09/29/2000
$5.674178 trillion
$17.91 billion
FY2001
09/28/2001
$5.807463 trillion
$133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Blah, blah, BS budget plan from the leading liar of the Dem senators - lie to me Reid!
Harry Reid must have been home sick cuddling with his fig tree. We all know he is incapable of letting anything past his desk.
There is money is Social security but the problem is that funds are being drawn out faster than they are being put in. That's why SS is supposed to be insolvent in 20 or so years. There are less and less workers supporting more and more retirees.
Its about time we have a budget that is Feasible, Dem's Rule for a better America !!!
Upset:
You're almost right. Obama inherited a $1.2 - $1.3 trillion annual deficit (there is disagreement among credible economists on that range). He did add about $100 billion to the deficit in stimulus spending in '09, which many (of course, not republicans) credit with turning around the economic slide. Since then he has cut the deficit by about $350 billion/year, and the Obamacare medicare savings, tax rate increases and the sequester will cut the deficit substantially more this year.
Same old Democratic party. Tax and spend...tax and spend...tax and spend.
We don't have a revenue problem. Per person revenues have gone up 33% in real dollars between 1970 and 2012.
The problem is per person spending which has exploded by nearly 100% in real dollars in that same time period. Government is now twice as large per person as it was just 4 decades ago.
Had we kept the same historical revenue changes since 1970 and had only tied spending growth to a reasonable benchmark like population growth plus inflation, we would now be sitting on a $17 trillion surplus (and growing at $1 trillion per year) instead of being $17 trillion in debt dragging on the economy like we have now.
Part of the 99%? An alternative would be having the nation with $0 in debt and have the 99% lower-income pay no income tax at all with only the top 1% owing any income tax unleashing $1 trillion in private spending and savings every single year into our economy. That's more than a 2009 "stimulus" acting on our economy ANNUALLY! Forget 7.7% unemployment and no health insurance. Our economy would be BOOMING. The job market would be a sellers market and employers would be begging for workers.
As Wimpy in the old Archie comic books used to say:
"I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today".
2-Lane Gypsy
So far, so good.
...Still looking good
And this is where we go off course. Wages have been decreasing due to the fact that they haven't kept up with inflation, which since 1990 is about 80%. The only wages that have kept up with that rate are the very wealthy, and you guessed it, minimum wage. The rest of us are stuck somewhere in the middle and are being hit hard by the hidden tax, inflation. A $50,000/year job in 1990 would need to pay almost $90,000 today. Inflation is the problem.
Again, demand wouldn't have decreased so drastially if not for the devaluation of the dollar.
End the Federal Reserve.
His fiscal approach “was on the ballot last November, and voters across the country rejected it.”
Only 53% of them rejected it. And at least 10% of those are moochers off the federal government. And no, that 10% doesn't include the working poor or retirees like Romney's 47% number does. They are professional moochers who support the Democratic party because they love the free ride.
I love how some politicians feel like a 53%-47% margin is a mandate.
"Deficits don't matter." [Republican Dick Cheney]"
Over spend your checking account and see what your bank says about that...
I could have sworn Bush and Cheney were in office as the economy went to hell in a hand basked...so much for deficits don't matter and "growth will take care of the shortfall over time"
Rob Scan
Court appointed on a small margin of victory than that was good enough for a mandate during the last president's first term.
Both budgets from the left and the right are so far apart that neither will likely be accepted and approved.
Satanick said:
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but in the Social Security Trust fund there is nothing, zero, zilch, nada, zip, empty, and gone?
Maybe I should quit beating around the bush. There is nothing there. The Social Security Trust fund is filled with Treasury Bonds which, so you know, has no value. Why can I say that? Let me explain.
The Treasury Bonds ARE an asset that is true but is also a liability. It is an asset to the holder but a liability to the one who has issued it. In other words since the United States is both the asset AND liability holder the value is zero. There is no MONEY in the Social Security Trust Fund AND there is no VALUE in the Social Security Trust Fund.
I teach college economics and this is how I explain it to my students:
Say a family puts a $20 bill into a cookie jar every week and after 40 years there is $40,000 in the jar. The husband thinks it would be a good idea to go on an Alaskan Cruise for their 40th anniversary and bring the children along as well. Total cost? $40,000.
The husband decides to borrow it from the cookie jar so takes the $40,000 out and replaces it with an IOU written on a piece of paper that says "I owe the cookie jar $40,000". So they go on the trip and have a fantastic time.
They get back and the husband doesn't want to go back to work and tells the wife "I think I am going to retire" and she asks "where will we get the money?". He tells her with his pension from work AND the $40,000 in the cookie jar they will be fine. She says "what money in the cookie jar?". He tells her there is $40,000 in the cookie jar. NO THERE ISN'T!! There is nothing IN THERE!!
He says "of course there is something in there - I put an IOU in there for $40,000 and I am GOOD for it!!". But the problem is he has both the asset (the IOU) AND the liability (the IOU). They offset. The ONLY way it gets paid back is if HE pays it back. So he can't spend money not in the cookie jar that he doesn't put BACK in there FIRST!!
There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund....................
Thank God for the Democrat party looking out for the American middle class !!! God works in mystery ways for the better !!!
Congratulations to our President for watching over our Country and keeping the Republican party in Checkmate !!!
A balanced approach!!
314159:
"Over spend your checking account and see what your bank says about that..."
??????
Tell your local businesses they can't borrow money to invest in new growth and see how many of them go out of business...
...which is exactly what happened in '08 when the credit markets froze. That worked well, don't you think?
Probusiness
So basically the government is going to have to borrow (or print) money to pay out the treasuries it owes itself?
Breaking news:
.
We have a Pope
.
Pope Francis hails from Argentina
.
Happy St. Patrick's Day, President O'Bama.
.
Pro, I believe you're confused. It was Popeye not Archie.
Hey Pigotry, thats old news, "Bonjour" !!!
Liberals complained endlessly about the spending when Bush was in office. But now that Obama is spending the country into oblivion, all you hear from liberals is a 12 year old quote that deficits don't matter as justification for Obama piling massive debt on the backs of every American for generations to come. Blame, excuses, and gross exaggerations is the engine the drives the Democrat Party. Senator Obama claimed raising the debt ceiling "represented a failure of leadership," but President Obama now claims "we don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt." Of course by the time we reach an actual debt crisis it will be too late, but that presents no problem for Obama who will be out of office by then.
Democrats budget is for middle class America !!!
Republicans budget is for the Super 1% Mega Rich !!!
2% in deficit reduction? This is an obvious none starter. Her budget is a bigger joke than Ryans!
Satanick said:
The quick answer is "Yes". It is either paid back with surpluses (which we know what the chance of THAT happening is) or we must add to the amount borrowed each year to cover that. Keep in mind we still have SS/Medicare payments coming IN but it is not enough. We are short about $400 Billion a year now so to pay full benefits to those "entitled" this year we must borrow that $400 Billion.
But what is more scary is we are actually PRINTING money and lending to ourselves. So when we make up this $400 billion shortfall for SS/Medicare we are actually PRINTING the money and using that. That has me more scared than our deficit because the LAST step of a country's financial collapse is when they are forced to PRINT money to cover their bills - and it looks like we are there............
Seaskip, keep up the ignorant hyperbole rhetoric without any facts to back it up.
Tell me this, in a few years when interest rates aer back up to 3 and 4% and the interest on the $10 trillion in new Obama debt is more every year than we spend in SS then what? What do you cut then?
Liberals can't think past their nose.
TJohn: OOOOOOPPPPSSSS!!! You are right - that was from Popeye and not Archie. My mistake!!
ProBusness
You keep bragging about your job teaching economics. Why do you have so much time for posting asinine comments on Newsvine?
Paul Ryan's budget has Tea hangover all over it and puts the Screws to hard working Americans !!!
Seaskip, i see you either failed or never took Econ 101... what happens when we have to pay 4% interest on $20 Trillion in debt?
Facts and logic... it's amazing some people can ignore it.
Obamacare is going to increase unemployment drastically. As CEO of a service organization, 151 of the total 480 employees, will be cut back from 39 hours to 27 because of this stupid ill-conceived ACA. They never considered, or didn't know, the implications of their stupid actions. Pelosi said it best.."we need to pass it to see what's in it". Well you passed it , now live with the consequences. Back to my personal situation. Many of these people have worked for my organization for 20 plus years. I know most of them. Before you libs take a shot at me for doing what I have to do, consider this. We are reimbursed by Medicaid which just barely covers the costs of providing the service. If I made each of these employees full time with medical coverage, it would cost my agency 1.6 million dollars which would more than double the unit cost. As a basic business principle, You can't sell a widget for $10 that costs you $20. Nationwide this piece of vote buying BS legislation will costs millions of job for the people that Hussein says he's trying to portect. I have a friend who owns his own business and employs 55 fulltime employees. At least he did, within the next six weeks he will employ 47 or 48. He will then not be subject to ACA regulations. Not since Jimmy Carter, who himself was a compassionate caring man, has the federal government been run by such an array of incompetent and in some cases, ignorant people. AND BEFORE YOU ASSOCIATE ME WITH THE RIGHT WING ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY IDIOTS, I think they are just as dangerous as you left wing liberal idealistic idiots. I have always thought for myself and refuse to let anyone tell me who I should vote for or what I should think. AND ENYONE WHO DOES IS A FOOL!!!!!
Looks like the slap down of republicans last November did not get the message across, they still think they are the ones running the federal government. It looks like the only way to get Washington to work on behalf of the American people and not the Lords and Barons is to make the Taliban t-publicans go extinct.
Rob Scan, do you have any real support for your claim that 10% of Obama voters are "professional moochers", or is that your personal opinion? I have been wondering about that because when I talk to Republicans they are all certain that most of the people receiving government assistance are freeloaders, but when I look at who is actually receiving assistance, I find very few who are not in real need. If you have a source for your 10% number, I would like to see it.
Chip: You make a good point that is somewhat related.
Many don't realize that we are PRINTING and lending to ourselves $1 Trillion a year. Now the question is "why"? Because if the Fed authorizes and increases the money supply he can keep interest rates incredibly low (there are SOME limitations but too much to explain here). But end result is we are lending to ourselves for less than 2% and is the reason why interest rates are at historical lows.
But again I ask "why"? Because if we went to the global financial markets to borrow even if we COULD borrow $1 Trillion we would have to pay 3%, 4%, 5%, or even higher.
Right now our annual interest on the debt is about $250 Billion or about average of 1.5% annual interest on our outstanding debt. Even if we stopped borrowing MORE money today if interest rates would push up to, say, 5% our annual interest on the debt would be nearly $1 Trillion by itself (and that would be WITHOUT borrowing any more than we owe right now which is not likely or even possible).
Our borrowing is now out of control and is unsustainable. We now have no mathematical way to ever pay it back (at least in the next 40 to 50 years). We are in deep deep trouble because once interest rates rise just a couple percentage points...........
Ron42, your post is a clear demonstration why tying health care to employment is unsustainable.
Q: Why do I have to cut my budget when democrats take over?
A: Tax increases! (their gain is my loss)
Time to turn this around.
Seaskip,
What's your deal, you're like some sort of cyber Burma Shave series of signs that pops up periodically along a thread advertising for the Democratic party. Most liberals at least try to act like they look at things objectively, but you are 100% in the tank for Democrats regardless of what they say or do. I'll give you an "A" for loyalty, but a total failure for critical thinking.
