It is about time.

I know good, bright people holding down two full-time jobs, who pay more taxes than the rich.

The rich are the ones who should be paying a fairer share.

"Neither of the non-binding blueprints has a chance of passage in the opposing chamber, leaving Congress no closer to resolving deep differences over how to shrink U.S. deficits and grow the economy." So this basically means nothing? I did notice some conspicuous omissions. There's no mention about staying out of other peoples wars, and no mention of cutting aid to foreign countries. But, It does say they want to cut aid to US citizens. Something seems just not right, in fact, it's just plain wrong.

I currently pay more taxes than Mitt Romeny, who lives off ill-begotten, treasure-island-sheltered, investments.

therefore, FOWLNJ, I am one of those hard-working people that I am talking about.

Oh, by the way, as an individual, I also pay more taxes than General Electric, Exxon, and Apple...combined.

They actually get refunds each year....

FOLWNJ

rich people pay the vast majority of taxes collected. it's just a fact.

the idiotic Left doesnt get it

Dollar for dollar yes they do. Percentage wise, no they don't.

But the idiotic right doesn't get it!

Right or wrong had nothing to do with their votes. It was all about THEIR re-election.

How can anyone possibly comment on the inappropriateness off the revenue increases, without knowing what they are?

And how can Republicans complain about the current deficit, when the largest factors contributing to the recent run up in the nation's debt are the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, Tarp, and the medicare prescription drug program (which does not permit the government to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers), all GOP sponsored programs?

"Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014 joined all the Senate Republicans in opposing the measure"

if politicians would STOP campaigning for the next election, maybe we could actually make progress in this country.

These politicians just keep campaigning for every 2 year elections.

Something has to give way because the dam is about to burst....

I think it's about time all of the party followers knock off the BS spewing, and understand that the people out here are having a hard enough time of it keeping a dollar in their pockets, without the government trying to get their grubby hands on that dollar. Congress can raise their pay whenever they wish, but how many out here in the real working world can do that? Very damn few. But that doesn't matter, does it, as long as your favorite party gets its way, right?

As I commented below, I'm really confused by some of the comments here...

People are complaining about a Senate budget that is raising revenue by closing tax loopholes primarily on the rich.

Nearly word for word, Romney RAN on the claim that he was going to balance the budget by closing tax loopholes primarily for the rich (or so he claimed).

So, do we only disagree with closing tax loopholes on the rich when Democrats propose it? Or is it just that even the conservatives who were supporting Romney knew that he was full of crap and that he was really going to hit the middle class the hardest by closing tax loopholes? I'm just trying to understand the wild inconsistencies coming from conservatives here...

"The Senate had not passed a budget resolution since 2009 because of fiscal policy disputes with House Republicans that forced Congress to turn to numerous stop-gap spending measures to avoid government shutdowns. "

Baloney. The Democrats controlled the House in 2009 and 2010, and didn't need even one vote from Republicans to pass a Budget, since a simple majority vote prevails in the House.

The REAL reason that the Democrats didn't pass a Budget is so they could continue the sky-high 'stimulus' spending even after the 'stimulus' money ran out - using 'Continuing Resolutions' to keep up the spending levels.

What difference would it make, the more you get the more you spend. Sure take another trillion from the evil corporations, who do you think will cover that? Right, it all rolls down to ....you guessed it the consumer!

Corporate profits now stand at 14.2 percent, the largest share at any time since 1950, and only 61.7 percent goes to corporate employees, near its lowest since 1966. Corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1 percent since the end of 2008 while personal income has only risen 1.4 percent. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that publicly listed companies held an estimated $4.75 trillion in cash in 2012. Cash now represents more than 12 percent of corporate assets. Each year, the government spends 1.3 trillion (2011), 1.1 trillion (2012) and 845 billion (C.B.O. projected 2013) more than is received. The government provides tax breaks worth 1.1 trillion. That is more than the cost of Medicare and Medicaid combined. It is more than Social Security. It tops the defense budget. This budget can easily
be balanced without attacking the poor, the disabled, the sick, the children, the military, the V.A., or the elderly. Do the arithmetic.

I have every confidence that the Democrats will find a way to spend new revenues. To them people with money are just an ATM. They do not take the debt seriously. Interest payments on the debt has reached a third of the national defense budget and is almost the same as the amount spent on medicaid. that is 220 Billion dollars and we could be spending on something else, far more than you'll ever raise by taxing get rich. It is stupid to continue to let it grow at the current rate of a trillion a year. I am NOT against new revenue as long as the money goes to paying off the debt and everyone shares the tax burden.

@FOLWNJ post#1.3

There is no such thing as an "idiotic left" what there is, in fact, is a conservative republican party wedded to idiotic economic policies that have driven the national debt and not relieved it. Toss in the idiotic fact that the last republican administration engineered two idiotic wars, cut taxes during a time of war, something no administration has ever done in the history of the U.S., enlarged government by expanding Medicare and establishing the idiotic 78 billion dollar a year Department of Homeland Security, and viola economic catastrophe!

Throw in the fact that the republicans have, since the Reagan administration, pushed a Friedmanite economic program that allows for wealth accumulation without value added, just push a few papers, do a hostile buyout, ship jobs overseas, and viola, billions in profit for the most undeserving and morally deficient profiteers and with no tangible benefit to the American public and we arrive at today's economic condition. It is a fact that the last 3 republican presidencies have done nothing for the middle class and has as its goal the destruction of the middle class, there can be no other explanation when one looks at who is profiting from republican policies and who is suffering. Dick Cheney's Haliburton Stock rose in value from 1.2 million to over 120 million in one year (2005), at the same time the administration was awarding no bid contracts to the company he was formerly a CEO of.

Oh, by the way, as an individual, I also pay more taxes than General Electric, Exxon, and Apple...combined.

They actually get refunds each year....

Funny how they are all supporters of the DNC! Now why doesnt Barry make them pay their taxes hmmmm?

Well I never do enjoy when any politician changes their vote from what they believe to what they believe is politically expedient. Scott Brown did that in Massachusetts. Actually voted more liberal than conservative his final year to try to appeal to the Bay State residents. Lame. And four democrats have done the same just now. Yes, they're from very conservative States, but you should always have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, not cower behind a vote count. Then you have simpletons like FedUpWithFed who then say "they know its wrong!!!!!" No, they don't. They know it's right, but they're kowtowing to their voters. And I do not respect politicians that have no moral compass.

And of course, this is why the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years, because the Tea Party does not negotiate. What is supposed to happen now is both sides get together and give a little. But the Tea Party doesn't believe in democracy. They believe in dictatorship. They will not back off on some cuts and add some revenue. The democrats WILL back off on revenue and suck up more cuts, but compromise takes two parties, and there is only one willing to do the job.

So we go back to spending bills and debt ceilings. Until the GOP remembers how to govern, we will be stuck in this vicious cycle.

p.s.: I actually agree more with the GOP's budget than the democrats. The democrats cut loopholes, which I do like, but we need substantial more cuts, like the ones requested by the GOP.

p.p.s.: Although I give zero credit to the GOP for making those cuts. Lovely how they say "cut 4 trillion plus" without actually saying WHAT they will cut. It's like their "repeal Obamacare" garbage. Easy to say repeal... but what do they plan on replacing it with? That's why they have no credibility. The best they came up with was a two page pamphlet that became the laughing stock of Washington. Ryan's cuts are the same. "WE WILL CUT SPENDING ON.... uh... dhfaksjefhiuehfgsdfhaskjdhfa."

Great plan Ryan.

Here we go! Again dems try for a bill to raise taxes and not give a lot of relief on the debt. Even if it is on the rich. If they are going to raise some taxes how about some real cuts and my vote for the biggest cut is foreign aid. And again the repubs have a plan to cut more deficit but as usual it is to take away money from american poor that works their plan. Why not take then bull out of spending and let the middle east hate us for free. why not look at the stupid money they let go for stupid projects here and grants? We need our programs here. Maybe if the government would hire people who care and do their job instead of using the government job as a cushion, we could have programs but they could be trimmed if they were run right and not just put another bureaucrat in there.

demoturds never cut spending or taxes and never will, they dont want to lose a single lazy a$$, low information voter

ROY WILSON-336103

J R Browenstein "I currently pay more taxes than Mitt Romeny"

Wow, I'm impressed - you must make a LOT of money, since Romney paid about $6.2 Million in income taxes for 2010 and 2011.

Somehow, I suspect you might be exaggerating

I suspect you might suck at reading. Learn to recognize the quote function.

You could balance the budget just by putting a carbon tax on FOLWNJ's comments.

Roy,

Were you in favor of Romney's plan? Just curious.

It's just astounding to see many regular commenters on here who so vigorously defended Romney's plan of cutting tax loopholes -- closing of loopholes which he claimed would not hurt or raise the taxes of the middle class. Thus, by default, would mean that most of the revenue from closing tax loopholes would have come from the rich. And yet those exacty same commenters are now screaming bloody murder because the Senate budget proposed to cut tax loopholes to the rich..

Our economy is failing and Obama just offered 2 million to Jordan??? Let the oil rich muslims help their brothers!!

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-offers-additional-200-million-to-aid-jordan/

The United States already is the largest single donor of humanitarian aid for the Syrian people.

Obama said Friday that the extra money, if approved by Congress, will help provide more humanitarian assistance and basic services.

What about basic services for AMERICANS!! Obama is screaming about the poor who have no health insurance here.........2 million could provide a lot of health insurance!

STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DONT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless you plan to take it from YOUR pocket Barry!!!

Never Stop Asking Questions

I currently pay more taxes than Mitt Romeny, who lives off ill-begotten, treasure-island-sheltered, investments.

therefore, FOWLNJ, I am one of those hard-working people that I am talking about

The New York Times reported that Mitt Romney paid $1.95 Million dollars in taxes in 2011. In that case you are very rich or just plain ignorant. I'll bet that you will not earn $1.95 million in your whole pathetic life no less pay that amount of taxes.

Next time you want to make stupid statements at least do some homework.

J R Browenstein "I suspect you might suck at reading. Learn to recognize the quote function."

My apologies - I improperly attributed a comment by Never Stop Asking Questions to you.

"Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014 joined all the Senate Republicans in opposing the measure."

This is why Congressman's terms need to be limited and no more life-time memberships to their freeloading club of entitlements and benefits. I don't care if they are Democrats or Republicans, they don't care anything about the American people, they only care about themselves and maintaining control so they can use their positions for their own profit. They should only get ONE term and just increase the year amount by two or three for that term in Congress. No more of these absences from their jobs because of re-elections.

This story can't be true! How many time's on this news site have I had to listen to these Left wing radicals spew their crap about the government passes a budget every year. Now the story say's this is the first budget in 4 yrs? WTF Who's lying here, In the final analysis Left wing nut jobs would rather lie than tell the truth to hide their destructive agenda!!

Balances the budget in five years by addressing spending cuts and reforms across the board

o Balances the budget without utilizing revenues; cuts $2.3 trillion in taxes relative to CBO baseline

SPENDING: This budget proposal significantly reduces spending relative to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. It also brings spending below the historical average of 19.1 percent of GDP in the first year. Based on current CBO baseline, the budget would spend $9.6 trillion less over the next ten years.

• · Brings federal spending below historical average in very first year

o Reduces spending by nearly $9.6 trillion relative to CBO baseline

o Achieves a $17 billion surplus in FY2018

o Remains in surplus after initial balance, pays off $1.8 trillion of our national debt in 10 yr. window

o Includes entitlement reform for Medicare and Social Security

§ Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition

§ Proposes Social Security reforms to fix trust fund over 75 years

§ Preserves Medicare by giving all seniors the same health care plan as Members of Congress

o Reduces most discretionary spending to FY2008 levels

o Defense: replenishes $126 billion over sequester levels

o Freezes foreign aid spending at $5 billion per year

o Defunds duplicative or wasteful agencies and programs

o Sells off excess federal properties and land

o Eliminates the Davis-Bacon prevailing wages provisions

o Liquidates government ownership of “bailout” companies

• · Eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy

o Eliminates:

§ Department of Commerce

§ Department of Education (preserves Pell grants)

§ Department of Housing and Urban Development

§ Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to re-established Atomic Energy Commission)

o Privatizes Transportation Security Administration

• · Repeals Obamacare and Dodd-Frank

REVENUE: This budget provides a number of incentives to increase investment. By allowing Americans and businesses to keep more of their money, we will quicken the pace of deleveraging, allowing the economy to find its equilibrium, facilitating growth and employment.

• · Tax Reform

o Low rate flat tax for individuals and corporations

o Pro-growth and globally competitive

ENTITLEMENT REFORM: The Social Security reform proposal includes two main provisions: a gradual increase in the retirement age and progressive indexing. The budget also includes reform of Medicare through the Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act. This reform will provide seniors with better health care at a lower cost to the senior and to the taxpayers. Seniors will receive the same health insurance as their Members of Congress, at lower out-of-pocket cost.

• · Social Security

o Increase the retirement age over time, protecting beneficiaries

o Progressive Indexing, slows the growth of benefits for high-income and increases benefits for low income individuals

o Establish personal accounts that allow savers greater discretion over their retirement options

o Individual Choice that allows individuals to seek other means for retirement security outside the Social Security system

• · Medicare

o Gives all seniors the same health care plan as Members of Congress

REGULATIONS: This budget supports adoption of the REINS Act, which seeks to require all major regulations – that is, regulations with an economic impact of over $100 million – to be approved by an up-or-down Congressional vote before they can take effect. In requiring this, REINS allows Congress to re-assert its lawmaking authority over regulatory agencies to ensure that the agency has produced a rule that reflects what Congress intended.

• · Apply regulatory analysis requirements to independent agencies
• · Adopt the REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act
• · Sunset on regulations
• · Regulatory process reform
• · Incorporation of formal rulemaking for major rules

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

• · Open ANWR to drilling
• · Open outer continental shelf for drilling
• · Approve the Keystone XL pipeline
• · Increase permitting to drill on public lands.

Folwnj, you need to apologize to crack whores by comparing them to democrats.

Yes, those evil tax and spend Democrats are at it again. Meanwhile, the Moral Majority Jesus followers of the Republican party think of Jesus, and cut everything he would stand for. No hope for America, a country at one time I promised to defend, instead I'll just let both parties sink it into the new 3rd world country that both are hellbent into making it.

Democrats = I love Hollywood and Bankers. Republicans = Corporate Whores

Both only love 2 things, themselves and their power.

Siobhan27 "Roy, Were you in favor of Romney's plan? Just curious."

If you're talking about cutting out the 'loopholes', I absolutely agree with that, since the 'rich' should pay more in taxes, but the Republicans should use it as leverage to get the Democrats to cut spending.

The Republicans already gave Obama a $600 Billion (10 years) tax increase on the 'rich' and got virtually $0 in spending cuts. It's time to balance new tax revenues with actual spending cuts.

By the way - Any spending cuts proposed by Obama have to be limited to cuts over the next 4 years, since neither Obama or the Congress can obligate a future President or Congress to ANY spending cuts, so if Obama says "I propose that we cut $XXXXXX in spending AFTER 2016", it is just meaningless, rhetorical smoke and mirrors.

I wish I had to pay 10 million a year in taxes! What's the big deal?

roy im willing to bet what the guy ment was he pays a higher PERCENTAGE of his pay in taxes then romney.you have to be pretty low on the wage scale to pay less then billionaires capitol gains rate of 15 percent

We need to get rid of 'Baseline Budgeting', which allows the Congress to actually INCREASE SPENDING each year, and yet call it a CUT IN SPENDING.

Any increase in spending needs to be justified, and if part of it results from Inflation, it can be explained as such.

Great....More taxes on the low income in the disguise of hitting the wealthy.....WTF over?

Thank you, JohnQ, obviously, I meant that I pay a higher percentage than Romney.

Sentient humans knew what I was suggesting.

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that, as an individual human being, I pay more taxes than G.E., Exxon, and Apple combined.

That is criminal.

It's BS from both sides. Am I actually supposed to be impressed with revenue/cuts over a ten year period? I thought annual meant something different. So is the real annual budget what they have proposed divided by ten? Do they present it this way so the numbers sound more impressive? What, pray tell could next years budget numbers look like?

More smoke and mirrors from those sidestepping their responsibilities with no trace of compromise from either side. As an employer, if my employees did not accomplish what they were hired to do, there would be no pay/job for them at the end of the month. They all act like pukes, feel they are above the law, and thumb their noses at the very people who put them there. Thoroughly disgusted the whole lot of them. Don't care what party you're from.

Is there anyone who supported Romney's plan of closing tax loopholes for the rich who are simultaneously unhappy with the Senate's proposal to close tax loopholes for the rich who wants to explain the difference? Or why you the feel differently now?

Anybody..? Anybody at all?

Trust 2112,

You make the most sense on this thread!! Everybody's right, Nobody's wrong!!

Never Stop Asking Questions

Thank you, JohnQ, obviously, I meant that I pay a higher percentage than Romney.

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that, as an individual human being, I pay more taxes than G.E., Exxon, and Apple combined.

Get a grip already. Exxon has been the number one contributor to federal income taxes for many years now. If you mean percentage, say percentage, lest you continue to look like an idiot.

I see few people bothered to read the part of the article that reveals that both the D. spending bill passed by the senate and the R. spending bill passed by the House are essentially empty political posturing that have no chance of passing into law whatsoever.

They will both die in congress without being passed by the opposite legislative body.

johnQcitizen2 "roy im willing to bet what the guy ment was he pays a higher PERCENTAGE of his pay in taxes then romney.you have to be pretty low on the wage scale to pay less then billionaires capitol gains rate of 15 percent"

I suspect that you are correct, but people should be sure that their comments make sense.

By the way - If an owner of a company pays 15% on 'dividends' from that company, after the company has already paid 35% in income taxes on the same business income, then it's misleading to say that they are 'not paying their fair share' when they have actually paid closer to 50% on the original business income.

The Democrats' plan from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray aims to reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

The Republican plan from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan seeks $4.6 trillion in savings over the same period without raising new taxes. It aims to reach a small surplus by 2023 through deep cuts to health care and social programs that aid the poor.

