I'm heating my home with korosene this winter because I don't qualify for hetaing assisance. I went from $25 to unemployment. I could get a job a McDonalds 10 YRS ago but I'm not hispanic now so all the minimum wage jobs are taken. How when I paid into this scam from the last 30 YRS did'nt I think I would have to fight to get benefits.

THERE IS A DIFFERANCE BETWEEN WELFARE FOR THREE GENERATIONS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENI"S WHEN THERE ARE NO JOBS> UNLESS YOUR A ILLIGAL>>>>>

They didn't Forget it was never part of this. The media, Obama, and the corporate right wanted to make people think that thisas a real Unemployment extension. It's never was, it is and was simply funding for the newly unemployed.

This is at least the 3RD time they done this pretended they were really creating a true extrention when all it was is simple funding of new unemployed. You would think after so many timespeople would Open there eyes by now.

stranger now - I totally agree with you. I've been laid off now for over 16 months. My unemployment, of only 57 weeks, has expired. My wife and I ONLY qualify for help with food, nothing else. Also, like you, I have applied for jobs all over this country, but, I'm over 50, and these are jobs that I qualify for according to what they are looking for. Also for those that think "you should be able to find some sort of work" I've applied for jobs that would only pay slightly above minimum, and still can't get hired.

So to those people that think that the people that are collecting unemployment don't want to work or are not willing to find a job. Just wait till it happens to you after a thirty year successful career. Than lets see what you think about it. Or you've moved out of mom & dads and have spent all your life savings, and don't qualify for unemployment or food stamps. Let's hear form you then.

Robert Steele-2805215 - also agree with you

To stranger now.

My sentiments exactly. The republicans have been trying to destroy social security ever since it started. They pool all poor people together. They won't raise minimum wage, yet the corporations can raise prices any damn time they want to. Most politicians come to Washington from money, they don't have any idea how the average family lives. Most people you talk to believe that our Government works for us, NOT!!! Every time I call about a bill, etc. I talk to someone in another country. And most of the time I can barely understand them. Take a look at the labels on clothing, and just about everything else that comes into this country and then tell me how the heck NAFTA helps us. I heard Bush senior say that he wanted new world order. WHY??? and did they ever explain what is new world order?? I have my own thoughts, but since most people don't seem to believe in God I'll keep them to myself.

Why should the Government be in social security they can not even run the things they do know I mean come on when is it your responsible to take care of yourself Republicans want you to take the money and invest it in what you want because they know they can not run it because they will barrow it and never pay it back so it is time for AMERICANS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THEM SELF'S

alma, it was the dems that voted to use SS money and add it to the general fund, look it up! Also I am 64 years old and I remember when the minimum wage was less than a dollar. wages and prices are tied together, one goes up the other goes up and so on. when the minimum wage goes up, who pays for it? so what do the employers do, they can either fire someone so the others get a raise, or raise their prices to pay for the wage increase. it's a vicious cycle.

They are extending the benefits and giving the TAX breaks for ONE REASON.

They are looking @ the EU and see the SOCIAL UNREST. They will do ANYTHING to prevent this from happening in the USA.

Unfortunately they do not seem to understand. This IS going to happen in the USA, because it will NEVER be ENOUGH for the people with no prospect of a well paying job. Be it due to; lack of work ethic, education level, or lack of JOBS.

They are BANKRUPTING the USA and will be CUTTING the US Military NEXT. Just to pay the DEBT INTEREST and to maintain the SOCIAL Programs. This SOCIAL DEATH SPIRAL in the Western Countries, started decades ago and is just ACCELERATING.

Wall-street has already gutted many retirement programs, the CEOs & Environmentalist have caused the movement of the industrial jobs overseas, the FED is driving up INFLATION, and the US Gov is driving up the increases in Taxes & pending cuts in retirement programs are coming.

Stop your crying.. Go out and get a job.. Just like that twit in VT that has been on unemployment for 90 weeks..... Go get a effing job already, sure it may not be the $150K job but a pay check is a pay check...

Stop leaching of the rest of us..

I totally agree, I am glad for the extented unemployment benefits but What about the 99 ers? If your over 50 and still unemployed your screwed. I have placed atleast 250 applicationand got 2 interviews. How are we to survive? I worked many years only to be thown away like an old dish rag, when the wealthiest 2% of american who don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from get a 700 million break. Where is the logic in any of this. It's plain and simple we the backbone of this country are being screwed royally!

AC Robertson

They are BANKRUPTING the USA and will be CUTTING the US Military NEXT. Just to pay the DEBT INTEREST and to maintain the SOCIAL Programs. This SOCIAL DEATH SPIRAL in the Western Countries, started decades ago and is just ACCELERATING.

You do realize that the military is a social program too right?

CRT Micky

Stop your crying.. Go out and get a job.. Just like that twit in VT that has been on unemployment for 90 weeks..... Go get a effing job already, sure it may not be the $150K job but a pay check is a pay check...

Stop leaching of the rest of us..

Right - because the millions of Americans on unemployment and collecting food stamps are lazy...LOL! You people are ridiculous.

Not saying that most of the 99ers are not looking for a job, but many are not.

The ramifications of 99 weeks of no earned income are bad enough, but we are giving some an additional 56 weeks to procrastinate, and Nancy wanted 104 weeks.

Social Security is based on the average monthly salary for a period of 35 consecutive years, some of these people will have 39 consecutive zeros averaged into that amount, and Nancy thinks 51 zeros would be better.

I agree with you 100%!!!!! I have been a union leader since the '70 and we have all be HAD BY OBAMA. The lamb in sheep's clothing and we all fell for his "yes we can". The working class is doomed since they are all now on unemployment which has now become next to welfare. I am so disgusted with this democratic party. they are all in the same bed with the republicans.

Why aren't employers hiring? Their payroll taxes keep going up making each new employee more expensive. What isn't being mentioned here is that businesses are getting hit with some pretty nasty increases in both the federal unemployment contribution rate and state unemployment contribution rates. (3 states have an additional employee state contribution but in 47 states, it is 100% employer paid. Federal is 100% employer paid.)

The federal unemployment contribution (FUTA) for most employers is 0.8% of your first $7000 in earnings or $56 per employee. The rate has jumped to 1.4% in Michigan and 1.1% in SC and IN for 2010. 22 to 25 more states are expected to increase to 1.1% in 2011. Insignificant, right? That little jump will cost my company nearly $6M in additional taxes on top of what we would normally pay.

The state unemployment contribution is also a percentage of the employee's earnings. Most states have either raised the amount of wages subject to the tax or the rate on those wages or both. This is hurting employers who didn't lay people off. The rates aren't finalized for all states yet but we are expecting a $25M - $30M increase on top of what we paid this year and my company has excellent ratings with few layoffs. This will cripple the companies that high layoffs and are trying to recover.

In addition, several of the states which are unable to pay back the federal loans they took out to pay their unemployment are facing interest charges on those loans. We are seeing them pass legislation to pass the interest charges on to the employers.

So basically, the states can't pay back their loans so the employers who are still up and running are being forced to cover the cost. These are all per employee costs so of course the companies want to keep their head counts down.

OUTRAGE! We've been sold out. They've capitulated and coalesced with the obstructionists! "The fox is in the hen house!" Only it's NOT a fox he's a greedy murderous swine! Of course there are no jobs, they've been sending them all overseas for over fourty years! The corporations make more money there and keep it offshore. The fascist 2% own 94% of the financial wealth and their toadies are now stealing even more for them!

Ball up! (.30-o6 AMMO or FMJ) WE're 40 million strong! " No War but Class War!" joe hill

To Arms against Fascism! Save the 99ers'!

You said it all!!!!

CRT, I can't wait to see you on here in a few months crying cause you can't find one! I have been working since I was 14 yrs old and until may of 2009, served this country during the 70's. Now at the age of 52 there's no work for my so called profession, the minimum wage jobs are already taken by those whom lost their jobs before mine crashed.

Not to mention even if they were available I'm not going to be their first choice as they'll know, as soon as something better comes along I'm gone. ie. being over qualified. Since they are so adamant about people going out to create their own wealth, then, why are there so many restrictions on the able body to work.

Living here in florida there are so many laws that will have you arrested for working without a license for any kind of construction, therefore, making someone work for the so called rich whom can afford to get the license. Most of these idiots can't even do the work themselves and couldn't tell you if the job was done right or not.

Yet still with all the licenses you must have, along with the insurances the sayin is still buyers beware of those you hire. If a state is making the people get these licenses and jump through the hoops and fire, then, why aren't they made to check into the complaints of the victims ripped off by some of these contractors? ie. Go to the BBB, this is BS.

I will write the officials here and see if they are serious about letting people do the work for themselves, or, just more of the same old BS and make you work for someone because they're rich. Not to mention all of the illegals they've used for the last four years to complete their jobs, at the expense of the consumer.

While I will agree most of the illegals I've met will work hard, they, are not trained to do these jobs effectively to meet the standards of quality work. I really don't care that people don't want to pay for someone to collect the EUI benefits. I totally agree with this and would have like to see the tax cuts expire as well.

You people crack me up don't want to help the poor and all whilst giving the welfare to the rich, so crazy this is! You talk about job creation from these tax cuts, then, how about you tell me where are the jobs? I'll bet money you can't and just parrot the far right and left for their corporate buddies.

This was the one and probably the most important bill they should have let go into the toilet. How about everyone just pay a flat percentage of their income no matter what it might be. You know why this will never happen, because it would cut out corporate tax write offs. Period.

Something tells me from what I've read by people on this vine and others, we are in need of a revolt from the American citizens. No I'm not talking about the ones interested in ripping off the People for the Corporates.