Don: My class doesn't start until 7pm tonight so I have some time to teach some of you who have no idea of how an economy works. I like to call it my "community service".
Ron42
What if you had your employees go to the health insurance exchange and just pay the penalty on them (151-30)*$2,000 = $242,000/year? Not that I'm a fan of the ACA, or think that it's right for a business to have to pay such a penalty, but you have to look at the actual cost of a decision vs. the benefit. It doesn't have to cost $1.6 million.
The decades old mantra from the Democrats is that they will gladly cut spending next Tuesday, for some tax increases today. Which seems to prove that the old is forever new, as they are still making those same promises today. Funny that liberals complain about the spending under Republican presidents, and yet every time a balanced budget amendment has come before Congress it is the Democrats that have voted it down. It has been over 40 years since a Democrat controlled Congress put forth a balanced federal budget proposal, and yet liberals claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Blame, excuses, and gross exaggerations is the engine that drives the Democrat Party.
Pro
So you teach these impressionable young students lies about how well trickle down economics works and how if the rich get their taxes cut enough they will create jobs? You should be fired for dereliction of duty.
Hard to believe liberals are still trying to sell this number. I'm not a huge Bush fan but the Democrats purposefully refused to pass a budget until Bush was out of office because they knew Bush wouldn't go for the massive spending increases and that Obama would rubber-stamp them, which is what happened. Obama may have actually inherited an $800-$900 billion deficit but it was him and the Dems that pushed it upward by 50% to $1.2-1.3 trillion.
As noted above he added much more than $100 billion to the deficit. Also it's almost like you have never heard of a business cycle. The "stimulus" hasn't turned around the economic slide, in fact evidence is that Obama's policies have slowed recovery. We are now in the weakest economic recovery in US history when it should be one of the strongest. Historically big dips lead to big bounces. A list of the deepest US recessions correlated to a list of recoveries shows the deepest recessions have produced the largest recoveries in a nearly a one-to-one correlation. That is except for this one. In what should have been the second largest bounce since at least 1900, we instead have the flattest "recovery". There are only 139,300 more people working now than were working the month before he took office 4 whole years ago.
Yet he is still producing deficits of over $1 trillion a year. By the end of this year, deficits will have been more in his 5 years in office than all previous 216 years of this nation's history combined.
Right now our annual interest on the debt is about $250 Billion or about average of 1.5% annual interest on our outstanding debt. Even if we stopped borrowing MORE money today if interest rates would push up to, say, 5% our annual interest on the debt would be nearly $1 Trillion by itself (and that would be WITHOUT borrowing any more than we owe right now which is not likely or even possible).
Our borrowing is now out of control and is unsustainable. We now have no mathematical way to ever pay it back (at least in the next 40 to 50 years). We are in deep deep trouble because once interest rates rise just a couple percentage points...........
Thats why the government is so adamant about saying there is no inflation so they can try to inflate the debt away. So the government is not going to legitimately default, it is going to default via printing money to pay off their debts. The Fed can never stop printing money at this point because our economy is completely dependent on these artificially low interest rates. Once inflation is so obvious that the government can't cover it up the Fed will have no tools to fight inflation because it can't raise interest rates.
Please disclose what organization. I bet you have a nice hefty salary, but refuse to give your employees benefits. I won't do business with those types of organizations, so please let us know who you are. We are the only civilized country that does not provide basic care for our citizens. That is pathetic. So while we are giving billions to Israel (they have universal health care), we give billions in subsidies to oil companies, we do not even take care of our own citizens. How pathetic. I am fortunate, I have an employer that pays for part of my healthcare and I pay part, but I certainly cannot afford it on my own. I lost a friend to cancer. She had healthcare until she got sick. Her employer had to lay her off because she was too sick to work. It was nice he layed her off so she could get unemployment, but she lost her benefits. If you can cut that many hours, then maybe you don't need that many employees.
Carebake, your comment is 100% false. By law any hospital has to provide HC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cheney quote...Two can play that game American Girl.
Don: I teach my students what every economics textbook in the country states and what every college level economics course teaches (both undergraduate AND graduate) which is tax increases reduce investment and GDP and tax reductions increase investment and GDP. I teach them what economic theory teaches and what EVERY economics textbook in the country states.
Of course you must not have ever taken an economics class (or if you did you must not have opened and read your textbook?).
------------------------ the 2010 infrastructure investment proposal ---------------------
.
These are jobs for illegal immigrants paid for with YOUR tax dollars. The govt won't allow workers to be verified for citizenship and illegal immigrants are allowed to join unions. They pulled this same trick with the stimulus jobs. Not only do they want to give the illegals citizenship, they want YOU to provide a living for them.
Satanick: So true and the U.S. could NEVER default. That is a scare tactic and just not true. We could print $17 Trillion tomorrow and pay off the debt - but then no person or country in the world would lend us ANY money and that $100 in your wallet wouldn't even buy a Snicker's candy bar............
The great economist Milton Friedman often would describe inflation as a "tax on the population". Because every time we increase the money supply the amount our CURRENT dollars will buy decreases so the government just took a portion of your money. But get ready for massive inflation in the coming years IF we don't resolve this issue of irrational and irresponsible spending.........
To american girl... Please tell me when President Clinton "replenished" social security - you are the only one that knows about it - fill us in.
You also said he created a surplus - then why did we still have debt when he left office??? I don't understand where this info is coming. The US treasury does not have "surplus" - nor o they have deficit - THAT BELONGS TO US, THE PEOPLE!
And your comments regarrding the 1% - did you comment on the MSNBC article from yesterday showing how the wealthiest americans pay the majority of the tax burden
A reasonable budget from the Democrat Senate is met with the usual derision from the right wing. Ryan's budget was vetoed by the people last November, but here it is again almost unchanged. I speculate that the Senate budget has some room for negotiation. Can the same be said for Ryan's plan?
Ron42,
I wish that the ACA had been a plan for universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world has, but it's not. It's still better than the old system. Universal health care is the only way to keep durg and medical device manufacturers from constantly jacking up the prices. Then the insurance companies pile on by jacking up their rates as well. There's really very little competitive pressure to lower prices, these companies are all happier when the prices are high and rising. US healthcare costs are 8% of GDP higher than our G-8 friends.
Ed: You think healthcare is expensive now? Just wait until it is free.
Ed, a reasonable budget? What are you smoking?
Ed,
If you think you the sole reason why HC costs in the US are higher than the other G-8 nation is because of HI companies, drug companies and medical MFG's... you need lot's of help.
I'm sure the high obesity rate and overall laziness of our kids and adults has NOTHING to do with it.
Pro biz,
You might be qualified to teach a course in condescension, but if you think that all U level economics textbooks agree with you, then you are unqualified to teach Economics.
50 years of data shows that your supply side, trickle down, laffer curve voodoo, is wealth redistribution upwards to the rich with very little benefit to the overall economy.
NJSteve, Clinton's surplus was on the deficit, not the debt. There is a difference. When Clinton left office we were bringing in more in taxes each year than we were spending, thus creating a surplus. If we had continued down that path and applied the annual surplus to the debt, it would eventually have cleared the debt. Instead GWB decided to give the surplus back to the people in tax cuts, thus eliminating the surplus. Then he started two wars, cut taxes on the wealthy twice, and created an expensive medicare prescription drug plan, with no provision for paying for any of it, and the rest is history.
Biden - BUY A SHOTGUN:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=biden+and+women+shooting+shotguns&tnr=21&vid=95cfe16a0db9f9bacf14435c4e225782&l=119&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DU.4776541412852061%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmarylandwhitetail.websitetoolbox.com%2Fpost%2FWomen-shooting-shotguns-amp-Ar15s...Biden-lied.-6227582&sigr=138ug2m1a&tt=s&tit=Women+shooting+shotguns+%26+Ar15%26%2339%3Bs...Biden+lied.+-&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dbiden%2Band%2Bwomen%2Bshooting%2Bshotugns%26fr%3Dyfp-t-645&sigb=12ors3d8j
Chip,
Where did I say those were the only reasons? The lack of preventative health care for a large % of the population is an obvious one. Unrestrained greed is the main cause of the increases.
Ed: So let me see if I get this straight. We have hundreds of authors who have Phd's in economics and write college textbooks (of which I have used many when I have taught over the years) but somehow YOU happen to be the might messiah that knows more than them.........
Mark Twain said it best when he said "Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut at the expense of looking like a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
It MIGHT be a good idea to heed the advice of our good friend Mark Twain.
Interest on the National Debt.
President Clinton: $18.9 Billion.
President Bush: $16.6 Billion.
Pertaining to the Budget Surplus (Budget Deficit):
already posted by Bill1488 post# 1.44.
"But get ready for massive inflation in the coming years IF we don't resolve this issue of irrational and irresponsible spending........." It's already started Pro. I agree with what you said and would add that DC [both sides] is almost out of control right now and so is Wall Street,and if in fact "inflation" really takes off, it won't be pretty.
And we're going to payoff the debt by privatizing Social Security, starving poor school children, and throwing the economy into another great depression? Sounds like another "F*** you, I got mine" comment...thanks but no thanks.
Again with this big government bull@!$%#. Look Mike, I know you're not stupid. You may sound like an idiot, but you really aren't; I know that, everybody here knows that. You know as well as I do that the reason we are running trillion dollar deficits is because the economy is still in the doldrums. When unemployment is high, businesses don't make enough of a profit (at least the small ones) to pay corporate tax, income tax liabilities go down, and more people rely on social insurance. Half of the current budget deficit (or around $500 billion) is the result of the economy being moderately depressed, and the other half are the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations (although Obama's effect is much smaller than Bush's).
What you initially say is correct: this is the slowest recovery we've ever had. And our economic recoveries are going to get a lot slower. What you miss (perhaps because of your political doctrine) is that recoveries have been getting slower ever since the 1980s. You can see that when the federal government had to turn to a housing bubble in the early 2000s in order to get out of the stock-market collapse of 2000 and 2001. The reason why recoveries are getting slower is simple; our economy has become unstable. Too much wealth is in the hands of the rich, and since there is too much wealth and not enough productive investments to funnel that wealth into, the rich turn to speculation and risky "investments." In the old days they called that rent-seeking, or what we would call speculation. This "rent seeking" does not create new wealth, but merely transfers wealth and passes it off as added value. Essentially, the rich have been milking the American cow for about 30 years, ever since they were let out of the crazy house by Ronald Reagan and his neoliberal disciples. With less wealth going into productive ventures (and even less going into the hands of people who buy the product of those ventures), the economy begins to slow down and deteriorate. Eventually, the country turns into a two-class society with a handful of wealthy elites and an ocean of impoverished citizens, many of formerly a part of the once-magnificent middle class. And then we eventually go Communist. That is our future, whether you like it or not, if we continue to follow Republican policies. Ironically, the GOP is doing more to support socialism than the Democrats are by making capitalism unstable.
Obviously we are running large deficits because the economy is still slugging along, in part because austerity on the parts of states is acting as a drag on growth. The only way Obama could be an irresponsible spender as you are painting him as is if you neglect the fact that inflation blows up the economy and federal revenues, as does real economic growth. Without those two factors, revenues would probably be the same amount as they were in the 1990s, if not the 1790s. C'mon Mike; you're better than this and you know. Liberate yourself from the chains that political dogma has trapped you in and embrace reason and logic.