Well, there you have it. Robin Hood and the evil Barons. Can someone explain why there are tax loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of. How is it fair to have loopholes that forces someone making a wage while building this countries infrastructures to pay 25-30% taxes on their income but allow someone making millions sitting at a desk computer to pay 15% on their income? Then you have the overpaid superstars that only play ball half a year making millions who can afford to pay lawyers to find those loopholes and hide their $20 million dollar a years salary. Yeah, it's a fair tax system alright if you're a multimillionaire.

I knew that increasing the taxes on the wealthy wouldn't be enough. Now they want to raise EVERYONES taxes to cover their spending AND pay raises. Thanks a lot all of you who said " YES WE CAN" and " move forward". You people who have been blaming the Republicans for everything have been FOOLED and now you are going to pay too. This is only the beginning. Just wait til your free ObamaCare kicks in and your taxes will soar even higher to pay for that. Way to go America.

Where are all the usual LIBRAL commenters today> Pigotry, Feisty, Bev. Where ARE you? WHERE is all your praise for the Democrats now? Show yourselves !!!! I want those answers you always seem to have.

Senate is attempting to pass more debt to America's children.

How is raising taxes passing on more debt and how is cutting spending and no tax increase going to stop passing debt on to our children? I do not understand this reasoning. Plus it all means nothing as neither bill is going to pass and we are going to remain in square 1.

Thanks guys ..... now it's time you guys to take a fun filled vacation for all of your hard work. Oh and do it on the tax payers money, after all, it is the standard operating procedure.

The rich are the ones who should be paying a fairer share.

Nope. They already pay the vast majority of taxes collected. You want fair . . . then the 47% that don't pay ONE CENT in federal income tax need to be paying THEIR SHARE!

I single-handedly pay more taxes than Exxon....period.

Baloney. The Democrats controlled the House in 2009 and 2010, and didn't need even one vote from Republicans to pass a Budget, since a simple majority vote prevails in the House.

The REAL reason that the Democrats didn't pass a Budget is so they could continue the sky-high 'stimulus' spending even after the 'stimulus' money ran out - using 'Continuing Resolutions' to keep up the spending levels.

Hmmm, 2009.... what was going on then? Oh, I remember. The conservative's Saint Bush tanked the Global Economy.

We forgot to mention that little tidbit of info. Yeah, 8 years of work to get the world economy on the brink of depression should have been solved with a pen stroke, right?

I have to laugh at the conservative stance that we should put the same failed party in charge of our economy again after the record they have. They don't seem to remember anything at all about "Trickle Down Economics" or Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.

You certainly won't hear them mention the fact that they have never, EVER, solved a deficit problem. You won't hear them mention the fact that recessions seems to hit after a republican is president. You darn sure won't hear a conservative say that they spent the surplus our nation gained under Clinton.

All you'll hear is their "justifications" as to why those facts don't matter or they had nothing to do with it and every conservative will avoid the issues like the plague. But, they'll be glad to stand on a soap box and tell you how grandpa doesn't need medicare so let's use it to solve the crisis the they put us in.

WOW! that is really going to put a huge dent in the problem. Like I said the Democratic Party just loves to spend, spend and tax, tax everyone. It's never enough for these Democrats, they are addicted to spend and tax just like a drug user.

Never Stop Asking Questions

I single-handed lay pay more taxes than Exxon....period.

Ok. Seeing as Exxon pays, on average, more than $1b in taxes per month and you pay more; might you give me a loan?

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/04/17/exxonmobil-tax-facts-the-ones-you-wont-see-in-the-news/

Siobhan27

It's just astounding to see many regular commenters on here who so vigorously defended Romney's plan of cutting tax loopholes -- closing of loopholes which he claimed would not hurt or raise the taxes of the middle class. Thus, by default, would mean that most of the revenue from closing tax loopholes would have come from the rich. And yet those exacty same commenters are now screaming bloody murder because the Senate budget proposed to cut tax loopholes to the rich..

Stop acting like a typical progressive who only hears what they want and cherry picks a statement to make a point. Romney was in favor of closing loopholes but he was NOT in favor of raising taxes AND closing the holes. Either of the plans would have raised the same amount of money BUT by doing both it would damage a fragile economic recovery.

You wouldn't want that done to you so why do you think that anyone would want that done to them?

The republicans understand that taxes have to be increased along with making fundamental changes in spending. History has taught many that the democrats will negotiate tax increases for spending cuts but never produce any cuts. It happened during the 80's and 90's and we are still waiting for cuts in spending.

Lets see the cuts go into effect first then talk about taxing. Increasing taxes just takes more money out of the economy and kills any growth. It is the growth of the economy that drives an increase in tax revenue. Basic Economic 101 dude. Four years of trickle down government has not increased the GDP one penny and in fact if you take out QE1, QE2 and QE3 the economy has actually shrank by deflating the currency.

The democrats want to tout the stock market growth when actually it is in the same place that it was was when they took control because we have DEFLATED the value of the dollar. This the same reason why we pay nearly $4.00 per gallon for gas. So if you think that only the rich are getting tax increases you are dreaming. The Democrats are sticking it to you every time you go to the pump. I ask you if you are spending more at the pump can you use that money to buy other things. The answer is NO.

Roy,

Two of your comments I think really point to a misunderstanding of the way government spending on programs generally works.

Programs are typically set up with a projected cost several years into the future. Those costs sometimes increase in part because of inflation (which you did mention), as well as a variety of other reasons (because the program itself was initially implemented in such a way to increase costs over time, because of more claims (e.g., Social Security due to an aging population), etc.).

While I understand that it should be made clearer when someone says they are cutting spending whether or not they're talking about a net decrease (from the previous year) in spending on a given program or area, it is in fact still cutting spending when one cuts some of the increase from any given program (especially if those were the projected cost increases from the beginning of the program).

Similiarly, with your point about Obama and his proposals for cutting future spending. Programs, cuts, and reforms are regularly proposed as long-term projected cuts (and often are set up as progressive cuts over years because it's often better to wind down any given program rather than make abrupt and sudden cuts). This is common of every president, every Congress, etc. You will find that in many of the proposal that the conservatives have put forward, they are long-term cuts -- not just cuts that would fall within a given year, or given term (whether we are talking about a President, Senator or Rep.).

Bosslimo "Hmmm, 2009.... what was going on then? Oh, I remember. The conservative's Saint Bush tanked the Global Economy."

How convenient of you to absolve the Democratic Congress when they had oversight responsibility for Wall Street and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, who's loose lending practices precipitated the collapse. And how convenient of you to ignore the deregulation of Wall Street by Clinton, which allowed the questionable trading practices to occur.

Never Stop-

Reading your comments about taxation demonstrates how our government can continue to grow and the same politicians continue to be re-elected.

And this also applies to all of those who wish to continue lobbing missiles at seemingly every other country around the world.

The Democrats' plan from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray aims to reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

So to the liberal media, $1tril in taxes and $850bil in cuts is equal??

To all the typical idiots out there. You could take every dollar from "the wealthy" and it won't be even close to $1tril, so where do you idiots think the rest is coming from? Right, loopholes from the wealthy my ass.

Democratic party has proven they hate taxpayers time and time again, and this seals it.

The ONLY way to balance a budget is to get INCOME. The Republican plan of cutting every single benefit was not only inhumane but UNREALISTIC.

Mind blowing how just stupid some people are! You might need to take a look at Greece, Spain, and most of the rest of Europe and now Cyprus to see what continually overspending does. Just why do you think we will be any different doing the same thing?

Eventually the dole is gonna run dry when eveyone is on the dole! People are not going to continue to work hard to give money to people that aren't or who think they are entitled to other people's money.

JRBrowenstein - companies are people my friend.

I swear to god and three other white men, if I hear the rich need to pay their fair share again, I'm going to scream!!!!!! I am not an economist, but I am practical. In all honesty, I can care less how much the rich are paying. I can care less how much my neighbor is paying. My concern are those able bodied citizens who pay absolutely nothing! My concern is the taxes that the rich, my neighbor and myself pay year after year is being mostly squandered. Others also use the argument that you can't use simple budgeting for the government. Why not? Spending more money than you have causes debt is applicable regardless of who or what is doing the spending. Lastly, you folks with the class envy need to get over it!!! Again, I can care less how much Romney pays in taxes, however, I am thankful there are Romney's in this country. I work two jobs, six days a week and both of my bosses are similar to the Romneys of this country in contrast to the single mother who has never worked a day in her life, or the folks at low end paying jobs unwilling to better themselves, but hoping and praying that the government continues to increase minimum wage. Come on people, let's come together and stop the finger pointing. It ain't about revenue, it's about spending. Speaking of which: how much did Biden pay for his trip to Paris and London? Or more accurately, how much did WE pay? Just asking...... God bless America!!!!!!

ROY WILSON-336103

Wow, would ya look at that! Already got a conservative giving us the shuck and jive about how it's somebody else's fault.

And... Surprise! Failed to address the fact that Republicans have never, EVER solved a deficit crisis. Failed to mention that trickle down economics doesn't work.

Thanks for the duck and cover; it just proved my point.

Posted by J R Browenstein

Sure...GE didn't pay taxes but GE is a company, not a person. Mitt pays more in taxes each year than most people earn in a life time so if you're going to try to make a point, don't be an id!ot about it.

So you are admitting that companies aren't people, even though you pay more in taxes than Mitt Romney does (considering that Mitt makes huge amounts of money that he tries to avoid having to report by laundering it through his wife's offshore trust, such as his Delphi-stripping profits).

Hey Roy, what part of this sentence don't you understand?

The Democrats' plan from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray aims to reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

Sure wealthy Americans pay more taxes than the middle-class pay, even if they only pay 10% of their income. What kind of a tax rate on incomes of over $1 million annually would you think was fair, considering that the top tax rate when Eisenhower was President was 92%, and when Nixon was President it was 70%?

How about a just 50% top tax rate on incomes of over $1 million, considering that was the top tax rate during Reagan's first term? At least a tax rate of 50% would spur reinvestment of productive income at home rather than investment overseas, trying to mitigate such a tax rate!

There are two sides to every story, and tax fairness to Democrats would mean a return to the tax rates that we saw from 1960 to 1980, which would also greatly reduce our budget deficit too. Surely there must be some middle ground that we can agree-on, and I think that a return to the rates that America saw during Reagan's first term in office might be a fair middle ground, considering that I feel strongly that wealthy Americans have been getting away with murder on tax rates since Reagan's 2nd term.

We want to do what is fair for all Americans, right?

Siobhan27 "Roy, Two of your comments I think really point to a misunderstanding of the way government spending on programs generally works."

Nonsense. I understand fully how government spending works, and your 'explanation' doesn't change anything. Congress should have to explain ALL spending increases, and all 'Baseline Budgeting' does is cloud the issue.

But I have a question for you - Why does the government treat borrowings from China as increases in the Debt, but they treat borrowings from the Social Security and Medicare 'Trust Funds' as 'Revenues'? Why is money 'borrowed' from your individual Trust Accounts any different than money borrowed from China, Japan, etc?

Commonsense,

You do realize that according to Romney's plan, that closing loopholes would have in and of itself raised taxes, right? I think you need to clarify what you're saying. Are you saying that closing loopholes won't raise taxes? Or that you have an issue with the fact that Democrats have (at different times) asked for raising taxes on the rich and closing loopholes on the rich?

Also, which two programs are you referring to when you say they would raise the same amount of money?

And lastly, are you also aware that deep cuts in social programs (which is what conservatives are primarily proposing) as a means to pay down debt, is also going to result in a net loss of money in the economy? Furthermore, if we're so worried about money actually circulating in the economy to promote growth -- middle class and poor won't sit on their money, because they can't. They have to spend it, because they need to in order to survive. Whereas, money that has gone to the rich is going nowhere and has been that way for many years.

So, given the two options -- lowering debt via taxing the rich vs. by slashing money that goes toward the poor and middle class -- the latter seems to be the one that will guarantee more money in the system and more growth.

Austerity measures, particularly austerity measures that make deep cuts in social programs and education, have never helped economic growth and in fact often slow it. Europe is dealing with this very problem right now.

You know, for a bunch of people who claim to be so patriotic, they sure work hard to starve the beast so our government will collapse.

Wonder what that would be like. Oh, yeah, Somalia.

So you are admitting that companies aren't people, even though you pay more in taxes than Mitt Romney does (considering that Mitt makes huge amounts of money that he tries to avoid having to report by laundering it through his wife's offshore trust, such as his Delphi-stripping profits).

I was only making the distinction that Mitt Romney is an individual person and not a corporation like GE. Any extrapolations on your part to that statement are your own problem.

And if you think Mitt Romney is the only person who has offshore accounts, you are an imbecile. Our Sec of State and his wife have more money offshore than Mitt Romney and you clowns completely ignore it. As do the Gores, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and many of the super-rich "public officials" in our Congress or in past/present political circles.

I'm still waiting for all the Hollywood libs to put their money where their mouth is and start donating "their fair share" to the IRS to help offset the deficit.

Bosslimo "Failed to mention that trickle down economics doesn't work."

Really? Then perhaps you can explain away how the economy grew by 83.9% over 8 years under Reagan, an average increase of 10.1% per year, and average income increased dramatically.

Under Obama, it has only grown by 8.4% over the last 4 years, an average increase of only 2.1% per year, and average income has actually DROPPED by about 10%.

Ugh..

Didn't get to fix an error in my previous post. It should have read:

So, given the two options -- lowering debt via taxing the rich vs. by slashing money that goes toward the poor and middle class -- the latter seems to be the one that will guarantee less money in the system and less growth.

Roy,

Again, my point was that many programs that are increasing were projected to increase from the beginning. In that sense, the increase in spending already has been explained.

You do realize that according to Romney's plan, that closing loopholes would have in and of itself raised taxes, right? I think you need to clarify what you're saying. Are you saying that closing loopholes won't raise taxes? Or that you have an issue with the fact that Democrats have (at different times) asked for raising taxes on the rich and closing loopholes on the rich?

It's a semantic argument, really. The tax rates exist yet the loopholes allow exceptions from that taxation. So, closing the loopholes doesn't actually "raise" taxes because it just makes people pay the taxes they should be paying in the first place without the exemptions. Raising taxes would literally be increasing the tax rate.

It's like when Democrats claim that letting the "Bush era tax cuts" expire would be "raising taxes on the poor"....which is nonsense. The poor were enjoying a tax holiday so when it expired, their rates wouldn't have been "raised" but would have reverted back to what they should have been paying all along.

ROY WILSON-336103

Easily done. Reagan RAISED taxes ten times.

The reason Obama's is low is due to the obstruction in congress and the global collapse of the economy.

Seriously, you think people don't notice the efforts to suppress any success this president has? The Grand Obstructionist Party is still going strong. They don't give a @!$%# whether they run this country to Hell as long as Obama fails.

I love how when the left argues that everyone else should pay more taxes, they spout out historical federal tax rates as their argument. But what they intentionally leave out is that the same people that are paying all the federal taxes, are also the only people paying all the local taxes which have increased ridiculously.

So let's tax homeowner's and actual taxpaying workers (not those that get every cent back) who pay for the majority of local taxes more, because they don't pay enough to the bloated corrupt federal government.

These people are already subsidizing half the country, they do not deserve to pay more because of some convoluted definition of the word fair.

Maybe you brainwashed hacks should hold your local and federal governments responsible for all the money they throw away, instead of penalizing those who are trying pay their own way.

Funny how they are all supporters of the DNC! Now why doesnt Barry make them pay their taxes hmmmm?

You do realize the reason most of the 25% of corporations that pay no taxes is because of Republican cuts under first Reagan and then Bush right? You do realize Obama has been fighting to close corporate loopholes for four years and republicans block him right? Hmmmmm.

There has been much talk recently about increasing the minimum wage, but perhaps that's not such a great idea for the minimum wage earner - consider this;

If a family with 2 children has a worker that makes the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and works 40 hours per week, this is their net income;

Wages = $15,080 per year, less payroll taxes of ($1,154) = Net Income of $13,926.

Tax Credits for Children and Earned Income Credit = $6,925.

Food Stamps = $600 per month or $7,200 per year.

Health Care – Free thru Medicaid.

Total net income = $28,051 per year, or $2,338 per month.

Now let's consider someone making $12 per hour;

Wages = $24,960, less payroll taxes of ($1,909) = $23,051

Tax credits for children and Earned Income Credit = $6,683.

Food Stamps – Not eligible.

Health Insurance - ($13,375) - 2009 average figures (a).

Total Net Income = $16,359 per year, or $1,363 per month.

So a family getting $12 per hour actually has almost $1,000 LESS net income each month to spend than a family that makes minimum wage.

Now let's consider someone making $20 per hour;

Wages = $41,600, less payroll taxes of ($3,182) = $38,418.

Tax credits for children and Earned Income Credit = $3,166.

Food Stamps – Not eligible.

Health Insurance - ($13,375) - 2009 average figures (a).

Total Net Income = $28,209 per year, or $2,351 per month.

So a family getting minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) actually has just about as much net income each month to spend as a family that makes $41,600 per year in wages ($20 per hour). Giving someone a wage increase that excludes them for getting food stamps and Medicaid can cause a huge DROP in their standard of living.

(a) Health Insurance - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Why are Democrats so opposed to having the 47% who pay no income taxes at all contribute at least something to the government that provides all sorts of giveaway programs specifically for them?

Warren Buffet has a plan for the wealthy to contribute more of their income to help restore fiscal sanity in America, why not mention that fact rather than chiding wealthy Democrats that don't pay their fair share of taxes?

Bill Gates pays his teenage Chinese workers 50 cents per hour, plus they work 15-hour days and don't even get time and one-half over 8 hours either, and they sleep at-work in dormitories where 8 workers share a single bedroom too.

Do you think how Bill subjugates his Chinese workforce is fair? How is the average American worker supposed to compete with that? How much in the way of taxes would the average American worker pay if we allowed companies to treat their workers the same way here?

http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports?id=0034

Is that how you treat your Chinese workers?

If we are going to broach the minimum wage argument tan consider this:

In 1972 the price of gas was 35 cents/gallon and the minimum wage was $1.60/hour.

Today the price of gas is 10.5 times what it was 40 years ago.

So you don't think that the minimum wage should have kept spending power pace since 1972?

As 10.5 times $1.60 would be $16.80/hour.

Or just a few cents more than the current Australian minimum wage in US Dollars.