Tell American people to start looking out for themselves after using their money for the last thirty some years, yeah right, just another way to rip us off of money we already paid. I would really like to see the percentage of people whom own their own business do the work themselves for a change.

Robert Eagle: you are wrong sir! I did indeed look uop the fact that you say Dem's took money fron SS trust fund to the genral fund. Please read at the Social Security Adminstration site below. Please give us a link to the source of the (mis) information you are asking Alam Jean to "look up".

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Logical stated"Why aren't employers hiring? Their payroll taxes keep going up making each new employee more expensive"

I disagree with your statement. I don't care what every new employee costs, the bottom line is if there is a PROFIT to be made by hiring them and selling the products they produce, employers will hire. This is what the shareholder expect of the CEO's. Growing revenue, market share, and creating stock value.

If hiring an employee is cheap as hell but there is no demand for additional products on the market, and no ability to earn a profit, who in the world would add employees?

Well said!

Here's a thought about unemployment benefits...

Maybe it's to simple of an idea for Washington, but I personally know of someone who's funding works like this:

For the first 6 months of unemployment, you get something like 75% of what you were making. For the next 6 months of unemployment you get like 50% of what you were making, and for the last 6 months of unemployment you only get 25% of what you were making.
It might be a little more motivating to get a job (and not sit at home or go on vacations like some people I know), and it will be less strain on those who are paying for the unemployment, whether it be the federal government or the businesses.

I dunno... just a thought....

How is letting someone keep the money they EARN giving them a break? They're just not giving away money to them. It's THEIRS! Everyone should be able to keep as much of their earnings as possible, rich, poor, or in between.

i second that motion - you tell em - and keep up the good work at least you know the real deal and have not became insensitive or dehumanized with all this FU attitude - they say they care and that there are jobs - but i don't hear them offering or relinquishing to the 99ers their current jobs or creating positions......and the private sector wants to see Obama fail so they are freezing up any and everything to make him look bad - it is not his fault yet they do not care as long as he fails we can all starve to death as long as he get no credits - yet the few positions they are creating (in a selfish attempt to put on a facade/mask) are being handed it over to immediate family, friends and associates - will the real devils please stand up......you can not hide from your maker.....

Stranger..... stop blaming the government for your issues and how the collapse of wall street is preventing you from getting a job now. There are a lot of people out there that are out of work. A lot of talented hard working people who were downsized. Its all about how you network and spend as much time trying to find work online, job fairs, and utilizing every resource possible to find a suitable job. The worst thing you can do is blame your government for keeping you down. The only one keeping you down is you. You are to blame no one is stopping you from getting a job. In these most difficult times you need dedication perseverance and focus to find the right position. Look in the mirror and start focusing on you not what others don’t do for you... Do for you!!

Kelly-

You say that you are being screwed while the rich get a tax break. Do you honestly believe it is there responsibility to make sure you eat? I can't believe the sense of entitlement. What exactly makes people think... gee I don't have any money and I think you have too much... therefor I deserve some of yours whether you want to give it to me or not. I just don't understand what makes you people think you just deserve to be given money.

Kelly, your kind of thinking is what's wrong with the American people. If you really listened to your fellow citizens, they have been trying to find work to be able to take care of their family. The American people should take a look at our European brother's and sister's, When they don't like a change in their government policies, they take it to the streets, and protest. Yes, and even at times become violent and destructive to get their point across. Something that our Forefathers understood. But I'm afraid that It wouldn't be political correct. When will we wake up! The REAL people, (our politicans are their puppets) that dictate policy are very pleased with themselves. They have us fighting among ourselves, instead of against them!

There are just so many ignorant people on this board, it's ridiculous. They think that everyone who is unemployed is so because they're lazy. Nevermind that these people probably spent their entire lives getting an education and working harder than most only to be downsized when their company moved to India. Now they're 50+, out of work with two kids, and no one will hire them because they're too old or have been out of work too long. They can't afford to go back to college to retrain (nor do they have the 4 years to invest) and they bled their retirement accounts to keep their homes so they're not out on the streets...

Now the idiots on this board think these people's children should starve as well. Compassionate Conservatism my ass! It's almost impossible to post here anymore because of the huge concentration of selfish, greedy, bootlicking @!$%#s!

I can't believe the sense of entitlement.

Indeed, Indeed. The fortunate few left in this country feel entitled to the rest of the middle classes wealth, and there doesn't seem to be much we can do to stop them from taking it!

Make no mistake, there IS class warfare and wealth distribution going on in this country (and it's been so for 30+ years). It's just that the warfare is being perpetrated by the upper class ON the lower class, and the wealth has been consistently distributed UPWARDS!

The 60 Minutes episode which aired on Sunday, 10-24-2010, had a segment about unemployment in San Jose, California. The host stood in front of a group of commiserating unemployed professionals and asked who here has a PHD. Then he asked who has a masters degree etc. Most of the people there had graduated from college. Then he wanted to know how many there had cashed out their 401Ks. He continued to ask how many had used up their savings. We were informed that Congress had authorized unemployment benefits for 99 months and many there had been unemployed for more than 99 months. That's why they called themselves the 99ers. The unemployment benefit they got was $450/wk. One woman commented that she couldn't survive on that. Another guy said he used to make $200,000/yr. One common theme prevailed. Most of the people wanted to maintain their lifestyle and thought they'd just eventually find another job that paid about the same.

But here's where the host was wrong. He said all these people had done the right thing. They went to college, saved for retirement and now they faced the prospect of maybe not being able to find another job like the one that they lost. Well my total lifetime earnings is just shy of $700,000. I simply added up the yearly figures on my annual statement from social security to arrive at that figure. When I lost my job at 59 in Oct 2008 I told my employer that I would not be applying for unemployment since I was just going to retire. I was earning $550/wk so $450/wk unemployment would've been quite a bit of money. But I feel if you can take care of yourself then you should and not be a burden on society. I graduated from college too but opted to do clerical work for over 22 years because I valued balance in my life. I spent what I needed to and saved the rest.

I bought a new singlewide mobile home in August 2001 for $22,500.00 which I paid off in 15 months and never got sucked into buying something so expensive that it would've taken me 30 years to pay for it. If I would've been allowed to place my singlewide on a lot and just pay property taxes like everyone else then I could've saved $45,000 from August of 1991 to May of 2009. And what about all the rent I paid in my life prior to buying the singlewide? The point is why rent if you can buy? However, due to exclusionary zoning, I could only place my singlewide in a mobile home park and pay a monthly lot rent. But that was the best that I could do in that market. After losing my job I moved my singlewide 300 miles south of Detroit to Rocky Fork Lake, which is about 55 miles east of Cincinnati. Now I'm paying property taxes like everyone else and saving about $3000/yr compared to paying lot rent to the mobile home park in Farmington Hills, MI. I never go to restaurants but just buy groceries and do all my own cooking. I put up a TV antenna and did not sign up for $30/month TV service.

So I respectfully disagree that these people did everything right. Our society is not doing everything right either. Exclusionary zoning should be struck down my the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And we need to adopt a socialist model for educating doctors and delivering health care to the vast majority of us. That's why Obamacare probably will fail. I wouldn't have bailed anybody out. Apparently the last depression didn't teach enough people the wisdom of saving. There are too many people who think that there will always be someone there to bail them out. So perhaps our bankruptcy laws need to be changed to curb financially risky behavior. And the whole world needs a one child rule as China has to bring down the world population to a sustainable level. Maybe then we can save the planet and achieve world peace. So no, there should be no pity party for the 99ers of San Jose. 60 Minutes should do a segment on ending exclusionary zoning instead.

DrowningGrover-

Do you really need to resort to name calling? Why exactly is it so wrong to think the only person responsible for putting food on your table is you? The person responsible for feeding your children is you, not someone else that you decide has enough money to share.

How is it the wealth is distributed upward? Our government takes money from the people who are working and earning and gives it away free of burden to those that are not. How does that distribute wealth upward?

I'm so tired of the same old argument about no jobs, there were 3.4 million unfilled positions at the end of October. Maybe you can't find a job because you are simply mediocre, or lazy or just not looking. Why is that someone elses responsibility?

What we need in this country is for people to become accountable for their own actions again. Instead of having a government bailout/handout for every occasion, and yes I extend that to corporations as well.

And we need to adopt a socialist model for educating doctors and delivering health care to the vast majority of us.

Congratulations on everything you did and by providing for yourself, but NO and I repeat that NO we do not need to do anything any such thing. We are a free and democratic country with enough socialist models in place. We do not need another!

I stand with the unemployed. Call me a good human. Call all the others evil.

sandyshores10, Your comments to the affect that the rich create jobs in this country if you give them more tax breaks is factual and empirically wrong. From the time the Bush tax break (not paid for and borrowed from the Chinese) was implemented job creation went flat. In the Clinton years at much higher tax levels - 23 million jobs were created. In the two terms (eight years) of Bush only 1.1 million jobs were created Nation wide. This is not only not statistically insignificant but the worse track record of any administration since the Great Depression. Jobs are created by demand and the free flow of credit to small and large business - not more pocket money for billionaires! Supply Side Economics and trickle down had been proven wrong as an economic model for growing an economy - growth it appears is a trickle up affair that benefits "all"! Where do you get your facts - FOX News?

DrowningGrover-

Do you really need to resort to name calling?

I resort to namecalling when it's warranted. When I read some of these posts, there is no better description for the poster's character than "a$$hole." This is not necessarily directed at you personally, just an overall observation.

The person responsible for feeding your children is you

Ultimately yes, no one argues that it is your own responsibility to provide for ones self. But in the worst economy is 75+ years, with people losing their homes/jobs through NO FAULT of their own (how can you tell someone who lost their job from downsizing that they're a deadbeat loser?) one would think there would be a tiny smidgen of compassion in our society, the richest in the world. And if the rich have to pay an additional 4.6% of their income, at a maximum (i.e. most people will not see a 4.6% spike in their taxes unless they make several millions of dollars) to keep the country running, then so be it.

I still think most rich people would prefer to live in a rich one, not a 3rd world banana republic....

How is it the wealth is distributed upward?

If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention to the world around you for 30+ years. There is no question that the wealth of our nation has been distributed upwards for decades now, just look at nearly any economic indicator. Wealth gap, income disparity, property ownership, tax rates (specifically capital gains), etc. etc. The most INEFFICIENT way to earn money in America is to WORK for it...

ObamaCare probably will fail because rather than address the root of the problem, the Democrats simply continue to throw more money at it. The problem is that people don't have healthcare. The reason people don't have healthcare is that healthcare costs too much. Healthcare costs so much because the capitalist model is inappropriate for treating all of us. It's OK for rich doctors and rich hospitals to treat rich patients. Problem is that most of us are not rich. So for the vast majority a socialist approach is the one that will work.

In Cuba the government pays to educate doctors and then those doctors treat everyone for free. In America you could go to any high school and pose this question to the student body. "Anyone with a B average who would like to be a government doctor please raise your hand." Then watch a lot of hands go up. What is a government doctor? Well the government agrees to pay all educational expenses for one to become a doctor and then guarantees that doctor a job for life. Not only are tuition, books, and room and board paid for in full but that student draws a full salary from day one. That full salary is 5 times the minimum wage. So one doesn't have to live like a beggar while training to be a doctor. No scraping by, taking out student loans etc. And when you finally start practicing as a doctor all you worry about is treating patients. You don't have to worry about getting sued because a government doctor cannot be sued. You don't have to work more than 40 hours a week and there is no quota. You simply see as many patients as you can comfortably handle and no more because you'll be working in a government run clinic or hospital where there are a lot of other government doctors. Your primary focus is the welfare of the patient. You're not running a business, filling out insurance forms and collecting copays etc. You simply put in your 40 hours and forget it. Probably be some shift work involved since people get sick 24/7 but when your shift is over you simply go home and forget it. You've got a job for life. Yes, your work is supervised and reviewed by a medical review board to insure quality but you are treated with dignity and respect. You are encouraged to be all that you can be so the sky is the limit as far as professional development is concerned because any continuing education is paid in full by the government as you continue to receive your full salary. You could even do research if you wanted. The only limit is your salary. That is and will remain at 5 times minimum wage throughout your entire career. Normal retirement age is 65 but you could retire as early as 59 or as late as 70 if you wanted. You'd get 7 holidays off each year as well as 4 weeks vacation.

What we have now is fee for service. What I'm proposing is an hourly rate regardless of the service involved. Currently by the time a person gets to be a doctor he/she has been put through hell. Naturally that person feels entitled to a very big monetary reward. And there are lawyers around every corner just waiting to sue the pants off any doctor or hospital. All of us eventually end up paying for these tremendous financial recoveries. What I am proposing is complete transparency. So instead of hiding mistakes we track them and fix conditions to prevent future mistakes. There are plenty of people who would be willing to be government doctors so we could provide very affordable healthcare for everyone. It's time we recognize healthcare as one of the necessities of life just like food, shelter and clothing. Since our constitution says we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then we have a constitutional right to quality, affordable healthcare. This would only make America better than she is today. By the way, you could apply this same model for public school teachers. That way you could get a quality education regardless of where you lived. Just like you could get quality healthcare regardless of where you lived.

Here's a real world example. Back in the mid nineties I decided to have two facial moles removed simply for cosmetic reasons. One mole was located in the right corner of my mouth so I frequently nicked it shaving. The other one was between my eyes and got rubbed by my eyeglass frames. I initially went to a dermatologist who then referred me to a plastic surgeon. The plastic surgeon wanted me to go through my HMO and just have my insurance pay her fee. I explained that my HMO would not pay for a purely cosmetic procedure and asked her what she would charge me. So we ended up agreeing on $750. It took her about 15 minutes to remove both moles and put in a few stitches. There was no return visit involved because the stitches would eventually dissolve on their own. A few weeks later I got a second bill from a pathologist for another $750. This was a complete surprise but I just grudgingly paid it. Back then I was making about $500 a week take home pay. So it cost me 3 weeks pay to get two moles removed. All in both the plastic surgeon and the pathologist probably had no more than 1 hour of work total between them. I had to work 120 hours to pay their 1 hour. And the pathology fee was just defensive medicine and totally unnecessary. I was making at least twice minimum wage so the medical fee was at least 240 minimum wage hours. So under my proposal the cost would be 5 hrs and not 240 hours. Even when you add in something for medical supplies and overhead, the cost would easily be 1/15 of what I paid. In other words $100 would've been fair even with the pathologist and not the $1,500 that I paid. If we eliminate the pathologist as we should then the fee should've been just $50. So we're easily paying 30 times what we should be paying for medical care. So an inpatient day at the hospital should cost only $200 and not over $6,000/day that we now pay.
Thanks.

I never said not to help people, but I find it hard to believe that if someone has been unemployed for 2 years it is no fault of their own. The unemployment and jobless benefits at some point begin serving to keep people unemployed. I know not all people fall in this category, there are some that are hard working well meaning citizens that are victims of circumstance. Problem becomes we can't seem to distinguish and handing out funds blindly doesn't seem to be really helping any one.

Its funny you bring up the income disparity. I think the nations welfare system can be blamed a lot for that disparity. How many generations of people grow up on the system? Children are never shown any other way, and thus grow up doing the same thing their parents did and teach their children the same. With so many government programs that can give you what you need many fail to see the value in earning what you want. This is what causes the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The welfare system oppresses people, once they enter they never leave and give up the possibility of a better life. You need to stop blaming the rich for stealing all the wealth and look at the people out there that are really causing it. Its the government and all their entitlement programs that really cause the disparity.

cb-140 - I checked out the link you provided and question 1 directly states that the SS trust fund was added into the "unified" operating fund by Lyndon johnson ( a democrat). Reagan and o'neil also had some special agreements going on as well as actions also taken in the 90's.

The true bottom line is that the politicians took an adequately funded program and started using it to pay for additional programs that it was never intended for simply because the politicins could only see a tremendously huge pile of cash just sitting there.

They took the cash and replaced it with virtually worthless treasuries thinking that SOMEDAY the government could pay the loans made against the SS trust fund back. If the politicians would have looked farther into the future than just to the next election, the SS trust fund would have been adequately funded.

As I said, the politicians did this (R & D alike)

Stranger Now, you are absolutely right. Maybe I wouldn't put it quite as colorful, but I certainly get your point and emphasize with your anger. I'm not a 99er but I think it's outrageous their benefits are not continued. How many times has this country gone out on a limb for its citizens? Not many. But even if it did, that's just one of many reasons we pay taxes.

• Listen, Americans need to learn to love each other and take care of one another. We give so much to other nations all over the world, it's not going break us to extend ourselves for our loved ones, neighbors, and yes, even the man on the street we don't know and who might be taking advantage of the system that we work so hard to maintain.
• Let's put aside our hatred, anger toward the slovenly and those we think are undeserving, our bitterness because we aren't succeeding and general ill will at anyone who needs help because we now have to work harder and sacrifice for others.
• Try to give unselfishly even if it hurts our pocketbooks!!
• When we really love our fellow man, does it really matter how much it costs to take care of ourselves?
• It's too late to squabble bitterly over who deserves "what" and who does not.
• We are in a serious crisis, must treat each other with respect and take care of our fellow Americans.
• Be kind to each other. It doesn't cost anything!
• Remember, this crisis is not going to last forever.
• Let's help our fellow man to keep his dignity. One day we'll be rewarded.

A friend of mine lost his job 3 years ago, and cant find work. His wife lost her job wednesday afternoon, They have three children. His mom moved in with them when she lost her job , but found another within weeks at a huge pay cut. Only to be layed off from the new job because the company owner was reselling used and outdated prescription medicines and the business was shut down by the feds. these are really good people who worked hard and are now screwed. I'm still fortunate enough to have a good paying job, with decent benefits but things are extremely tight right now and i dont see the new year getting any better and wait till inflation really kicks in...God Bless anyone out of work and their families......The working class in this country need a break...but they damn sure wont get it from there government...theyre all owned by big business

I agree whole heartedly. I am a Fifty plus white single male. How much assistance do you think I will receive? I was laid off April 2009. I've had two intervues since and They want me for my qualifications but at a minimal payrate. Or I didn't quite jump through one of the hoops exactly the way expected. Or a back ground check found a minor discrepancy back in 1973 so togh luck. Although I've been squeeky clean since. But One of those SOB'S don't pay income taxes for seventeen yrs and that's not so bad. I feel sorry most for my grand kids, cause the price they'll be paying is more than any of us can probably comprehend.

I hate to rain on the liberal crying parade, but this is a congress 100% controlled by DEMOCRATS. This is democrat-corporate driven, Republicans could have been sidelined. The Democrats could have done all this stuff months ago and didn't making them a big stinky pile of LIARS. Reid, Pelosi, Obama - all LIARS. Oh, they will act like 10 year olds and try to blame everyone else, but bottom line is they had ALL the power, and this is what they got you for Christmas.

Obama isn't interested in doing what is best for your country. Obama is wholly consumed with keeping himself in place as POTUS.

W-H-Y?

Think about it.

I hate to rain on the liberal crying parade, but this is a congress 100% controlled by DEMOCRATS

I hate to rain on the conservative boo-hooing parade, but PaulF obviously hasn't heard John Boehner yell "HELL NO!".

PaulF obviously hasn't heard about the Republican filibuster or the Republican objective to 'make President Obama fail at all costs."

PaulF obviously hasn't been paying attention when the Republicans vote 'no' on legislation they themselves propose.

Obstructionist? "Hell YES!"

You correct that all the screaming by Democrats is all grandstanding and they are actors. I do agree that the total cost is ridulous and that unemployment benefits should have been paid for with other cuts.

...and the trillions in tax cuts the past few years were not paid for by cuts elsewhere...where were all of you medicare card carrying teabaggers when the bush tax cuts and the free viagra for grandpa were driving the debt up by trillions?

How come new spending has to be paid for but tax cuts don't? Where is the 4 trillion in necesary cuts from the past 9 years to pay for these tax cuts and new spending republicans approved?

Because tax cuts don't cost anything. We can argue whether tax cuts reduce income or increase it but I doubt we'll agree in the end so it's pointless, but tax cuts have no cost. Spending, though, costs money and when we spend without regards to what we take in, we have a problem.

And it's kinda funny how the libs are now complaining about the republicans not objecting to spending- remember how you've vilified them for 2 years for voting no on all your favorite spending projects?

Suzy: Tax cuts do have some cost. It may not be a direct dollar for dollar cost, but likewise spending also has a mulitiplier effect (we can argue what that is, but it is greater than 1) so there is also offset for spending. What we need to do is adjust spending and tax rates so the budget balances.

And this is why Obama will be a one term president. He has no spine, and every time the Republicans threaten to shut down the government, Obama will cave in and walk lock step with them and give the Republicans everything they want!!!

I will not be voting for Obama the coward in 2012. I want a President who will stand up to the banks, the billionares and trillionares and to the Republican party.

Funny how many think the dems are your friends, but if you look it up, you will see that the richest members of congress are dems. Nancy Pelosi worked so that the minimum wage laws did not apply to American Samoa where gee, her hubby's tuna plant was. It wasn't the republicans that threatened to shut down govt, it was the dems, again, look it up and see who voted how. Also, anyone that wants to see how the national debt has been they have a web site and you can see the actual dollar amount owed for each day. The current pres and congress has spent more money and added more to the national debt in less than two years than Bush did in his whole eight years. So stop the whining when you don't do your research. There is responsibility on both sides, but IMHO, the GOP is the lesser of two evils.

Not much reporting is being done on the effects of the new EPA regulations and the energy/chemical Companies, that the Obama Administration has put in place..

The regulations will result in increased costs for everyone, businesses and consumers alike. As the State of Texas said in a complaint filed (and rejected) by the EPA, the agency’s plan “imposes significant uncertainty on entities that employ thousands of Texans and threatens the livelihood of their employees who depend upon those facilities for their jobs.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/20/the-troubling-consequences-of-epa-regulations/#ixzz18MLCEF9u

The purpose of the new emissions standards is to greatly increase the price of energy in America leading to $8 or more for a gallon of gas and electricity bills which will “necessarily skyrocket” according to Obama. This may lead to increased energy efficiencies, but it will also force businesses to lay off millions of workers during a time of 10% unemployment (and 20% underemployment) to pay for higher energy costs and will ultimately transform what has been a terrible recession into another Great Depression. see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21600

Because tax cuts don't cost anything.

I hate this "logic" (or lack thereof). Accounting fail, not to mention mind numbingly stupid!

Oh, and the tax cuts cost MORE than their face value because they're paid for with borrowed money, meaning we also owe INTEREST on that money...

Sorry Grover, I cannot agree. Liberals assume if the tax rates go up, all of the estimated income would stay the same, and all the money would flow into the treasury.

This is simply not true. People with means change behavior when dis-incentivized. The Kennedy Luxury tax 1990 proved this point. CBO estimated big new money from rich people, it didn't pan out as the rich yacht buyers bought outside the US, put thousands out of work, and closed many US yacht manufacturers. Yeah, they repealed the tax.

It's just one example, but you flat-earthers thinking that taxation is a zero sum game need to expand your math and history skills because your beliefs are make-believe.

Someone once remarked that common sense is very incommon. To apply this to human nature (and I'll be the first to admit to every human failing) Why work when I don't have to? Why make something of myself when what I have will be 'distributed?' Or, why better myself when the example for betterment is so low?

We pay athletes obscene amounts of money to bounce a ball, we pay celebrities and rock stars obscene amounts of money and hold them up as examples to be admired. Many are great folks and most are knotheads with a skill.

Then we have the receipients of taxpayer largesse (bank, insurance, wall street bailouts) who award themselves bonuses in the millions and who, in reality, should have been booted out on their butts the moment they came crying for money because they were miserable failures at running their businesses.

We have created a culture that rewards failure, rewards laziness, feeds off of the lowest common denominator. We have a political system that has been bought by the highest bidder, pandering for votes by creating class divisions and telling outright lies.

The congress and Washington in general pander for votes and special interests and have done so for generations. What we're going through right now isn't new to the country. What IS different is that during the Great Depression much of America was agrarian, the dust bowl caused the diaspora towards the west and California. Today we have a largely urban society and a service society. We make very little over here and even if we did mechanization has replaced the need for a large labor pool.

Today we also have all these free trade agreements, many created to by-pass the labor laws, the environmental laws, the business taxes and the higher cost of living. Not to mention the goodies that the congress folk garner by pandering to the corporations.

Sum total answer: Limit campaign contributions, remove earmarks and pork, limit entitlements; one child, x amounts of money, two children same amount as for one child of money rather than double for extra child, enforce the anti-fraud laws as regards medicare, medicaid and welfare. No entitlements for illegal aliens.

That's on a federal level. One poster complained about the rules, regulations, licenses and fees leveled at the state and local levels. Much of those rules, regulations and fees are there only to fill county, state and municipal coffers.

None of this will happen because the systems are in place, entrenched and considered sacred cows. No politician is brave enough to buck the system and lose votes and even if that rare bird were to exist he/she would be destroyed by those maintaining the status quo

Very well stated as for your words. Same is the thought of many w/o the nerve to say as much. Fear is the best tool they have.

That's right, screw the unemployed, right? Your lack compassion is showing.

Brad, look at the bright side. If the bill fails you will be one of the few to get a refund. Everyone else will be looking for the cash to pay their taxes.

The Republicans will pass it in January, the only difference is they will make cuts to pay for it or use stimulus money, unlike the Democrats who insist on borrowing. The unemployed would get paid retroactively if Democrats refuse to pass and it goes until January.

@brad - it's not "screw the unemployed" - there is a lot more in this bill than extending unemployment. If they really wanted to help the unemployed they could have easily written and passed a bill that extended unemployment. Instead they create an "omnibus bill" and dress it up (sort of like Wall St. dressed up bad mortgages) and label it tax releif and unemployment extention but it's really stuffed with horrifying crap that will cost us hundreds of billions over our lifetimes and our children's lifetime.

So if you accuse me of having a "screw the unemployed" attitude, I'd accuse you of have a "screw everyone" atitude for wanting your $1200 in December (instead of waiting until January) that will cost every tax paying family more than ten times that over the next five years.

Screw the unemployed 99 weeks is enough. Sorry if you can't find that management position you've been holding out for.

The unemployed I know have been screwing those employed and the employers now for a couple of years and we're supposed to support them for another 13 months? I know more people that are working for cash under the table and collecting benefits, not taking jobs because unemployment pays more...hell I talked to someone last week that felt that the $13.50/hour job offfer wasn't enough to get off the couch for.

Do for yourself and quit looking for everyone else to support you.

Mendy,

If we wait until next year, the Republicans are not going to have a better bill! They, also, will not pay for it. And if anyone truly believes the Republicans or Democrats are going to live up to the promise of "no pork" in the "future Congress", I have a bridge to sell you. How do you think "your" city, county or state gets funding for airport expansions, new bridges, that library that has needed to be replaced for years, siesmic retrofit of government buildings, upgrade of sanitary sewer systems that are falling apart, etc? It IS THE EARMARKS that pay for all of these projects. Yes, there has been the "bridge to no where", Boston's "Big Diggery" and other famous projects. But, the new water treatment system in Mount Olive, IL; the levy improvements along the Mississippi River; the replacement of 40 miles of "failed sanitary sewer lines" in Michigan that were dumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes.... These Projects (and thousands like them) would have never been accomplished without Federal "earmarks" attached to legislation. Small towns and large cities would have seen their infrastructure collapse and their governments in bankrupcy.

Yes, they need to be scrutinized, but they cannot go away. If the "tea party" actually gets what they want, the face of America is going to be changed in a Very Ugly way. So, let's pass it the legislation now, or it will not be good later.

Joe-

This bill does not extend unemployment past 99wks, it extends the deadline for applying for an extension. Unfortunately, despite much effort on my part, I have not been able to find a job. I have been collecting unemployment for 79 wks. I have been cut off because the deadline to file for extended benefits was Nov. 30. Because my checks had not run out at that time, I could not apply for the extension. This bill extends that deadline and allows me to apply for the extended benefits. If passed, I will be able to apply for my final extension and get up to 20 wks more of unemployment. I pray that I wont have to use it, but I am less than optimistic at this point. I appreciate the support that I have been given so far and thank everyone for their hard earned tax dollars going towards folks like me. I will continue to apply for jobs and will hope for the best. Thanks again for all your help.

Good luck Rachel. I admire your attitude. Being unemployed when you truly WANT TO WORK can be dpressing.......I've been there before.

@MMC It's that that I'm naive and think the Repubs will do a better job than the Dems, I think it's the lame duck - "load it up with no repercussions" syndrome.

Brad its the GOP that are wanting to stop the bill because of the ear marks

Brad Love telling you and the other fools this But this doesn't help the majority of unemployed this is funding for new and current on benefits unemployed only. If you lost benefits you not getting anything else out of this. Just like the last 3 times they have voted for so called extensions.

Open you eyes and stopped being fooled by the corparte intrest useing your despration aginest you.

Joe-755363

Screw the unemployed 99 weeks is enough. Sorry if you can't find that management position you've been holding out for.

Right because clearly everyone on unemployment is holding out for a management position. With any luck - you'll go through what these people are going through.

I for one surely hopes he does and his ilk. For more than the 99 wks as well, listen I didn't see all the repubs or the dems crying when they gave the money too wallstreet and the banks, Aig, or the others. I guess taking care of your corporate buddies is more important than taking care of the people whom put you into office.

Funny how nobody has been charged with anything, this is nothing more than what Bernie did, so could we see in the near future some of these people getting the 150 yrs. they so deserve? More than likely not because, it would mean to uncover the dirty deeds from our own government!

To DARRELL #1708517-----Very well said...Taking care of CORPORATE buddies and WALL STREET are more important...The RICH get richer and the LOWER and MIDDLE CLASS get SCREWED...A lot of the WEALTHY and RICH get tax breaks and so on that no one else can get...I wonder why that is ???Most of them DO NOT pay their FARE SHARE of TAXES...But that must be O.K. is guess...

Screw the unemployed 99 weeks is enough. Sorry if you can't find that management position you've been holding out for.

I see another person who has NO IDEA what they're talking about yet posting loud and proud!

Thanks for your posts. I really agree with you on the BBB. I saw a special on them where they have some kind of Fee for Memberships. And if you do not buy the membership they don't give you a good rating.

Everything is controlled by the government. Look at Wikileaks case for example. Amazon, Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard cut them off. Why? The United States Government told them too.

A revolt is very neccessary. But I have a better solution.

"The New Revolutionary Movement"

We start this up and get REAL Americans to run for office. Not these "Silver Spoon" fed boys and girls that have NEVER had to SUFFER a day in their lives. I'm sick of these "Harvard" and "Yale" types running our country into the ground at the expense of their Harvard and Yale "Corporate buddies.

If you did deep enough you will see the ties of the government and the businesses by which school they all went to and when they graduated and what Fraternity/Sorority they were all associated with.

Man, Americans do not study History or learn from past mistakes and this will be our downfall if we do not act now. If you are willing to help out feel free to email me and check out some of my videos on youtube.

Search Youtube for "TheNewRevolutionaryMovement"

thenewrevolutionarymovement@gmail.com

We are new, just started up with me and my wife getting involved. I hope Americans will join us in the "fight" to take back America. And not the Tea Baggers way, or Democrat/Republican/Independents spending millions to buy their office seats.

Democrats dominate the list in sheer numbers, but two Republicans top the list with a total of 429 earmarks for the State of Mississippi alone!

So much for fiscal conservatives...LOL! Clowns!

An interesting site. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty.

But dem's make no quarrel about tax and spend. Repubs do.

Ya'll need to stop with the Democrat/Republican fighting. We are "ALL" Americans and in this together. If you want change, you have to get rid of that Mentality of thinking. Forget "Parties". Rid your mind of all that nonsense. It's a "Control" thing. They keep us bickering and all the while behind our backs they are putting Democrats/Republicans in office they can control. And if we elect them and they are not on their side, they just pay them off to be on their side. That is why we need STRONG Americans with REAL Moral values.

When my grandfather died, I cried for the first time in a VERY long time. He was a REAL American. A Carpenter. Worked his AZZ off his entire life. When he died, he died with NOTHING! It was all taken away by TAXES! He succumbed to Bone Cancer and we lost one of the "Last Cowboys" alive. He always watched those old Westerns. I miss him and the America he lived in. The "Simple Life". I want that back, that is why I am doing what I am doing here.

The New Revolutionary Movement

I may sound crazy, but I'm just upset, mad, angry, and ready for the CHANGE Obama promised. If we do not get that, then I am FIGHTING FOR IT!!!

Can't get a second mortgage for the taxes, 'cause it's not worth the price anymore.

If it doesn't get passed, then there may be a lot of investment/rental property available if you would like to become a slumlord though.

Let the elected congress vote on this package. 63 of that group have been fired as our representatives and should have the integrity to recuse themselvves from the vote.

I don't think anything should be done by lame ducks. Those who have been fired by the people have no right to vote after the people have spoken. They should be escorted out of the building the way people in regular jobs are. The reason for this is so that they can't cause problems by retalliating and that is sound reasoning.

No, they certainly should NOT recuse themselves from the vote because they were not fired. They were elected to serve from from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011, with a possibility of an extension. They are still on the job! If you gave your two weeks' notice or knew that say, after Christmas you wouldn't be kept, you are expected to work until your last day! The same is true with this Congress. The people voted on who will be doing the job AFTER January 3, 2011, not from the elections to then.

Moriggan

No, they certainly should NOT recuse themselves from the vote because they were not fired. They were elected to serve from from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011, with a possibility of an extension.

Isnt it funny how tea baggers cite constitutionality as reasons for everything under the sun but have no issues with bending the rules when the wind doesnt blow their way.

Moriggan- You are 100% correct.

It's funny how simpletons will justify any kind of bad behavior if it suits them.

I hope you democrats are all happy with the Christmas present the President just got for you. Well, him and the Democrat controlled Congress.

What? And go back to the depressing days of Newt? The last time the Republicans controlled Congress, They rammed their agenda down the throats of America just like the Democrats have done over the past 2 years. Let's not continue down the road of Vote out the Dems or Vote out the Repubs; How about we find a way to entice "Honest Americans" to run for office (regardless of Party)? How about we make it a Government By the People; For the People? The Rhetoric has got to stop and common sense and loyalty to this Country must be returned to Government. There are people on both sides of the isle that are "good" people. Until you drive out the "far right" and the "far left", we will never return America to the People.

John: How does what you say have anything to do with the current story? Mitch McConnel is DEMANDING that the present bill be passed immediately with no changes even though most economists say it is a bad deal. Moodys has talked about downgrading the credit rating of the USA as a result of this bill. It's not Pelosi, it is those who are looking out only for the wealthy and who don't mind at all that our debt to China and to unfriendly countries will only increase as a result of this wrong headed plan

MMC Streamsnipe

How about we find a way to entice "Honest Americans" to run for office (regardless of Party)? How about we make it a Government By the People; For the People?

The biggest problem is that we haven't had a representative government since the 1980's. That is when it became so expensive to get elected / re-elected (courtesy of the 24 hr News Channels), that candidates were forced to take money from lobbyist, special interest, and organizations that don't have anything in mind but themselves. We the Peoplewere relegated to being just along for the ride. To add to that, we lowered the standard for politicians (as if the bar wasn't low enough already) when we started investigating everything that a potential candidate had ever done on the evening news under the guise of Open Government. It has been said that if we had the news coverage in 1933 that we do today, FDR would never have been elected. But, that is why we have the Professional Politicians that we have now.

I, personally, would never run for office, because in my almost 62 years I am sure that I have done a thing or two that I wouldn't want my mother (if she were alive) to know about. Do you have the same problem or would you like to have every transgression you have done be plastered all over the CBS Evening News by Katie Couric.?

When the networks starting shoving camera's up the butts of the candidate in the name of "Open Government" we chased away the people that actually cared about their reputation. So now it is too expensive to get elected without selling your soul and the only people that will apply don't have souls. By these two actions alone, we have created a 30 year string of politicians that are "Pre-Purchased" before they even get to Washington and they really don't give a damn if we know that they are. That is a pretty bad combination and it is from Both parties.

John, why do you hate America so much?

I have a better idea. Let's vote out many Republicans too. It works both ways. You think you are right and we think we are right.

TO John Smith-2351185: It so easy to think you have all the answers when you have none of the responsibilty.

MMC Streamsnipe I agree with you, but we do not need to "EVEN IT OUT". We need to vote them ALL out. Get rid of Democrat/Republican. And get some "REAL" Americans in there. Not these people "Groomed" to be politicians. But REAL Americans that will fight for REAL American problems. Who cares if they have a degree or not, or their past. Let's vote in people that have strong morals and wills for each of our states. Let's write in our candidates on the ballots or get them on the ballots no matter the cost. Then maybe they will listen.

"The New Revolutionary Movement"

It is going to be a wait and see ordeal. The next two years the Republicans will control Congress. Their management has been a losing one from Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 11. Now Obama has joined the clan. He can run as a Republican next term, because he has kissed up to them in every way. He forgot that the Republicans don't vote for intelligent people. Now with his sucking up act the Democrats won't be voting for him.

Jason I'm on board with ya! All of them suck. Take away the corporate contributions and you'll get rid of the cor...ruption.

the gop is looking to destroy social security, they would like to see america on a 401 k. so they have the extra money to start more wars.

This is just the first step in placing part of social security on the federal budget so that the issue can be renamed from insurance to entitlements. Once SS becomes something other than a worker/emplyer contributed insurance program the conservatives will be waiting in the wings with the axes reaqdy to cut!!! DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

PMDavid

This is just the first step in placing part of social security on the federal budget so that the issue can be renamed from insurance to entitlements.

I hate to break it to you, PMDavid, but that has already been done. Lyndon Johnson, under the Social Security Ammendments of 1965 Act (Public Law 89-97) that created Medicare and Medicaid made the Social Security Trust Fund an addendum to the US General Fund and mandated that the Fund use its proceeds to buy not only prime securities but US Government Bonds. In 1978, the administration of Jimmy Carter mandated that the fund use its proceeds to invest exclusively in US Government Bonds.

What exactly did that do? It allowed the Federal Government to mask the size of the true deficit as they could take the proceeds out of the FICA Trust Fund and replace them with US Government Bonds. This gave the Federal Government extra capital to spend (and they did just that) and left the Trust Fund full of IOU's from the Government. That is why Social Security is in trouble.

stanley garland

they would like to see america on a 401 k.

First, that's already been done; there isn't any money left in the Trust Fund. It is all US Government Bonds. Every quarter, when the employer / employee monies are dumped into FICA, they are immediately converted into US Bonds and the "real" money goes into the government for use. The US Government, for the past 45 years has used the Social Security trust fund as a giant Overdraft Protection Account on Steroids. The problem is that they have reached the limit on this line of credit.

so they have the extra money to start more wars.

That, too has already been done. That is why Lyndon Johnson did what he did. He wanted the Great Society programs and to escalatethe Vietnam War (I was there), but he wasn't willing to raise taxes. So, it isn't just the GOP. I seem to remember that Lyndon was a Liberal Democrat. Sorry, It has been done by crooked bastards from Both Parties.

chris, we need a 3 rd. party.

Social Security is not a tax on anyone making less than $40,000 a year. It is a pension premium and that is why no one - not even those who pay on income over and above that required to pay their premium so that they are forced to pay for those making less than enough to cover their costs and for whom much is therefore a tax - can deduct it from their income tax bill. This so-called tax cut of 2% is a dole to the poor and will most probably force the higher income people to soon pay even more above their fair share. It is a ploy to drop the present cap and make it a real flat tax. Hopefully those paying for the drones will at least get to write it off then instead of being taxed twice on the same income.

It is just wrong that this is not taught in high school as virtually no one understands how Social Security is funded or why tnat $80,000 cap is not only necessay but even presently unfair to those making over 40,000 a year. They should be able to write much of it off their taxes at leset.

stanley garland

chris, we need a 3 rd. party.

The problem is that a 3rd part won't do any good either. read my response to MMC Streamsnipe in 7.3. No matter who we put in Washington, because of the cost to get there they have already been "Pre-Purchased" when they get to Washington. Add to that the problem with everything you have ever done (right or wrong) showing up on the evening news, where anyone that ever cared about their reputation would never consider running for office, and you have our professional politicians of today.

The hell of it is, that we KEEP re-electing the bastards. It's like they said in Lil' Abner about Senator Jack S. Phogbound (the crooked senator from Dogpatch):

"Thar's no Jack S. like Our Jack S.!"

If we want to blame someone for this, we need to look first in the mirror and point there. Pogo, the cartoon character, had it right about 40 years ago when he said:

We has met the enemy, and he is us!

Clearly, none of you remember Social Security as FDR instituted it. As one who does, let me explain it to you. First, it was not a tax. It was a voluntary, tax neutral program, you paid into it at 6% max. I paid in from Jan 1 to the middle of May and I was done for the year. Second, you were told to never reveal your Social Security number, it was your Social Security Account number. Not the catch all tax payer ID number it is now. You had your own account for your retirement, Kinda like an IRA or 401/K. Hmmmm. Third, Only those who paid into the system could draw from it. Eisenhower, a Democrat, "borrowed" from it for his interstate highway projects, as it had a huge surplus in those days, due to people dying off before or shortly after retiring, LBJ, another Democrat, broke it with his war on poverty adding thousands to the roles in disability payments that were never in the original system and converted it to a tax. So who destroyed Social Security really? Republicans fought this "borrowing" tooth and nail but, were out voted by the Democratic majority of the time.

No one got a "tax cut" in this deal, then again, no one got a tax increase either. The tax levy remains the same, it was not reduced for anyone. HUGE difference. Sour grapes from sore losers. Your leftist thousand year reign got cut short, thankfully

Nicodemus, that's exactly correct. Except, it was, as FDR wished to institute it, unconstitutional because the Federal Government can't mandate its citizens to participate in a social program like that unless it was a tax. Once FDR told the SCOTUS it was a tax, they allowed it. So, he lied about what it was truly for to keep it on the books. It's actually a ponzi scheme which I will never see a dime of, after paying into the programs ever since I started working.

Precisely right! That's what they're about! And where the hell is AARP? I haven't heard a peep out of them. They should be up at arms! This is a fascist takeover!

This is for Chris 382117 from the Social Security Adminstration WEBSITE:

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

My biggest concern about this bill is the tax cut for one year on Social Security Taxes.

agreed. They're cutting the payroll tax, which will push Social Security further into a deficit, and then two years from now the Republicans will be back claiming SS is broke and needs to be privatized.

Well no @!$%# it's broke, it's cause YOU DEFUNDED IT!!!

cb1404071 - You need to stop giving advice to Chris 382117 and others that is an outright lie.

In other words, get your facts straight before you state things that are absolutely untrue. Trust me, you'll have no egg on your face if you do.

You need to know that Nixon was sworn into office in January of 1969. It was Nixon's 1970-1971 budget during the summer of fierce fighting in Vietnam that this legislation passed and was signed into law in August of 1969. This law went into effect in Nixon's 1st budget for 1970 through 1971. This is when "off budget and out of budget started" under "I am not a crook", President Richard Nixon.

And now Congress and other President's have borrowed from this Social Security Trust Fund starting with Mr. Trickle Down Economics himself "President Ronald Reagan". This fund was borrowed from "until Clinton stopped it in 1998-1999". Chilly Willy left office in 2001, leaving old "W" with a $230 billion dollar budget surplus. Then "Trickle Down Economics" started again. When old "W" left office in 2008, he left Obama with a $1.6 Trillion Dollar Budget Deficit. Our National Debt was at an amazing $70 Trillion Dollars and counting when Obama took office.

Those dates and numbers are true and accurate. They represent the facts.

The dems are playing a game too by only extending the upper income tax break for only 2 years. Any "new" investments & jobs from it will take more than 2 years for the investor to really benefit from it. In 2 years the dems will say "see tax reduction is not working"

The only down side to letting people take part of "their" social security tax & have it invested privately will be less money the government can play with behind the curtain each year.

That didn't answer the question...

The Democrats are in control, so if SS was "defunded" it was by them. This bill passed with large majorities, and could not have passed without the Democrat President and Democrat congress doing so.

And how would privatizing SS into 401k's provide more money for wars? 8.1

We have a monstrously irresponsible federal government employing too many people, earning far too much money and benefits, and we cannot afford them. CIties are cutting back, states are cutting back, it is time to start firing federal employees, and please, start with all the new six-figure "managers".

cb-1404071

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget."

This is where I disagree with you. When moniescome into FICA, they are, by law since 1990 or there abouts, immediately used to buy US Government Bonds and US Treasury Securities ONLY. They are not invested in a diversified portfolio, but only in Government Securities.

What exactly, are these government securities? In a word, they are an IOU given by the Federal Government promising to pay this back, plus interest backed by the "Full Faith and Trust in the United States Government." What happens when that "Full Faith and Trust" runs head on into Chapter 11? That is exactly what happened to Bond Holders in GM and Chrysler.

The government for all of these years has sold these bonds to Social Security and the SPENT THE MONEY! This is why I referred to it as a giant Overdraft Protection Account. The Government has, for years, kept from "Bouncing Checks" because they could always sell more bonds to FICA every quarter when the money dropped in from the employees and employers. Now, in order to pay these bonds, they must either Raise Taxes an astronomical amount, Print money with Both Hands, or default on the debt. Here is the folly related to each one of these options:

1. Raise Taxes an astronomical amount: If you do that, you get massive business closures, Unemployment in the Great Depression Range (25%+), followed by pitchforks and torches in Washington, followed by General Insurrection.

2. Print Money with Both Hands: That has been pried before. Look over at Zimbabwe or back to the Wiemar Republic of 1930. Hyperinflation followed by Insurrection followed by a fascist government that we all remember.

3. Default on the Debt: Then how do you pay the Retirees, poor, infirm, or get ANYONE to extend a line of credit? National Chapter 11 / Chapter 7 won't be pretty. That is what happened to the Wiemar Republic.

The only solution to this is a combination of Increased Taxes, Spending Cuts, Entitlement Modifications, and austerity for all or we will be Greece in a few years, but with 150 million guns. That could get ugly in one hell of a hurry.

We have to get the debt under control but, more importantly, get
Washington under control. They have been irresponsible for the past 60 years; Both Parties. Now the sins have come home to roost. We can either start fixing this or, in a 2012, the a might be right.

Tim Baily,

You want to address the Tax increases as necessary to keep everything going, but you refuse to address the spending side of the equation. The biggest reason that I voted to change the regime in Washington last month was because I understand that, no matter how much money we give to the Washington elected / appointed officials, they will come back next year for even more. If I give them $100,000.00 this year, they will come back next year for $150,000.00. The Professional Politicians keep their jobs by telling their constituents how much they "got for you by taking it from those Rich Bastards in [insert the area of the country you want to vilify here]" . My late wife, when she owned her business was always complaining about another Tax or fee that would come up when some council wanted money for something else. One day she, she got so pisses by it that she yelled from out of the office "#$&%*! political bastards! Before long, STOP is going to stand for State Tax on P_____" I almost fell out of my chair laughing, but she was actually being quite prophetic.

For the past 60+ years, we have taught people to want things even though they couldn't pay for them. We have conditioned people to live off of subsidies, artificially deflated prices, handouts, and entitlements because Washington can't tell the truth about what they REALLY Cost. So Washington borrowed from the future (FICA, deficits, sovereign debt, etc.) and now the sins have come home to roost. If you want something, you have to pay for it. You either have the balls to tax for it or cut the program, but you can't have both. Democrats want to continue spending and not address the Live on a Budget concept; the Republicans want to cut taxes. Neither by themselves will work and you aren't going to fix anything if you don't address both.

I would have no problem with my tax rate or the amount I pay going up to some degree as long is the proceeds were used to pay off the Debt, but that won't happen. I also believe that, unless we want to look like Greece in a few years, we have to FORCE Washington to live within their means. Washington has become so dependant on excessive spending that the only solution to their "eating disorder" is the financial equivalent of Bariatric Surgery.

Why not cut spending and at least put a hiring freeze on the federal? Cut the waste and fraud in that federal beast and stop the spending first.

That bunch in Washington is the biggesst entitlement program we fund drive on the Beltway to see the expensive cars and homes that we are funding for these people - three most expensive suburbs in the country are surrounding DC. It is exactly the way it works in communist countries where the Proletariat in charge live like kings while the private sector is unemployed and hungry. Now Hillary wants to freeze the private sector out if the State Department and add 5500 more to the federal teat. TSA did the same thing in spades. Put the private sector out of work and expand the "ruling class." Meanwhile they expand the voting base for their party since these drones know the GOP will do all they can to stop this travesty if allowed back in. It is why DC votes 91% Dem now.

Chris-382117

Tim Baily,

You want to address the Tax increases as necessary to keep everything going, but you refuse to address the spending side of the equation.

People like you want to reap the benfits of living in one of the most industrialized, developed, safe countries in the world - but only pay a nickel for it. You want dozens of policemen and firefighters on each corner - but dont want your taxes to go up to continue to pay them. You want the government to jump in and help you when... an oil rig blows up in your back yard. But otherwise - government be damned.

You want to address the spending side? Lets hear it. All I ever hear is general, vague hyperbole from right wings about how entitlements should be cut - public sector jobs should be cut - government and social services should be cut but yet... they dont seem to act on any of that.

When you need to pay down debt (and have no interest in reducing spending - be it repub or dem) - you dont cut your income.

Oh... and before you say something about the tax cuts creating jobs - I say cite a source not some theory that some owner of a company is going to hire people at his company and not buy a 2nd vermont home.

Here's your answer.....government is to big. It costs to much and runs very inefficiently. If you ran your company like the government runs its business, you'd be broke the first month.

Taxes were meant to take care of expenses of government to satisfy their role as stated in the constitution. I agree it is a little unrealistic for now, but the percentage of taxes should never increase. The amount of dollars collected will increase with population increases.......why should the government increase the percentage it gets? America actually became a nation due to that type of thinking.

beer money

Earleybird

Here's your answer.....government is to big. It costs to much and runs very inefficiently. If you ran your company like the government runs its business, you'd be broke the first month.

And herein is the problem - you cant take a manufacturers business model and apply it to say... the Office of Children and Youth. Six sigma has no impact in public schools - lean manufacturing does nothing for a police department. Government doesnt make widgets .

You want to address the Tax increases as necessary to keep everything going, but you refuse to address the spending side of the equation.

Well actually, if one looks at spending as a function of GDP it has remained almost constant from 1940 to 2009 (that's the end of the data I have). See the 3rd figure in Section 2 here: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

Looking at that figure along with the others suggests that spending is not growing out of control, but rather small deficits every year are adding up to a growing national debt. The debt didn't start to grow until 1980 when conveniently Reagan halved the income tax (you can see the decline in receipts corresponding with these cuts, as well as the Bush tax cuts). In addition, each successive deficit costs more and more because of the accrued interest.

So judging by the actual economic numbers, it would seem that we have a small spending problem, but a GIANT revenue problem (Figure 1 in section 2 shows this the clearest)...

The Democrats claim there is $50 Billion a year in JUST Medicare. They said they were going to offset the $500 Billion they took out of Medicare to fund Obama Care by getting rid of that waste, fraud and abuse.

How many "Programs" does the Government control? How much waste, fraud and abuse is really out there?

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!?! Who asked for a cut in social security tax? For years they've been moaning about social securiity going bankrupt and now they're trying to hasten it?

Where's the mainstream media on this?

Two groups that the politicians behind this care the least about, employers and the eldery, are impacted the most by this.

yes, employers also pay on top of what employees pay.

yeah and we hvae to pay 100% of the employees unemplyment and workers comp insurance too...those evil companies

ptown

Yes, the employer pays the same as the employee: 6.2% of the first $106,000 into Social Security along with a 1.45% Medicare tax on the entire salary.

If you are Self Employed, you get the privilege of paying 12.4% of the first $106,000 into Social Security and an additional 2.9% into Medicare.

And you wonder why employers aren't hiring?

ptown:

I don't know what to say... Are you not a US Citizen?

PappaDave: Perhaps ptown is very young. I'm self employed, have been for years now. I get hit with the full magilla for mediacaid, medicare and SS, none of which I will have access to for years and probably never if things keep up like this. I don't have health insurance, Obamacare is great except that being self employed I don't have a guaranteed monthly income and can't guarantee that I can afford the coverage.

I pay for everything out of pocket, and have learned how to budget and how to do things to make money without getting a full-time job. I have skill sets and those skills have sub-sets. Can't use the main skill? Ok, what does the skill have that can be used in other ways? Besides which, I have never trusted the government's little programs, remember those $250. dollar checks that people had to refund? The government 'gives' these incentives and then turns around and taxes you for them, using the tax money that they originally got to create the incentives to create double taxation...gotta hand it to them...

Perhaps you have forgotten that those earnings that generated the dividend were taxed once already, probably at one of the higher rates. The problem is not the taxes, they are far too high in every category. The problem is the spending. Until politicians cut spending, nothing will ever improve. You cannot tax and spend your way out of a recession and federal budget deficit crisis.

Income is income; it is all subject to income tax. If anything, earned income (wages) should be taxed at a lower tax rate than investment income (dividends and capital gains). This part of the tax code is regressive. It wasn't always this way; investment income used to be taxed at the same rate as earned income. The Republicans made these changes. Apparently, the Democrats don't have the balls to set things right.

I have a better idea. We can scrap ALL income taxes and instead tax all sales at 10 percent. Everyone pays a fair amount, and there would be no need for a massive tax code, and you can still keep the IRS in place for no other reason to ensure that all businesses actually pay the taxes on those sales.

You don't think it right for working people to pay taxes but think old retired people should pay more taxes on their investments? That is the way you think right now because you are greedy.....I'd be willing to bet that if you ever reach that age group and are able to retire......you'll think differently then.

You lose site of the fact that the money that is invested in the stocks and bonds or real estate is money that has already be taxed to death. Food for thought.......if you save a dollar...you have a whole dollar. If you make a dollar you only make about fifty cents!!! So now you want them to take half of that too? I don't want your money.....I just want to keep what I earned. They didn't earn it!!!

I agree, let the teabaggers, and the repubs show their true colors.

That's Tea Party to you, and we will not waste money like the Liberal Dems do. I think we learned that lesson last time we were in charge. Vote out all Dems and RINO's.

We will see Don. What do you think is going to happen when they have to raise the debt ceiling? I cant wait for that show to start.

With any luck at all, the debate to raise the debt ceiling will come with a debate on a balanced budget amendment to force some spending cuts. Politicians can not be trusted to not spend money. It matters not the party in charge. The results are always similar. Tax and spend, and spend some more.

do you have any idea on how long it takes to amend the Constitution

first 2/3 of both house have to vote for it

then 3/4 of the states have to approve it

don't try holding your breath

ptown.. you are such a child.. You another one of those liberals who just can't go a day without "teabagger" crossing your lips..huh?

Your right Mark, we should be calling teabaggers what they truely are. Ball suckers!

Senseless Brian.. Name calling? Wow, you are a genius and a hero...

Funny that you know so much about teabagging and ball sucking. You should spend less time practicing those things and more on spelling lessons... "Truely" you should....

Good post brain, mark also put and extra e in has post. mark it looks like your always looking for fault it must be nice to be perfect. I'm glad you have the time to point out typing errors and little mistakes. you have also made errors in past posts.

Uhhh Stanley.. It is in "quotations" you know like coping Brian... get it? To make the point...

Yeah...great post... Jack Wagon...

Don- if you don't like being called a tea bagger then you should consider changing parties. Me, i am a socialist and you will probably call me all kinds of names that have nothing to do with it. i won't have a meltdown about it , i will simply laugh. see ya, tea bagger

Your reasoning is the worst I've seen so far. "Pro Greedy, Screw the Needy", sure sounds to me like the government is the greedy ones and if you think any of that money would ever get to the needy, you're dreaming. Unless you feel the Needy are those in Congress. Your lottery logic is absurd too, that money would not have been taxed already, unlike money you already own whether in real estate or the bank. With your stinking logic, how about taxing the money when you take it from one pocket and put it in the other pocket. How about taxing your money when you change bank accounts. Get a freaken life.

No, I don't think it will go to the needy, that's the point!

The lottery is comprised of earned income from taxpayers, so yes that money has technically already been taxed.

And your comment,

"how about taxing the money when you take it from one pocket and put it in the other pocket" . . .

Why? It's still with the same individual???? That's a idiotic response.

The passing of assets from one to another is when taxing SHOULD occur!!! It is income. The person receiving it DIDN'T WORK FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!

DeeJay,

You are, quite simply....WRROOONNNNGGGGG !!!!!!

It's called an Estate Tax because it is a tax on the estate of the person who died. The Estate becomes a legal entity and the remaining assets, liabilities and income vs expense questions ALL must be resolved before the Estate is legally terminated. The heirs do not pay taxes on the passed-down, EARNED wealth of the deceased. The Estate pays its own taxes.

Your concept that it is income is crazy......the income that led up to this creation of wealth was ALREADY PREVIOUSLY TAXED !!!

Yeah, but it's ok to give it to someone else, not even related to the deceased, huh? Because they....?.... .... ?... oh, because they will vote for a Dem...

Taxing twice is like selling a car. Taxing an estate is not the same. This was to be about building jobs and getting breaks to the middle class also. This country can be humane to every country in the world and help them survive but the upper shelf here would like the unemployed who have given for years to drop dead. The jobs didn't get created to save us this horrific situation over the past 8 years with the rates already in place, we have two wars bleeding us dry, and why can't it be understood that if the general populace doesn't have money to spend it is a vicious cycle. The 99ers should have been included. I am very happy for you if you are safe and warm and don't have money worries, but I also feel badly for those without. Let's hope all the bragging about this creating jobs will actually do so.

In answer to Dee Jay,

You are right about the definitions of income. Where we disagree is that the government has the right to take away from you the money your parents saved for you. Where do you folks get the idea that is is ok for the government to take our money that we earned and paid taxes on and give it to who they deem more worthy. It's simple .....I earned it, I paid taxes on it already and I should be able to give it to whoever I wish when I die. Not the government!!!

Earleybird......exactly.....where does the government get off sticking their hand in a families pocket because someone died?.....maybe everyone should just convert all their assets to cash and then the government won't have the ability to get any of it to fund the Democrat's socialist utopia.....

Have the property deeded to you now! There are ways around property issues! There will be a small real estate transfer fee and as long as your parents do not pass away within a given time frame, you'll be okay--if your parents trust you, this should not be an issue!

Sorry DeeJay, but you don't know about the Gift Tax. The Gift Tax prevents these kinds of transfers from escaping the Estate Tax. TomR should go see a good estate attorney for an estate tax plan. However, if the Estate Tax threshold goes up to $5 million like they are proposing, TomR probably will not have a problem anyway. I guess the estate attorneys will be losing some business.

Actually its the farmers and small business that this tax will hit the worse. It only realizes 25 billion a year less then 1% of federal collected taxes. I say let them all expire except the estate tax and get rid of it. The increase to the child tax credit added the most so why not let it expire? And the SS decrease for a year was one of the concussions the GOP had to make to the Dem's not the other way around. I cant stand the far right or the far left neither take any respondability. Sooner or later they will realize they are only getting 1 term and getting voted out if they cant step to the center did that with our local Dem congresswomen.

Tomthe first article is pretty informative on the farm estate issue. What it boils down to tho is even with all the provisions this deal going through will effect alot of farms. But heck the have one provision where you can pay the tax off over 14 yrs. Ohio is being hit harder then most as it also has a state estate tax. They are currently losing 600 farms a year many due to estate tax issues.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/june09/features/federalestatetax.htm

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1637.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr142.pdf

I guess Rich is in line to become rich. Let's talk truth. In stead of the trust fund brats claim that estates are taxed over and over again the truth is more like this. Grandpaw bought a thousand acres or stock in Nabisco in the early fifties. It's now worth a small fortune. No tax has ever been paid on the gain of either in the sixty years it has been in the family but it has been collaterial for several loans that have spurred the family on. Now Rich and friends want to pass it along to dad or granddaughter without taxation. That is the common scenario.

ok..for the umteenth time..george w and co screwed us for 8 years with "tax cuts" that created 0 jobs and a war that is still costing us 12 billion per month...TARP was little george's...deal with it!!!

Hence Kenthey should let them all expire right? I am on board with that. Get rid of the increased child tax credit and all the tax cuts for all levels of earners, I am assuming that is what you mean you wouldn't just be assuming that it was a top earner tax cut, right? Don't get me wrong I don't care for Bush or Obama. But there is plenty of blame to go around through both parties. Bush got us into Iraq, could have put in financial reform for sure and increased spending "which Obama took to new heights". lowered everyones taxes especially for the middle and lower wage earners. At the same time he went to the senate in 2003 and 2005 asking them to put regulations on fannie and freddie. Barney Frank and Dem's told him no they would never pass it and they now hold the vast majority of the defaulted loans. No both parties play there part in this just screwing the American people in different ways.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26712.html

My numbers probably aren't exact due to going through a "senior moment" but they are pretty close.

It takes approximately 250,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with the population growth. During the much maligned "Bush Years" the unemployment rate hovered around 4.5%.

I suppose it was the lower middle class and poor folks who hired those 24 Million people over the 8 years he was in office? Nope, it was those darn millionaires. How dare they make money off the sweat of those poor workers.

Paul-- the Dems control both houses with decisive majorities. If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, everyone's taxes will go up. The Dems will be blamed, and when the new Congress convenes in Jan., the first thing they will do is extend the tax rates as they stand now. Repubs win.

Dude - it's time to get a different attorney. Trust income is taxable.

Dude, he's right....you need a NEW tax attorney. Trust income is taxable. As a CPA, I handled my mother's estate and paid taxes on her trust many years ago.

I don't understand why we have to pay any taxes at all on property that are parents are leaving us because they had the audacity to die. Won't whatever we get end up being taxed anyway, such as with property tax for the house, whatever business taxes the businesses have to pay, and the cash should have been taxed while they were alive.

I don't understand why we have to pay any taxes at all on property that are parents are leaving us

Because they should have gave all there money to the bleeding heart liberals who can't fend for themselves but need to steal from hard working conservatives with the governments help.

pay attention! ;-)

Hard working conservatives who didn't earn that money. Are even remotely cognizant of the irony of what you're saying?

Zap - other good news is every dollar from unemployment adds $1.82 to the economy, and unemployment actually creates jobs...hmmm.

Bad news is bonds rate increase and so do the interest rates, poof! another melt down. What is with all the crap in this bill, no I have to admit I was for it before I was against it. These politicians need to be sent another message, anyone who votes for this pork ladden bill or ominous bill will be voted out. This is no longer republican, democrat this is arrogance at it's best. Let the tax credits expire, oh well, we all pay and take the worthless stimulus money left and extend unemployment for another six months and that it.

Thinker,

this is one of the problems. The $1.82 is true in gvt math, only because of the way GDP (the economy) is calculated.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

So let's say (purely hypothetically) if gvt spent some $7-8T extra since 2001, that money would be counted in GDP making it seem that we had growth all these years.

In fact, we were increasing future taxes, as that money will have to be paid later. With interest. Sorry kids...

You're right Nick. I'm one of those 99ers and I plan on stealing stuff first thing tomorrow morning. F@#K Everyone!!!!!

erick I know your plight and it's a hard one, but resorting to criminal activity is exactly what they want. Hopefully you'll understand this and find a different way.

why dont you move to iran if you hate this coutry so much

Chaz, he isn't saying he doesn't like the country as much as he's saying, he doesn't like our current government!

I think we have a great country which like anything has some flaws. You prefer Iran? Please go there and you will change your wacko ideas and come running back to America realizing that this is the greatest place to live. There is no perfect system except the one Jesus spoke of (I mean Jesus, not right wing "Christians")

RBT 99, All those missiles that Chavez have will rusty on his hands

What rbt is saying is that he doesnt believe in or respect a government elected by the people. He believes in his views and only his views. He believes he knows what best for all of us and he's willing to "put certain people against the wall" , gun in hand no doubt, to get it.

That's the way Obama, Reid and Pelosi think...

How narrow minded of you, you forgot to mention Clinton, Carter and the crew presenting sitting in the White House. You need to change the channel Lefty Eddy is messing with you.

you must have not been around dureing reagans time the middle class was walking bent over or bowllegged the whole time.

I was around and you're correct, but from the wrong guy. You're boy JIMMY left such a mess (which this BOZO we now have is repeating) that it took old Ron half his time to correct. 13% inflation and the prime lending rate at 21% if you call that PROGRESS bend over and extract your head from your dark cavity. When Reagan left inflation was a zero. Better start having a LITTLE faith in AMERICA and the spirit of its people, or this bunch of IDIOTS you've installed in MY White House will introduce you to some real MISERY !!!!!!!!!Do you hate success so bad that you want to see everyone in MISERY????????

Actually Wild Bill, you need to do a little better reading history. I'm old enough to remember this, but it was under President FORD that inflation peaked. And I thought everyone knew that presidents don't set interest rates. I guess not.

When Ronald Reagan entered office, he was assuming the top political position of the World's Leading Creditor - that's right - CREDITOR nation. By the time he left 8 years later, the US was the World's Leading Debtor nation and we have been ever since. What did he call that? Morning in America. He and his followers mistook twilight for dawn.

I've always thought Ronald Reagan should have been named "Man of the Millenium" for it was he who simultaneously destroyed two superpowers by spending them out of existence.

I was around and you're correct, but from the wrong guy. You're boy JIMMY left such a mess (which this BOZO we now have is repeating) that it took old Ron half his time to correct.

"I'm not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself." - Ronald Hussein RayGun, the fascist gun in the west.

The people have decided they want the jobs not the welfare.

Either the employers hire people or they give that money to the government.

I trust the privet sector more then the government who has been steping out of their bounds.

The privet sector is the people.

We the people have decided the government must adjust its costs.

No more foolish spending!

This is what the people voted for! CHANGE!

I am greatful no unaffordable spending was forced on this country we are way to deep in debt.

and Nancy the answer to your worries about how we are going to pay this debt is YOU cut back!

If you are truly worried about all of the debt you created over the four years of your majority; You! And your overly rich liberal friends can pay more taxes it is perfectly legal for you to pay more taxes. Go for it!

You espouse higher taxes for everyone making over 250.000 so please do prove your loyalty to your own tax increase.

Yes, but it shouldn't be about Democrat/Republican and who should "fall" flat on their face. It should be what is best for "The People".

It's sad if this is the reason 8 billion dollars in "Earmarks" passed with this bill.

It's sad that "some" Americans would approve of slipping other "crap" into bills. It should all be separate. I really don't know why we keep electing these same "Silver Spoon Fed" people into office. Democrat and Republican.