Actually ProBusiness, the United States neither has to default nor lose its financial credibility. We've done it before, and we can easily do it again. We don't have to pay down the debt ; hell, in the state we're economically that is the LAST thing we should do. All we have to do is grow our economy faster than our deficits. You argue that if our debt grows to, let's say, 120% of GDP we're toast. Well, other nations (Britain and Japan, for instance) have debt loads WAY higher than that (Japan has 200% debt to GDP), and their interest rates are significantly lower. In addition, laws that require banks and other financial institutions to have significant quantities of "safe assets" (i.e government debt) could not only reduce the probability of a debt/interest crisis but also have our government rely on domestic bond-holders instead of foreigners. And finally, while I do agree in reducing the debt (not nominally, but to GDP), we cannot do so when we are so far from full employment. You constantly argue that the one thing all economic textbooks have in common is that tax increases hurt economic growth. You are right, to some degree; however, there is another fact that each and every economics textbook shares as well. They teach (and this is common sense) that you should not engage in deficit reduction unless the economy is at full employment. Essentially, as John Maynard Keynes himself eloquently put it, the "time for austerity is not in the bust, but in the boom."
The federal government would never use inflation to pay down our debt. Doing so would make the debt worse, not better. The main drivers of our debt are healthcare inflation, which increases faster than GDP. Rolling out the printing presses would make our expenses rise FASTER, not slower. Milton Friedman wasn't a genius (his idea that low tax rates are the best for the economy is bunk, as the narrow-minded concept of monetarism), but at least he wasn't as politically dogmatic as you are.
Another boneheaded analysis from the professor. Time to abandon Milton Friedman as your only economic hero and pay some attention to Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and some others.
If our healthcare system is so goddamn good why do Europeans pay half as much to cover more of their citizens with better outcomes?
Bob,
Q: Why do I have to cut my earnings on my investments, work longer, pay more for a pension, lose 30% value on my home and be expected to change my entire retirement plan?
A: That's what happens when conservatives are in control, they socialize banks and Wall Streeters for extremely bad greed based behavior, start two unfunded wars (one based on lies) along with unfunded nation building, enact unfunded socialist Medicare Part D, cut revenue, claim deficits don't matter, obstruct legislation, and work to effect a Fascist government.
Nope. Those of us that were/are participants, really wanted to know why we might get killed.
Iraq: President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address, demanding War With Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, US Support of the Holy Warriors of Islam at Bosnia, etc.
Transcript President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address (Don't be Lazy Read the Whole thing)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/
In response to President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address US Congress passed into US Law, President Clinton's H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction with US Congressional Appropriations.
President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998". (Don't be Lazy Read the Whole thing)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057063/posts
President Clinton ordered his Executive Intelligence Agency, the CIA, with attached US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces (aka Special Warfare, Insurgency) to go into Iraq to hire hundreds of thousands of Shia of Iraq (previous Illegal Aliens from Iran) as assassins and insurgents to (Murder, Assassinate) President Hussein, this failed miserably as due to President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies, there were no longer any local Iraqis US Intelligence Assets (no longer funded), to feed their families and survive many of the previous local Iraqis US intelligence assets had become Iraqis Counter Intelligence Agents, Iraqis Military Intelligence (Counter Insurgency), Iraqis Law Enforcement (including Iraqis Secret Police), etc. and were waiting for the US to attempt something. Result the hundreds of thousands of Shia of Iraq as hired by the CIA as assassins and insurgents were easily captured, tried as Traitors, executed and dumped into mass graves; President Clinton spun his Failures to "Dictator Massacred His Own People" (Front page photo showing Iraqis woman crying at mass graves and article many US Newspapers).
When those measures indicated by President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655, Failed, US Congress Amended H.R.4655 as requested by President Clinton as Commander In Chief for the Use of US Military Force for the President Clinton US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein.
After President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655, was Amended, President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered the 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox. This Failed to Overthrow President Hussein and Resulted in the over 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers Worldwide to Condemn the US as the Great Satan for the murders of thousands of "the Poor of Islam" at the crowded urban areas of Baghdad; in retaliation against the Great Satan, US, Fundamentalist Islamic Osama Bin Laden starts planning his 9/11 2001 Attacks* against the same targets as his previous 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings (reason for 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings demanded US get US Military Bases out of US Ally Saudi Arabia).
*It was President Clinton's (42) Belief that the Cold War Era US Defense, US Intelligence Agencies (built up by the Director of the CIA Bush (President, 41)), US Military were no longer needed. President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered the Chopping of the US Defense Budget (no funds for the US Army Corps of Engineers Infrastructure Projects within the US, like the Levees at New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, US Congressional Katrina Hearings); Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies leaving the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission Investigations, Findings, and Recommendations with former President Clinton saying "I'm a so sorry"; Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military as to why it took from 2001 till 2003 for President Bush (43) to Rebuild the US Military that President Clinton (42) Destroyed for President Bush (43) to Accomplish (Mission Accomplished*) the President Clinton (42) US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein as 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom (a United Nation's Mission, not the President Obama Reelection LIE, "Bush Unilateral Invasion of Iraq".).
Note: Stating the Overthrow of a Soverign Nation's Established Government is a Declaration of War, International Court of Law Hague, just as if the Chinese and or Russian Federation declared as Policy the Overthrow of President Obama.
Unedited Transcript President Bush Mission Accomplished Speech (not the Demoncraptic Party Propaganda, aka LIES)(Don't be Lazy Read the Whole thing)
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/us/bush.transcript_1_general-franks-major-combat-allies?_s=PM:US
What other easily proven Historically Documented LIES of the Demoncraps do you want me to prove, Heartlight3.
before you start name calling or slinging your emotive non factual manure opinions on everyone:
Definition Fact - Experience or Observation. In my case Firsthand Experience and Firsthand Observations in the matters above.
Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason. As to what most of the Demoncraps are posting as “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Chancellor Adolf Hitler.
http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress
Doc, you left out the Republicans want to dismember Obamacare, just saying !
From "probusiness":
...and then you teach them how to walk on Romper Stompers and not to eat Play Doh.
The sad thing is, "probusiness" you have lied too many times over the past few months for anyone to believe a word you write, let alone that some fool would let you teach. Nice try, hot shot.
Just for kicks and to humor your latest fantasy, please explain to us in detail precisely how the "trickle down" works and how it has effected the robust economy and limitless jobs that we have today as a result.
Each spending cut should result in cash. When the money is in the bank, then and only then add a tax. Taxes added should be at a flat rate on everybody all the way from the destitute to the rich.
Do not add tax first with the promise to figure the rest out later. It doesn't work. I'm not saying the spenders are full of bull, just saying the stop spending part never happens. Oh sure there's smoke and mirrors and spin but who do they think they're kidding? Americans figure out for themselves why the stop spending part never happens.
Contrary to the Presidents opinion Americans are not stupid.
If you Demoncraps, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Fascists want to Discuss the current US Economy:
First go research who Eliminated those US Laws that previously made Illegal the Causes of the previous Depressions, resulting in the current $60 Trillion to $100 Trillion Global Economic Crisis consisting of the Mortgage Crisis, Wall Street Crisis, Financial Crisis, Banking Crisis, Credit Crisis, etc..
Second as the Resulting "Fiscal Cliff", "Debt Ceiling", "Across the Board Budget Cuts (Automatic Sequestration)":
President Obama's ACA Effects:
If you don't want to be correctly labelled based on your Demoncraptic Party Actions as the accepted Definitions as Fascists Socialist Communists NAZI, etc. as Demoncraps then demand changes within your own Demoncrap Party.
President Obama Supporters are WORSE than Islamic Jihadist Suicide Bombers, they will defend Stup!d Wrong or Right to their Deaths. And most of you don't even know as the low or no information uneducated too lazy to do the research that you are.
February 2010 President Obama Demanded the Spending of $1.7 Trillion (Update $2.1 Trillion, 2013 Update $2.5 Trillion) that was previously NOT BUDGETED for, ACA. The Democratic Party Controlled US Senate and US House of Representatives gladly agreed, to hide the Cost of President Obama's ACA, the Democratic Party Controlled US Congress did not pass a Budget, and kept on creating Continuing Resolutions (CRs).
By Reelecting President Obama you gave him your Mandate that you wanted the NOT BUDGETED for Spending of $2.5 Trillion, so the ACA Funding cannot be chopped during the Automatic Sequestration; and ALLof President Obama's previous actions of his First Term.
The Waitress arrived with the Bill of $2.5 Trillion for the meal that President Obama ate, now he is looking for everyone else to pay for the meal only he ate.
July 2011, President Obama to pay for the NOT Previously Budget For $2.5 Trillion ACA, demands "Across the Board Budget Cuts" (Automatic Sequestration) to all previously Budgeted For Programs (like US Citizen Contributory Funds of Social Security, Medicare, etc. that President Obama cannot seem to figure out are Involuntary US Citizen Contributory Trusts and NOT "Entitlements"; etc.), Projects (like the US Army Corps of Engineers Infrastructure Projects within the US like Levees, Bridges, Interstates, Dams, Dredging of Rivers and Streams, etc.; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency High Tech Research and their Funding of University and College Research Grants as the same loss of Funding for the CDC, USAMRIID for the Funding and Research Grants for Colleges and Universities to prevent diseases, create antivirals, stop pandemics, increased lifespans, etc.; etc.); including Chopping the Benefits and Entitlements of the "47%" (2012 update 49%, 2013 update 51%). President Obama gives his July 2011 demand to Jack Lew, who then gives President Obama's demand to Democratic Party Controlled US Senate, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate created and passed a US Law for the "Across the Board Budget Cuts".
THIS IS WHERE THE "FISCAL CLIFF", "DEBT CEILING", "ACROSS THE BOARD BUDGET CUTS (Automatic Sequestration)" CAME FROM.
The President Obama Motive for the ACA, and spending of $2.5 Trillion. President Obama needed Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions just like he was getting since 2007, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton filed against Candidate Obama Violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, to pay to keep his Presidential Campaign Offices Open Nationwide until 2012 Reelection, after being Reelected President Obama still needed Billions USDs from the Corporations to keep his 2012 Reelection Campaign Offices open renamed the President Obama Political Action Committee Offices to push his "Agendas". To get the Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions President Obama gave a written demand February 2010 to Democratic Party Controlled US Congress (both Houses) the Insurance Corporations get $67 Billion, $23 Billion Medical Device Corporations, $20 Billion to the Pharmaceuticals Corporations for potential future losses due to President Obama's ACA; these Corporations then gave President Obama Billions USDs in Corporate Campaign Contributions. To make this "Legal" before President Obama's ACA was passed by Democratic Party Controlled US Congress, President Obama's Buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court to Rule In Favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions before the Citizen's United Case made it's way thru the maze of the US Courts; to this day President Obama pays Thousands of USDs of Fines, while receiving Billions of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions, for admitting to the US Supreme Court violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, President Obama's Buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" was fined $200,000.
The irony, President Obama's Reelection "Kill Big Bird", as it was a previous PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal" that exposed the deals made behind closed Whitehouse Doors that President Obama made with the Insurance Corporations, Medical Device Corporations, and Pharmaceuticals Corporations.