$15.96 (Australian minimum wage) times $1.045 equals $16.67/hour US.

Australia only has 5.3% unemployment too!

Really? Then perhaps you can explain away how the economy grew by 83.9% over 8 years under Reagan, an average increase of 10.1% per year, and average income increased dramatically.

Roy Wilson: You're too easy. Reagan tripled the debt and Bush doubled it. There's a reason Romney pretended outrage every time Obama called his tax cut plan trickle down. Because only fools believe it works. Here's a clue. Every time a republican has cut taxes he's borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars that he's pumped into the economy usually to the military. When you spend hundreds of billions of borrowed Chinese money and hire millions for military contractors and projects you boost the economy the same time you boost the debt.

That's why Romney not only proposed spending another 200 billion a year on the military and a new space program. Without massive debt spending the loss of revenue from his tax cuts would be obvious. Spend the borrowed money and the idiots still believe. Come talk when republicans cut taxes and reduce the deficit the same year. It won't happen.

ROY WILSON-336103

Are you really advocating for people to get less so they can get welfare?!?

Besides that, Tax credits for children and Earned Income Credit = $6,683 is great if you have 2 kids.

I would hope you sought to pull people from poverty, not drive them to it.

I don't pay more taxes than Mitt Romney or General Electric,but I pay more taxes than that family of 12 that lives in the section 8 (taxpayer funded) public housing around the block from my own well-kept private home for which I pay insane mortgage and property taxes so I can support those who don't. Why do we all think we have to work two or more jobs? The taxes are killing us. The cost of food,fuel,and other things are out of control. I have to bust my a**s just to live decent. And still there are those who say more,higher taxes are good. And its not the fault of the rich. After all,they were smart enough to build a company,make good investments and create the jobs that we have. So they are rich. They worked and earned it. Taxing, over regulating and sticking it to the rich only hurts the working man (that's you and me) in the end. Tax "The man" and "The man" cuts jobs. It makes more poor people. Poor people who depend on taxpayers. (And Democrats) Taxpayers that work for that rich guy. The rich guy that everyone despises,yet provides jobs for the people. So what will happen in that liberal utopia when there are no more "rich" and no more corporations? Even the guy who makes the government cheese will lose his job. (Then what?) Who will provide for the poor when there are no more people working or rich people to work for? We need to bring jobs back here. Make incentives for companies to retun to America. Back in the day,we made things in America. Everyone worked and the money stayed here. You didn't get rich, but you made a living. I would gladly pay twice the price for a coffee pot made in the USA than one made in China. Wanna stimulate the economy? That might be a start.

J R,

It's useless hair-splitting used to try to make things sound more palatable to one's constituents.

We all know that when loopholes are closed, that means a person who would otherwise utilize that loophole is going to be paying more taxes. Thus, their taxes do what? Increase.

If a tax break expires leading a person to pay more taxes than they did in a previous year, what happens to their taxes? They increase.

What makes the distinction you point out especially useless is that no one pays their actual tax rate, regardless of what their bracket is. Thus, it's completely irrelevant to even discuss actual tax rates -- what we are almost always discussing is what people actually pay in taxes.

Wow, the Democrats just can't win can they? You expect them to cut the debt by meaningful amounts, and cut taxes by cutting programs, but without cutting any of the programs that could lead to that result.

Not to mention the fact that it's clearly not the nearly $8tn that Bush put on the charge card and that the President is in the middle of sluggish economic growth that you also whine about him not solving.

Honestly, this whole thread is an indictment of the educational system.

And Roy, might want to do some research on that, the recession you're talking about was a much smaller one than the one we had when Obama took office, and at least in that case neither party was refusing to work on solving the problem, Reagan had to work across party lines to get that done. The GOP of present has yet to actually submit any of their own plans, because they don't have any.

Never stop asking questions....you're a moron. you just said that you individually pay more money than 3 or 4 huge companies. yes they may get a refund, but they pay MUCH MUCH more than you do. Thank you for dumbing down the comment section. just because you don't get a refund doesn't mean you pay more taxes, it means you get less back. It's ridiculous how you could not correct that in your head before letting your ignorant fingers type it out. I see Obama is doing wonders for the education portion of our country too...just fail kids daddy obammy is here to bail you out and the wealthy will pay for you, because we all know you are some overly-entitled wastes.

For all those who think your way and your solution is the only solution. Stop complaining on here and take action by going to the White house petition site and starting a petition. I don't see anything on the petition list saying anything about stopping or cutting foreign aid.

Roy Wilson, Well when you see it written down it begs the questions, why is there a reason to work anywhere but wendy's. The main difference being, I am paying for the ones working at wendy's, if they go get a real job, then all that spendable income is their money, not mine, and that seems a whole lot better to me.

zfromdelco

I thought Bush put in the "No Child Left Behind"

I guess that's another one conservatives want to pawn off, heh?

did anyone on the vine read the bill passed by the SENATE; go to the senate web page, read the damn thing, it will take about 30 minutes; the vast majority of new taxes will fall on those making between 60-200 thousand per year, I quess in Washington they are the new rich. Washington believes if you are not on welfare, food stamps, housing aid, medicaid, you are rich!

Correction to Post #1.90;

Now let's consider someone making $20 per hour;

Wages = $41,600, less payroll taxes of ($3,182) = $38,418.

Tax credits for children and Earned Income Credit = $3,166.

Food Stamps – Not eligible.

Health Insurance - ($13,375) - 2009 average figures (a).

Income Taxes = ($1,453).

Total Net Income = $26,756 per year, or $2,230 per month.

So a family getting minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) actually has MORE net income each month to spend than a family that makes $41,600 per year in wages ($20 per hour). Giving someone a wage increase that excludes them for getting food stamps and Medicaid can cause a huge DROP in their standard of living.

.

You do realize the reason most of the 25% of corporations that pay no taxes is because of Republican cuts under first Reagan and then Bush right? You do realize Obama has been fighting to close corporate loopholes for four years and republicans block him right? Hmmmmm.

Man you are good with the excuses and lies. So why didn't the dems close all the loopholes when they had an unopposible majority?

@!$%#s repubs,teabaggers will not mention the two GODDAMN WARS!!!!! what ....you thought the @!$%# was FREE? Oh yeah , that's right ,Chaney said the @!$%# didn't MATTER!!!! you @!$%#ers are sooo @!$%#in' silly!!!!!

Never Stop Asking Questions

"I know good, bright people holding down two full-time jobs, who pay more taxes than the rich.

The rich are the ones who should be paying a fairer share."

Actually you know no such thing. Perhaps the recentage of tax to income may be higher but unlikely. The wealthy you think are not paying a "fair share" most likely pay more taxes in one year that the tow people you refer to make in 5 years.

I do understand that the tax code is far to complicated and needs reform but to simply say the wealth should pay more is not the right approach to the problem. WE ALL should pay taxes for the good of ALL. What really is being said by many is " I shouldn't have to pay taxes because the wealthy can afford it more than i can " Just to be clear I am far from wealthy. I have never had a job that paid me more than 35,000 a year. I have worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time however to have the thing my faily wanted and needed. I don't begrudge people of wealth who earned it and use it well. I am not jealous of them as many seem to be.

On the subject of these budgets. Both houses simply passed plans they knew will not go any further. The Senate after 4 years of noting simply put the things on paper to look as if they are trying....lol The House.. same ole same ole.

So a family getting minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) actually has just about as much net income each month to spend as a family that makes $41,600 per year in wages ($20 per hour). Giving someone a wage increase that excludes them for getting food stamps and Medicaid can cause a huge DROP in their standard of living.

Roy Wilson: You argue against higher minimum wage as a pretense that it would cost these people by losing benefits yet fail to point out republicans would end minimum wage and cut or eliminate all those benefits that make up the difference if democrats allowed it. Your party would have no minimum wage floor, no Medicaid, welfare or food stamps if you controlled 100% of government. Any business that doesn't pay enough that it's full time employees qualify for public benefits isn't paying enough. Tax payers shouldn't subsidize business.

Anybody else find it interesting that, while the article states the bill "closes tax loopholes for the rich"; it doesnt say anything about WHAT loopholes???? There are tax codes that limit or elimnate taxes on income derived from certian types of investment returns (like municipal bonds). What goes unspoken by the Democrats & the press is that, these are the ones perceived as the "loop holes" that the wealthy take advantage of since wealthy people derive most if their income from investments. SO closing these loopholes will force them to pay their share right? Here's the problem. EVERYONE with any kind of retirement savings (Roth-IRA's, 401k's, Company profit sharing, etc) gets the exact same advantages. The invetsment companies that manage these funds invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to take advantage of the tax breaks & increase everyones portfolios as well as make profit themselves. (And YES they are entitled to a profit. Do you honestly think these companies exist for altruistic reasons??) Getting rid of these tax codes affects EVERYONE, not "just" the rich.

Larry-367607 "Roy Wilson: You're too easy. Reagan tripled the debt..."

How about looking at the ACTUAL increase in the Debt.

The National Debt under Reagan increased by $1,692 Billion over 8 years, an average increase of $211 Billion per year.

The National Debt under Clinton increased by $1,627 Billion over 8 years, and average increase of $203 Billion per year.

Not much of a difference.

You do realize the reason most of the 25% of corporations that pay no taxes is because of Republican cuts under first Reagan and then Bush right? You do realize Obama has been fighting to close corporate loopholes for four years and republicans block him right? Hmmmmm.

Man you are good with the excuses and lies. So why didn't the dems close all the loopholes when they had an unopposible majority? $1tril says you don't answer that question.

honestdebate "You do realize the reason most of the 25% of corporations that pay no taxes is because of Republican cuts under first Reagan and then Bush right?"

Actually, corporations can file as a Subchapter S corporation, which means that they pay no corporate income tax, but they have to include all of the corporate income on their PERSONAL income tax return, so they are not avoiding any taxes.

rich people pay the vast majority of taxes collected. it's just a fact.

What brain dead Republicans leave out is that they also make the majority of the money yet still pay less percentage wise.

Bosslimo "ROY WILSON-336103 Are you really advocating for people to get less so they can get welfare?!?"

No, but I AM suggesting that the issue is a bit more complicated, and in the attempt to make life better for a family living on minimum wage, Congress may be doing them a great DISSERVICE.

By the way - Earned Income Credits are available to people without children too, but at a lower rate.

Roy,

Your numbers are off.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on 130% of poverty line. The poverty line for 2013 for family of 4 is 23,550. Thus, the cut off for eligibility for food stamps for a family of 4 is about $30,000. Thus, in your example, the person making 12 dollars an hour would still be eligible for food stamps.

Income eligibility for Medicaid actually varies from state to state. However, in Obamacare, the eligibility for income level would be 133% of poverty level across states. Thus, your 12 dollar an hour example would also be eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare.

So, in the end, using the indicators you were using, a person making a 12.00 minimum wage would still have a total household income above someone make 7.25. Quite a bit more, actually.

What brain dead Republicans leave out is that they also make the majority of the money yet still pay less percentage wise.

So what? They are still supporting everyone that do not pay taxes. What is enough in your eyes? Just being a bigot because you hate everyone wealthier than you doesn't mean you deserve more from them.

Greed and jealousy are dangerous things, and you and your fellow hand-outters suffer from both.

I think all the taxpayers should just stop working and earning a taxable income, then let's see what the takers do.

Obama's pledge to the ordinary folks "I can make a firm pledge" that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

"LIAR"

Roy,

Another issue with your numbers is that eligibility for these things depend on more than just income levels and many people making those incomes do not in fact receive Medicaid or food stamps.

And the primary thing in your calculations that is driving the difference in incomes is the cost of health insurance. Which is a lot more telling of how badly we need to deal with the exorbitant prices of healthcare, than it says anything about minimum wage.

Larry-367607 "Roy Wilson: You argue against higher minimum wage as a pretense that it would cost these people by losing benefits yet fail to point out republicans would end minimum wage and cut or eliminate all those benefits that make up the difference if democrats allowed it."

The Republicans are not going to 'end minimum wage and cut or eliminate all those benefits'. No responsible Republican has suggested anything of the kind, and that would require the approval of Democrats in Congress and the President to implement.

I provided the analysis not as an argument against the minimum wage - just to demonstrate that the issue is more complicated than it would seem, and when someone says that 'You can't afford to support a family on Minimum Wage', it is not even close to being true, because they actually have more money to spend than a family making over $40,000 per year.

Never Stop Asking Questions said:

I currently pay more taxes than Mitt Romeny... Oh, by the way, as an individual, I also pay more taxes than General Electric, Exxon, and Apple...combined.

Not only can you not spell "Romney," there's no way you paid more in taxes than he did - $1.94 million on income of $13.7 million, according to CNN - much less three of the top 25 corporate tax payers in the U.S. In 2011, Exxon (#1) paid $27.3 BILLION on net income of $42 billion; Apple (#9) paid $4 BILLION on net income of $33 billion; and GE (#17)paid $2.92 BILLION on net income of $15.9 billion.

Perhaps you should change your handle to "Never Stop Believing Obama."

Extreme rich + Extreme Poor= Revolution (Dictatorship). The wealthy can run the poor to the ground, in the end, they will not be wealthy. Wealthy people maintain their wealth by providing jobs to the poor, and by opening a window where some of the poor can climb out and dive into wealth. A strong middle class helps by providing a safety wall against revolution for the very wealthy. The middle class redistribute wealth to everyone. In the end, the wealthy will be wealthy and everyone will just have to live with that. If everyone was wealthy, we will all be poor because trading will stop.

Siobhan27 "Roy, Your numbers are off."

While different States have some different eligibility requirements, the analysis I provided is pretty typical - I used California as an example.

The point is that a family that makes minimum wage of $7.25 per hour ($15,080 per year) actually has almost twice as much money to spend (over $28,000) because of all of the 'credits' and 'freebies' they receive, not to mention the free medical care they receive, so they are not as 'poor' as many people think.

Here is the true republican economic plan, it was implemented in our country during the Reagan administration by, guess who? Dick Cheney Don Rumsfeld, et. al

The 118 comments above are a case in point of why this problem will never be solved in the modern government paradigm. There has been too much propaganda put out there that people have slurped up hook, line, and sinker, never questioning where it came from and what the motive was. As this bickering continues, the US will continue sinking into the abyss of debt until it becomes insolvent.

There is a huge deficit now, but this will only get worse in the future as more people become eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Between the two Bush wars, Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts, the economy that tanked in 2008 under Bush's purview, and the the well intended but poorly timed Obamacare, a budget surplus in 2000 became the biggest deficit in US history. BIG steps are needed to avert this crisis (like Greece austerity big steps), but Congress can't agree on the steps needed to do it.

Long story short: The system doesn't work anymore.

Question - Just what is the 'fair share' that the 'rich' should pay? The top 10% will make about 43% of the income this year, but will pay over 75% of the income taxes.

The next 43% will earn 44% of the income but pay only 25% of the income taxes.

The bottom 47% will earn about 13% of the income but pay 0% of the income taxes, while getting virtually all of the benefits of the $735 Billion spent on 'welfare' each year (which accounts for about 70% of the $1.1 Trillion Deficit last year).

So who's REALLY "not paying their fair share"?

Thank you, my friend Roy Wilson! I was about to help educate the low information folks out there. Facts like that really don't jibe with what liberals feel to be the truth, irrelevant of if it IS the truth or not. Dirty Harry Reid (the recent blamer of the Marine accident in his state on the sequester - pathetic) and his merriweather band of henchmen, could confiscate ALL the money of the top 1% of income earners and it wouldn't put a dent in the crack-addict spending budget deficit.

Anyway, you have to love liberal Democrat logic: in an era of big honkin' government (a bed wetting nanny state, peeping tom, and drone wars government at that), where trillion dollar annual deficit increases are the "new normal," only in liberal land is it a success story to chip off$1.85 trillion in TEN YEARS, and most of it coming from tax hikes, not fat cutting.

Here's an idea: since liberals LOVE to talk about returning tax rates to the Clinton era (an era of which, by the way had a lot more tax breaks and shelters than is had today, effectively reducing the tax rate overall to those who paid them), how about we return a SPENDING rate to the Clinton era, huh? Hell, if our deficit has grown from $9 trillion to nearly $17 trillion just under Obama's first four years, why not return it to the same as when Bush left office? You know, the Bush that Obama said was "unpatriotic" for his level of deficit spending?

[cricket chirp]

And then there's that debacle known as Obamacare, that is going to wind up costing business a LOT more than they ever bargained for, let alone the "little people" who have to buy their own plan. And just wait until the doctors start retiring en masse. You ain't seen nothing yet in liberal fairytale twinkle-toed Utopia! But that's a different topic.

A. Who decides what fair is, and why is that word even being used when dicussing something that is based on numbers and facts? Fair is a personal belief based on emotions, while the budget should balance based on a series of numerical inputs and outputs...facts......not emotions.

B. Why is anyone on here trying to get our nations Democrats to understand? It's not going to work. Take your message to the streets and tell common people how taxing their employers will hurt them, and is, in fact, a tax on them. This is the primary point they seem to not understand.

Bottom line, all taxes tax all people.

Roy,

Again, though -- the freebies and credits you listed only put a person making 7.25 at about 120% of poverty level. I think we can all agree that someone working a full time job being only 5,000 dollars a year over the poverty level is still a problem.

If you really look at the numbers you posted, one of the major issues that sticks out is that a family of four whose income is 40,000 dollars is spending 1/3 of their income on health insurance. Funny enough, most suggestions of proper household budgeting says that all your basic expenses (housing, car, and health insurance, car insurance and food) should add up to about 1/3 of one's income. So, health insurance itself is wiping people of all that which is supposed to be going toward basic expenses.

Siobhan27 "Roy, And the primary thing in your calculations that is driving the difference in incomes is the cost of health insurance."

That's true, but it makes a HUGE difference if a family qualifies for 'free' Medicaid, because of the exorbitant cost of health insurance. Actually, the health insurance cost to a family making above the Medicaid limit is understated, because the latest figures I found were from 2009, and insurance costs have increased significantly since then - Also, when a family buys health insurance, they typically have a deductible to pay - something that does not apply to people on Medicaid.

One last caveat - The new Obamacare mandate will affect the figures in the future, but the effect is too complicated to evaluate right now.