The Democrats being Hypocrites, saying they are "For the People", while accepting MORE Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions and Donations from the Rich, while hiding in closets, behind closed doors, back room deals, etc. making the Democrats more susceptible to extortions, coercions, blackmail, etc. for their fear of being exposed or "outed" to the few Real Democrats that are not corrupt that usually do not have the funding of the Corporations and the Rich like President Obama, so they usually "don't make it" into Public Office".
Pertaining to Democrats being worse than Islamic Jihadist Suicide Bombers, in 1933 Fundamentalist Islamic Amin Al Hussein as the Representative to the Islamic World the Forever Alliance with Chancellor Hitler.
"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.
Democrats demanding the Murder of US Citizens of the Republican Party.
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), just like the US Democrats demanding the elimination of the Republican Party.
If the Historical Documented History (Repeat the Same Mistakes and Expect Different Results) Fits wear it, Demoncraps (as Fascists). "If the Shoe Fits ............."
Definition Fascism - 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's use of Executive Orders, Policies, Memorandums, etc. to circumvent the "Will of the People" of US Congress (Democratic Party Controlled US Senate, and previous Democratic Party Controlled US House now Repugnant Controlled US House):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions
If you don't want to be correctly labelled based on your Demoncraptic Party Actions as the accepted Definitions as Fascists Socialist Communists NAZI, etc. as Demoncraps then demand changes within your own Demoncrap Party.
Pro biz,
You fail at reading comprehension. Try again.
david
Why would anyone read that long comment when it begins with insults toward everyone you could hope to convince ....... I guess you just wanted to preach to the choir of hateful, willfully ignorant boneheads like yourself.
don,
I guess probiz is off misleading his community college students now. I bet there's no Ivy anywhere near the place. Who would I rather trust about this issue? The community college guy who believes that there are no economics textbooks that do not support his position, or my friend and client, an economist who has read 90+% of all the textbooks on both sides of the debate, and sold his economic forecasting company for $80 million.
Fed Up-2683606 Comment collapsed by the community
What a delusional moron... Oblunder is borrowing at a rate that no one ever has....
YES. That's because NO ONE has ever had such a huge mess to clean up...Say what you will...but that was a SERIOUS mess left by GWB and pals...It would not matter who got in office after that disaster....they were inheriting an already sunk ship....with a huge snowball effect. Republican or Democrat...doesn't matter...the person taking over was set up to fail...and that snowball effect may continue right through this presidency, and the next, and the next. BUT the fact remains, it started with GWB! And if things are still *ucked up 2 presidency's down the road...you can bet you'll STILL be hearing about what a huge failure GWB and his administration was!
tax increases and spending cuts
A balanced approach!! ??
An approach that has not worked. Spend spend spend has gotten us into this mess. Freeze federal pay and ensure that the tax increases would be applied only towards debt then i'll hop on the tax increase bandwagon. However, as well all know, whenever gov't gets a hold of more money, they find more and more creative (wasteful) ways to spend it.
ED
Can you imagine how tedious it must be to be a student in the class of such a strident, closed-minded ideologue? I received an MBA some years ago in a program where we would compare and contrast the ideas of conservatives like Milton Friedman with progressives like Robert Reich. It was a great experience and, I am sure, nothing like the boot camp to which ProBiz students are subjected.
A new Pope - and a Senate Democrat budget - in the same day - history being made
Republican budget = Democrat budget = Obama budget = 100% LIES AND ZERO FIXES
The only thing left to do is wait for the collapse and break up of this failure of a country. The faster it happens the better for all of us.
Obama has an agenda and will not accept anything that doesn't allow his out of control spending to continue AND to increase taxes on the wealthy.
His approval ratings are dropping as more and more folks are coming to grips with his inability and unwillingness to work with Congress on the policies that are good for the people and the country.
We ALL must take a stand against a president that is determined to have it his way while bankrupting the country.
So we finally get a budget proposal out of the Senate, first one since 2009, and now Obama won't put one out??? It almost seems they are doing this on purpose as to not have one.
Nothing much surprises me, but i was very surprised the president said out loud he has no intention of getting a balanced budget for the sake of balancing a budget. I had no doubt he has no intention of cutting anything but never thought he would verbalize that with such a massive debt and deficts. How does one try to negotiate fiscal responsibility with mine and your tax dollars when he boldly states he has no intentions to work towards that?
ChrisK .... how did Bush cause the mortgage meltdown and credit freeze? Thats what caused the mess you claim Bush caused, so tell us how he did that. SPECIFIC policies please.
I love how MSNBC only mentions that the Dem plan has $975 billion in cuts, but doesn't mention what any of these are, but mentions specifics about the $100 billion in extra spending. So only mentions the good things people want. While mentioning all the negatives of the republican plan. Sorry, but a balanced budget will have to have real spending cuts that people are not going to like. That is what happens when you live above your means, you have to make tough decisions on things you have to cut, but would otherwise not if you had the means to pay for it.
MSNBC, this is a real manipulative article, you should at least mention the supposed cuts from the Dems.
Everybody knows that it was really Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were the front men in causing the housing crash. They are the ones that pushed Fannie and Freddie to back loans for people who would never qualify under a real market system.
I would just like to point out for everybody's information, just in case you aren't aware, that revenues are actually higher now than they ever have been. So when you make your arguments either way in regard to needing more revenues or less spending you should put that into your equation. Spending is also way up though. You can get all this information at bea.gov, the bureau of economic analysis's website.
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
bea.gov/national/nipaweb/GovView.asp add the www at the beginning and you can see revenues vs expenses and the annual debt
Well Brett, apparently Chris doesn't know that. I suppose his logic is " hey Bush lowered rates, i think i'll go write a bad subprime loan".
Fannie/Freddie was tried to be reformed in 2004 - 2005. Youtube ...."fannie freddie congress 2004" if anyone doubts what Brett said about Frank and listen to the floor debate where the dems chastised the republicans for trying to restrain F/F.
The Dems in the senate killed a bill to reform F/F in 2005, including then freshman senator Obama. Wonder why the media never mentions that?
I LOVE NBC - THE FUNNIEST COMEDY NETWORK ON EARTH!
When Ryan introduced his plan, NBC's article started with "Ryn releases unrealistic plan that is DOA"
When the Dems introduce their plan, NBC's article starts with "In an opening bid for possible negotiations with House Republicans that might lead to a compromise budget resolution this summer"
THAT, my friends, is LEFT-WING MEDIA BIAS. GAME. OVER.
YET AGAIN! Our prez tries to do the right thing. Republicans are so weak and lame ........ it's hilarious. They are ready to deal ....... finally. The "F"ing idiots have to do something ........... finally. lol
What?????...No removal of capital gains tax for the party of Rich 1% republicons????? Oh the humanity.....How are they going to survive? Booooooo Hooooo babies.......
Old mac....I suppose we don't need any taxesto pay for regulating all those industries.....who needs a gas tax....we don't need no stinking roads....wahhhhhhhh! Etc........
So funny...all these teabaggers and rt wingers on here voting to put in place more loopholes for the 1% rich as if they are the same 1% rich with offshore acounts and taking American jobs overseas......
Voting against themselves as if they have accounts in Bermuda and Caymen Islands.......Voting like they are billionaires trying to hide their taxes and not pay any taxes.....Now that is funny...and they come on the blog and complain as if they know about deficits when they vote against their very own self interests and the needs of the country...THAT IS TOO FUNNY!
Yeah; we also had 30% poverty, children working in sweatshops for pennies on the dollar, and several families crowded into one house. We also had high economic inequality, and labor strikes were broken by armed gangs of hired thugs and the occasionally National Guard deployment. Oh yea, those times were great! All these taxes are surely the cause of these problems, even though the federal tax burden is the lowest in decades and yet the "almighty job creators" still aren't pleased with all the bribes we've given them. Surely the wealthy job creators will lift us out of this depression only if we repealed these gawdawful taxes and removed all regulations on protecting the environment and workers!!! Taxes are not the problem, my dear misguided friend; in fact, they are the solution. Higher taxes on the wealthy (70% at the most), more regulations, and a stronger welfare state will revitalize this economy and return us to the good ol' days of the 1950s; you know, when tax rates were 94%???
Murray's a clueless moron soccer mom that can't think for herself. Votes party over 98% and "ANY" politician (Rep, Dem, Ind, whatever....), that does that is incapable of thought. A few million/billion to our state is cheap payoff when buying her vote.... SO Reid, Obama, and Pelosi task an idiot with developing a budget - that way NOTHING sticks directly too them.....
And guess what? Its the same old tired line of crap (bait and switch - 3 card monte) they've been yapping about that's driving the country BROKE! Stamp our foreheads with STUPID and pass the food stamps please......
Here's hoping that the country finally wakes the "F-UP" and starts cleaning CONGRESSIONAL and ADMINISTRATION HOUSEs! Obi, Clueless Joe, Ding bat Nancy, Bonehead Boener, Mitch DO NOTHING McConnell, Geritol Johnny Mc, Goober Graham, Empty Boxer, the 170 million dope herself, and a lot more.......They ALL GOTTA F-N GO or we are DONE!
@okie58
Um, you do realize that we don't fire all the troops when they come home, right? They will continue to rotate out and new ones join just like they always have.
Oh hell, both plans just plan suck. Neither tackles the debt. Both parties just spend and waste money.
Close a loop hole (legal deduction) is a tax increase no matter how you slice it. Raising taxes as the senate suggests is just stupid. From both plans, spending goes up each year.
Is it time for a 3rd party or for the people of this country to get a big broom and clean house in both parties?
Thank you LBJ for "the great society". I hope you are standing next to McNamara roasting together.
Mike said it....Both plans suck.
Ryan's assumptions are not realistic. And the Dems are trying to jack up taxes a trillion and then propose a trillion in spending not really reducing any deficits or debt.
Wow.....There are plenty of tax loopholes that need closed and there are plenty of spending cuts that should be done. Unfortunately, none of them have a clue.
@AmericanGirl, who is hung up on Cheney's "deficits don't matter" comment. As a conservative, I say they do matter and that Cheney was wrong. Now, why don't you liberals agree with me and cut the deficits? Why are liberals agreeing with Cheney and spending like there is no tomorrow? Why are liberals not doing what's right for America and getting the country back on sound financial footing? Liberals have nothing to be proud of because you haven't improved anything.
It's my understanding that federal spending would go up 65% over the next 10 years under this plan. So how do you balance a budget and cut the deficit with 6.5% annual increases in spending alone? How does the federal government account for the additional income required to float the 6.5% increases? That is, if they are thinking that the US economy is going to grow at 6.5%+ every year then they are taking a HUGE risk with this budget. Reality shows that government projections are rarely correct. Caution.
uh, can you do remedial math?
If the Dems "jack up taxes a trillion" and then "propose a trillion in spending" that amounts to TWO trillion in debt reduction.
How you surmise that this does "not really reduce and debt" is just mind boggling. If you don't think it's ENOUGH, that's fair and your opinion, but it DOES reduce the deficit/debt.
How ironic that YOU are worried about ME looking like an idiot.
This is only the slightest bit true making it largely untrue. First we'll put aside the fact that after 4+ years, Obama is responsible for the sad state of "recovery", making him -- in your way of thinking -- still responsible for the large deficits.
The real reason for the trillion dollar deficits is that government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. Even in 2012, three years after the recession ended, at 24.33% federal spending as a percentage of GDP has only been eclipsed in 4 years prior to 2009: 1943-1946. I'm sure the significance of those years are not lost even on you. Not even in the depths of the Great Depression nor the recovery from it did we even remotely approach 24.33%. In fact federal spending during the recovery from the Great Depression never surpassed 11% of GDP. The federal government cranked spending up by half a trillion dollars a year for their 2009 "stimulus" and then when the "stimulus" was over they -- as typically happens -- used that as a base and raised spending from there. Three years into the "recovery" and government is spending nearly 40% more than it did just 6 years ago when the recession started.
If we look at other recession years -- since the Great Society programs were implemented -- in which unemployment was at the rate it was in 2012 (1975, 1984, 1992) and compare the results of applying the spending to GDP percentage in those years to the gross GDP we had last year for an apples to apples test, we find that this would produce $630 billion per year in lower federal spending at 1975's rate, $415 billion per year in lower federal spending at 1982's rate and $398 billion per year in lower federal spending at 1992's rate. So nearly 4 years into this "recovery" with similar current unemployment rates as during the recoveries in 1975, 1984 and 1992 and we're spending nearly $400 billion more per year than what we would have spent in the worst case scenario of those 3 similar situations. That $400 billion would have us below those trillion dollar annual deficits even with static revenues (which is largely where we are today).
Now on to who is responsible for this lame "recovery". As I've stated before, I'm no Bush fan, but I really find it pathetic for liberals to still be blaming him not just for the downturn (which his sole culpability was him continuing Clinton's HUD policies) but also Obama's own policy failures which has caused the worst recovery in US history when it should have been one of the strongest.
Please tell me one policy Bush has implemented since 2008. You can't, because he hasn't. All policies for the past 4 years have been Obama's and his alone and they've largely failed. Please tell me what Bush policies before 2009 is slowing the recovery now. I suppose you could say his average $300-400 billion deficits and yes, that slows the economy, but those pale in comparison to Obama's average deficits of well over a trillion dollars a year.
Meanwhile I can name policy after policy of Obama's that has strangled the economy's attempt top recover. So to continue saying Bush is more responsible for this sad-sack recovery is a pathetic joke. You can just drop it.
This is a an untruth. Both the 1992 and 2001 recessions lasted only 8 months as compared to an average of 11 months for recessions since the Great Depression. Looking back in the 50 years from the 1960s on to the start of this last recession, the time from peak unemployment to 80% of peak has been very consistent (current "recovery" excluded). 1961 peak to 80% of peak - 10 months. 1971 peak to 80% of peak - 23 months. 1975 peak to 80% of peak - 23 months. Early '80s double-dip peak to 80% of peak - 12 months. 1992 peak to 80% of peak - 23 months. 2003 peak to 80% of peak - 24 months. BTW, Obama's 2003 peak to 80% of peak? 34 months.
While the 2001 recession admittedly had a slow recovery to 3% GDP growth and this current "recovery" has had a particularly slow GDP recovery that hasn't hit 3% GDP growth yet, the 1991 recession had a GDP recovery to 3% on par with every recovery since the Great Depression.
This is also untrue. In the 30 years since Reagan's tax cuts and subsequent recovery from the early '80s double-dip recession there have been 3 recessions for an average of 1 recession per decade. That is extremely stable. It is the most stable long-term period of economic growth in US history and I would not be surprised if it is the most stable long-term period of economic growth globally in the modern economic era. For reference, there were 2 recessions that started in the 1940s alone, 2 recessions that started in the 1950s alone, 2 recessions that started in the 1960s alone, we were one month away from 2 recessions starting in the 1970s alone (started Jan 1980).
In the 30 years since Reagan's recovery from the double-dip recessions in the early '80s, there have been only 9 quarters of of negative economic growth in 30 years or 3 per decade. Compare that to the 25 negative quarters in the 33 years between 1947 (when the BEA started tracking GDP growth quarterly) and the end of 1979 or nearly 8 per decade.
The three recessions since the early-80s also place in the top 4 in the longest length of time from the previous recession. Note: The only other time period of similar length was between the 1969 recession and the previous recession that in ended 1961, a recovery that interestingly was also aided by the application of supply side principles.
As anyone can see, the assertion that the economy is somehow less stable now than prior to the early '80s is ridiculous. Having said that, with our debt now over 100% of GDP you can expect a lot of instability moving forward.
Again a lie. State spending is up 12% from 2009, 20% from 2008 and nearly double what it was as recently as 12 years ago.
Already addressed earlier in my response. 24.33% of GDP is irresponsible spending...you know...during non-World War periods.
Revenues are about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars. In real inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars, revenues are only down 2% from 1999. Spending, however, is up a whopping 62% from 1999 in real inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars. Government grew by 62% while the population grew by only 12% in that period.
Now here's the steps to take if you're worried about somebody looking like an idiot.
starsailing
Wow, your so smart. I'm about breaking my neck looking up to you.
Lets stick with the road tax since that's the one you picked. So you think sending taxes to the Feds so they can then send it right back to the States is the only way to pave roads?
And listen, I know you cry easily but try and stay strong as you type.
Mac
How about we just go back to the tax structure we had at the end of the Clinton administration? .... you know, the one under which the economy was doing so well.
You conservatives who believe that all taxes are bad are just like a bunch of children who want cake and candy for every meal.
don97524
Go find where I said all taxes are bad. And don't come back till you do.
Well, I'll never see don again.
Mac
You listed a bunch of taxes (#1.127) and described the country before as utopia. The truth is that we had a country that was subject to severe economic cycles, most of the wealth was in the hands of a very small percentage of the population, old people died if they were not fortunate enough to have family take care of them. You have a very narrow and distorted view of economic history.
Well thank God we're doing so much better now.
Mac
You really don't know much about the economic history of this country do you?
don
That whole little ditty I posted earlier? It was written by Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years.
And he is a Democrat.
You have no idea who your talking to. Your just a guy, who when it comes to blame, uses a shotgun approach. And why do you do this? Because you don't really know who to aim for. And as a result your shooting your own people. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Don't try to minimize your intent. You were singing the "no taxes" ditty for your conservative tea party audience. You're (and that is the correct way to spell the contraction for you are) still dreaming of the days of the white picket fence and stay at home moms. Go back to the 50's when the top tax rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower ...... I guess that really ruined the economy, huh?
Minimize my intent? Tea Party? Hey jack ass, I'm a registered Democrat.
Rarely do I just go with a frontal attack on a fellow Newsviner. It takes the really presumptuous and pompous to get me going. Which you have done.
Don, thank you for confirming you area total f-u-c-king idiot.
I seen your kind many times. You have no argument so you start to pick apart the spelling. A true sign of a failure. Did I get all my capitals and periods right?
And the days I'm dreaming of? Are ones where taxes were applied with restraint and respect to those being asked to pay them. Not like today where it's a challenge to discern the difference between the IRS and the Mob.
Don't go away angry, just go away.
Dems already got their tax hike on the Rich in January. Whatever additional small reductions in the deficit that are able to get through our worthless liberal Senate and our worthless liberal White House, will be from spending cuts.
#SuckonthatDemoncats
The tea party already got its cuts. Suck on that, Republicans.
The truth is that we need more cuts AND more taxes. Let's go back to the pre-Bush tax cut levels ..... our economy was pretty damn good at the end of the Clinton administration.
You can say the Democrats got their tax hike, it just exposes your lack of knowledge. The tax increase in Jan. resulted from the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts that couldn't be done permanently because Senate Republicans didn't have sufficient votes to make it law. It was done through Senate process that allows bills to pass without having to overcome a filibuster (sorry, can't remember the name of the process).
the dems don't understand the only ones to raise taxes on are the middle class. The cuts will not put a dent in the debt but hey they can say they included them.
except they didn't. The bulk of the tax increases in January are from the expiration of the payroll tax holiday which hits the middle class. Taxes on the rich were barely touched.
@jaywillie
Obama agreed to spending cut if the house raised revenues in January. Typical of this President to go back on his word he cannot be trusted one bit. You libbers keep sucking on his lies and distortions and pay the price in the end.The taxes were raised on the American citizens making over $400,000.00 per year which is in its self discrimination against the successful in our country.
okie
The wealthy are NOT over-taxed. The only tax increases so far are for >$400,000 incomes. The original idea from the Democrats was for increases on >$250,000. We could go lower than that ..... everyone over $75,000 back to pre-Bush tax cut rates PLUS closing loopholes. Do we really believe that oil companies won't drill unless we bribe them to do so? Tax cuts for oil companies put in place when oil was $10/barrel ..... and still exist when oil is 10X as expensive and they make more money than any industry in the history of the world.
tomas...you can call names but it doesn't refute my statement. Taxes were not raised, the old tax law expired.
With Democrats in charge, pretty soon we'll be a QUADRILLION dollars in debt. What do Democrats care, they're not the one's paying the bill. Only us working people are...you know, the one's not taking food stamps and government subsidized healthcare. Us legal citizens paying for illegal aliens and welfare rats.
The term is "reconciliation".
and we increase the tax rate for any idiot Liberal named Okie to 100%... plus confiscate all of his possessions and property, and hit him with a hefty monthly fine... since he's advocating the elimination of the 4th Amendment....
Whops... that's Don... not Okie
F-U Dave, please explain your tired worthless and obviously wrong argument that only Conservatives work. Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that garbage? If so where is the proof that all Repubicans Wor4k and all Dems dont?
CAnt you at least elevate your game to some form of integrity? Otherwise, your just a whining little Glenn Beck pussy that cant get over losing the elcetion. Now where is that proof that only conervatives work.....idiot
Fed Up
What a childish, nonsensical comment.
The Reid led budget plan from the Senate is just more smoke and mirrors cuts in spending from the Democrat Party that spends more time trying to come up with creative ways to say tax and spend then they do solving problems. We are not increasing taxes, we are raising revenues. We are not raising taxes, we are closing loopholes. Its a false argument to say we have a spending problem, we have a budget deficit problem. They could take this budget blueprint from the Senate Democrats to Vegas, where it could be featured as an illusion.
Chesty Puller, by your logic, Republicans already got their spending cuts in 2011 when there were 1.3 Trillion dollars in spending cuts, and that's all they get. Ridiculous, right? There need to be more tax increases and more spending cuts.
Why aren't capital gains, where most of the upper 2% make their money taxed the same as income? By definition, capital gains are income. In 2011 Romney only paid 13.1% tax on 20 million in capital gains. And if elected president, Romney said he would do away with tax on capital gains, boy did we dodge a bullet on that one.
first a correction. Romney made most of his money off dividends and capital gains. That's because he no longer earns a paycheck and is living off his savings and investments. A goal most of us want upon retirement.
Second, Clinton, in one of his rare moves that actually affected the overall economy, lowered capital gains taxes resulting in a huge boom in the stock market (that subsequently busted) and filled the coffers with so much additional funds that for a brief time we ran a budget surplus. The point is that over taxing capital gains results in fewer transactions since people would rather sit on their holdings than turn them over because of the tax hit. But a more robust market results in more federal revenue. because, though the tax is less the activity is much greater.