Siobhan27 "So, health insurance itself is wiping people of all that which is supposed to be going toward basic expenses."

Very true, which is why I am STRONGLY in favor of universal health care, paid for with employer/employee taxes and a modest National Sales Tax (I estimate about 3%, excluding food and medicine).

Gotta go now - I have a geology seminar and field trip to go to today, but I'm glad I was able to 'stimulate some thinking' about issues.

Bye, and have a nice day :)

What a concept. A budget for 100% of America based on a PROGRESSIVE tax system instead of a budget for 2% of America with a REGRESSIVE tax on the poor, lower middle-class, the elderly and disabled.

Roy,

That's true, but it makes a HUGE difference if a family qualifies for 'free' Medicaid, because of the exorbitant cost of health insurance. Actually, the health insurance cost to a family making above the Medicaid limit is understated, because the latest figures I found were from 2009, and insurance costs have increased significantly since then

Right.. but that's my point. The issue isn't the person whose barely above poverty level getting Medicaid. The issue is the person in which a 1/3 of their income is going toward health insurance. The medical system is absolutely broken and no one should be expected to pay 1/3 of their income for health insurance and even more for total health costs.

Edit: Ahh.. just saw your most recent post.

So, in the event that we did have universal healthcare, then those figures would be much more commensurate with what the person actually makes. So, again -- while I understand that you're not necessarily arguing for or against a minimum wage increase, my point was that what is driving the disparity you are pointing out has nothing really do with minimum wage and everything to do with other issues that need to be addressed.

Fair is what Obama says it is. So The Democrats just got a 650,000,000,000.00 dollar tax increase 3 months ago and it is not enough (fair?). So now they want another 1,000,000,000,000.00 dollar tax increase, with no cuts in spending. The sequester cuts (remember that is only a 2% cut on a 5% increase in spending) that are killing jobs to show how bad not getting a spend an additional 160,000,000,000.00 this year. Instead they only get to spend an 96,000,000,000.00 more, poor babies.

FOLWNJ no you dont know people who are holding down 2 full time jobs who are paying more taxes than the rich. you're spewing BS.

Actually you are the one who has no earthly idea what you are talking about! Really! How many people in this country actually hold down two full time jobs? Very few, less than a handful. Most employers will not hire an individual full time if they already have a full time job.

Then you are assuming that these few individuals have the exact same tax structure, which they don't. One can easily hold down 2 full time jobs and still not pay any taxes. Then not only do they get a refund of the amount they paid in, they also get an additional amount that they didn't contribute in their tax refund. It's called child credit & earned income credit.

As for the so called rich, Individual income tax averages 15.0 percent of income for the top-earning fifth, compared with -8.1(negative) percent for the bottom 20 percent of earners who in addition receive a subsidy (ie earned income credit/child credit). At very high incomes, the average effective individual income tax rate actually declines because they are paying "dividend" tax rates. But those dividends are from funds they invested of which those funds were 1st taxed at the regular income tax rates, and they are again being taxed at dividend rates. Double taxation.

Tax break:

"Tax break is a term referring to any item which avoids taxes, including any tax exemption, tax deduction, or tax credit. The purpose of a tax break should be to: a) promote an activity that benefits society in the future and b) gives relief to those who currently need help"

So how is making someone pay a tax they've managed to skip out of paying, raising taxes? How is allowing companies to keep their money overseas benefiting us? And if they are keeping millions of untaxed dollars in overseas accounts, they sure as @!$%# don't meet the 2nd criteria. I swear half you @!$%#ers believe that little Johnny's $50,000 a year salary is going to be taxed more when in fact what's going to happen is Joe Moneybags is going to be told that he doesn't get to deduct his payments to his mistresses in Aruba any more.

I seem to recall that things were reported to be not too bad back in the fifties and sixties, although inflation sky rocketed in the seventies when money flowed like wine. What were the tax rates then? Take a look - highest - 94 percent and 70 percent during the golden years. When did things begin to fall apart? When the upper tax rates were cut in half. Oh yes - a few people got very rich and the corporate executives are still swimming in ill-gotten loot but the majority of U.S. citizens are rocky and the young are in big trouble. The corporate clowns (and their hired U.S. Congressmen and women) are attempting to convince the young that "too much spending" is the problem. Most know that this is untrue (except maybe Michelle Bachman). We should not try to resurrect the past - impossible - but we should learn from history.

never stop asking questions is delusional if they think they know poor people that pay more in taxes than wealthy people... mathmatically impossible given the rates and an urban myth long debunked.

Gee that's funny. When the House passed its budget, NBC's line was that the GOP passed an unrealistic budget that they know is DOA in the Senate. Now that the Senate passed its budget, NBC's line is "The Senate had not passed a budget resolution since 2009 because of fiscal policy disputes with House Republicans that forced Congress to turn to numerous stop-gap spending measures to avoid government shutdowns."

So it's the GOP's fault that the House passed a budget that the Senate won't pass (because the House wants to grow our economy), and it's the GOP's fault that the Senate didn't pass a budget in four years.

HEY NBC - THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE LEAST TRUSTED SOURCE FOR NEWS IN THIS COUNTRY (oops sorry - tied for last - WITH THE COMEDY CHANNEL!!!)

sequester apparently means screw the American citizen but send millions of dollars to rogue nations that would prefer that we didn't exist

This is only a Senate measure. The House has to take up the measure and pass it. I doubt the GOP controlled House will do it. When these ReThugliCONs see more taxes on their rich donors, what will they do? The answer is obvious: these ReThugliCOns will put their party's interest ahead of the country's.

But the battle is ON.

When November 2014 comes, vote these GOP rascals out.

The Senate had not passed a budget resolution since 2009 because of fiscal policy disputes with House Republicans that forced Congress to turn to numerous stop-gap spending measures to avoid government shutdowns.

Talk about a limp d!ck excuse - "we can't pass a budget because the HOUSE REPUBLICANS won't like it." How much support are they getting from the house republicans on this one? Reid and Obama are twins - "it's somebody else's fault I don't do my job."

The dems controlled both houses of congress in '09 and '10 and they still didn't pass a budget.

Piggy - That is no different than the senate demoncraps not liking the cuts to the social welfare handout programs the House is proposing. So where do they go? The rich don't want to give up any more of the money they earned and the poor don't want to give up the money they have not earned.

The best policy is to invest and grow...it's a fundamental market principle.

When you have a bit of money, you invest it to make more money, and at the same time also produce frontier tech to boost future growth.

It's better for the gov to pool together resources to invest, such as in interstate highway system, GPS, & the Internet - all boosted by government funding and all having benefited the economy immensely. Government can only raise money through taxes. Congress has the constitutional power to raise taxes.

.

The GOP is not really for the market, if they refuse this fundamental market principle.

Pigotry

This is only a Senate measure. The House has to take up the measure and pass it. I doubt the GOP controlled House will do it. When these ReThugliCONs see more taxes on their rich donors, what will they do? The answer is obvious: these ReThugliCOns will put their party's interest ahead of the country's.

But the battle is ON.

When November 2014 comes, vote these GOP rascals out.

I see that both you and the author of the article are mor0ns. The House will NEVER vote on a Senate bill....ever. What does happen is that a committee comprised of members of both the House and the Senate will try to create a reconciliation bill upon which both the House and the Senate will vote.

The idea that the House of Representatives will vote on a Senate budget is only perpetuated by those either deliberately trying to confuse the issue or those too ignorant of the process to understand the bullsh!t trying to be pandered is erroneous.

The Senate had not passed a budget resolution since 2009 because of fiscal policy disputes with House Republicans that forced Congress to turn to numerous stop-gap spending measures to avoid government shutdowns.

This statement is entirely bullsh!t. The Senate has the authority vote on a House budget resolution OR create one of their own in response to a House budget resolution...the fact that they did neither for 4 years is because they didn't want to put their budget proposals ON THE VOTING RECORD during election cycles. There is NOTHING to have prevented the Senate Democrats from either voting on the House budget resolutions or drafting one of their own in response to a House budget resolution except the obstructionism of Harry Reid.

When you whiners start paying 40& of your income to the government then you can opmplain. Until then shut up.

Dear Libtards,

You could tax the rich at ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, and it would only fund Owebama's spending for 6 months. What part of that don't you understand?

Love,

The party of "know"

All of you who say we need MORE revenue- you honestly believe that 2.7 TRILLION dollars is not enough? I can only say "WOW!"

I have made this proposal before. Tell me why we can't try this:

Pick a year, any year, I don't care. Return all spending to that years' level of spending with no gimmicks (baseline budgeting, offbudget items, emergency spending, etc.) Spend that amount for just ONE lousy year with NO increases and NO overspending allowed for ANY reason. If the politicians can do this for one stinking year, I will GLADLY vote for tax increases, targeted SPECIFICALLY to pay down debt. I'm betting that there isn't a politician OR party that can do this.

Prove me wrong!

We cannot continue down this path of endless spending.The money will eventually run out (even the borrowed money) and we will cease to exist as the USA anymore.

Pass a trillion dollar sequester, and we'd at least be heading in the right direction. It would be a nice start. We can cut off ALL foreign aid, cut welfare and foodstamps, and reduce the military to defending OUR borders rather than nationbuilding and defending OTHER people's borders.

Then we eliminate baseline budgeting and automatic spending increases. Soon, we'll actually see REAL deficit elimination and the destruction of the national debt. But Republicans AND Democrats will never vote to reduce their power.

FOLWNJ, you are wrong with your assertion that the rich/wealthy pay more in taxes than the middle class and poor do. When you look at the percentage of money paid by the middle and poor it is much higher than the wealthy. Do not try to pull the wool over peoples eyes with your nonsense assertion of the amount of money in relation to the percentage paid. The middle and poor are those who have the propensity to consume or in lay term their money is spent from paycheck to paycheck to pay the utilities, rent/mortgage, etc. and therefore few if any money to savings.

The wealthy are able to shelter their money thus paying less in percentage than the middle class and poor. BTW, the middle class are becoming an extinct group thus less able to pay for the wealthy class to get these nice top down tax breaks. It is time they pay the same percentage as the majority of Americans. The free ride must come to a halt. Your rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

This is all GWB fault, hes the one that got us into this sad mess, now we have to deal with his domino effect!!!

Why are Democrats so opposed to having the 47% who pay no income taxes at all contribute at least something to the government that provides all sorts of giveaway programs specifically for them?

Mostly because simply forcing poor people to pay something to make you feel better doesn't make sense. Taxing every person making $12,000 or less 5% wouldn't raise enough revenue to pay for congressional perks. Those people with payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and all the other taxes pay a far higher percentage of their income in taxes than most of us, certainly far more than the wealthy.

Why is any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy class warfare but people like you wanting to tax the poorest not the same. The Reagan tax cuts dropped 8 million from the tax roles and the Bush cuts another 7 million. Those are poor working people that suddenly became what's now known as the 47% simply because republicans cut taxes. Millions of the working poor pay no taxes but receive nothing back in benefits. Tax policy should be set to raise enough revenue to pay the bills. Not as punishment for being poor. End the hate.

People need to divide the population, 320 million by our budget, 3.5 trillion. You'll find the only way you fund our government beyond the 3rd world level is a progressive tax system the same as every first world country has. Squeezing nickles out of the poor won't fund a country that requires a military larger then the next 15 largest countries combined. If we want to be the worlds super power and a 1st world country in all aspects we have to have tax revenue. The GOP may be willing to end all social programs and spend strictly on the military but there are more democrats then republicans and we also have the right to determine where our tax money is spent.

Never Stop Asking Questions

It is about time.

I know good, bright people holding down two full-time jobs, who pay more taxes than the rich.

The rich are the ones who should be paying a fairer share.

_______________________________________________________________________________

You know that is a lie, so why post it. The government doesn't operate on % tax paid, they operate on # of dollars paid. I guarantee you did not pay more dollars in taxes in any given year that the so-called rich. You are the type of lib Dem that is ruining this country. Distort and shape the facts to fit your 'give-away' rhetoric.

And by the way, who determines 'fairer share'?

The mantra of the libs: 'Raise their taxes, not mine'.

douglas oates

@!$%#s repubs,teabaggers will not mention the two GODDAMN WARS!!!!! what ....you thought the @!$%# was FREE? Oh yeah , that's right ,Chaney said the @!$%# didn't MATTER!!!! you @!$%#ers are sooo @!$%#in' silly!!!!!

Yo dumbass, Obama ended two wars (sort of) but still managed to INCREASE defense spending almost as much as Bush did as he was starting two. Care to explain the reason behind that fact since you seem to believe it is only republicans who waste money on so-called "defense" spending.

Pass a trillion dollar sequester, and we'd at least be heading in the right direction. It would be a nice start. We can cut off ALL foreign aid, cut welfare and foodstamps, and reduce the military to defending OUR borders rather than nationbuilding and defending OTHER people's borders

Believe it or not I agree. I'd support significant cuts to social programs if our military returned to it's constitutional function of defending this country. Congressional leaders want more military funding.

Never Stop Asking Questions @ 1.51: "Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that, as an individual human being, I pay more taxes than G.E., Exxon, and Apple combined."

You said ask the question so I did and...

The California-based company paid $6 billion in federal corporate income taxes in the 2012 fiscal year, according to a statement Apple provided to The New York Times, in which it emphasized just how much money it pays back to the federal government annually.

So you paid much more than $6 billion or, you need to change your moniker to "Never Stop Lying" or "I'm just Stupid."

Yo dumbass, Obama ended two wars (sort of) but still managed to INCREASE defense spending almost as much as Bush did as he was starting two. Care to explain the reason behind that fact since you seem to believe it is only republicans who waste money on so-called "defense" spending.

Because Bush ran the wars off budget. That's the reason the tables showed a 200 billion dollar deficit yet when you subtract the starting debt from the ending debt Bush averaged 800 billion a year.

Deficit: Bush kept the cost of two wars off budget

Since the debt and deficit are being discussed so much now, I wanted to post what can make the rise in the deficit look like it happened more abruptly than it did. I don't agree with everything Obama does (especially in education), but his attempt to make the budget reflect what was really being spent has made some blame him for what looks like a big hike.

Obama: No More War Spending Tricks

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.

As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx

Intellect-1949393

FOLWNJ, you are wrong with your assertion that the rich/wealthy pay more in taxes than the middle class and poor do. When you look at the percentage of money paid by the middle and poor it is much higher than the wealthy.

And where exactly are your FACTS and SOURCES to back up this claim?? Because I hear it made a lot but no one EVER bother to back it up. The A.P. actually looked into this back when Buffet was claiming his secretary paid more in taxes. Here is what they found-

"This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent"-http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-a-p-fact-checks-the-buffett-rule-and-finds-its-premise-flawed/

Note that this percentage is ALL Federal taxes not just income. So I dare any of you spouting the "fair share" bull @!$%# to produce some actual facts to back your claims. Until then I'll just assume you're all parrots who can't actually think for yourselves.

Your rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

This actually made me laugh after reading the utter BS you spew.

Larry-367607

Because Bush ran the wars off budget. That's the reason the tables showed a 200 billion dollar deficit yet when you subtract the starting debt from the ending debt Bush averaged 800 billion a year.

BULL @!$%#. God damn I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe this sort of garbage. Defense spending is defense spending regardless of whether it was included in some BS budget. You can't spend money without it being counted by the GAO, not including it in his budgets made his budgets look good, it did NOTHING to impact how that money was figured into the debt or deficit.

Obama INCREASED defense spending substantially over what Bush spent. None of your BS excuses cover for this fact.

@Neale O

On top of that add another 1 Trillion to the equation and 1Trillion in tax loop holes closed for the year and that is what I call a budget.

The reason the budget was balanced in 2000 was because there was sufficient tax revenue to cover the programs in place. It was when taxes were cut (which was politically popular but fiscally irresponsible), that there came to be a huge deficit. Its like someone living paycheck to paycheck cutting their work to part time and instead of cutting expenses, putting the deficits on a credit card. Well, the credit card is maxed out, so pull in more income, cut the expenses, or both.

Let's step out of the weeds for a moment and ask this question: Who can afford to pay more taxes right now? The guy working two jobs just to live paycheck to paycheck? Or the millionaire spending his Saturday on the golf course?\

Is it an urban myth that poor people pay a higher percentage in taxes? There appears to be some conflicting opinion about that. CAN the rich absorb higher taxes without it having a negative effect on their lifestyle? I doubt there is any difference of opinion on that. So, who gets taxed?

BTW - Another urban myth: Trickle-down economics.

Will-1091847

The reason the budget was balanced in 2000 was because there was sufficient tax revenue to cover the programs in place. It was when taxes were cut (which was politically popular but fiscally irresponsible), that there came to be a huge deficit.

So it was fiscally irresponsible to cut everyones taxes but your "solution" isn't to do away with that it is just to take a small fraction of those people and have them make up the difference. btw, did you happen to notice the flood of rich people leaving France??? Maybe you should look at the WHOLE picture before coming up with any potential "solutions".

Hi Never Stop Asking (Stupid) Questions,

Look, you do not pay more in taxes than any rich person you know. What you might mean to say is that you pay a higher income tax rate, but even this would reveal your complete intellectual dishonesty. For my part I think this whole class envy and class warfare rhetoric of yours, and of leftists like you, will ultimately destroy the USA. What we should do is treat everyone equally, not unequally as you prefer. So let's do away entirely with every federal tax but a single tax on income. You make 10 bucks? Pay 2 bucks. You make 10 billion bucks? Pay 2 billion bucks. Same rate, but you are STILL getting the wealthier person's money for your own use.

The reason Mitt Romney, who you seem to irrationally hate with a passion, perhaps because he is smarter or richer or better looking than you--who knows--pays a lower rate is that his income is earned on investments, not on wages. He already paid the higher rate on the wages. Still, I'd tax his investment income at the same tax rate as ordinary income, but to make it fair (you leftist dullards do love fairness, don't you?) that income should be adjusted for inflation.

What that means, as you are obviously not bright enough to comprehend, is that when the government prints money (as it wildly is) so that prices rise (as they clearly are) so that investment incomes improve (as they most certainly have, if you leftist boobs properly understood Wall Street) based upon nominal, rather than real gains, then the tax payer is not harmed because you favor moronic monetary and/or fiscal policies. Too complex?

If so, well sorry. I guess you might as well just continue on with your destructive class envy instead.

Hey, Realist17 (#1.145)

Dear Libtards,

You could tax the rich at ONE HUNDRED PERCENT

.

fear-mongering?

The top marginal tax rate has never been above 40% since Reagan left. The rate used to be 60-90% from 1945 to 1980 when the economy grew faster.

For more details about top marginal tax rate since 1913, please consult this website.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

The right-wingers are all war-mongers (both Bushes), fear-mongers (Realist17 as just one example). Studies by economists have shown that higher the top marginal tax rate in a country today, the higher economic growth rate there, the happier people are there in general.

Pigotry

Hey, Realist17

fear-mongering?

??? I don't see where he suggested that would ever happen. His point, which you somehow seem to have missed, was that even if you took 100% of the income from every millionaire and billionarie it wouldn't even cover half of our defict let alone touch the debt. Which means anyone who has at least half a brain, and is willing to use it, could see that no amount of taxing the rich is EVER going to solve our problems.

Will this budget include another night in Paris for the Vice President? He just spent $585,000.00 in ONE night at a hotel in Paris France entertaining "friends and colleagues". Look it up! He learned well from President and Mrs. Obama.

@Backcountry

I don't pay much attention to France. Is that where you are from or something? Its easy to leave France because neighboring countries are just across the internal EU borders. This is sort of like saying, "Hey, look at all of the people streaming out of New Jersey into Pennsylvania. On the other hand, if the richest of the rich decide they are too good to live in America, let them go. (Isn't that the typical flag waving American line? "If you don't like it here buddy, then get the XXXX out!)

The WHOLE picture, as you put it, is that tax revenue has to come from somewhere. That "small fraction" as you put have a LARGE CHUNK of the total income and wealth. The top 5% of earners make 35% of the income. The top 5% also have close to 50% of the country's wealth in their possession. Once again, they can afford to pay more taxes. The other 95% can't.

So, I am not sure what your logic here is.

BTW, just a shout out to everyone in the thread: If you work for a K street lobbying firm and are here specifically to comment and spread specific talking points handed down from your customers, raise your hand. Also, if the majority of your information comes from the corporate owned media (including NBC), raise your hand.

Do not doubt that there are BIG BUSINESS interests very busily at work trying to persuade public opinion to a viewpoint that benefits them. They have been doing this for years and they are good at it.

The only comment I have about all of this is that I'm so happy to see the posters above getting along so well. The level of magnanimity that everyone has displayed is truly overwhelming. LOL

It is wonderful to know that everyone has finally decided to cooperate & work together, at the individual & government level, to ensure that this country will continue to exist & even prosper once again. Wow, the future of the USA sure looks bright!

Glad to see we've solved all the world's problems by screaming at each other.

Is it math or PSYCHOSIS??

Unless we BALANCE OUR BUDGET eventually and have a DEFICIT of ZERO each year, we will never pay off our $16.7 TRILLION dollar and growing each second national DEBT (your family's share well over $100,000) not to mention the $80 - $100 TRILLION dollars of UNFUNDED LIABILITIES owed by our government.

Unless we stop SMOKING CRACK and thinking like brain-dead children (the openly MARXIST leadership of the Democrat Party, and the drunken Keystone Cops leading the Republican Party) we will not have an economy, jobs, FOOD, water, etc.

Cyprus, coming to a bank near you...

"Glad to see we've solved all the world's problems by screaming at each other."

WHAT THE (BLEEP) DOES THAT MEAN??? >:-(E)

/s

Yeah, this whole thing will never be solved. Too much dysfunction.

Will, people like you scare me. You are ok with a tax policy that drives the successful out of the country? One day (probably when it's too late) you will realize that they were the driving engine of our economy, and without them there's nobody left to tax or to grow our economy.

What we ought to be doing is findinng a way to make them want to stay and continue investing in this country's growth. Government has never grown our economy - the private sector does. Yet, today it's no surprise that companies today have strong earnings but aren't hiring. The federal gov't has made cost of hiring too expensive.

Stop blaming those who react to regulations, and place the blame where it belongs - on the regulators whose policies create the reactions.

Our Government has projected record revenue coming in this year, with fewer people working and with the sequester too, yet the senate passes a bill to add over 1 trillion more in revenue to these inept politicians.

What a crock of bull..

We need to fire them all.

Will-1091847

I don't pay much attention to France.

Because seeing what happens when others try to do what you are suggesting would be just idiotic right???

Its easy to leave France because neighboring countries are just across the internal EU borders. This is sort of like saying, "Hey, look at all of the people streaming out of New Jersey into Pennsylvania.

When you're stinking rich leaving the contry is as easy as moving to anther state, duh. Which, btw, is exactly what happens when states do raise their taxes. But agian, how silly would it be to actually learn a lesson from past actions.

On the other hand, if the richest of the rich decide they are too good to live in America, let them go.

Who's going to pay for everything then genius??

So, I am not sure what your logic here is.

Clearly "logic" is not your strong suit.

The GOP is trying to foist the entire cost of their recession and their wars off on WORKING Americans.

And they've even conned people like FOLWNJ into helping them.

Kinda reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome.

Backcountry164 - Clearly "logic" is not your strong suitd

Clearly neither history or logic are yours, Backcountry.

Herbert Hoover threw the United States into the Great Depression with an economic theory very similar to the Tea Party's. And it wasn't austerity that got us out:

In nine years 2.5 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage.

Can't remember history? Just look at what's happened to Britain's economy today under their "austerity" policies.

You can't get out of debt by telling your boss you need a lower wage.

Hey Realist17 -

Canada's taxes are far higher than ours. Mind explaining why their economy is growing so faster than ours?

And despite the ease of crossing the border, I don't see all the Canadian rich people flocking to our struggling country.

During the time of the CCC, volunteers planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas.

Too bad a lot of the GOP is too old to still have their grandparents around to ask how it worked.

Middle class pay the vast majority of taxes collected, it's just a fact, words of "FOLWNJ", the air gets thin on the top and he got confused !!!

The idiotic right doesn't get it !!!

RealAmericansFirst

Canada's taxes are far higher than ours. Mind explaining why their economy is growing so faster than ours?

Massive cuts to their government.

"In just six months, we have already achieved more than half the reductions set out in the budget," Treasury Board President Tony Clement said in a statement.

"A leaner, more affordable government is good for taxpayers and it's important in terms of our ability to return to balanced budgets."-http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/16/budget-cuts-canada-11000-jobs-slashed_n_2146544.html

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2012/we-can-cut-government-canada-did

http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/how-to-cut-government-spending-lessons-from-canada/

Maybe you should pay attention to what's happening somewhere before you try to use them as an example. You've looked at half of the picture and draw a false conclusion.

seaskip

Middle class pay the vast majority of taxes collected, it's just a fact, words of "FOLWNJ", the air gets thin on the top and he got confused !!!

Well if it's fact then surely you'll have no problem backing up that claim with some sources. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Backcountry,

Are you suggesting that we need to bribe the rich for the privilege of having them in our midst? If they want to leave the comforts of the US and move to Costa Rica, fine. They can go. I suspect that this is just a bluff though. There are too many creature comforts in the United States, not too mention that too many rich people have strong roots here prevent them from pulling up and leaving completely. When the US becomes insolvent and becomes a third world country overnight, they are probably going to leave anyway. For now, if 10% up and leave temporarily while the gutless weenies pout about paying an extra 5% of their income to help pull the country out of a crisis, let the losers go.

There is not going to be a mass exodus of pouting rich people if there is a marginal hike in their taxes. If you claim that, you are being disingenuous or have been drinking someone's Koolaid. (Someone needs to fire the guy writing these latest GOP talking points.)

This is hilarious. Even with a TRILLION tax increase, Dems still can't balance the budget.

What part of that doesn't scare you.?

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

And the geniality among posters continues....LOL

RealAmericansFirst: Canada's HIGHEST federal tax bracket is 29%.

There has been a threefold increase over the last five years in the number of American citizens
who are renouncing their citizenship. 1,781 Americans renounced their citizenship in 2011 compared
with just 231 in 2008, when US tax laws changed.

Have you opened your eyes yet?

Tell you what, Oneslackr: I am currently paying half my income to taxes while trying to continue to pay off six figures in student loans, and am vilified by the libtards for not paying my fair share. When that subsides, you will find me to be a lot more congenial.

Why politicians, etc. are lying when they say we need to cut Social Security and Medicare because of the debt:

The debt was not caused by "entitlements" (SS, etc) it was caused by the crash in 2008 which was caused in large part by fraudulent practices of the banks and mortgage companies:

Economist Dean Baker:

While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.

The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/take-your-hands-off-social-security/

Social Security is a separate trust fund and does not contribute one dime to the deficit. As a matter of fact, it is against the law for it to run a deficit:

Lies Linking Social Security to the National Debt

By Jeanine Molloff

Most Americans don't understand how Social Security and Medicare are funded, and as a result have been bamboozled by a curious assortment of corporate network 'talking heads,' (yes this includes CNN), and astroturf organizations whose sole purpose is to muddy intellectual waters--allowing corporate interests to reign supreme. They con us by crafting and massaging several myths regarding public programs.

Lie#1: Social Security is Broke....

This national myth is my all time favorite. Not only is Social Security NOT BROKE--IT IS THE ONLY FEDERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS FULLY FUNDED. I repeat--SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULLY FUNDED, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. The problem lies in the fact that the government has continually raided the monies all of us have paid into the system, to subsidize corporate tax breaks, unbridled military spending and what have become routine Wall Street bankster raids on the public dime. In fact, this raiding was discussed during the alleged 'surplus' years of the Clinton administration. In a heated congressional testimony by then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and US Senator Ernest F. Hollings--the ongoing use of Social Security monies for general revenue projects was exposed. (Source: click here) If anything, the Fed Reserve 'owes' monies to the Social Security Fund.

Lie#2 : Social Security and Medicare Contribute to the National Debt...

Even a fiscal conservative like Sen. Max Baucus has testified that Social Security does not belong in deficit reduction talks. Baucus, as the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, held a hearing entitled "Perspectives on Deficit Reduction: Social Security" just this May. Baucus explained that:

"Social Security benefits are financed only through payroll taxes and the Trust Fund." Baucus further explained that Social Security, ..."is not responsible for the deficits we face in the general fund today. Therefore, I believe Social Security should not be part of our efforts to reduce these deficits." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983) In fact the federal law FORBIDS any mingling of Social Security monies with general revenues. Baucus himself clearly stated that, ..."Social Security must remain separated from the rest of the Federal budget and the program cannot borrow money from the general Federal budget." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983)…

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lies-Linking-Social-Securi-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110724-711.html

The deficit is not dangerous and will not destroy our economy. Likewise it will not create jobs if we cut it (probably just the opposite) and also our children are not going to pay for it if we don't cut it. Economist Dean Baker, again:

"… The deficit chicken hawks that dominate Washington policy debates are warning us that financial markets will panic if we don't soon get our debt under control, with investors fleeing the dollar and interest rates soaring. Japan's ratio of debt to GDP of 240 percent is more than twice that of the United States, yet the interest rate on long-term government bonds is hovering near 1.0 percent and the government's main concern is that the yen is over valued … "

From Ezra Klein, Washington Post

Interview with economist James K. Galbraith

James Galbraith is a son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith and Catherine (Kitty) Atwater Galbraith and is the brother of the former diplomat and commentator Peter W. Galbraith. He earned his BA, magna cum laude, from Harvard in 1974 and Ph.D from Yale in 1981, both in economics. From 1974 to 1975, Galbraith studied as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge.[1]

From 1981 to 1982, Galbraith served on the staff of the Congress of the United States, eventually as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.[1] In 1985, he was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.[1]

Galbraith: The danger posed by the deficit ‘is zero’

James Galbraith is an economist and the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. chair in government and business relations at the University of Texas at Austin. He's also a skeptic of the prevailing concern over America's long-term deficit. With many people now comparing America's fiscal condition to Greece, I spoke with Galbraith to get the other side of the argument. An edited transcript of our conversation follows.

EK: You think the danger posed by the long-term deficit is overstated by most economists and economic commentators.

JG: No, I think the danger is zero. It's not overstated. It's completely misstated.

EK: Why?

JG: What is the nature of the danger? The only possible answer is that this larger deficit would cause a rise in the interest rate. Well, if the markets thought that was a serious risk, the rate on 20-year treasury bonds wouldn't be 4 percent and change now. If the markets thought that the interest rate would be forced up by funding difficulties 10 year from now, it would show up in the 20-year rate. That rate has actually been coming down in the wake of the European crisis….

Why then are so many politicians (Including Obama/Democrats) business people etc. so hysterical about the debt and adamant about cutting "entitlements"?

Ignorance, corruption, blind faith in an orthodoxy ("Free-market" economics), ambition, self interest and, yes, class warfare.

Were not talking about moving interstate, we are talking about moving to a totally different country with a totally different language and culture, thousands of miles away from their family. Nope, no mass exodus from the country.

Allowing someone to KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARNED is a bribe???

How is giving someone a tax break while screwing other people who can't afford it not a bribe? More appropriately, it sounds like a ransom or blackmail, assuming they actually had the guts to act on their bluff and leave, like the cowards they are. "If you try to tax us a little more, we are just going to leave!" Not only is that illogical, it is also improbable.

Jesus you're @!$%#ing stupid. No wonder so little of what you say makes any sense.

Really, I haven't seen that debate tactic work since 8th grade. Its a good way to get suspended from the forum though. I will leave that up to the mods.

Right because there is no reason to believe something that happens routinely will ever happen again. NY increased their top tax rate and LOST revenue because so many rich people jumped ship.

They didn't leave the country though, did they? Moving from New York to Connecticut or New Jersey is a far cry from pulling up roots and moving to a foreign country. If it is a federal tax, where will they go to hide from it like a coward? Canada? Just like draft dodgers? Europe, where there is a similar fiscal crisis? Maybe they can go live in France or Greece. I hear its nice in China too. Venezuela is a nice, tropical warm place for people who hate the US. I bet Cuba would even take them. They can smoke a Cuban stogie while they drive around in their 1950 convertible. Imagine if they had said something like that during WWII. "If you tax us more, we are going to move to Germany!" That would have gone over like a hydrogen blimp.

But again, you morons just ignore anything that doesn't agree with what your puppet-masters tell you.

I think the Koch brothers and their deep pockets have more puppet-master spin doctors from K street on their payroll. All of this rhetoric denouncing tax cuts for the wealthy is likely coming from one source - the wealthy. The lack of logic is in the "we need to pander to rich people so they won't leave" argument.

Let's tax Political Action Committees. Clearly PACs should not be considered exempt from taxes as no matter what their rhetoric or mission statement may state, the benefit to anyone other than the politician receiving the funds for campaigning is negligible at best.

The argument that the wealthy and the corporations are paying a fair percentage of their income is foolish at best.
As a quick example; an individual wage earner cannot utilize deductions that are afforded those who are incorporated, small businesses included. The typical wage earner cannot deduct travel cost to and from work, i.e. his auto payment and cost of use as does the typical business owner.

Those wage earners who are in the upper middle class brackets do not pay any additional payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) on any earnings over the maximum cap. I see that as a bonus of 7 percent. Do not, by the way, claim that this is class envy, as it is just a fact.

Tax those PACs.

Realist17

Tell you what, Oneslackr: I am currently paying half my income to taxes while trying to continue to pay off six figures in student loans, and am vilified by the libtards for not paying my fair share. When that subsides, you will find me to be a lot more congenial.

I hear you. I'm on your side. I'm just tired of arguing with the other side everyday. It never goes anywhere.

Six figure student loans. Medical school or law school?

the 4 democrats that voted against this measure should lose their seat in the coming election !! if they only vote for what they feel weill benefit them... kick them out and good riddence

@Will

Were not talking about moving interstate, we are talking about moving to a totally different country with a totally different language and culture, thousands of miles away from their family. Nope, no mass exodus from the country

You can try to rationalize your way to a coonclusion that people would never renounce their citizenship. But the fact is they are (tripled in number since 2008), and people like you need to come to grips with that fact.

How is giving someone a tax break while screwing other people who can't afford it not a bribe? More appropriately, it sounds like a ransom or blackmail, assuming they actually had the guts to act on their bluff and leave, like the cowards they are. "If you try to tax us a little more, we are just going to leave!" Not only is that illogical, it is also improbable.

Again, you are ignoring the reality that it's happening. You may think it's illogical and improbably, but the facts aren't on your side. Regarding taxes, the top 10% of earners are now paying 71% of our nation's tax income. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners For you to say that reducing this burden is a bribe, is offensive. And it's why people are leaving this country. And it's why successful companies aren't hiring.

They didn't leave the country though, did they? Moving from New York to Connecticut or New Jersey is a far cry from pulling up roots and moving to a foreign country. If it is a federal tax, where will they go to hide from it like a coward? Canada? Just like draft dodgers? Europe, where there is a similar fiscal crisis? Maybe they can go live in France or Greece. I hear its nice in China too. Venezuela is a nice, tropical warm place for people who hate the US. I bet Cuba would even take them. They can smoke a Cuban stogie while they drive around in their 1950 convertible. Imagine if they had said something like that during WWII. "If you tax us more, we are going to move to Germany!" That would have gone over like a hydrogen blimp.

People are leaving states with higher taxes, companies are leaving states with higher taxes, people are leaving the US to find a better lifestyle free of vilification, and companies are leaving the US to countries that have less taxation and regulation. You can try to blame those who are reacting by leaving, but the blame lies with people like you who favor regulations that cause the reactions.

I think the Koch brothers and their deep pockets have more puppet-master spin doctors from K street on their payroll. All of this rhetoric denouncing tax cuts for the wealthy is likely coming from one source - the wealthy. The lack of logic is in the "we need to pander to rich people so they won't leave" argument.

Since when does telling 10% of our country that they no longer have to bear the burden of paying 71% of the nations taxes constitute pandering? You've taxes the rich as much as they're willing to be taxed. Instead of telling people they can't keep the money they earn, it's time to start telling people that they can't keep all the money that they DON'T earn. It's time to tighten our belt, and it can be done. Check out Tommy Thompson's Wisconsin welfare reform. Gov. Thompson decided that Wisconsin will not be a state of takers, and his welfare reform was an overwelming success. Our federal gov't, and the libtard nation in general, can learn from this. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/hl593nbsp-the-good-news-about-welfare-reform

@Oneslackr, it used to be that you were in med school or law school to generate six figures in student loans. Now days, six figures of student loans are generated from your average four-year undergrad degree.