Tell us how they do that, Dem's put us $6 trillion deeper debt by the time Obama leaves Office we will be in debt another $4 trillion deeper. Are you really that stupid old man? the budget Dem's came up with does nothing to reduce the debt, just pulls in another $975 billion by closing tax loopholes and also has $975 billion in spending cuts over ten years if enacted KEY WORD DUMMY "IF". You know as well as I do, give the Dem's tax loop holes and we will be in our graves before the Dem's do 1 dollar in cuts. People like you and their are meany who think and are as stupid as you last count 51% stupid in this country,
King
It has been demonstrated conclusively that the greatest contributor to the debt during the past 12 years are the tax cuts implemented during the Bush years. Those tax cuts, with only minor alterations, continue. Is it any @!$%#ing wonder the debt grows every year? It's only a mystery for those who are too biased to even look for the truth.
2-Lane Gypsy
Good Job!!!
How is that demonstrated Don that tax cuts caused the debt? And just because you raise taxes doesn't mean you get more revenue, and visa versa.
Since Reagan cap gains have been cut 3 times and each time we got MORE revenue. Although the CBO was wrong saying less. This includes the Clinton tax CUT in 1997.
Since Reagan there has been 1 increase on Cap gains in 1987 (not counting the one a few months ago) from 20 to 28%. CBO estimated more revenue. Result .......... the revenue for the next 10 years was LOWER than revenue received in 1986. In didn't exceed that amount until Clinton cut it back from 28 to 20% in 1997.
You can also look at the boat tax in 1990. 10% on sales above $100k. Result ........ revenue from that was LOWER than before the tax went into affect and greatly harmed the boat industry. So much that it was repealed in a wide bipartisan vote in 1993.
BO didn't learn from history and the same is happening again from the tax on medical devices in Obamacare. You can google Cook medical (canceled 5 planned plants because of this), Stryker and other Med device companies and see how that is hurting the industry.
People that constantly yell "raise taxes" don't take into account one big part of taxing ..... BEHAVIOR of those being taxed.
@Tomas1969
Why not explain YOUR fetish with my underwear, pervert?
Gutless...coward
Don97524,
Wealthy is not someone that makes $75k a year. Do you even pay taxes? It is funny all those that pay no tax are quick to jump on the tax the rich band wagon. When we all know the rich pay more in taxes than any other group. It may be offset by capital gains tax but they have invested money that was first taxed as income by the government and should they lose that money the government does not reimburse them their initial investment.
I say tax everyone 10% that is all no more no less no deductions straight 10% from everyone that has any income and 5% on capital gains income because the government does not reimburse you if you do not loss the money you invested. So if a man/woman makes a dollar they pay $.10, if you make $100. It is $10, and if you make $1million it is $100k. No more of this the rich pays for the entitlement programs that they don't need or use it is time, those that use these programs also contribute. I don't think you should be able to get $6,000 in tax return money if you have not worked but you have 10 kids. That to me is a bigger part of the problem then the rich not paying their fair share. Let’s have everyone pay something, period.
Actually, Bill, the $75,000 figure would bring me into the "more taxes" category. I'm sure I believe in more of government's expenditures than you do. I believe we are underfunding infrastructure development, education, health care, regulatory oversight and lots of other things and I believe we are significantly overfunding spending on defense, homeland security and lots of other things.
There is a reason that Steve Forbes likes the flat tax ...... even more money will be in the pockets of the ultra-rich, including him. We could have a future in which the top 1% don't just have 40% of the wealth .... they could have 50% ..... or 60% ...... or even more. A really, really @!$%#ty idea in a consumer-driven economy in which the vast majority of those consumers are in the middle class.
Let's have the working poor with families who need food stamps to feed their children pay more in taxes. I guess their kids can just go without clothes. They can just live in their car ..... oops, they don't have a car.
I guess this "everybody pays something" will work for those of you who believe that "it's just the principle of the thing ..... everyone should pay". The principle sucks.
Everyone who thinks Bill Clinton's pen name is don97524 say aye.
Would that be the Bill Clinton under whom a rational taxation and spending program led to a balanced budget?
That would be BC who rode the coat tails of the Reagan/ Bush Sr administration.
more taxes, very little spending cuts and 100 billion for infrastructure stimulus this year. It's going to take a really big shovel for that stimulus.
Forward >
amergirl
and two steps back
TO: okie58 who wrote:
Only Republicans go backwards.
More government is backwards. Freedom is forwards!
I only wish we could go backwards... And I'm not a republican
NEWS FLASH: The Founding Fathers are dead and we live in the 21st Century
And your point is...?
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
Also the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax not to mention make the jobs for people like us. BTW the top 1% pay 30% of all income tax.
Ahhhh he wants to scrap the constitution, because he's a loser and doesn't make much money, so he thinks it's a good idea to take yours.
I'd means-test social security and medicare. Think more carefully about what kind of medical treatment should be made available to anyone over 80 (I'd skip on any cancer treatment that ordinarily would claim anyone within 5 years).
I'd reduce defense to 2000 levels plus inflation.
I'd tighten up eligibility for medicaid, food stamps, etc.
I'd reduce some tax credits and raise income taxes on the top 2%.
I'd spend money on infrastructure and education.
so these death panels that the repug/tp's freaked out about?!
According to Trillian the republicans were going to throw grandma off of the cliff, but it's ok when Obama throws grandma off of the cliff LOL, your a joke
Well, now you see why its so hard to cut medicare. My father spent his last year of life at 86 getting monthly and then bi-weekly blood transfusions for a rare blood decease. He died anyway after tens of thousands of dollars. There was really no cure and did we really expect him to live forever? The doctors recommended hospice but my mother would not give up. My father would have never spent his own money, which he had, but because you were paying for it, so he went for it. He died just shy of 88. Do you really think we did anyone any favors by going down this path?
Lol, read the article, this isn't even a real plan from the Demoncats on lowering the deficit...they're coming up with a budget scheme instead of the sequester cuts, not on top of.
Of course there's no details about their fictitious, piddly 975 billion in cuts over 10 years ($97B a year), so we can assume only the tax hike will happen, if they have their way, and there will be no cuts, not even these non-factors.
The fake Demoncat plan: replace the sequester cuts already passed with different cuts, and raise taxes again.
No new cuts.
Chesty,
repealing Obamacare is a fools errand. Its the law, re-affirmed by the Supreme Court. You will get ZERO votes from DEMS on ths issue. If you take it off the table, interestungly, Ryans plan doeasnt get to balance. He NEEDS and USES the existing 700 Billion Medicare Cut in Obamacare in his budget. So he wants to kill it, but use the Medicare Savings from it (you know, the 700 Billion he accused Obama of raping from Medicare) Ryan is a chump and a pussy
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
I find it very interesting that "chesty" was nowhere to be found, yesterday, when the weasel Ryan rolled out his old re-tread.
Pretty good at the brainwashed talking points, aren't you "chesty". Can you muster up enough independent thought to explain how Ryan is going to repeal Obamacare and still balance his "budget for dummies"?
The "fake" Democratic plan??? Oh...that's right. They are hiding the "real" plan from people that are brainwashed and inbred.....oops....sorry "chesty..."...
Means test Social Security and Medicare savings $31 billion
Tax Capital gains as ordinary income $100 billion new revenue.
Eliminate payroll tax cap $375 billion in new revenue.
End tax subsidies to oil companies $5 billion savings
End carried interest loophole $10 billion new revenue
Enact the Buffet rule $37 billion new revenue
Total $558 billion
$5.58 Trillion 10 year debt reduction. Wallah!
What law gives Oil companies a Tax subsidy?
It is part of the tax code.
J. Williard Marriott.....all tax increases.....
Where are the cuts?????
You must realize, it is not a revenue problem.....it is a spending problem.....
Why is it that liberals only want to take more of Americans hard earned money?????
It is spending that is out of control and is inhibiting our economy. This is only going to get worse.
You let those that earn keep more of their hard earned dollars and the economy will take off.
Keep taking more of our hard earned money and combine it with out of control spending the economy will falter, just like Greece.....
Have you not learned from history or the present status of Europe???
Obviously not.....
What part of the tax code?
J. Willard Moroniott - It's voila. Oil companies don't have any special tax breaks. They get the same deductions that all businesses have.
Willard hate to spoil it for you but the government makes more off of the oil companies then what the oil companies make. Govt makes 48 cents a gallon and Oil companies make 8 cents a gallon
Oil tax subsides are written in various tax code. For example in 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act established the "Section 199" deduction for domestic manufacturing activities. Under the tax code, oil production is considered a manufacturing activity and eligible for a deduction of 6% of net income.
There is also an intangible drilling costs (IDC) deduction. Generally include costs that have no salvage value, but are necessary for the drilling of exploratory wells or the development of wells for production. In recent years, advanced technology has greatly reduced the risk associated with finding oil. Since 1986, major integrated oil companies have been able to immediately deduct 70% of intangible drilling expenses.
Percentage depletion deductions also allows companies to recover the cost of their capital investments deducting 15% of the revenue from the sale of oil and gas from an oil company's gross income.
These and many other tax structures amount to "assistance" by the federal government for companies that one can say do not need the tax breaks.
To various posters here, I don't give two hoots about oil companies and don't care what happens to their taxes, but please understand that the oil companies do not receive subsidies in any normal sense of the term. Yeah, they can deduct certain expenses, as can other industries. I hate the phrase "tax subsidies", but yeah, they get those too, as do most businesses.
The only thing resembling an actual subsidy is the money given to oil companies to drill in areas less likely to have oil, because they've been forbidden by the feds to drill in more profitable areas. They would not drill there otherwise..... and the feds WANT them to drill, thus the "subsidies".
To me, this is an easy one: Eliminate ALL subsidies to ALL businesses and let the chips fall where they may.
JWM - correctamundo.
The tax subsidy that the oil companies get is available to all manufacturing companies. If you take it away from them then take it away from all the companies. Fair is fair. Rework the whole darn tax code and make it fair and I mean fair. Then reduce the tax rates and make ALL AMERICANS pay federal taxes. Eliminate some of those credits that entitle taxpayers to get back more in refunds than they ever paid in during the year. Poor or not, if you live here and receive the benefits of living here then you should help pay for them. Tired of seeing people on welfare and unemployment have great IPhones and flat screen tv and refuse work because it doesn't pay enough. The world and the government does not owe anyone anything. People need to work for a living and quit living off the so called top 2 or 5% period. I do not have money, I need to budget every dime I get to make it day by day, month by month. The government needs to do the same.
So it is TAX DEDUCTIONS and NOT subsidies. Don't all companies get to recover the cost of their capital investments? Oil drilling is considered a manufacturing activity. So it gets the same tax deduction as other manufacturers. Looks like the oil companies don't get any special tax 'subsidies' but they do get deductions just like other companies..
dari - "The tax subsidy that the oil companies get is available to all manufacturing companies." Not true. There are tax "incentives" exclusively for oil companies. And why should we allow these same very profitable companies to deduct 70% of drilling cost. They should front much more of that cost. Why should we allow depletion deductions when they are drilling to "replenish" their supply. Why should we allow both deductions. We cover the cost of drilling plus we give them more deductions for "depletion". Why should the tax payer pay for such things when these companies are making record profits. Sure....allow certian tax incentives (for upgrading safety equipment, rig safety and technological advancements, research, etc.) but much of these others should go.
Look it up Slodon.
If you are not aware that the biggest profit earners on Earth (oil companies) are getting billions in tax breaks every year, you have not been paying attention.
Not only are oil companies getting special treatment under the tax code. The federal government also pays cash money (subsidies) for production of non-conventional fuels as well as Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing. Why? When these companies have the funds and resourses to pay for much of that themselves.