Speaking of Taxes on the wealthy, "Dollar for dollar yes they do. Percentage wise, no they don't."

Let's put this in perspective. We have one person making $1-million dollars a year. We have a 2nd person making $30k per year. Say both are being taxed at 10%. The wealth person will have $900,000 left after taxes to live on. He/she might have to give up some baubles but they can eat, know they'll have a house (maybe two or more), have a car(s) to drive, healthcare, money to invest for retirement. This income can easily support a family of 4 and afford to send two kids to college. Let's look at that person making $30k/year. After 10% taxes, they'd have left $27k left. A family of four is going to be hurting a lot more losing that 10% than the millionaire. Housing costs will take a larger chunk of their take-home, food, medical care (if they don't have employer-supplied insurance) will be another big chunk as well as transportation. College for two kids? They better hope for scholarships and that grants will still be available because there's just not going to be much left after the basics. So as a previous poster stated, yes, the wealthy may pay more dollar-for-dollar in taxes but the tax rate percentage wise will inflict much more damage on the poor and middle class than the wealthy.

John, the goal of taxes is not to hurt people. The goal of taxes is to give our gov't enough money to function in accordance with their constitutional mandate. So to say that we need to tax the rich person more because we aren't hurting them enough is ludicrous. Today, when you factor property taxes, federal taxes, city/municipal taxes, state taxes, gas tax, sales tax, capital gains taxes, and 50 other taxs i'm forgetting, the person making a million dollars keeps less than half that.

commonsense53

Siobhan27

The republicans understand that taxes have to be increased along with making fundamental changes in spending. History has taught many that the democrats will negotiate tax increases for spending cuts but never produce any cuts. It happened during the 80's and 90's and we are still waiting for cuts in spending.

Hahahahaha. The Republicans don't understand basic math; none of them support raising taxes unless they're pressed into a corner, and even then you have to jeopardize the health of the national economy to make them to that. Democrats have cut spending numerous times, ESPECIALLY in the 1990s. And as for the 1980s, Democrats PERMITTED the major tax cuts that led to rates going from 70% to 28%.

Lets see the cuts go into effect first then talk about taxing. Increasing taxes just takes more money out of the economy and kills any growth. It is the growth of the economy that drives an increase in tax revenue. Basic Economic 101 dude. Four years of trickle down government has not increased the GDP one penny and in fact if you take out QE1, QE2 and QE3 the economy has actually shrank by deflating the currency.

We've already had the @!$%#ing cuts. $2.2 trillion in 'em, to be exact. That is the combined amount of savings from the Budget Control Act AND the sequester. Add in the Medicare cuts under Obama (which Republicans campaigned AGAINST), and you have nearly $3 trillion in cuts compared to $620 billion in new revenues, or a 5:1 deal. Taxes do not necessarily kill growth; the economy under Clinton proved that tax hikes don't always hurt the economy. And as for "trickle-down government" not working, we'd still be contracting if it weren't for the stimulus. You right-wingers always argue that government is inefficient and the free market will do everything better; well, we tried that with regulation and that caused the recession in 2009. We also have a "free market healthcare system" that costs more than any other system in the industrialized world; how about that?? In rigidly defending your laissez-faire neoliberal economic principles, the right has in fact PARALYZED capitalism and their cause for limited government. If there is one lesson that ought to be learned from the 2009 recession, it's that the free market is flawed and government CAN work more efficiently in some areas.

Modern conservatives (in America) vivaciously oppose any and all tax increases, especially when they are targeted at the wealthy (aka the "job creators"). Whenever a progressive comes by and argues for a higher top tax rate, conservatives respond by spouting an old myth that was once rejected by rational men and then adopted by idiots: raising taxes kills jobs. The core of the entire conservative economic argument is that the "free market," symbolized by the well-to-do entrepreneur or the financial investor, is the source of all wealth creation and that the government, symbolized by the corrupt bureaucrat, is a cruel albeit necessary evil. Modern conservatism seeks to roll back the clock and undo numerous signs of progress, whether it be the attempted privatization of Social Security and Medicare to the rampant deregulatory policies that have plagued our government to the numerous anti-union laws set up all across the nation. The old intent of conservatism (at least after World War II) was to slow down, not reverse, the wheels of progress. The old conservatism of politicians like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and even Richard Nixon (in policy) was to make sure that progressive transition was stable and gradual. They did not want to destroy the successes of the New Deal and the Great Society; some of them even strengthened them (Nixon and the EPA, Eisenhower and the interstate highway system). But now, the modern conservative movement seeks to roll back every major liberal and (dare I say it) leftist achievement since the 1930s. They want to finish off what's left of the American labor movement, privatize "unnecessary" or "unconstitutional" programs like Social Security and Medicare (as if the Constitution was meant to prevent society from providing social insurance to the elderly), and redistribute wealth into the hands of the modern-day robber barons and "economic royalists."

The real question of America's fate is whether progressives will stand back and allow the modern right wing to destroy the achievements of yesterday and the potential goals of tomorrow.

@Realist17

and am vilified by the libtards for not paying my fair share

No, you're vilified because every @!$%#ing one of yours posts consists of libtard this and owebama that. Try ditching the dumbass names and see what happens. Otherwise continue to look like a petulant child.

I call you libtards because you are liberals and retarded. The term "libtard" is an efficient way of using only one word to properly address people like you. It's a way to be efficient, but I forget - you are against efficiency, economic or otherwise.

And calling our Divider-In-Chief "Owebama" is very on-point given that he is driving our country into an unrecoverable deficit tailspin.... and worse yet blaming people like me (who pay half their income to taxes) for his economic problems because I'm evidently not paying my "fair share." And mindless parrots like you repeat it. So yes, I (and a growing list of Americans) take it personally. And just a point - I was vilified by our country's King long before I started appropriately calling him Owebama.

Everyone should watch this presentation on wealth distribution. Not what most think....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/Wealth-Inequality-in-America-viral-video-Politizane/

Over 10 years the Republicans cut 4.85 Trillion and end in 2013 with a small surplus, the Democrats cut $1.86 Trillion over 10 years and end with what???? Evidently they end (although the article will not tell you) with a huge deficit at the end of 10 years!!!

This is what is wrong with "progressive" Democratic policy....they can NEVER find a way to balance the budget even over the next ten years!

Fellow Democrats help save America for our grandchildren...vote Blue Dog in 2014 (google
Blue Dog coalition if you don't understand the term)!

The left believes, inexplicably to me, that more taxes paid in to the government translates into a better economy for the nation. The right believes, generally, that less money in the hands of the government means more liberty for all the people and that more liberty means a better economy for the nation. Both cannot be right. I can easily make the case that beginning with Smith and continuing to this very day through Williams, Feldstein, and others, that free markets produce more wealth for more people than controlled markets. None of this matters to the left though as they seem to see themselves as serfs already, fighting among all others for the scraps they can gain through governmental force from the rich.

I think that our founders understood economic liberty in ways that most Americans, but in fact virtually not a single liberal at all, don't even begin to grasp. Economic liberty flows from limited government, a government with a small portfolio but not an unimportant one, coupled with a moral and educated population. Our government today is massive and growing more massive. And our people are not what we would want to call moral in the classical sense. And if you want to talk about education please read many of the posts above, particularly those by leftists, and then try to explain their point.

Overspending, they argue, caused the very economic collapse which we can only defeat with vastly more overspending. How does one debate with such people who write such drivel? So two possible outcomes exist as I see it. The left wins this debate and the nation crashes one day, just much sooner than anyone can predict. Or, the left loses this debate and the people of the United States return to a moral constitutionalism. We accept that inequality is a fact of life, but that equal treatment under the law is one of the highest purposes of government. We accept that rather than trying to punish the rich in order to somehow help the poor (which never seems to happen in any event, ever, in human history) that we should have a simple tax code where the clear purpose is to raise revenue from every American with income so to fund the legitimate powers of government.

The only way this government will ever retreat from its expansion is if more people face a greater burden for the government they elect. And herein lies the greatest failure, imo, of modern Republicans: It has been Republicans, not Democrats, who have removed literally millions of taxpayers from the income tax rolls in the USA. As the cost of government to these people declined the desire for more government increased. What a tragic mistake Republicans made, and it was all in the hope that Americans would see them as caring about the "poor". The left doesn't care about the poor. The left cares about gaining power over people, poor or not. Their politics are all about domination, and are in every case the exact opposite of liberty.

You know, for a bunch of people who claim to be so patriotic, they sure work hard to starve the beast so our government will collapse.

That is the problem, government has become a beast and it is not supposed to be! Government isn't supposed to be the t*t for people! Government is supposed to keep us safe, arm our military, do some oversight and regulations, maybe some major infrastructure work - and that's it! They are not supposed to be the bottle for every lazy, useless person who doesn't want to do anything for themselves.

Commonsense,

Most people in the Middle Class pay more than Romney does. The doallar amount is inconsequential; it means nothing. The percentage of his income that he pays is what we are talking about here. He pays 14.2% or at least did last year. Most Middle Class workers may more than that.

Pigotry "The best policy is to invest and grow...it's a fundamental market principle."

There is a major difference between 'investing' and throwing money away, and the government is usually the poorest 'investor' you will ever find.

A prime example is SOLYNDRA, where there was no real chance that the taxpayers would recoup their 'investment', much less make a 'profit' on their 'investment'. Perhaps that's because it was a poorly disguised 'payoff' to one of Obama's 'Bundlers', using taxpayer money. $530 Million later, we have a typical government 'boondoggle'.

Geowil "The percentage of his income that he pays is what we are talking about here. He pays 14.2% or at least did last year. Most Middle Class workers may more than that."

So if Romney owns a company that pays 35% on its income, and then Romney pays an additional 15% on the remaining income as dividends (a total tax of nearly 50% on the income), that's not enough for you?

It's a bit disingenuous to portray just the final 15% as too low and ignore the original tax of 35%, don't you think?

'Investors' would be foolish to invest in America when the government thinks they should be able to confiscate the vast majority of their income (corporate tax of 35% + personal rate of 39.6% + any State taxes) under the false guise of 'paying their fair share - especially when many European and Asian countries have a 0% capital gains tax to encourage investment and job growth.

ROY WILSON-336103,

Don't you ever get tired of explaining the facts.

They were told over and over and over again that the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate and US House of Representatives NEVER passed a Budget, and the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate kept creating Continuing Resolutions (CRs).

Basic Education: US House of Representatives of US Congress creates Bills, and US Laws (Acts). US Senate of US Congress, creates and passes Resolutions (same weight as a US Law).

I really should post all the screen names of the typical no information uneducated Democrats that previously posted that a Budget was passed by the Democrats.

They were told the Wars Iraq and Afghanistan were based on US Laws with US Congressional Appropriations.

example: Iraq, President Clinton's US Law, House of Representatives H.R. 4655 US Policy Overthrow President Hussein with US Congressional Appropriations; US Senate 2002 Iraqis War Resolution with Democratic Party Controlled US Senate Appropriations Committee Appropriations. In Accordance with US Law, 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring both Houses of US Congress to pass (US Senate) a Resolution, (US House of Representatives) a US Law, this made Iraq the First Declared War, as Legal (not Democratic Party Lie of Illegal), and Funded (US House of Representatives Appropriations, and US Senate Appropriations). By International Laws, both Iraq and Afghanistan 100% Legal as United Nation's Missions, Nation Building.

Of course this would mean that the Democrats would have to admit that they Demanded the War at Iraq, since 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox, and in Retaliation for 1998 US Military Opertion Desert Fox against the Great Satan, Osama Bin Laden planned his 9/11 2001 Attacks against the targets as his 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings, and that President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading up to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission Investigations, Finding, and Recommendations with former President Clinton saying, "I'm a so sorry".

LOL. If President Bush (43) would have Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies, his daddy President Bush (41) would have whopped his arse, since it was the Director of the CIA Bush (President 41) that built up the US Intelligence Agencies that became the Envy of the World (after the Fall of the USSR and their KGB).

To those of us few survivors (Definition Fact - Experience or Observation) we know that the War With Iraq started in 1998 as demanded (Ordered) by President Clinton as Commander In Chief, resulting in the 9/11 2001 Attacks; and not your uneducated opinions (Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason).

The Reason for War With Iraq was President Clinton's US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, NOT President Clinton's Weapons of Mass Destruction (1998 State of the Union Address, and President Clinton's Section 2 of US Law H.R.4655).

Most of the Uneducated posting here do not even know why the US Economy is screwed up, as 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.. And the Democrats since they will not admit what they did, cannot come up with a viable solution.

Looking at the no information posts, the continuous denial that President Obama's Demanded Previously NOT BUDGETED For $1.7 Trillion (2011 Update: $2.1 Trillion, 2013 Update: $2.5 Trillion) is what is causing this mess "Fiscal Cliff", "Debt Ceiling", July 2011 President Obama's Demanded "Across the Board Budget Cuts" (Automatic Sequestration) of all Previously Budgeted for Programs, Projects, Agencies including the Chopping of the Benefits and Entitlements of the "47%" (update: 49%, 2013 update: 51%) to pay for the previously not budgeted for $2.5 Trillion spent by the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate, Democratic Party Controlled US House of Representatives and President Obama. To hide this cost of $2.5 Trillion from the US Public the Democratic Party Controlled US Congress refused to create a Budget and kept creating Continuing Resolutions (CRs) that did not include the $2.5 Trillion.

And being the Hypocrites that they are, they do not realize the Motive of President Obama demanding the spending of $2.5 Trillion was to get Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Corporations to keep his 2008-2009 Election Offices Open until 2012-2013 Reelection Offices open Nationwide, then to keep these open Nationwide as the President Obama Political Action Committee Offices Nationwide to push the President Obama "Agendas". This is why Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton filed against Candidate Obama's violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act; and why President Obama's buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court to Rule in favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions before the Citizens United Case made it's way thru the maze of the US Courts, since "Mr. Corporate America" admitted violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act since 2007 in his Legal Brief, he was fined (slapped on the wrist) $200,000, while President Obama received Billions USDs.

Jive Talkin Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7oWK5ewpH8

I really want to know what they will start to say when the Democrats still cannot find all the funds for the $2.5 Trillion that they spent; will they do a Cyprus on everyone, demand 10% or more from everyone's bank accounts (lol, direct deposit, why I never did that).

Most of the uneducated cannot figure out what will hurt them as the "Rich", "Corporations", etc. are not stup!d like they are with their "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" as the "Rich", "Corporations", etc. will just pass the costs on to their stup!d arses. Or what the 1970s British Rich did, leave England, causing massive unemployment; the current Rich French leaving France; the Rich at Cyprus already left, just like the Rich at Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. so now their "Rich" are the Upper Middle Class and Middle Class.

Will-1091847

They didn't leave the country though, did they? Moving from New York to Connecticut or New Jersey is a far cry from pulling up roots and moving to a foreign country. If it is a federal tax, where will they go to hide from it like a coward? Canada

Most of the people you want to @!$%# up the ass already have homes in other countries dip@!$%#. All they would have to do is fill out the paper work to renounce their citizenship. They wouldn't even have to move. The hardest part would be paying the exit tax. Clearly you have no clue how things work and clearly you don't want to have a clue. After all, it's not like this is rocket science.

You can call them cowards for not wanting to pay the more than half of their income (let's not forget state taxes shall we) but that just further proves your level of idiocy. NO ONE wants to give more of what they earn to the government than they keep themselves, including you. Especially when so much of it is just wasted. People like you simply lack the intelligence to see anything that isn't right in front of your face. You're too dense to see or accept the unintended consequences of your actions even though there are myriad examples. You are the classic puppet and people like you are the reason so many @!$%#ty politicians, on both sides, keep getting elected. YOU, and the all of the rest of the red and blue sheep, are more of a problem for this country than any rich person ever will be.

ROY WILSON-336103

It's a bit disingenuous to portray just the final 15% as too low and ignore the original tax of 35%, don't you think?

Disingenuous?? That implies that he had a clue to begin with. I think you're being overly generous.

Backcountry164 "ROY WILSON-336103 It's a bit disingenuous to portray just the final 15% as too low and ignore the original tax of 35%, don't you think? Disingenuous?? That implies that he had a clue to begin with. I think you're being overly generous."

I was trying to get liberals to think, but you're right - they suffer from their policy of "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up"

lol

I have one thing to say: I'd like to see an Amendment to the Constitution which state that no member of Congress, or any member of their staffs, or any employee of Congress, will get paid each year until they pass a budget, appropriations bills, and debt authorization bills (a/k/a the debt ceiling.)

The constant, every year (at least since 1980) battle over cutting taxes and attempting to eliminate Social Security and Medicare has to end.

FOLWNJ

wtf?

how did i beat feisty deadhead and the pigotry?

did george soros give them a day off?

Perhaps? But I see the Koch brothers are still paying you to be here.

y are so many LWNJs scared of a right-wing Koch?

Your probably the rich @!$%# who gave to Romney. It must suck that you put all that $$$$$ in to that Mormon. Sounds to me like your a sore loser. And by the way Repubs and Dems suck rich boy.

flnobody

FOLWNJ

wtf?

how did i beat feisty deadhead and the pigotry?

did george soros give them a day off?

Perhaps? But I see the Koch brothers are still paying you to be here.

and your teachers unions are invested in Koch Bros, hypocrit

1 out of 4 profitable corporations pay no taxes whatsoever, yet those greedy rich suck the lifeblood out of American services to maintain their profits. Vampire corporations!