Upset - try to keep up with the facts. They produce one of the most sought-after and used product on earth. They also pay huge amounts in taxes and they only have the same deductions that all other businesses have. Do you want all business deductions to be stripped away? How about the cost of their capital expansions and labor? I'd say that is fair if we take away all exemptions and tax credits that you get (though it's likely you don't have any earned income) and we start taxing your food stamps and welfare payments.
Actually its both. So the answer is to address both. YOu cannot cut your way to balance without throwing the economy in a tailspin....will you cheer whne the big spending cuts happen but the deficit gets larger because no one is working and consumers arent spending (= Less revenues)?
Will you cheer the Small business Store owners and Service providers that serve the government emplyees going out of business when all the government employees get eliminiated?
Why is it that Republicans in times of economic stress want the burden to fall exclusiveluy on the poor, the disabled and the elderly?
Why is it Corporate Americas' mantra to pay me less if they can (stealing my hard earned money as you put it)
WHy do greedy Corporations take their tax btreaks but continue to pocket the windfall for themselves while outsourcing, automating and insourcing H1B labor and reducing benfits, pay and jobs of their workers?
I think my questions are better than yours
Additionally, for all those who think that oil doesn't recieve any special tax incentives or special subsidies: A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute assessed U.S. energy subsidies between 2002–2008. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion.
If things are the same for companies why aren't these equal amounts? I can assure you that the wind industry does not get to deduct 70% of intangible expenses. I know - my brother is CEO of an engineering firm in California. He just moved to China because China is investing heavily in wind energy. He is the cheif engineer. It is his design they are using. Why cann't our goverenment invest more in renewables?
Joe - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
This is why we shouldn't invest more in renewables.
They aren't dependable for one, number two is to be economicly feasable the govenment has to give subsidies, strike three comes at night when they all shut off.
Colorado - yes, not all renewables are created equal. However, I was mostly refering to Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, Nuclear, etc. for energy production.
Current estimates based on 2009 energy production places renewable energy subsidies between 1.7¢ and 15¢ per kilowatt-hour (depending upon the renewable), while subsidies for fossil fuels were estimated at around 0.1–0.7¢ per kWh. Unit subsidy costs for renewables are also expected to decrease as technologies become more efficient while the price of electricity and transport fuels rise.
The production and consumption of fossil fuels add costs to society in the form of detrimental impacts on resource availability, the environment, and human health. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel subsidies cost the United States $120 billion in pollution and related health care costs every year. But these costs are not reflected in fossil fuel kilowatt per hour price.
These hidden costs are in fact very real costs to our societies that are not picked up by the polluter and beneficiary of production but by all taxpayers.
Colorado - the article you posted also conviently leaves out the carbon emissions for the production of the fuel itself which is estimated at about 8.82kg/gallon of refined gasoline and 10.49/kg gallon of refined deisel. Those have to be added to each and every gallon a vehicle consumes during its lifetime. For 100k miles @ 30/mpg that would be an additional 29,400kg per gasoline vehicle. Plus as time move forward (hopefully) more and more energy will be produced by wind, solar, hydo, etc. Thus the polution for recharging the batter will be less and less. The artical also does not discuss hybrid vehiles like the Prius. In short it is not that comprehensive of an article. Thought provoking, but not comprehensive.
Why is it okay for oil companies to get back more than they pay in, but not okay for poor people to get back more than they pay in?
And for all of you who think people on public assistance are living high on the hog on their welfare benefits, you are delusional. Try living on what someone gets in welfare and see how you do. I suspect those of you who are whining about that have heard that there are lots of people on welfare with fancy cars and iphones and flat screen TV's, but if you had to actually find people like that, it would be harder than you think.
Sorry my calculations were off. It is actually about 2.5lbs per gallon of refined fuel. Nonetheless, that figure still must be added to each and every gallon of gas a vehicle consumes to calculate the "true" carbon emissions on any vehicle.
Please prove to us that another brainwashed teabagger spitting out the same old idiotic talking points.
Show us, with actual documentation from legitimate, verifiable sources what economic policies directly led to the collapse of the Greek economy. Then go through each step of that collapse and parallel the precise Democratic legislation, actual bills submitted by the Democrats in the House and Senate and legislation proposed by the President (whether or not it was passed) that would lead us down the same path as Greece.
You mentally deficient teabaggers have been attempting to scare people with Greece for a long time now and I have yet to see any evidence that any of you know what you are talking about or can even find Greece on a map.
Either provide the evidence requested or be forced to admit that you are nothing more than a propaganda barfing nazi.
Joe - Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass are not reliable sources of electricity production and simply add to GE's and T. Boone Pickens' bottom lines by requiring combustion turbines to be ready to burn natural gas for all the times the renewable generation isn't available. That is a huge additional burden to end users because they have to subsidize the renewables, pay for the capital cost of the gas turbines, and pay the energy surcharge for volatile gas prices. I think that solar is probably the best renewable option though, because it is generally more available at times of peak loads. Wind is probably the worst, yet it is the one most touted.
There is no indication that the WSJ article didn't include the carbon cost of fuel production for use in internal combustion engine driven vehicles.
Colorado - I don't know were you come up a "requirement" for a natural gas stand by. All energy is produced then feed into the local power grid. Choice of renewables are best decided upon by the region in which they are located. For example geothermal power plants are largely concentrated in the western states and are the fourth largest source of renewable electricity, after hydroelectricity, biomass, and wind power. A geothermal resource assessment shows that nine western states together have the potential to provide over 20 percent of national electricity needs.
The wind farm near Altamont Pass California (built in the 1970s) is located where it is at because the area recieves almost constant wind. The farm is composed of 4930 relatively small wind turbines and is still the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world, with a capacity of 576 megawatts (MW), producing about 125 MW on average and 1.1 terawatt-hours (TWh) yearly. Wind energy throughout California consist of over 13,000 of wind turbines. Together these produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity in 2004. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco.
Joe - I'm in the business so don't try to blow uneducated smoke up my kilt. Gas turbines are being installed all over the country right now to compensate for wind energy production problems. Most energy is not "feed (sic) back into the local power grid." It is installed in unpopulated areas where there is no need for the generation, then transmission lines are built to interconnect with the wind, which at best has around a 40% plant factor. And that is often times at periods of low power demand so it has little or no real benefit, except requiring utilities to back off inexpensive baseload units. The Altamont wind farmthat you mention had 25-30% of the turbines not available every time I drove by, and as you point out it has less than a 22% plant factor. Pretty low for an area that "receives almost constant wind." You should try and spread yor ignorance somewhere else. You're probably a public school teacher, right?
If they pass it a first in four years. Get it passed along with the house and they can be compared. Good luck to the resolution committee. Does not sound good to me that they want to raise taxes again after doing it the first of the year. If it is eliminating some of the loop holes and getting rid of some of the subsidies maybe I could support it. Raising tax rate that are already to high would not be good. Get the economy going and get more people paying taxes.
Immediate tax increases and illusory spending cuts which, even if enacted, would amount to a zero sum game. Typical lib bulls h i t.
Ob
If I didn't already figure out from your screen name that you are a moron your description of a "zero sum game" would certainly convince me. Increased revenue, even without any cuts, is not zero.
Thanks for not having a clue about this issue. Closing tax loopholes is not a tax increase. The President has already done more spending cuts in 4 yrs than the last 16 of Republican in the whitehouse. So your point is pointless and untrue.
huh? Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
no it isnt your strong suit nutcase
$47 trillion will be spent in that time frame
do the math dolt
We need a "flat tax", and "single payer".
The President has already done more spending cuts in 4 yrs than the last 16 of Republican in the whitehouse.
Show us the stats. Put up or shut up.
When Romney talked about closing tax loopholes, he got booed and harassed by the left and the MSM(I know, one and the same). But now that the dems are proposing it, its being trumpeted as the best idea since sliced bread. Why the hypocrisy libwits? Also, tell me johnny clueless, how does a Dem pres. tack on another 6-7 trillion dollars in debt while enacting more spending cuts than the last 16 repub presidents? Is that some sort of voodoo math only taught at liberal schools? Sounds like the typical bs you bottom feeders eat up hook, line and sinker.
You obviously didn't listen to closely to the Myth. Romney's plan was a joke, heavily favoring the wealthy. Big surprise.
Republicans have resisted closing tax loop holes for all but the rich for many years now. The reason Obama's $4 Trillion deficit reduction package (August 2011) was spurned by Republicans intent on crashing the economy and defaulting on our loans was supposedly because they refused to close tax loop holes on the super wealthy. This led to the automatic spending cuts garbage that just went into law last month. The GOP also proudly proclaimed they got 98% of what they wanted. I wonder if that included the TeaParty Downgrade.
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
DeerHunter - Why shoud others have to do your research. Do you not know how to use google? Here is just one artical of many you can find if you actually do the research.
The link did not make it in... Do a google search for "government spending per president". You will get may articals. Some even have pretty graphs incase the numbers get to big. The one I was refering to was from Forbs. I don't know why the link did not make it through in my last post. Sorry.
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
God Bless, Romney campaigned on closing tax loopholes and the R's touted it as the best thing since sliced bread. Now that the Dems have capitulated (compromised) and said okay, then lets do it that way, R's are greeting their own proposed solution with boos and harassing. What's up with that?
The collateral damage caused by the GOP, the Tea Party, their Right Wing base – including “Christian Fundamentalists” – is likely greater than the National Dept that exists today. This, in addition to World chaos (of all types) aggravated by Right Wing prejudices and hypocritical “Puritanical values” (the “C” Street gang for example) along with other “Conservative”- sponsored tyranny. Answer: The World and the United States would be in much more stable condition – in every category. In other words: The Republican GOP-Tea Party Fundamentalist-Right Wing Cartel has been an enormous, incalculable disaster. Removal of them from positions of power and influence will improve our World economic, political and physical well-being along with general health and safety and security….
Will, You are entitled to your opinion. In mine the GOP has kept the liberals from completely bankrupting the country. They already brought about the reduction in one of the AAA rating, first ever. If they would work on getting the economy going it would go a long way in improving the overall situation. This has been the worst recession recovery in over 50 years and due directly to Obama's policies and actions by congress.
you idiot. instead of ranting about republicans; can you or any other left-wing nutjob here point to one actual cut cited in the article that Dems are willing to make?
can you list one thing the rwnjs have done to improve jobs or the economy?
virtually everything was better when repubs ran things idiot.
unemployment, the poverty rate, welfare, food stamps
sure i can dope. for starters Republican "obstructionism" prevented hundreds of billions in NEW DEFICIT spending UNDER OBAMA.
incredibly you left-wing nutjobs are trying to take credit for that lowered spending too
So you are saying globalization would be a good thing? You do understand the us would lose in globalization since we are one of the more profitable countries. Globalization would take from the countries that have and give freely to the countries that don't. Wow that sounds like obamas thinking and if you followers of the usrper in charge think you will not be effected you should not be out by yourself.
trillian
They didn't make an agreement with china to send our jobs to them for their economic growth and blame the loss of jobs on the other party
sources?
china free trade agreement signed by clinton don't remember the exact year but sometime in his reign you could research and find the truth to where our jobs went it's easy just type in china free trade agreement and clintons accomplishments
Fool NJ seems to have missed the entire Bush the Lesser debacle.
no - I asked what the republicans have done to improve jobs or the economy - quite worrying about the other guy and answer.
what have republicans done to improve jobs or the economy?