Republicons keeping their pledge to Norquist never to raise taxes on the rich. Republicons keeping their pledge to vote against America, to vote and obstruct anything good for America, and they have for over 4 years with record amount of filibusters and blocks.

what a bunch of trash you stupid @!$%#s are the government doesn't have any money till they steal it from hard working people as far as you stupid @!$%#s that think someone isn't paying their fair share take a look at all the federal employees' that do not pay their taxes and they are the first ones who put their hands in the cookie jar and still will not participate in the system of supporting all the @!$%# they shove down our throats.as far as the dumbass that is telling me he pays more taxes than mitt romney you sir are one of the biggest douchebags on the planet the amount he pays is equal to many many of you good patriotic americans ha ha ha what a bunch of pieces of @!$%# you stupid @!$%#s are

Don't worry, be happy...maybe if we just keep telling ourselves that it will be o.k.

hey star@!$%#forbrainsailing every one of those people pay personal income taxes, for you to sit here and say they do not shows how smarrrt you aren't now get off the computer give mommy kisses and put on your diaper and get to bed.I only hope to be able to run into you or others like you after the collapse of the economy i will know what to do to put a rabid pos like you and your's but I am pretty sure there is someone in your area will adress that issue as I will be busy adressing the issues in my area (adressing issues really means putting down rabid dogs like you.)

I have a solution. Our government should stop giving Billions to Israel. OK I'm ready for the backlash from the Jews.

Funny Rocky since you didn't mention the billions in foreign aid to the Radical Muslim Nations that hate us, but your proud of yourself mentioning the only Democratic nation in the Mideast. So what Radical Muslim group do you belong too the OWS?

P.S. For your info not Jewish

fool

Why don't you tell someone who cares?

Brian.....what part don't you understand?...DOH...1 out of....four...profitable corporations.....end up ....paying....no ...taxes.....! Can you read the words coming out of my hand?????? DOH!

Yes, mr sailing, those greedy bastards that employ so many people. They are so terrible. What causes Democrats to act like such infants, wimpering as they look for the government next tit to suck on?

Starsailing, for your information No Corporations ever pay taxes, It is the Consumers that pay there taxes when we buy their products. Raise the Corperation taxes and the cost of thier goods go up. Then you pay more. I wish Basic Economics was taught more in schools.

hey, FOLWNJ,

how did i beat feisty deadhead and the pigotry?

did george soros give them a day off?

Congrats.

But, who is George Soros?

Miss Piggy,

You get the gold star for best one of the day. Surely you jest.

Like the "spooky dude" who allegedly singlehandedly sold short the Bank of England robbing pensioners of their retirement savings so that he could "show compassion on the poor" by bankrolling all manner of tax-exempt 501 (c) (3) foundations that do everything from re-electing Communists, oops I mean Democrats, to allegedly coordinating and triggering the Arab Spring so that Prez O could send our Air Force to Libya to finish the job when the masses couldn't.

Mr. Soros (not his real name) makes the Koch brothers look like Catholic Choir boys.

Read David Horowitz books "The Shadow Party" and "The New Leviathan"--all you will ever need to know about George Soros and the funding of the Left.

FOLWNJ - y are so many LWNJs scared of a right-wing Koch?

Because the Koch Foundation donates to PBS, and PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal" exposed all the closed door Whitehouse Deals President Obama made with the Corporations to get Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions.

And being the Hypocrites that they are, they do not realize the Motive of President Obama demanding the spending of $2.5 Trillion was to get Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Corporations to keep his 2008-2009 Election Offices Open until 2012-2013 Reelection Offices open Nationwide, then to keep these open Nationwide as the President Obama Political Action Committee Offices Nationwide to push the President Obama "Agendas". This is why Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton filed against Candidate Obama's violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act; and why President Obama's buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court to Rule in favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions before the Citizens United Case made it's way thru the maze of the US Courts, since "Mr. Corporate America" admitted violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act since 2007 in his Legal Brief, he was fined (slapped on the wrist) $200,000, while President Obama received Billions USDs.

FOLWNJ - wtf? how did i beat feisty deadhead and the pigotry? did george soros give them a day off?

No, they are cashing their President Obama Political Action Committee (the new ACORN) checks at Walmart to buy more Made In China toxic stuff that poisoned what was left of their Obamazombie brains. They must support President Clinton's giving China Most Favored Trade Nation Status so that President Clinton could get more "Donations" (Bribes) from the Chinese, aka "Chinagate" (during his Impeachment Hearings).

DaveyJonesDetroit - Mr. Soros (not his real name) makes the Koch brothers look like Catholic Choir boys.

LOL. If you ever figure out who President Obama's Buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" is, then research everything he has done; "Mr. Corporate America" makes Mr. Soros, Koch Brothers, all look like two cent gangstas.

And Bush was? Adding 6 trillion in debt and never paying for the wars or anything else doesn't sound like it to me.

OBAMA has added $6 trillion in 4 years

get a clue

Obama was forced into it by Bush policies.

You need to get a clue. The CBO after their revised budget analysis in the summer of 2008 said the deficit would exceed 1.2 trillion in 2009 whoever was elected. They also listed the cause as the tax cuts, continuing war costs, 500 billion loss in tax revenue due to the economic collapse and millions losing their jobs straining social programs such as unemployment and welfare and debt service costs. Dumb much? Obama has to pay for 8 years of Bush.

OBAMA has added $6 trillion in 4 years

If that is true, he did not spent the money shopping for clothes, or playing golf. The money was used primarily to rescue the economy. Some programs worked, and some did not.

At least he did not spend the money GETTING RICH STARTING A WAR, JUST TO PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM THE WEAPONS AND OIL.

Bush AND Cheney ARE JUST PART OF OUR IMAGINATION right REPUBLICANS????

You right-wingers keep forgetting Clinton left a surplus and Bush spent it on a made up war. Obama has been trying to dig us out from under what the Repubs did with no help from the right. No way I want the cause of the problem telling us how to fix it.

you left-wing nutjobs keep forgetting the clinton 'surplus" never existed

FOLWNJ

OBAMA has added $6 trillion in 4 years

get a clue

Now how did he do that? You yourself have said he has never turned in a budget. The president doesn't right checks, congress does. Who is in charge of congress? Take your time, you can figure it out.

Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. The deficit was caused by a combination of three factors:

1. Bush's policy changes

Let's quickly dispense with the impact of the Bush wars, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and tax cuts. None of these things were paid for. The Bush tax cuts cost $160 billion per year, the prescription drug benefit costs about $80 billion per year, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars cost about $200 billion per year. That adds up to $440 billion per year in deficit impact.

2. Bush's reaction to the economic collapse.

Bush's 2008 stimulus added well over $100 billion to the yearly deficit (since many of the policies remained in effect). It added more than $200 billion to the 2008 deficit

. The economic downturn

In 2009, economists estimated that the economic downturn increased the deficit by about $426 billion in 2009. This assumption is based on two factors: (1) the loss of revenue after an economic collapse and (2) an increase in automatic payments as more people are forced onto unemployment insurance and other forms of government assistance.

That adds up to about $1.1 trillion in deficit spending that had nothing to do with Obama. Aside from bailouts (which sharply decreased in impact in 2010 and beyond), these impacts were unchanging.

For example: the impact of the economic downturn persists. The economy continued to decline after Obama came into office, leading to more revenue losses and more automatic government payments through assistance programs.

Obama's stimulus policies have added more than $1 trillion to the national debt (since some of the tax cuts have been continued). But the alternative approach wouldn't have differed much in its impact on the deficit. Republicans would have passed a stimulus with a larger share of tax cuts. And perhaps it would have been a bit smaller. But the difference is minimal.

FOL...

For God's sake, spend 2 minutes to get your **** straight for once.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/15/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-bush-saddled-obama-big-deficit/

It is embarrassing that you are a real life adult American who can vote, put pants on, and walk around and engage with other people. Please never leave the country because you'll give us a bad name.

you left-wing nutjobs keep forgetting the clinton 'surplus" never existed

The last budget of Clinton would have had a surplus except Bush spent all of it and 400 billion more after elected. Notice how Bush states his tax cut will mean 6 to 7 million current tax payers will no longer have to pay taxes. Gasp.....Bush created the 47%

Taxes Cuts and the Surplus
Bush and Gore agree that over the next 10 years, $25 trillion in revenues minus $21 trillion in spending will result in a $4.56 trillion surplus. Bush and Gore do not agree what to do with that surplus.

BUSH: I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut.

Gore stated that he would match every federal dollar spent on education and health care, with a dollar for tax cuts to middle class taxpayers and two dollars toward paying down the national debt. "I think it's very important to keep the debt going down and completely eliminate it," stated Gore.

Gore repeatedly referred to Bush's plan as "a tax cut for the wealthy." Bush repeatedly accused Gore of basing that criticism on "phony numbers" and "Washington-fuzzy math."

GORE:Under Governor Bush's tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined. Now, I think those are the wrong priorities.

Later in the debate, Bush defended his tax plan against Gore's accusation that it would only help the rich.

BUSH: After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay a higher percentage of taxes than they do today, and the poorest of Americans, 6 million families, 7 million people, won't pay any tax at all.

GORE:"Let me just say, Jim (Lehrer), you haven't heard the governor deny these numbers. He's called them phony, he's called them fuzzy. But the fact remains, almost 30 percent of his proposed tax cut goes only to Americans that make more than $1 million per year."

The candidates returned to this "help the rich - help the poor - help the middle class" tax cut argument throughout the debate, yet neither candidate proposed any new tax cuts or other uses for the surplus that they had not previously suggested during the campaign.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa100600a.htm

If Democrats are the party of "tax-and-spend" then Republicans are the party of "cut-and-spend".

You right-wingers keep forgetting Clinton left a surplus and Bush spent it on a made up war.

One big reason there was a surplus after Clinton was because of controlling welfare spending. Dems. can't get re-elected if they cut welfare so there is the problem. Bush didn't start the war by the way. It was obama's friends and family, the muslims, that started the war, remember, 9/11.

Vinnie.......republicons.....spend, send, spend, create more tax loopholes for the rich while cutting programs for the middle class and poor and vets, spend, spend, war, war, spend, spend, spend, make middle class pay for more tax breaks for the rich, spend, spend, pledge against America, pledge to Norquist never tax the rich, spend, spend....etc.

Muslims started the Iraq war? I and every sane person in the world thinks it was bush.

Larry-367607

You need to get a clue. The CBO after their revised budget analysis in the summer of 2008 said the deficit would exceed 1.2 trillion in 2009 whoever was elected. They also listed the cause as the tax cuts, continuing war costs, 500 billion loss in tax revenue due to the economic collapse and millions losing their jobs straining social programs such as unemployment and welfare and debt service costs. Dumb much? Obama has to pay for 8 years of Bush.

lol. this just shows how stup!d liberals are. we've all heard them whining about the Bush tax cuts for years now...but Obama extended them when they expired and has now made them PERMANENT. So, the tax policies that have hurt us so much when Bush did them are good enough to make them permanent by the same people who complained about them?

stup!d liberal...

The last budget of Clinton would have had a surplus except Bush spent all of it and 400 billion more after elected. Notice how Bush states his tax cut will mean 6 to 7 million current tax payers will no longer have to pay taxes. Gasp.....Bush created the 47%

Hey, stup!d liberal. The ONLY reason Clinton claimed a "balanced budget" was because he pilfered the Soc Sec Trust Fund and a myriad of other federal trust funds to make up for the short-fall in tax revenue....and the money they "borrowed" to balance the budget was NEVER repaid and thus has increased our national debt. The legend of Clinton's "balanced budgets" are urban legends and nothing more.

Stup!d liberals....

One big reason there was a surplus after Clinton was because of controlling welfare spending. Dems. can't get re-elected if they cut welfare so there is the problem. Bush didn't start the war by the way. It was obama's friends and family, the muslims, that started the war, remember, 9/11.

Really? Bush allowed non citizens who lost food stamp and welfare benefits in the Clinton welfare reform to again receive benefits in the 2002 farm bill. In the 2008 farm bill he greatly increased dollar amounts.

What changes were made?

• On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed a law – the "Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002" that will allow more low-income non-citizen and legal immigrants to receive food stamps if they meet the Food Stamp Program’s income and resource requirements.

When does the new law go into effect?

• Some legal immigrants affected by the 2002 law will be eligible to receive food stamp benefits as early as Oct. 1, 2002, but most will not be eligible until later. The information below explains more about when eligibility starts.
• The 2002 law allows eligibility for legal immigrants who meet the program’s requirements, AND who:

-- are receiving disability benefits (such as SSI or disability-related Medicaid) (eligibility for this group started Oct. 1, 2002);
-- have lived in the United States for 5 years in a qualified status (eligibility for this group started April 1, 2003); or
-- are under 18 years old and entered the United States after Aug. 22, 1996 (eligibility for this group starts Oct. 1, 2003).

Vinnie, You are correct! Both parties suck big time. We clearly need a 3rd party because the two we have now just sit in Washington and have pissing contests day after day.

lol. this just shows how stup!d liberals are. we've all heard them whining about the Bush tax cuts for years now...but Obama extended them when they expired and has now made them PERMANENT. So, the tax policies that have hurt us so much when Bush did them are good enough to make them permanent by the same people who complained about them?

stup!d liberal...

Repealing the tax cuts for everyone would have been political suicide. You idiots never accept responsibility even when you get proof. Instead you say if they're bad why didn't Obama end them or if the war was bad why didn't Obama get out on day one. How about asking why Bush did them to begin with when it was obvious the impact on the debt was bankrupting us?. No wonder your party can't win anymore. You rely on lies and distortions. Only teabags buy it.

Linda-399775

You right-wingers keep forgetting Clinton left a surplus and Bush spent it on a made up war. Obama has been trying to dig us out from under what the Repubs did with no help from the right. No way I want the cause of the problem telling us how to fix it.

You liberals never mention that Clinton's Presidency increased the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars and that he only created the illusion of a "balanced budget" and "budget surplus" by borrowing money from the Soc Sec Trust Fund, the Federal employee pension fund, the RailRoad Employee Trust Fund, and a bunch of other federal trust funds to offset the shortfall in tax revenue....money which was borrowed and NEVER repayed and now contributes to our national debt increasing.

stup!d liberals....

So, the tax policies that have hurt us so much when Bush did them are good enough to make them permanent by the same people who complained about them?

You call "stupid"anybody that opens the other eye, and sees the "real"reason why Bush did the tax policies. He had spent one trillion dollars of the middle class getting a personal vendetta with Saddam Hussein. If he had not done the tax policies, the country now would be a third world country. As it is, the poverty gap has tripled since that war. The big oil millionaires now are some of the richest men in the world. The Bush and Cheney families are part of that elite.

If you take the time, and red what most newspapers printed 2 days ago about the state of affairs in Iraq, you will see that our presence there only caused DISPAIR, and it has been the biggest embarrasment in US history.

When are you going to actually look at the big picture, instead of what is in front of your nose and insult people all over the place without thinking?

@Larry-367607 post#4.9 and 4.11

Well researched and spot on. Republicans crying now about the corrections that have to take place caused by their dereliction of duty when they had power. There is no trickle down, there is only trickle out. Friedman-ite theory is a hoax and a complete failure wherever it has been implemented, it took forty years to dry gulch the American economy, it will take massive effort and sacrifice to correct it, and the republicans do everything in their power to obstruct recovery.

Repealing the tax cuts for everyone would have been political suicide. You idiots never accept responsibility even when you get proof. Instead you say if they're bad why didn't Obama end them or if the war was bad why didn't Obama get out on day one. How about asking why Bush did them to begin with when it was obvious the impact on the debt was bankrupting us?. No wonder your party can't win anymore. You rely on lies and distortions. Only teabags buy it.

So, Obama campaigned not once but twice on ending the Bush tax cuts because they were creating such a deficit but then extended them when they expired the first time and MADE THEM PERMANENT when they expired the second and it's "ok" because it would have been political suicide?

lol.

Stup!d liberal.

you have just made the very thing you say caused our country's temporary financial ills to become PERMANENT to win a single Presidential election.

you stup!d liberals have just taken us out of the proverbial "frying pan" and into the fire....we are exponentially more screwed now that the "Bush tax cuts" which "ruined" us financially have not only not been ended...they've been made permanent by you ashsoles. all to win an election.

thanks for sealing our doom.

Hey, stup!d liberal.

You call me stupid and can't read a few posts up where I prove Bush based his tax cuts on the fact there was a surplus. You're truly brain dead and brain washed. Obama couldn't repeal a tax break on the middle class in the middle of a recession. Obama couldn't pull out of Afghanistan on day one letting the country fall back to the Taliban or he'd been accused of treason. The one who caused our problems is the one that created the tax cuts and invaded 2 countries. That debt will always belong to him. Jabber all you want after 4 years of it most Americans including most Republicans blamed Bush.

at least I don't have to worry about you trogressive libtard trash you will be what we call a backstop pretty soon so keep up the good work and put a big rainbow colored shirt we would hate to miss you cause after all you are the ones who cry about gun control cause after all gun control means hitting what you are aiming at and I am an expert at gun control.

You Liberals do a better job of finding excuses for Obama than anything else. Can't you do anything like trimming the budget some and not raising taxes? Or would that be too hard so you keep blaming Bush while the rest of us go broke. Blaming Bush is not the answer unless you want him to come back and fix it.

Bush added 6 trillion in 8 years of office YET

YOU LIBERAL IDIOTS STILL BLAME HIM BUT GIVE obama A FREE PASS on....

6 trillion added in 4 years.......?????

I CAN SEE the education system for LIBERALS is FAILING.

Anyone can see OBAMA is MUCH WORSE.

Stop defending this TURD of a president......

DaveM-877764

Bush added 6 trillion in 8 years of office YET

YOU LIBERAL IDIOTS STILL BLAME HIM BUT GIVE obama A FREE PASS on....

6 trillion added in 4 years.......?????

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I think the biggest difference is that Democrats are not as concerned about the debt as Republicans seem to be. We only bring up Bush's incurred debt as a response to the complaints about Obama's debt, and rightfully point out that about 15% of Obama's debt was carryover from Bush's administration.

Of course in reality, Republicans don't really care about increased spending/debt either, provided that the spending goes to what they want (tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate giveaways, military spending). It's only when the Democrats have the checkbook that the Republicans complain about the red ink.

For the past 30+ years, Republicans have been manufacturing fear over debt/deficit. They realize that the type of spending that Republicans want ultimately won't help the country or appeal to the masses. [The goal for Republicans is corporate fascism and taking the power away from the people].

So when they do not have power, Republicans complain loudly about Democrat spending in an attempt to make Democrats cut social programs, which will make the voters turn against Democrats.

It's called the "Two Santa Clauses Theory".

You liberals never mention that Clinton's Presidency increased the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars and that he only created the illusion of a "balanced budget" and "budget surplus" by borrowing money from the Soc Sec Trust Fund, the Federal employee pension fund, the RailRoad Employee Trust Fund, and a bunch of other federal trust funds to offset the shortfall in tax revenue....money which was borrowed and NEVER repayed and now contributes to our national debt increasing.

Wow you amaze me. You realize every president borrows from social security unless the budgets balanced right? You act like Clinton invented it. Clinton raised the debt 1.5 trillion over 8 years Bush raised it 6 trillion in 8 even after Clinton had brought it under control. The only thing that matters is how much the debt increased from year to year. I'll quote Bush again. Notice how Bush and Gore agree revenue will exceed expenses by 4.5 trillion? Revenues would have exceeded expenses. All Bush had to do was run on the budget Clinton submitted the prior October and not cut taxes and we would have had a surplus.

Taxes Cuts and the Surplus
Bush and Gore agree that over the next 10 years, $25 trillion in revenues minus $21 trillion in spending will result in a $4.56 trillion surplus. Bush and Gore do not agree what to do with that surplus.

Why are we still talking about Bush? Hell, if we're going to look backwards and keep blaming previous presidents, why stop there? I think Carter (the wimp), Grover Cleveland (funny name) and Grant (the drunk) ALL had something to do with these issues.

Obama is the President, the cogress has been filled with Democrats for YEARS, and you people think it's all Bush's fault. How ignorant. Is this pass you guys are giving Obama affirmative action at the presidential level?

You blame Bush for the 6 trillion in 8 years, and you don't blame Obama for the same amount in 4 years, what will you say when we will have a Obama debt increase of 12 trillion in 8 years? You blame Bush for he Wars, but Obama has continued them, not to mention get us innvolved in others with disasterious results, (think Arab summer). Obama got his tax increases, but he spends more, so even if he gets the senate version, the deficet will contrinue to grow, because he spends more then the government takes in. We now spend 1.3 trillion more then we take in, Obama want to increase taxes to close that gap by 1 trillion, but his plans call for anther 1.2 trillion in spending. So the Debt is increased, and hopefully those shovel ready jobs will work this time. It is a shame liberals don't use the same glasses to look at Bush, that they look at Obama with, It is time to take off those "rose" colored glasses.

Why are we still talking about Bush.

6 Billion in debt is still on the books, one of the wars is still being fought and the effects of our economic collapse on his watch are still hurting us. If the right didn't spend so much time pretending every thing wrong with our economy began the day Obama became president we wouldn't feel the need to bring up Bush. For those claiming we need to discuss solutions rather than blame start offering solutions and stop trying to lay blame.

Here's the debt breakdown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

Wow you amaze me. You realize every president borrows from social security unless the budgets balanced right? You act like Clinton invented it. Clinton raised the debt 1.5 trillion over 8 years Bush raised it 6 trillion in 8 even after Clinton had brought it under control. The only thing that matters is how much the debt increased from year to year. I'll quote Bush again. Notice how Bush and Gore agree revenue will exceed expenses by 4.5 trillion? Revenues would have exceeded expenses. All Bush had to do was run on the budget Clinton submitted the prior October and not cut taxes and we would have had a surplus.

All things being equal, you would have a point. However, 9/11 happened...which launched the United States into an unprecedented global effort to eradicate extremist terrorism which poses a threat to the security of the United States and our allies. I would argue that if Bill Clinton had just take custody of OBL and prosecuted him for his crimes THEN, that 9/11 likely would NEVER have happened as well as all the baggage that goes with it...the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "global war on terror", the Patriot Act, the deficit spending to fund the initiatives, etc. All of it...attributable to Bill Clinton's failure to act to stop OBL when he had the opportunity gift wrapped and placed in his lap.

Your view is extremely narrow and partisan...and thus, wrong.

6 Billion in debt is still on the books, one of the wars is still being fought and the effects of our economic collapse on his watch are still hurting us. If the right didn't spend so much time pretending every thing wrong with our economy began the day Obama became president we wouldn't feel the need to bring up Bush. For those claiming we need to discuss solutions rather than blame start offering solutions and stop trying to lay blame.

Obama became the CIC the moment he was sworn in....the fact that we are STILL in Afghanistan and have been for going on 5 years now after that moment is not Bush's fault....it is OBAMA'S. Obama could order the recall of our troops with a penstroke...it is just that simple. He's the President...the buck stops with him. The last President hasn't been in office for over 4 years...blaming him just doesn't wash.

You call me stupid and can't read a few posts up where I prove Bush based his tax cuts on the fact there was a surplus. You're truly brain dead and brain washed. Obama couldn't repeal a tax break on the middle class in the middle of a recession. Obama couldn't pull out of Afghanistan on day one letting the country fall back to the Taliban or he'd been accused of treason. The one who caused our problems is the one that created the tax cuts and invaded 2 countries. That debt will always belong to him. Jabber all you want after 4 years of it most Americans including most Republicans blamed Bush.

Let me clue you in on a little something....

The reason that we have not had a budget in the United States for over 4 years is because the Democrats wanted to continue spending at the levels of the last legal budget...the one which included the bailouts and the "stimulus". As astronomically exorbitant as as that spending was, it has continued at those levels ever since....thus increasing our national debt as if it were Wyle E Coyote with a rocket strapped to his asss. Liberals are trying to say that Obama has actually "reduced" the deficit...which is a con. Our national debt is still skyrocketing...by claiming the "deficit" is being reduced, they are trying to portray our debt as a portion of the GDP...which it is NOT. Our GDP is MUCH larger now than at the height of the recession...so our "deficit" would naturally be "less" relative to the GDP of the recession but it is NOT less debt.

I could use examples and some basic math to explain it but if you possessed the skills to understand basic math then you'd already understand it and an explanation would not be necessary in the first place...so why bother?

How many of you have actually contacted your Congressman and let them know how you feel. Until you do shut up. Vote the ones that voted for this out. If you even vote.

DocLogic, I love you, Man!!

I would argue that if Bill Clinton had just take custody of OBL and prosecuted him for his crimes THEN, that 9/11 likely would NEVER have happened as well as all the baggage that goes with it...the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "global war on terror", the Patriot Act, the deficit spending to fund the initiatives, etc. All of it...attributable to Bill Clinton's failure to act to stop OBL when he had the opportunity gift wrapped and placed in his lap.

There is plenty of blame to go around. I would argue that if George W. Bush had listened to his security advisers who on several occasions said that OBL was planning an attack on the US then perhaps we would have avoided 9/11.

Of course, even after 9/11 the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to the US but Bush refused and we wen to war.

Also, when the US had OBL surrounded in the Tora Bora mountains, had Bush committed enough coalition troops they could have captured him. Instead, they outsourced the job to the locals who allowed OBL to escape.

Ultimately Bush decided instead to turn his attention to what he really wanted, Iraq, and seemingly gave up on the War in Afghanistan altogether.

Deposing Saddam Hussein would in turn take away the one country in the mid-east that kept Iran and Syria in check...

The reason that we have not had a budget in the United States for over 4 years is because the Democrats wanted to continue spending at the levels of the last legal budget...the one which included the bailouts and the "stimulus". As astronomically exorbitant as as that spending was, it has continued at those levels ever since....thus increasing our national debt as if it were Wyle E Coyote with a rocket strapped to his asss. Liberals are trying to say that Obama has actually "reduced" the deficit...which is a con. Our national debt is still skyrocketing...by claiming the "deficit" is being reduced, they are trying to portray our debt as a portion of the GDP...which it is NOT. Our GDP is MUCH larger now than at the height of the recession...so our "deficit" would naturally be "less" relative to the GDP of the recession but it is NOT less debt.

You are correct that Democrats didn't want to have a budget because they wanted to keep spending at the same levels. Although, if you look at it the deficit, it has come down every year since. That's a combination of reducing our spending, and decreasing the trade gap. The deficit is still higher than it was pre-recession, but it is lower than at it's peak.

But, we've also been trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years. We had a "stimulus" and high levels of spending for 4 years. Now, the GDP is much higher than it was during the height of the recession.

It seems to me that by your own admission, if not for the stimulus and spending, then the GDP would not be higher and the economy would still be in the doldrums.

By contrast, are you proposing that we should have implemented similar austerity measures that we saw in England, Greece, and Europe during the recession? The same austerity measures that have caused these countries to have multiple recessions, while our economy has slowly but steadily improved?

Until such time as the cost of the wars are paid off and the debacles that include Wall Street and the nations housing market are cleaned up, Bush and his ilk will, logically and rightfully be blamed for the mess.

Still blaming Bush and Cheney, etal? Darn right.

All the name calling and pitiful attempt at intimidation tactics won't change the direction at which the blame should be directed.

It seems to me that by your own admission, if not for the stimulus and spending, then the GDP would not be higher and the economy would still be in the doldrums.

By contrast, are you proposing that we should have implemented similar austerity measures that we saw in England, Greece, and Europe during the recession? The same austerity measures that have caused these countries to have multiple recessions, while our economy has slowly but steadily improved?

I've got a newsflash for you...the economy will ALWAYS turn around in America as long as the government doesn't muck it up. People want to make a buck, whether it's just a guy trying to make ends meet or a corporation regrouping to make higher profit. And the austerity measures we've seen in E.U. countries have been flailing because they are being rejected by the population and undermined, not embraced and practiced evenhandedly. The reason that Greece is flailing is not that austerity won't work....it's because GREEKS won't work.

You almost got your comment about the deficit correct. Almost. The deficit as a function of GDP is getting smaller ONLY because the GDP is getting better...not because the debt is shrinking.

Let's try this in simple terms. If you have an annual revenue of $100,000, you spend $140,000 per year and you have a debt of $10,000,000...you have some serious negative financial equity. If you increase your income to $500,000/yr, increase your spending to $650,000yr with a debt load of $10,000,000....it APPEARS that you are better able to handle your increasing debt but the truth of the matter is that your debt is still increasing at a rate you can't sustain nor have an ability to pay. Simply raising revenue to help offset increased spending will NOT solve the problem unless the revenue outpaces the spending. We all know that this is impossible for the federal government to accomplish...at the rates the Democrats have been spending and INCREASING spending over the last 4 years, the debt has grown to the point it's unmanageable simply by modest revenue increase. How many times have we all heard that if we took ALL the "rich peoples'" money, it would only fund the government for days? The problem is that we spend more than we take in....not that we don't have enough to spend.

The deficit at the end of each year INCREASES the national debt regardless of how it may become a fraction of a percentage point less than the previous year simply because of the increase in the GDP.

If the amount of the deficit is 1.5 trillion and the GDP is 15 trillion one year and then the next year the deficit is 1.5 trillion but the GDP is 16 trillion, then the deficit is "smaller" relative to the GDP but not in raw numbers....it's still 1.5 trillion. The Democrats are arguing that the deficit is getting "smaller" when, in fact, the dollar amount has been increasing....it's just that the GDP has also increased at a slightly higher pace than the deficit. It's a CON. The national debt is growing, not shrinking....

Democrats rely on people not understanding the difference between a the budget deficit and the national debt for their con-artistry. We MUST reduce spending to have a chance to reduce the debt, not the deficit. Obama doesn't care about reducing the debt...not at all. He believes that as long as the deficit stays within a specified percentage of the GDP, the amount of the debt is really irrelevant. And THAT is why he will bankrupt America. Obama and the Democrats MUST raise revenue for their model to work...to be able to claim that the debt is "manageable" instead of just keeping spending static or (God forbid) reducing spending. The problem is that America' GDP is not longer centered around our manufacturing...it's centered around financial markets. And if they collapse, we go down in flames.

Obama and the Democrats are treating the finances of the United States as a Ponzi scheme...building layer upon layer upon layer of "spending" hoping the bills don't all come due at the same time.

Your entire example is flawed. Per your own admission, the Senate doesn't want to release a budget because they want to keep spending levels THE SAME. If spending levels have increased then you need to blame the Republicans in congress.

Secondly, your assertion that the GDP will always increase because of the American desire to make profits is sorely misplaced.

At least 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. In order for those consumers to have money to spend, they need jobs and living wages.

Private companies are not in the business of creating jobs, they are in the business of making profits - employees are costs. So, when you want to increase profits you either maintain fewer employees, or reduce their wages. Neither of these strategies will increase the 70% of consumer spending.

Do you know who doesn't care about profits but instead cares about GDP? The Government.

The Corporate Fascism that you prescribe to is a race to the bottom. If you want a glimpse of the Corporate Fascist finish line I suggest you read "the Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

Larry-367607, Vinnie Saltine, stop please-1605106, Tokenflame, flnobody, IRESPOND-2315268, Linda-399775

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" - Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Your Democrazy Party and President Obama propaganda campaign.

The easily Researched (not Paid for by Democratic Party internet sites) Democrazy LIES:

President Clinton "Budget Surplus". Interest on the National Debt: President Clinton $18.9 Billion; President Bush $16.6 Billion.

US Economy. Most of the Uneducated posting here do not even know why the US Economy is screwed up, as 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.. And the Democrats since they will not admit what they did, cannot come up with a viable solution.

Looking at the no information posts, the continuous denial that President Obama's Demanded Previously NOT BUDGETED For $1.7 Trillion (2011 Update: $2.1 Trillion, 2013 Update: $2.5 Trillion) is what is causing this mess "Fiscal Cliff", "Debt Ceiling", July 2011 President Obama's Demanded "Across the Board Budget Cuts" (Automatic Sequestration) of all Previously Budgeted for Programs, Projects, Agencies including the Chopping of the Benefits and Entitlements of the "47%" (update: 49%, 2013 update: 51%) to pay for the previously not budgeted for $2.5 Trillion spent by the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate, Democratic Party Controlled US House of Representatives and President Obama. To hide this cost of $2.5 Trillion from the US Public the Democratic Party Controlled US Congress refused to create a Budget and kept creating Continuing Resolutions (CRs) that did not include the $2.5 Trillion.

And being the Hypocrites that they are, they do not realize the Motive of President Obama demanding the spending of $2.5 Trillion was to get Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Corporations to keep his 2008-2009 Election Offices Open until 2012-2013 Reelection Offices open Nationwide, then to keep these open Nationwide as the President Obama Political Action Committee Offices Nationwide to push the President Obama "Agendas". This is why Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton filed against Candidate Obama's violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act; and why President Obama's buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court to Rule in favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions before the Citizens United Case made it's way thru the maze of the US Courts, since "Mr. Corporate America" admitted violating US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act since 2007 in his Legal Brief, he was fined (slapped on the wrist) $200,000, while President Obama received Billions USDs.

Jive Talkin Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7oWK5ewpH8

Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan were based on US Laws with US Congressional Appropriations.

example: Iraq, President Clinton's US Law, House of Representatives H.R. 4655 US Policy Overthrow President Hussein with US Congressional Appropriations; US Senate 2002 Iraqis War Resolution with Democratic Party Controlled US Senate Appropriations Committee Appropriations. In Accordance with US Law, 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring both Houses of US Congress to pass (US Senate) a Resolution, (US House of Representatives) a US Law, this made Iraq a Declared War, as Legal (not Democratic Party Lie of Illegal), and Funded (US House of Representatives Appropriations, and US Senate Appropriations). By International Laws, both Iraq and Afghanistan 100% Legal as United Nation's Missions, Nation Building.

Of course this would mean that the Democrats would have to admit that they Demanded the War at Iraq, since 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox, and in Retaliation for 1998 US Military Opertion Desert Fox against the Great Satan, Osama Bin Laden planned his 9/11 2001 Attacks against the targets as his 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings, and that President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading up to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission Investigations, Finding, and Recommendations with former President Clinton saying, "I'm a so sorry".

LOL. If President Bush (43) would have Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies, his daddy President Bush (41) would have whooped his arse, since it was the Director of the CIA Bush (President 41) that built up the US Intelligence Agencies that became the Envy of the World (after the Fall of the USSR and their KGB).

To those of us few survivors (Definition Fact - Experience or Observation) we know that the War With Iraq started in 1998 as demanded (Ordered) by President Clinton as Commander In Chief 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox, resulting in Osama Bin Laden planning the 9/11 2001 Attacks in retaliation for 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox; and not your uneducated opinions (Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason).

The Reason for War With Iraq was President Clinton's US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, NOT President Clinton's Weapons of Mass Destruction (1998 State of the Union Address, and President Clinton's Section 2 of US Law H.R.4655).

Larry-367607 - I and every sane person in the world thinks it was bush.

Nope. Just you and the rest of the too lazy to research the Facts Democrazies, and the typical Democrazy Blame Game (blame the wrong person(s)), Deflection of Blame Game, and Propaganda that is easily proved as a Lie; especially for those that were involved as participants (know the detailed facts).

Current and the Future of the US as President Obama's United Somalia of America. President Obama's Failed Foreign Policies that RESULTED in the US And US Allies Losses of the Strategic Resources Worldwide required for the current US Standard of Living and Future Alternative Energy; US And US Allies Losses of Strategic Locations Worldwide; US And US Allies Losses of Key and Strategic US Allies Worldwide.

It has been the long time Strategic Goals of the Chinese and Russian Federation to get the US and US Allies out of their Backyards (Resources) Worldwide. The Chinese and Russian Federation using the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran as their "Proxy Fighter", the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran using the Millions of Holy Warriors of Islam as their "Proxy Fighters" Worldwide.

Unlike your NO Experience (Defintion Fact - Experience or Observation), my Firsthand Experience with the above, as to what we were previously stopping, until President Obama stopped us with his Foreign Policies since 2009.

Like I said before: ALL OF YOU Larry-367607, Vinnie Saltine, stop please-1605106, Tokenflame, flnobody, IRESPOND-2315268, Linda-399775 DO NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL CAUSES SO YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH VIABLE SOLUTIONS; just lame arse excuses as to why you cannot fix the problems today.

Your entire example is flawed. Per your own admission, the Senate doesn't want to release a budget because they want to keep spending levels THE SAME. If spending levels have increased then you need to blame the Republicans in congress.

I never said that spending levels have increased not sought to assign blame. My post states that Democrats haven't passed a budget so that spending levels don't DECREASE and have fought the GOP tooth and nail to make sure that spending levels stay at the same level they were during the bailouts and the stimulus regardless of the need for that level of spending.