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
I can answer that Trillian. The uber-conservatives (notice I didn't say Republicans) have done everything in their power to block, prevent, delay, or obstruct anything that might actually be good for the country in an effort to destroy the legacy of one man currently holding the Presidency. Even going to far as to block votes on their own bills. Let's face it. If President Obama is FOR (insert any idea here) the Conservatives would be against it. I think they realize the economy is recovering in spite of their efforts to destroy our President. We can thank Newt Gingrich and Carl Rove for this legacy. They assume that once they are in power again, THEN "everything will be fine".
Put the lime in the coconut Will, and drink it all up.
It's ok, it's just a tax hike on the middle class. Of course the wealthy will get hit too, but there's not enough of them to cover the tax hikes, so the majority of the tax increases will hit squarely in the middle class. Oh joy, so now I get to be an indentured servant to our government for a few days longer each year. You thought they banned slavery? No, they just modified what it was and who was subject to it and called it something different.
There are no poor or middle class politicians in D.C., just wealthy slave owners.
This dim wit senator says that Ryans budget was soundly rejected by the voters across the country in the last election? If I remember correctly Romney/Ryan received over 49M votes. Hardly soundly rejecting when 49M voted republican. NO NEW TAXES!
Democrats soundly rejected obama's own budget proposal 99-0 in the Dem-majority Senate, and 414-0 in the House
yes not one vote FROM H IS OWN PARTY N EITHER CHAMBER
dont you feel stupid
Closing tax loopholes is not new taxes. Why dont you right wingdings get that?
Are ya stupid?
$100 billion in new spending idiot. that will have to be repaid
johnny
when the money is not owed by loop holes and you change the law to close the holes that is new money, so in a manner of speaking it is new tax money ya duck waddler.
no wonder obama won the ignorant and uneducated vote I just didn't realize there are so many sheeple
Guess you missed the part of Ryan's budget where he proposes a two tiered tax structure that will be revenue neutral ?
How will it be revenue neutral?
By closing unspecified tax loopholes,lol.
Both party's budget proposals use the same sleight of hand.
How is it if Obama closes them it's tax revenu and you say Ryan does it and its neutral, want to actually make up your mind. Ohhh I get it, it's the new liberal math, bozo's.
vague stuff about closing loopholes; no actual loophole mentioned.
where are the actual cuts left-wing nutjobs?
there the same "loopholes" as in the Ryan plan, which are ALSO not named...
so your answer is no nutjob?
i'm referring to THIS article right now.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa repubs did it too!
the left-wing nutjobs idea of "change"
before the pollys can close the holes they have to find the ones that will not hurt their own wealth and only will effect the middle class
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
Grover, Ryan actually said he would sit down with the Democrats to pick and choose, it was the dems refusal and other antics that turned that to @!$%#, and now you guys say he did nothing. If it means nothing, why does Obama want it so badly??????
anybody see a specific cut from democrats mentioned in the above article?
i dont
She needs to get her facts straight. Ryan's approach was on the ballot and 48% voted for it. Since the election, we have found out the Democrats lie and demonize hard working Americans to pander votes from the takers. The President's recent exageration of the sequester has revealed Democrats for what they are, tax and spenders. Only a Democrat could call reducing the taxes a person pays, which means allowing him to keep the money he earned, a tax expenditure. The only true tax expenditures are the entitlements that Democrats use to buy votes. Pay for more wasted green energy projects, Presidential golfing trips, and hand more money to the Muslim Brotherhood while taxing Americans more.
Let's see, 48% is still less than 51% any minute, hour, or day of the week. That means the voters chose to go with the plan presented by the 51% candidate. Explain to me how your minority number deserves equal consideration to the majority number?
First it was "deficits don't matter" from the republican vice president, when republicans controlled the white house, now it's majorities don't matter, since the republican party lost the senate and white house.
Sounds like the ole "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" way of thinking to me. Elections have consequences, for both winners and losers.
The rest of your rant only proves how detached, paranoid and phobic a person you are. Muslim Brotherhood? Really? Presidential golfing trips? Really? Wasted green energy projects? Really?
Hell, the money lost in development of green energy technology is 1/10th the money wasted in the military industrial complex. I notice you had zero to say about that. Why?
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
Seeker - The idiots are blind to it, because they believe the POS in the White house.
Sayitaintso, nice argument wawawawawa, really.
The rest of your rant only proves how detached, paranoid and phobic a person you are. Muslim Brotherhood? Really? Presidential golfing trips? Really? Wasted green energy projects? Really? Ya really, it's actuall fact now, read.
as far as elections go, ahhh the president isn't the only one elected, and the republicans you should thank for doing thier job well or Obama would already have us a third world country. If you didn't know itthats his plan.
Check you tube for Obama and reparations, and see what he says.
Well finally Ryan shows his cards!
"This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."
[ http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SvnN9ZzgVmYWj2HXbPfu3PxYnyuwFQjf ]
Ahhhh thats what the Affordable Care act did, you would know that if you had to pay for it, so until you do go away.
President BARACK OBAMA: The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.
all the subsidies you refused to end in dems 4 years on charge of both chambers of congress?
ur a dope.
Johnny why do believe that the wealthy people are behind all our problems? Because nbcnews tells you so?
A wealthy person is behind every paycheck. And working Americans are behind every government check...
FruVegge, who do you think the government should go after to pay down the deficit and debt? The people who already have a lot of money or people barely getting by? I believe common sense will give you the answer. Unless you don't really care about lowering the deficit and paying down our debt...you go after the people who have money.
Does something not sound right to people here how can you have tax increases and spending cuts? You'll have a lot of tax increases an no cuts. The democrats do not want a budget go back to Bill Clinton who said himself that budgets aren't needed. Cheney says it and all hell breaks loose.
You didnt make sense.
Johnny its the truth the government shutdown 1995-1996 and Clinton did say budgets aren't needed.
clintons belief is money is made by debt. We need to borrow money from the wb and imf and they say ok print it up and we do. They then see the money is trickled down the gov. ladder and first come first serve then on to the people but forget that it is borrowed money and has to be paid back. I named clinton but most pollys must think this way some more than others (obama) not to mention names and parties (dim dems)
The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”
--- David Stockman Conservative Republican and Reagan's Budget Director
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
J.Willard correct me if I am wrong but in our system of goverment the President only signs the bills presented to him by Congress , yes the tax cuts you are talking about belong to Ronald Reagan a Republican but now heres where the FACTS get in the way of your argument the bill making that law was PASSED by a DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE if you democrats are so much smarter and astute over Repblicans how in the world did the bill ever get to Reagans desk for signature
total bullshiat from the dems and obama the ass.....no more taxes.......no more taxation without representation....no matter what you think about obama the ass, why would any american in his or her right mind want to give any more hard earned money to the federal government so they can waste it on things like the stimulus plan or Solyndra...obama is an ass....
You have representation in the form of your elected representatives in the house and senate.
We had a "dust up" known as the "Revolutionary War" some time ago, about 1776. I know history isn't a republican strong suit but you might want to know the facts about America's struggle and eventual independence from England.
BTW, your fascination with the word a$$ truly says it a lot about you.
DOA
sorry leftardz; more cuts will have to be made.
why did you even bother?
I find it most interesting that the liberal lap dogs love to jump on the "go after the rich, they dont pay enough" bandwagon. However you try banning large sugar filled sodas in New York and people get their undies in a twist. It just goes to show you, if you don't partake in something like smoking, enjoying large sodas, being financially stable it doesn't seem to take much to get you to go after those who do.
Both plans actually suck, yet no one on here Republician or Democrap will admit it. They both pandered to there own base! Democraps will not accept the Republician plan, just like Republicians will not accept the democrap plan. This was all for show. When both chambers have passed their respective budgets we can then get down to the serious work of compromise. It won't happen, but at least they should try.
hmmm let's see $47 TRILLION will be spent over the entire period, less than one trillion ($975 billion) in spending cuts over 10 years; minus $100 billion in NEW spending. and $975 billion in new revenue?
is there a left-wing nutjob here that thinks that adds up?
More fake cuts. They got a tax increase in January, but they clearly don't want to cut spending at all out of fear they'll lose votes. Instead they want to steal even more money from a small percentage of the public that already pays most of the bills. One day our elected officials will have to accept cuts across the board to defense and entitlements and it is going to be a lot more painful.
And by the way, I'm all for closing tax loopholes the rich use to limit their tax rate. But I'm also for making that bottom 47% of Americans who pay no taxes, NOW PAY!
I'm with you on that. If you pay no taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote. It's buying votes, plain & simple.
So by your notion retired people earning less than the minimum tax rate shouldn't vote; disabled people, college students, working poor, etc. shouldn't have the RIGHT to vote? Yeah, that sounds like a really patriotic American point of view.
You'd fit right in in Cuba, China, or many other dictatorial societies.
Deerhunter continues his illogical rant ..... just moves from story to story, displaying his ignorance, his bias and his lack of compassion.
He's big on HIS right to own a gun but not so much in favor of OTHER CITIZENS' right to vote, right to marry the person of their choice, women's rights, civil rights. He likes his free speech rights, though, because it allows him to publicize his selfish attitudes to lots of people.
Yeah, make 'em pay. Those nasty, free loading 47 percenters. Let's see how they're scamming the system, shall we? Let's take an average family of 4. If the husband (or wife) is a single wage earner making the minimum wage, they're making a whopping $15,080 per year (based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 working an average year of 2080 hours). The poverty rate for that same family of 4 is $23,021. So they're screwing us right there, making less than poverty standards. Now, they have to pay 6.2 percent of that huge income in Social Security tax ($934.96) plus 1.5 percent in medicare taxes ($226.20). So they've already lowered their gross wages by $1161.16, giving them an annual wage of $13,918.90. So they live off roughly $1160 per month. That's for food, rent, clothing, transportation....the basics. So yeah, they're really screwing us by not paying taxes. After all, I'm sure they could spare a couple bucks a month so they'll "pay their share", huh?
Anyone living in poverty, earning poverty wages, are not moochers, and cannot afford to pay taxes. If they work, they're paying taxes already, just not federal income tax. But they're paying ss tax, medicare tax, sales tax and gas tax to name just a few. And those taxes take a bigger share of their livable income than it does to those of us fortunate to make above (and many times well above) poverty incomes. I would think you'd be more upset about those who CAN pay taxes and still live well but don't (or pay less due to tax breaks afforded to them) than you would at those who cannot afford it. There is a huge difference between moochers, freeloaders, and survivors.
The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax the top1% pays 30%. They are the ones that make jobs for us. You want more money? Work harder.
Here is Ryan's plan. Look at
budget.house.gov/
Committee on the Budget
Deerhunter, there is NO right to marry who you want, when it is not the opposite sex, if you believe so show me. RIghts you guys don't know rights form ass holes.
The US Tax Code is several thousand pages long, and none of it was written by a Member of the House or Senate. Allowing US Corporations to move American Jobs offshore (with a tax deduction for the expenses associated with outsourcing and off-shoring) and then providing a loophole to those same corporations that taxes will not be charged if funds are not repatriated to the US, thus the Romney Model of keeping money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. No laws have been broken, but the graft and greed associated with control of the US Tax Code has grown beyond the control of our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle.