How did Obama do?
On Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama presented his views on reducing the U.S. deficit. How would you grade the speech?
I Don't know THE VIEWS Teleprompter Time , isn't over yet.
As expected, the speech was long on rhetoric, but short on specifics.
- We can cut the spending (Just don't ask me how).
- We need to 'tax the rich'.
- We need to leave Medicare and Social Security on auto-pilot.
- Leave my spending priorities alone.
- We'll make changes after the 2012 elections, but don't ask me what changes until then.
No details, just words.
Roy,
Not very specific but I agree we need to cut all areas of the budget. It is inevitable that we will need to increase taxes as well if we are serious about fixing this problem.
Zath, this fool as you call him, is trying to fix our nation of debt. For years this country has done nothing but spend, spend and spend. 3 timesin my life time our country has had emergency legislation enforced to allow our country to continue running, despite the fact we wouldn't be able to repay those loans. So it answer your question...until people like you can understand whats happening.
Everyone who isn't an Obama zombie would realize that for him, it's business as usual and the great con job continues.
Project some kind of fantasy debt reduction plan and push it out beyond a decade. This way he doesn't actually have to do anything but continue his maniacal spending, and if anyone thinks this plan of his is anything but complete BS, go to Brooklyn and buy a bridge.
Pretty long winded speech too, even for him.
Just more political rubbish. They're going to cut waste and fraud and thereby achieve huge savings. Preposterous. If these things exist why haven't they been eliminated long ago. It's just more pie in the sky, more avoidance of the real problem of overspending.
As though ANYTHING Obama proposed would be not immediately denounced by knee jerk reactionaries. Even Ryan has stepped away from his own bomb-throwing plan by saying it was "just a starting point" for talks. (do away with Medicare? oops, did I say that??)
Karen- Just so you know, Obama has spent more, put our country further in the negative, and destroyed the USA's credit rating faster than any president. He is doing what Roosevelt did during the great depression, just doing it way bigger and much worse
He NEVER gives any specifics. He's just a silver tongue speaker. That's it.
We need a damn plan that shows 2012-2022 and targets we HAVE TO HIT. If we don't hit those each year, then people need to be held responsible and fired. By 2017, the debt/deficit needs to be halved.
Im tired of people not doing their jobs in Congress and putting things off till the end.
Put up a chart, show the #s we have to hit for the next 10 years EVERY YEAR in order to get a balanced budget and no deficit.
Zath, this fool as you call him, is trying to fix our nation of debt. For years this country has done nothing but spend, spend and spend
Man, how uninformed are this democrats? Obama has spent more then any President EVER has and has put us into debt faster then any other has ever done. And he wants to GROW government even more.
It's hilarious to see him talk about wasteful spending and yet 2 years in, nothing has been done. It's the same old crap.
There is plenty of room to cut. The analysis of the Democrat-Republican deal is that the Democrat found "cuts" that were only money they was not actually going to be spent to be put on the table to save their "pet" programs. Boehner and Cantor should have said thank you very much we want those added to, not substituted!
Chime in Everyone!
No more debt! No more borrowing!
Raise the debt ceiling and you we will be repealing!
3 times in your lifetime there have been continuing resolutions, Karen?
Only if you're only 6 months old. There have been HUNDREDS of continuing resolutions to keep the federal government running. This is not a new phenomenon - just a symptom of a very adversarial political system.
Not one mention of Foriegn aid cuts. If we have to tighten our belts then the governments we feed & still hate us should be put on a diet too!
Seriously - he talked about cutting spending then went on the use the word "INVEST" about 20 times. He has no intention of doing any serious cuts but has very real intentions to spend MORE!
He really needs to get someone to do a little math for him. If you went in tomorrow and took everything from the rich you might be able to pay the bills for a few weeks. WHAT THEN? That is the answer I want to see. Don't talk to me about INVESTING. That's code for spending.
Failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a credit crisis. It will be like the housing bubble burst, except we skip straight to the recession.
Kaff, kinda, the recovery would reverse course with a JATO strapped to it.
12 years... so we will have saved 4bil when I am 30 years old... Thanks dude...
So we're not getting non-profit health insurance providers?
sux
edit: wait, tell me more about this JATO. Were all those rumors about an emergency jetpack vault under the Washington Monument true?
Although it is a good idea that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you need to do is stop digging, i.e. the annual budget deficit, the second most important thing is to pay down the national debt! It's all very simple people!
1. Stop spending more than we take in
2. Set up a repayment plan do pay down our debt
That's it. No slick accounting gimmicks. No counting on savings from reduced fraud and waste. No counting on anticipated savings from government programs. That's the biggest laugher of them all. What government programs have ever saved the country money?
Roy,
I also believe we need plans to reduce this debt ASAP. I fear the longer it takes to tackle this debt just gives politicians more time to make changes down the road.
I can guarantee if they pass a bill to cut the deficit by 2020 or later it will not look the same by the expected payoff date. Just gives them too much time to rework the bill. Also too much time for our citizens to forget why it is so important.
Look at how many of our social programs that are not running as intended.
Everyone agrees that Social Security is one of he biggest expenses, yet the employee portion of the Social Security tax was REDUCED this year by this administration from 6.2% to 4.2%. If Social Security is so broke, why did they LOWER the tax. They need to put the tax back where it was and remove the current income limit on the tax so that you pay social security tax on all income. This will only affect those making over $106,800 a year, so it will not impact anyone who can not afford it. If you look at all these multi-million dollar CEO salaries, where most of it is not taxable as far as Social Security is concerned, you can see where this would raise large sums from the people that can afford it the most. Adding 6.2% of all incomes over $106,800 would go a long way towards reducing our debt and would definitely shore up Social Security. I also do not see a problem with slowly raising the retirement age from 67 to 70. People are living much longer, healthier lives. If you move up the retirement age for those who are under 35 now (born in 1976 or later) up from 67 to 70 in 2 month increments (e.g. born in 1976, retire at 67 and 2 months, born in 1977, retire at 67 and 4 months, etc.) it will allow plenty of time for people to plan for the adjustment. It will also increase the retirement age as the life expectancy goes up.
The President talking about limiting itemized deductions for the rich is nothing but a smoke screen. These deductions already get limited by the AMT. It is time to get serious about reducing the defecit and stop using acounting tricks and unreliable projections for reduced interest costs to make the cuts on paper only. Obama put forth a plan that will have little real impact until long after he leaves office, so when it fails he will not have to deal with it.
Does everyone feel better now?
I'm sure the fat cat corporate oligarchs do.
Obama completely lost credibility for his plan when he said it included a half trillion in Medicare savings as counted in his mandatory insurance law. Medicare's own actuaries have shown that to be a fantasy number and that a realistic scenario would only shave a very small amount off of Medicare's long-term spending. The $500 billion the administration has quoted as savings will turn out to be negligible and absolutely unrealistic. Of particular note should be pages 16 and 17 which give the summary projections for Medicare going forward. BTW, "2010 TR ALT" are the actuarial (real life) projections and "2010 TR" are Obama's fantasy projections.
If he is relying on that, then I imagine the rest of Obama's plan is largely fantasy also.
RealAmericanFirst,
But when the money earned for corporations by their workers is instead diverted to corporate profits and the investor class, tax revenues plummet (NOT grow, as Paul Ryan so history-blindedly predicts). Despite their vastly higher income levels, corporations' share of the tax burden is only 12% due to their vast amounts of tax writeoffs, credits and creative accounting.
Then what about the 15% tax on dividends and capital gains that investors pay? Investors like you? If the corps have already paid, as you noted, 12% in taxes why haven't you included the additional taxes paid by investors on profits that have already been taxed?
Does anyone here still think that America is to big to fail?
Well, you can criticize the president healthily. If you've never given him the benefit of the doubt, you've got a problem.
You're right, Data. I need to get back to my books.
His arrogance is unbelievable. "Warren Buffet doesn't need another tax cut." What about the rest of us middle class who works so the shirkers don't have to. They are better fed and clothed than the middle class. How about cutting off some welfare programs?
Yet the middle class is getting stripped of everything we have worked for to support those who have not.
Getting tired of handing out fish instead of the bastards learning to fish.... (so to speak)....
FYI, 80 percent of our debt occurred under a GOP President. That means at a bare minimum a GOP leader signed off on almost all of our debt.
Most of the debt applied to Obama was either signed by Bush before his exit or in response to the recession left to him!
Clearly - speaking as one of the few balanced and thoughtful people in this forum - I enjoy seeing this president move to the center of recent to address this country's needs with honesty and objectivity. He's doing a good job with all that is on his plate.
80 percent of the wealth in our country is controlled by less than 10 percent of the country - and this polarization is only increasing! These people need to pay their fair share for the sake of our economic system else what remains but a wealthy few....
Finally - I don't vote to collapse any posts unless they are abusive. Speaking to those GOP fanatics in here, tell us more about brainwashing...
I expected it would be short on details, so no surprise. I'll wait to evaluate until I see how he plans to reduce medicare and other domestic spending. I would have preferred a 60/40 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. He missed a golden opportunity by setting his deficit reduction target below Ryan's.
He was effective at punching holes in Ryan's half-assed plan and skewering republicans for proposing tax breaks for millionaires. Ryan's plan would send medicare into a black hole and asks us to trust the insurance industry. Hogwash!
Prepare for a rough ride. Better learn how to grow your own food....Repubs are going to push their trickle down agenda and push the economy back into chaos. They might even be successful at throwing us back toward the abyss of Great Depression II, which would delight limbaugh and the tea partiers.
I'm no Dem and I didn't vote for Obama.
That being said, I'd still rather we have Obama as POTUS, instead of McCain/Palin, all others on the Rep. ticket, and those like Boehner/Gingrich.
You could put in the person you most likely think would be able to solve our problems, and they still probably woudn't be able to do much better than Obama is doing at this point.
The POTUS doesn't have the last word, nor can he/she change things for the better, if too many oppose him.
Those on the far left and right , need to go. They are the ones who think Obama's policies don't lean far enough into their spectrums.
It may take at least 10 or 15 years to get us back on track(if ever) and our budget and deficit even close to being balanced. Even the Reps plan called for at least 10 years. Why are you criticizing Obama for a 12 year plan.
There obviously wasn't enough time to go into specifics(or time to educate the majority of Americans that probably wouldn't get it anyway) and intricate detail. There is no 1 or 2 year fix/plan that is sound, coming from anyody.
Our country has been headed this way since Carter/Reagan. We'll be extremely fortunate if we can solve een half our problems in under 15 years.
I didn't hear anything in Obama's plan that didn't sound feasible. Now if he will just push it into effect, without caving into the naysayers(including his own party members).
Not As Stupid-
No one here who is critical of Barry Hussein is talking about overthrowing the Government.
It is you and your ilk who seem to be enamored of Barry O's beloved European style socialistic states (which are proving to be a failure) who need to move somewhere else if that is what you want-
and...take the POTUS with you on your way out the door-
America will be better off after you've left.
I'm absolutely amazed that we raised funding levels for safety net programs because we were in a recession and more people needed them. Yet now, when the recession has ended, there is this group of people who think it is OK to maintain the elevated funding levels even though a smaller number of people will be using those programs as we continue to recover. That is the biggest flaw in Keynesian theory. He completely ignored that government (especially an elected government) has its own wage and price stickiness. In spite of all the ups and downs of our economy, since coming out of World War II we have only once cut spending year to year (1954-55). Each time we have a downturn, we push our Keynesian pedal closer to the floor and then we never let up even when the economic danger has abated. Well, now with our debt at 100% of our GDP, our Keynesian foot is busting through the floorboard. At some point you've got to let up or else you will have a crash like no other.
Those on the far left and right , need to go. They are the ones who think Obama's policies don't lean far enough into their spectrums.
Agreed! The fringes have made compromise in the middle next to impossible.
Realamericansfirst doesn't realize that corporations are an extension of the economy. Profits are distributed to the investors.... Who are the investors? Why shuckems cupcake.... people who add to the economy. And when those disbursments are made, they are what? what? anyone? They are taxed. I guess realamericansfirst think that everyone gets a free ride that receive money from corporations.... deluded thinking is useless thinking.
Tim - you're correct for both parties...it's going to be hard to get to the center when most primary voters are fringe voters, who then elect fringe candidates.
"Nice to see the Koch brothers gave their employee's liberal leave to go on the attack in the forums (3 pm eastern time and look at all of these hard working republicans, wasting company time and bandwidth, talking trash)"
Yep your right data, I must insist on getting a raise from the Koch brothers. Oh wait I own my business.
Work harder data and you may end up having a bit of your own money instead of wanting mine all the time.
"Us 7K others who gave him the "F" are rational thinking Americans who know a deranged, U.S. hating commie, douche, out to actively destroy our great country when - when we see one"
It's under 5k now pjam.
It's all about the time zones.
We don't need to raise taxs on the rich, as much as we need to make sure they pay the percentage they are supposed to.
The average American doesn't have the money to hire the accountants and tax lawyers that the richest individuals and corporations can.
When you hear about GE making over 5 billion $ in US profits, but not paying a penny, you know our system isn't just or right.
Data
the reason this republican can sit here and blog is because I am unemployed thanks to our fearless leader.
Not as dumb
Maybe you should audit your sign on name to help us believe your not that dumb. This country was founded on the principle that we have freedoms more freedoms than anyone anywhere in the world. One of those freedoms is to rant about our leaders and even call them names when they do things we don't like. You need to grow up and smell the coffee or more probably in your case marijuana smoke and leave people to express their opinions just like you did.
to all of you that thing Obama has spent to much, He had to, if he had not we would be in big trouble, no thanks to Bush. Some people that are saying Obama spends to much i bet never said that about Bush. The Iraq war he started for no good reason costed us 10 billion a month, (10 BILLION MONTHLY) so add that up for 6 years. so you conservatives should shut up or ship out.
Here are two huge steps that nobody talks about:
1) Cut the billions of dollars we send to foreign countries
2) Open our strategic oil reserves. Instead of sending billions of dollars in gasoline profits overseas, keep that money right here to build jobs and pay off debt!
And no, rich investors who profit off of corporations making billions(and avoiding payin their fair %), don't always put it back into the economy(and the pockets of average Americans).
They use tax shelters and offshore accts to hide their money. They invest outside the US and purchase lots of foreign luxury products that aren't made by Americans, as well.
Most small business owners I know(and I mean small), don't make over $250K, individually or as personal income. Therefore, they wouldn't fall into the "rich" category.
Anybody who makes over $100K, is well off and can live mighty comfortably(even with a non working spouse and 2 kids).
Roy, you must have tuned out in the middle. He stated he is going to "restructure Medicare".. Does that sound like leaving it on autopilot?
I'm amazed we agree on something, but this IS going to take cuts and tax increases. For those who want all the cuts NOW, just tell me what that will do to the economy?? Those cuts are going to come with large job losses.
Finally to the poster who stated Obama is for redistribution of wealth and Socialism with this plan. Have you been alive for the past 75 or more years?? There has ALWAYS been tax brackets based on income. ALWAYS. He is talking about going back to Clinton era brackets. Period. The current breaks were not permenant, so saying that this is suddenly "redistribution" is disingenious. As I have posted before, I pay the same SS tax as Warren Buffet. Have a problem with that??? Should be on ALL income.
Now Brian B and others... Yes, profits ARE taxed when given from companies, but they are taxed at a MUCH smaller %.. SO I say, don't mess with making companies pay more.. Just make them pay FULL income tax on ALL stock profits. That is how most CEO are paid now.. all in stock options.. so they pay half the tax rate. Just a matter of fairness. Besides for the one who said "they worked their asses off so they deserve it". Care to study how most investment bankers are making money now??? gently pushing oil and other stock up at the end of the day by buying thousands of shares, then selling it quickly the next day. They create all the gas price bubbles, etc.. screwing US, but they make a million in a month... mostly at minimal tax.
More like skip recession and straight to the depression. No offense to the present commenter
One thing I've heard is the reason that we need to eliminate the social safety net is to save the unborn from the crushing debt the nation incurred trying to climb out of the hole that Bush and these vary same Republicans dug us into by welfare to those who don't need it. Well what about the people who are walking, talking and breathing right now. It seems they don't have any answer for that.
I've seen a lot of comments calling Obama a fool. If those of you who made similar comments want to see a real fool just look in the mirror. I'd rather have a tax and spend Democrat than a don't tax and spend Republican any day. We've had 3 republican and 2 democratic administrations in the last 30 years every Republican administration practiced trickle down economics and deregulation and everyone of them ended in financial disaster for the country and lost jobs and manufacturing capability so would you people please WAKE UP and stop fighting against your own best interest!!! These Republican tools do not have the answer. We've repeatedly tried it their way over the course of the last 30 years and IT JUST DOESN'T WORK to go that way again would just be insane!
Yes Mr. President, the Republicans have the "pessimistic" view of the nation. We would much rather have the "rainbows and unicorns" plan that you espouse.
How many times in this speech about cost cutting did you say "spend"...oh, I'm sorry...."invest"?
Not as stupid as you think: Where were you about 3 years ago with your speech about the President? You could have substituted the name Bush for Obama back then, but somehow I get the feeling that you wouldn't have written such a speech at that time. It isn't that you respect the office as much as it is you worship the man. Your patronizing of Obama is sickening.
GimDan -
While I understand your emotion on the topic (and perhaps on this level I may agree) - it most certainly does not make sense nor does it work on a macroeconomic level. Deep in supply-side economics, the need for "redistribution" is addressed. Call it for what it is but stop ignoring the past 30 years and what this means in terms of the future...
Please "think" about what I wrote above, specifically -
80 percent of the wealth in our country is controlled by less than 10 percent of the country - and this polarization is only increasing!
I'm sure you are an intelligent person. Think about the outcome here. Put simply, what will you do when there is no one left to purchase what you have to sell? Tax on the wealthiest Americans it at an historic low! Agan, all one needs to do is look at the past 30 years to understand where this is going...
Common sense...
the reason this republican can sit here and blog is because I am unemployed thanks to our fearless leader.
Considering the Republican response on business channels have been that they aren't going to invest money in the economy, due to the uncertainty they have with the current administration, you not having a job is the fault of your own party... Think about it for a second.
"'I don't need another tax cut ... Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut'"
Barry Obama......Write a check
Warren Buffett....Write a check
Nancy Pelosi....Write a check
Harry Reid....Write a check
And any democrat that doesn't think they pay enough in taxes, get out your checkbook. The IRS will be more than Happy to accept your money.
Every one of these sanctimonious Democrat SOB's pays their taxes to the Penny....Then we have the Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, Claire McCaskill, et al crowd that doesn't even do that...
"Michelle, I am donating my entire Presidential Salary to the IRS"....
"Say WHAT ???...Do you know it costs over $60,000 a year just to send the 2 kids to private school !!"
And that's when the fight started...
"Roy, you must have tuned out in the middle. He stated he is going to "restructure Medicare".. Does that sound like leaving it on autopilot?" - wives fan
wives fan, We've already seen his plan to "restructure Medicare". It is in his mandatory health insurance law. The problem is that Medicare's own actuaries scoff at the savings he says he gets. The $500 billion the administration has quoted as savings will turn out to be negligible and absolutely unrealistic. Of particular note should be pages 16 and 17 which give the summary projections for Medicare going forward. BTW, "2010 TR ALT" are the actuarial (real life) projections and "2010 TR" are Obama's fantasy projections.
That's an almost non-existent "restructuring."
JohnnyB - Wow! I think you need serious psychiatric treatment. Of course that's only an opinion. You are calling Obama a "scholar and one of the smartest presidents?" Yeah, that's a question. To me that's one of the dumbest remarks on these boards. You don't know his grades while he attended any of the several colleges and universities. So how can you make any reasonable comparison?
I'm sorry JohnnyB.... I forgot... you worship the man so he does no wrong... my mistake for trying to interject some reality into the discussion.
Mine is so much not worship but settling. He beats what we had, he beats McCain, the other option we had and he has stablized the economy.
Look, from "deficits don't matter" to where we are today, one must be suspicious of the convenience people have of switching opinions.
He did address both party's points. I, for one, am glad to see loopholes mentioned.
It doesn't matter how idiotic Obama is prattling on and on about his socialist agenda. As long as the Republicans do their job, he isn't getting anything he wants - not with Republicans controlling the House (thank God!!!)
Unfortunately, his only purpose for prattling on and on anymore (as he knows the House is not going to give him what he wants), he's using it for campaign purposes. He's got to start blowing smoke up the a**es of those really smart people under 25 years olds that voted for him the first time!
American Lobo said: They use tax shelters and offshore accts to hide their money.
Are tax shelters illegal? Who set up the tax shelters? Why, I believe it was the IRS. Are offshore accounts illegal? I guess it depends on if the money sent to them was made by legal or illegal means. Taking the profits you earn from the corporate investment you made certainly isn't illegal.
It sounds to me like American Lobo complains too much. He's talking like making money from corporate investments are illegal. When a person invests millions into a corporation I guess it's immoral to make money from that investment in Lobo's world.
What's your complaint all about Lobo? It seems you are complaining about people investing in the economy and then taking profits from it... I guess they don't allow such things in socialist economies, eh?
Look at all the Republican lies on this board. My favorite is all the comments about "the rich pay taxes on their investments." LOL
Just so everyone knows, it is surprisingly easy to NOT pay taxes on your investments. There are a number of loopholes that many investors use to get around paying taxes. The insurance industry provides tax-free investments that grow at better than average rates . . . every doctor and lawyer I know uses these. They invest, it grows, and they pay NO taxes on the gains. Another common tactic is to off-set capital gains with equivalent losses. This takes a little more time to manage your investments correctly, but it is not too difficult. When done correctly . . . BAM, no taxes on your gains.
Anyone making a significant amount of money and NOT taking advantage of tax-free loopholes is a complete FOOL.
I should not be surprised that Republicans are flat out lying. According to their rep John Kyl, the new Republican motto is: "Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement"
StopTheLiesNOW "FYI, 80 percent of our debt occurred under a GOP President."
It's Congress that sets the spending budget that determines the deficit, and it's Congress that passes legislation that affects the economy. The President can only sign or veto what Congress passes. So let's look at the Deficits over the last 30 years based on which party controlled Congress;
When Democrats controlled Congress, the Deficits totalled $5.025 Trillion (80.5%).
When Republicans controlled Congress, the Deficits totalled $1.219 Trillion (19.5%).
B!tch, b!tch, b!tch.
Obama just laid out the cuts he will support and the tax cuts he will not and gave valid explanations for both. He's ALWAYS explained his vision of what our country is while the right continues with their vision of what we are not. They don't like optimism, so they hate his plan. They plan to a number, people be damned, while he plans to a vision with all people included. They hate it when THAT happens.
Face it. The Medicare voucher idea sucks. The tax breaks for the rich are insane and foolish. Corporate and personal tax loop-holes are out of control. Healthcare can break us but has a chance for repair if both sides actually try to make the new reforms work.
The right needs to get off their dead a$$es and start helping. Do the math on Social Security. It works with minor adjustments as long as we don't raid the funds for wars. Medicare will work if we get serious about getting health care under control. We need to educate. I really have a hard time understanding your reasoning. Seriously.
Karen, don't feel bad. The fools are the ones who are blaming this mess on Obama when it was started by Bush/Cheney. The GOP continues to believe the stupid will listen to their lies as they only work to help the rich and rob from the middle and poor. The rich are paying only 17% in taxes. Don't know about you but I pay in the mid to high 20's. They are taking advantage of every tax-loophole the GOP continues to funnel their way. The lying Republicans will keep doing this as long as morons vote them into office.
Again - if our President is as bad as you make him out to be, GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE! Otherwise, get behind our leader and help him make good things happen.
Is this straight out of the democratic playbook? If you don't like something you just run away, much like the Wisconsin Senators? Sorry Not As Smart, I've got a backbone and while I think Obama is a failure and a poor excuse for a president I will remain in America and count down the days until I get to cast a vote for his pink slip. I will not get behind him and his wealth redistribution ways and I've yet to see what good things he's capable of making happen.
Roy, so why do you blame Obama for everything if presidents really have no influence on budgets? Budgets go by way of the presidents no matter who controls congress and who actually passes it.
Its a waste of time to argue which irresponsible party is more irresponsible. No party seems good at this. Some yell louder, some favor social programs, some like war, and some focus on forcing their religious beliefs on others... but they ALL like to spend.
So I believe that if we can keep "who we are" in tact while balancing the budget, this is what we should do. A bursting real estate bubble and greedy Wall Street firm's screwup cannot justify ripping up what we have built over the last 50 years. Can it?
It is like I stated before GET THE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS OUT OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION (Health Care).
President Obama on Face the Nation, September 20,2009:
Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.
By the way "Uncle Sam" is all US Citizens getting the Bill, not "Uncle Sam".
What we (US Citizens) need today is just like what was needed during the Great Depression when people had to make the hard choices of food or medical care. President FDR's Universal Heatlh Care of All US Citizens (also done by removing the Insurance Corporations from the Medical Profession), use what works, we cannot afford costly experiments that might work (proven not to work as the Insurance Corporations raise their Health Care Insurance Premiums before the entire President Obama Health Care Act takes effect, meaning US Citizens get screwed due to the Law.):
Decreases cost 80% (last part of video) by Doctor David Ores, New York.1:45
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5247963n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
As far as the Social Security US Citizen Contribution Fund; NOT an "Entitlement", as this is deducted from each US Citizen's Paycheck as separate from Income Tax Withholding. US Congress needs to put back all the money that they stole (took) from the US Citizens; instead of trying to blow off the US Citizens and Social Security as an "Entitlement" claiming that they do to have to payback all the money they took including used for their automatic US Congressional Pay Raises.
Let's see . . .
Republicans claim Obama Care is socialism.
So they support a Presidential Candidate with the EXACT SAME health care plan. Jesus Christ, Obama Care was based off of Romney Care. So when Romney does it, it is not socialism . . . but when Obama does it, it is socialism?
Then, Ryan comes out with a plan that takes Obama Care one step further and gives medicare to private insurance agencies. Again, Obama Care is socialism . . . but when Ryan makes the SAME PLAN worse you support it.
I swear, Republicans do not even think anymore. They just believe that whatever Obama does is wrong and socialist . . . and when a Republican does the EXACT SAME THING it is good.
The gop crazybaggers lack of solutions becomes clearer that they work for the rich.
Obama need to close the loop that help his friends from GE to pay Zero taxes. I need to hear from President Obama that his friend the billionaire George Soros and his Hedge Funds will be under the Financial Reform.
If gas is 5 or 6 dollars a gallon and taxes go up Mr Obama will not get re-elected in 2012.
By the way, has anyone else heard Senator Obama's 2006 speech to the senate about raising the debt limit the last time around? He said, and i'm paraphrasing, Because we're here shows a real lack of leadership from the current administration. Guess its different now that he's in charge.
StopTheLiesNOW "FYI, 80 percent of our debt occurred under a GOP President."
I checked your figures with government data, and over the last 20 years, Republicans had the Presidency for 10 years and Democrats for 10 years. The results were;
Republican Presidents = 50.7% of the debt increase
Democratic Presidents = 49.3% of the debt increase.
But as I pointed out in my Post #1.79 above, Democratic Congresses accounted for over 80% of the Deficits when compared with Republican Congresses.
LMarcT "Roy, so why do you blame Obama for everything if presidents really have no influence on budgets? Budgets go by way of the presidents no matter who controls congress and who actually passes it."
I don't blame Obama so much as I blame the Democratic Congress that took over more than 4 years ago - and 2 years before the 'financial meltdown'.
As Obama correctly stated a week ago "It's not MY job to pass a budget - that's the job of Congress".
And yes, budgets are supposed to be signed by the President, but that didn't typically happen when the Democrats controlled Congress under Bush - For example, Congress never gave Bush a 2009 budget to sign - they waited until Obama was in the White House and only after they signed the $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill and the $400 Billion 'Porkulus' bill did they pass a budget with a $1.4 Trillion deficit for Obama to sign. And they still try to blame that deficit on Bush.
Yes, Mr President, I do indeed want you to raise taxes......on the 40+ percent of the country's deadbeats who currently pay no taxes at all!
The GOP TEANUTS are protecting tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The TEANUTS are out to destroy President OBAMA and our country.
LMarcT - I do blame Obama for being the tool of the Radical Democrats. If he actually believes the talking points he spouted today, then he is no where near Intelligent as the sheeple believe he is. BTW, so far, health care reform has done nothing but accelerate premium increases twice as fast as they had been before the bill was signed. Just what we needed. You can't decrease costs by increasing the benefits.
Roy -
Yes, we know. When something goes wrong with a Democratic President, it is his fault. When something goes wrong with a Republican President, it is NEVER his fault.
Must be nice to live in a world where YOUR party can do no wrong. Care to explain to me how you are against Obama Care but you support Romney Care? Or maybe you would like to explain Republican John Kyl making up facts, and ADMITTING it? Let's face it, they are Republicans and thus "can do no wrong" . . . so go on, explain away.
...until people like you can understand whats happening.
It is this complete and utter 'disconnect' on the part of the voter which allows this kind of monsterous debt to perpetuate itself.
During the campaign, the president was outraged that the debt under Geo. Bush was somewhere around 10.5 Trillion dollars. This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama in the first place - I thought: "This is a guy who understands the trouble we're in...Now we'll get something done."
I guess I misunderstood. Apparently his outrage was that the debt was too LOW... Because it's now at a more acceptable 14.5 Trillion ...
He's a brilliant campaigner - but he's not a leader. We need a leader now, more than ever. He's a nice enough guy, but he has NO vision... We're in trouble. This much I DO understand.
For those who are whining about the taxes paid by rich folk.....
15% of $45000 = $6750
15% of $250000 = $37500
15% of 1 Million = $150000
So a person paying tax on a million is paying the equivalent of 22 people who make $45000. Funny thing..... most of the folks are paying more than 15%. You are looking for a pity party where none exists. How about the 47% who pay nothing or receive back more than they paid in? That is very wrong as well. Those folks need to shoulder their share of the responsibility as well, period.
"three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases."
WHAT?????????????????????????????
Obama's budget projections call for increases in the National Debt of more than $1 Trillion per year over the next 10 years. How can you have 'lower interest payments' when the debt keeps going UP?
Is this the 'New Math' we hear about?
LOL, it actually kills me that 90% of the Republicans think that tax breaks for those making over $1 Million a year and up is actually doing THEM some kind of good.
I used to be a Republican, but I can't take the stupidity any longer. People! People! You have to understand, the only rich people in the Republican party are the ones making decisions reducing the amount of money the Uber Rich have to pay back to keep this country free!
Stop the ignorance and stop listening to Newt, Rush, Buchanan, Beck and the other Rich Right-wing propogandists! They make way more money than you and they are profiting on your support! YOU are NOT!
willowbrook -
You really should take Economics 101 . . . they probably offer it at your local community college. Look into it. You would learn a lot.
Democrats are still on the high speed railway of blaming republicans.
W.Goin with his same old speech of blaming Bush... but yet he never acknowledges that Obama hasn't changed the course. I guess W. Goin isn't keeping up with the times and not willing to conceed that Obama is a part of the problem and not the solution. How much spending has Obama approved and asked for in 2 years?
Thoughts from Cali - using the excuse that federal health care laws are akin to a states health care law. I guess Cali doesn't feel the states have certain abilities that should never be taken over on a federal level. Cali also feels that conservatives support a republican version of it... Maybe some do but this conservative doesn't.
LMarcT - Incessant support of Obama with no notice of lies in his speeches. Continuing on the road that republicans have no ideas... but never tries to understand the ideas or even acknowledge that some of the ideas actually do make sense.
Name calling and nasty rethoric is alive and well. I wonder why the liberals and democrats are so angry... maybe it's because Obama isn't the man he claimed to be... failing at every attempt to please his liberal base. He has no chance of ever pleasing conservatives and now Obama is not pleasing his liberal support... and you democrats think he has a chance in 2012? Who's going to vote for him? I only know a handful from these boards... seems he might not get very far with only a handful of votes.
For those on the left whining and complaining about why the so-called "rich" should pay for what they haven't done for themselves in life . . .I say, if you are an employer or anyone who actually contributes to our Country (unlike those on the left posting here that are clearly in it for the hand-out), make sure you know who they are. When the going gets tough financially, make sure they are the first to get axed. Unfortunately, they will then just sit around waiting for someone to wipe their butts, but at least you will be rid of them!
"three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases."
WHAT?????????????????????????????
Obama's budget projections call for increases in the National Debt of more than $1 Trillion per year over the next 10 years. How can you have 'lower interest payments' when the debt keeps going UP?
Is this the 'New Math' we hear about?
The president didn't say increase. You either misread or misunderstand the word reduction.
The new math is raising corporate welfare, giving less to the government, expecting the tax break to help pay the deficit.
Jan-1678944
Better working for the rich than enabling the poor! The rich are who employ and spin the economic wheels of our Country. Those living on the dole, flipping burgers or barely getting by aren't contributing a whole helluva lot.
I would much rather our government give incentive's to the people that create our economy rather than Obamaites throwing our money down the abyss of welfare programs.
Brianb -
Ohhhhh . . . so socialism just means that the Federal Government controls something instead of the State Government. According to you, as long as the State controls it, it is not socialism. Silly me, I thought "socialism" was SO MUCH MORE than that. Thanks for clearing that up.
BTW . . . "Who's going to vote for him?"
Well what are the other options? Romney, who supports the EXACT SAME health care that you oppose? Trump, Palin or Newt? LOL . . . come on, let's be serious now. Huckabee? . . . Sure, let the old dog try again. He's probably your best contender. Although his birther and anti-single mom comments will not help his votes.
Hopeful American -
I would much rather our government give incentive's to the people that create our economy rather than Obamaites throwing our money down the abyss of welfare programs.
How long have the Bush tax cuts been in place?
And what has been the unemployment?
But hey, you are absolutely right. If we have been using a policy for years, that is designed to create more jobs, and these jobs have NOT been created . . . there is obviously only one answer. We should keep doing the exact same thing.
Why try something different to create jobs when we can continue to do the one thing that has not been working?
Your logic and critical thinking skills are truly outstanding.
Cali - parsing is a strong point of yours, isn't it? I never said government controlled healthcare isn't a form of socialism. If a state decides to do it, doesn't give the federal government the right to impose it. Besides I've always felt that Massachusetts was the state that has more socialism than any other.
We don't know who's running against Obama yet. All I know is, Obama is losing support from his base. Right now, as it stands, there is no firm foothold on the 2012 election. That's in opposition to the claims the liberals are making that Obama is a shoe-in. I have no clue who I will support but I do know that it won't be Obama. I'd definitely support Kane if he ran. Guess that dispels any notion I'm a racist.
I think this was a joke right? He said he would cut the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years. So essentially $333 billion a year. With a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, that would mean he would cut our annual deficit to $1.166 trillion. And this is a plan. Wow, I wish I could be smart enough to budget like that. LOL
Also for those that are saying that the deficit is caused by a huge revenue drop you can go to the BEA link below and see that revenue hasn't dropped as much as expenditures have gone up, so don't blame lower revenues for the deficit increase, its actually a much smaller portion that increased expenditures.
Thoughts from Cali:
Your name explains a lot considering California is the biggest liberal/progressive/welfare state in our Country.
Socialism and welfare never works - or have you no knowledge as to the status of some stellar countries like England, Spain, France, Greece and others?
If you think the Bush tax cuts alone should have controlled the economy with everything else going on - you are truly clueless.
And yes, my logic and crital thinking is outstanding. Thank you.
Brianb -
I don't pull the "racist" card, because I don't think all Conservatives are racist. My point was merely to express that, currently, there are no decent GOP candidates.
But I do find it difficult to have a discussion with ANY Conservative who spouts off about "socialism". After studying socialism, and the many MANY different variations, I can tell you that we are no where close to being a socialist society. The idea is laughable, at best.
Besides, there is one obvious reason why we will NEVER go to socialism . . . lobbyists. You have no idea how much money flows through Washington from the lobbyists. Our Government Officials make WAY too much money off private companies and capitalism. The idea that they would cut off that river of cash to impose true socialism is simply retarded.
You could call it corporate supported social programs, but not an overall socialization of the economy. For instance big pharma, hospitals, insurance companies, and walmarts support for the healthcare bill, which is by definition a social program.
ROY WILSON-336103
Republican Presidents = 50.7% of the debt increase; Democratic Presidents = 49.3% of the debt increase.
"debt increase" - oh boy, anohter master of spin and deception. I'll bet you pick and choose your numbers with the utmost care...
Wikipedia is hardly a substantial reference but I'm afraid it's all I"m willing to dig up for anyone brazen enough to actually assert such deceptive statistic! I didn't even look to close at the numbers here but as long as they're not coming from Fox News or some other deceptive source, I'll go with them...
I assure you that objective assessment yields a conclusion in-line with mine...
companies will support social programs that are to their benefit. May socialist countries do have very powerful companies. I think maybe their is a confusion of the difference between communism which is a centrally controlled government command and socialism which isn't necessarily all commanded by the government. One is a type of economy and one is a type of government.
Every single person that says "It's EASY! Just do X, Y, and Z!" is showing how little they comprehend, and that they were NOT listening to the percentage of budget that goes to what. I'd also like to know what country those that say "the people on welfare live better than I do" are living in! Have YOU ever been on welfare? Have YOU ever lived in public housing? It's clear that not only you've NOT, but that you are so far removed that you believe it's a good way to live! I also think you need to go back and look at the welfare reforms of the 90's and see how they forced people to start staying trapped in the cycle. Until then, just shut up because you sound stupid and you're passing your ignorance on to others who are taking out of another part of their anatomy.
As a registered nurse, I've seen people end up DYING because they couldn't afford healthcare. THERE are your "death panels" people. What is spent in the end... trying to save their lives after they've suffered without healthcare is MUCH higher than the cost of preventative care and medication. Being recently disabled, I'm looking at a very scary future. I already have many medications I no longer have access to, I can't see a doctor, and I'm waiting in a very long, slow line to go through the denials and appeals of social security. I know of many people who aren't actually disabled but are getting social security... in effect taking from me what is MINE. What *I* paid into. Are people even aware that there is a two year wait between the time you are granted social security and the time you get medicare?? So the disabled population (who need healthcare in the worst way) have NO healthcare for two entire years. If the system wasn't broken, it wouldn't take two years to get approved. So COBRA won't cover that period of time... you're just SOL. Meanwhile, people are given social security because they're fat or because they're depressed?!?!? Yes, there are changes that need to be made. Taking away programs altogether is wrong... especially when you pay into those programs. Karma can be a wonderful thing. Those making the most noise about wanting to take away programs that are needed are going to be the ones finding that it's not there when they are the unfortunate ones!
ROY WILSON-336103 -
Beyond this, give the fact that -
And this accounting for the last 20 years... don't you find your assertion, well, amazing?
Unfortunately, you are what my moniker speaks to. I don't say this with glee.
Here we go.
1.22 deleted, RealAmericansFirst copypasting from here without blockquote or attribution. Don't.
...
Lots of 'you people' and if-then generalization insults stay collapsed.
Seriously you are a @!$%#ing idiot.
Dre-3315335, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. You're new. See the rules:
Jag 24659,
Actually I did calculate it out for the DC area and I could make approximately $50,000 a year that I know of by not working and getting government benefits. Obviously you have to know where to go to get the benefits because they cross different agencies and levels of government. Also, I don't think you realize how government housing works. The old housing used to be all in the same government owned or subsidized buildings. Now they have subsidized apartments that you can find in really nice new buildings. Essentially the government pays for the housing at a lower rate than usual to the apartment company, in return the company gets tax breaks and a guaranteed on time payment. I have seen apartments I couldn't afford when making $50,000 a year that people without jobs were getting in this program.
I love how people like to say clinton left bush with a surplus and bush left obama with crap. I would just say that you would need to be consistent. Clinton left Bush with the dot.com bubble and dwindling revenues as well. The surplus only lasted 6 quarters also. If you want to blame bush for Obama then you would also have to blame clinton for bush.
Living in DC I would say that if I didn't have the skills or education to make more than $40,000 I would just simply not work and live off of government funding. You can't blame people for doing it if you enable it. Essentially you are providing an incentive for people that aren't able to earn high incomes to not work.
ROY WILSON-336103 -
It's Congress that sets the spending budget that determines the deficit, and it's Congress that passes legislation that affects the
The President has unsurpassed influence on what will finally pass due to this Veto power you readily dismiss. For this reason, final accountability is his, no argument.
Why do my numbers not concure with yours? Can you publish your source please? Compare the Bush years to Clinton, below. We all know what Obama has done is due to Bush so lets not go there.
The only "Fool" this country is suffering through is ignorant hateful, evil, mean spirited fools like you!
JohnnyB-433715, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Brett: You have gotten to the core issue. If I can get everything I need to survive by not working then why work? The people supporting Obama are socialist democrats, they agree with his policies because they are against capitalism. The 'tax the rich' narrative that is constantly tossed out is one page out of the handbook.
Socialism's stated goals are to eliminate the gap between rich and poor. Labor unions are the ends by which this goal is to be achieved. Unions control wages and working conditions for the benefit of the workers, regrdless of damage to the long term economic welfare. Unions contribute exclusively to democratic candidates, this way they can, by proxy, control the government.
European socialism is currently experiencing the consequences of this mindset. They practice a 'limited' economic socialism in that the individual 'owns' the company and is responsible for its care and upkeep but it is government which controls and regulates the company.
The Obama supporters favor 'cradle to grave' socialism, Obama is working towards that end with his policies. He favors a 'collectivist' system, the individual exists as a means to an end for the state. The individual is owned by the state as is his property. Obama isn't the first, he is merely the most obvious. Progressivism is 'limited' socialism, and those who support the system over the individual are truly 'progressive.'
He sure is making Carter look good, cant we some how get rid of this trash in the White House before the next election? For sure he will be gone then.This dept he has put the country in is a terrorist act and he should be punished accordingly.
This is the fist time in U S history the country went 4 years without a leader.
Who on earth is advising this man; mortgage rate deduction reduced 80%, cut everything but the real culprit, food stamps, medicaid, housing allowance, social programs; that is where the increase has been, aid to illegal aliens, welfare familys, but the middle class is barely keeping their head above water; what about the multi national corporations that pay less than 3% tax on their profits; I have totally lost any faith in this administration, it is all smoke and mirrors, reduce all working and non working people to a servant level ,good God !
I'll not complain much about paying a couple percent more in tax, so long as the corporations and the wealthy pay a little more as well, and as long as spending is also cut. We're in a deep hole, and we need to attack it from both sides to start climbing out. More tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations is not the answer.
Considering how ‘money’ makes law for such things as tax avoidance (GE), corporate welfare, bailouts, etc., I think some have reasonable concerns regarding how fair the burden of austerity will be shared. The upper class has been oblivious or indifferent to the economic down slide of the middle and lower classes while their own growing slice of accumulated wealth and income share have increased during that same period. They are again requesting to have their tax further reduced amid soaring debt. This is after decades of tax reductions at their request, claiming that they create jobs while not mentioning that these jobs apparently will go to other countries.
We need both parties to come together and create a plan that will reduce both debt and spending without placing that burden solely on the middle and working classes like the GOP is proposing. Come on America, wake up!
@ Cali, I put my post in super-simple terms. Guess it wasn't simple enough. The fact of the matter is, many "rich" or "near rich folks" are paying far more than the 15% spouted by RealAmerican. The scale is income and martial status based. No one ever looks at how the 1 rich person's tax burden compares to the middle class. What incentive is there to earn a good living if it the majority of it is going to the govt. to be squandered? Let alone the rich folk are the ones CREATING JOBS. How many poor people do you know that can create jobs? No money, no ability for increased job creation. (or do you think they should get a loan to create the jobs after they give their money to the govt.?!?)
The bottom line is, we need to create more jobs. The President's plan does not do that. (No creating YET MORE govt. jobs is not helping the economy.) It is a new shell game of smoke and mirrors to replace the old game of smoke and mirrors.
We also need to cut govt. spending across the board. The only money that needs to be taken out of Medicare and Social Security is to reign in the fraud and the mismanagement costs. That, along with restoring the money taken from the programs in the first place would help a lot. Those on Medicare are already suffering from a lack of care, how is reducing costs to Dr's and Hospitals going to improve the current lack of care? No one seems to be answer that question. We need to stop all entitlements to Illegals, stop wasting money on stupid projects like studying the sex life of birds on cocaine, etc, etc, etc...... There are so many ways to save. The Democrat needs a Dave Ramsey intervention!!!!
brianb: I have no problem with ANYBODY making a living or being successful.
I have a problem with billion dollar US companies who do set up shop outside the US, make lots of money off of US consumers, and then are able to get out of pay a fair share in tax on their profits(all while enjoying the protections the US provides them).
I'm sure many average Americans would love to be operate the same way as those billion dollar corporation who bank/operate offshore, and have plenty of well paid tax lawyers and accountants to gt them out of parting with their profits, except most can't afford to do so.
Now that it's easier for corporations to give money to politicians, things are going to go even more in favor of the rich, and less for the average American trying to support and raise a family. If they want to operate and save money outside the US(and pay non US workers to sork for them), then their products and services need to have a tariff added once they pass back into the US.
The only thing you've done, is shown that you don't agree with me. Maybe if you can show where/how I'm wrong, I'll take you seriously.
My comments stand. I'm sure that rational people with adequate analytical skills, will agree with me.
willowbrook -
I agree with you that it's very simple.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Therefore - the rich do NOT pay their fair share!
Taxes are at an historic low! So, even from an historical perspective and not only one based on future economic feasibility (above)..
They do NOT pay their fair share!
Everything else if just arbitrary personal opinion. Nothing more.
ROY WILSON,
Was it your intention to present your "statistics" without reference to simply give those who choose to believe you the excuse to ignore the fats? I hope not. I really would like to see your reference.
StopTheLiesNOW "Why do my numbers not concure with yours? Can you publish your source please?"
What are your numbers? At any rate, here are my sources;
For the government's employment website, here it is;
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
For the information on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years, google each of the last 15 Congresses (2 years each) on Wikipedia and see which party controlled it. Then compare employment changes for each Congress with who controlled Congress, and then add them up.
For the economic information and deficits for each year, I would suggest the following site;
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/numbers
Of course, you have to compare the figures for each year with who controlled Congress, and then, again, you have to add them up.
As you can see, I do my own research, but I do use government sources for by base data. For me, it is relatively easy because I put a lot of data on an Excel spreadsheet for each of the last 35 years (and the President's Budget for future years), which makes analysis fairly quick and easy. It also allows me to easily 'Fact Check' a lot of BS statistics that people quote, which is half of the 'fun'.
As for your comment "The President has unsurpassed influence on what will finally pass due to this Veto power you readily dismiss. For this reason, final accountability is his, no argument."
You overlook the FACT that Congress didn't even give Bush a Budget to sign for fiscal year 2009 (which began on October 1, 2008), so how does he have 'final accountability'? They waited until Obama took office, passed the $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill and the $400 Billion 'Porkulus' bill, and then had Obama sign it in March of 2009 - Yet you still try to blame Bush for the $1.4 Trillion Deficit for 2009.
tyler - Your link was NOT the source of my post, and I had added several sections to the information I gathered from a number of sources. (Note: Your source didn't attribute that info either, as it came from government sources.) Before deleting posts for non-attribution, you might want to read both the post and the source in their entirity. I am one of the most diligent about attributing sources, and I don't think I deserved that "delete"!
Bosslimo "ROY WILSON-336103 "three quarters of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts, including lower interest payments as the debt eases.............The president didn't say increase. You either misread or misunderstand the word reduction."
The quote was from the article, not from me, so how would you understand it? It seems to say that deficits will be reduced partly because of lower interest payments, yet how is that possible if the debt keeps going up?
Please explain how I "misread or misunderstand the word reduction."
@ StoptheLies - proof of your assertions? In case you've forgotten, we've been in a recession and everyone has been making less money, and it is not because "the rich are getting richer." Are you a Union sheeple?
One question for all the people who love this whole Obama debt expansion thing.
How do you really think we can afford social porgrams when:
a) we have no money
b) your FORCING those who have money to give it up to whose who have not earned it
c) Really think uncontrolled spending since Obama has been in office (don't day GOP was worse because the worst 6 months of Bushes term does not equal to the first 2 months of a Trillion dollar explosion on social programs)
d) why do you hate those that work their ass off to provide a good lifestyle for their family and you attack them?
Gim,
As far as the working your butt off part. Most people who are not rich think the money was handed to them. When a majority of people who are well off have worked really hard, and made several smart investment decisions. I am not rich but I have always saved and invested before I used the rest of the money for living expenses.
We live in a debt society. Look at the national average for credit card debt. It's up to $15,000 per person. That is sad, when the majority of Americans can not live within a budget do you really expect the average person to admit the government should reduce spending on Social Services? We created generations of people who need government.
We need to cut every sector of the budget and everyone needs to pay more taxes. That is the only solution if we are going to get ourselves out of this hole.
The main problem is I don't trust politicians to use the money for paying down the debt. If we give them more they are going to find some pet project to spend it on.
Bobby, what is really sad is when you realize there are folks like me who have NO credit card debt in that average. The amount some families have must be out of sight. People like me, who live within their means are the ones who are most disappointed/mad at the govt.. We know they could do better, but have NO FAITH that they will do better. All the while, they expect more from us to offset their irresponsible spending.
willow,
I know how you feel. If more of us put our political views aside for a minute I think we would agree that politicians are killing America.
For some reason we fight each other like we are the ones ruining this county. Instead of holding these politicians (republican or democrat) responsible.
That is part of the problem though. Too many people don't live responsibly and the government just takes advantage of that lack of responsibility.
If we all took care of ourselves the government would have far less power over us. I think these politicians love the divide in America. It is easier for them to get votes that way.
JS in SD:
They lowered the SS rate for this year to mask the matching state tax INCREASE in certain states, hoping employees wouldn't notice.
Why did you "collapse" my comment (1-70)? I didn't say anything wrong or use "naughty words" like most people, and I only said the truth. I resent having my comments collapsed when I was only being truthful and not demeaning any particular group of people. Can someone explain why this was collapsed because I'd REALLY like to know.
Hmm, $14+Trillion in debt, possibly save $4 Trillion (yeah right, cut that to $2 Trillion, maybe, but don't cut anything from those who won't work but suck the system dry). Oooh, let's tax another $117 Billion for Education; ummm, money ain't the problem. That's another 1-1/2 days of my take-home pay, thank you very much. What the Fed spends has doubled in ten years.
How many of us would handle a household like this?
What peons like you fail to realize
GimDan, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Spider...in your comment waaaay above, you said to "up" the taxes on the people who currently don't pay taxes.....do you mean to raise taxes on the poor, disabled, retired, unemployed, etc.? How can you raise taxes on people who most likely don't make enough money to even be listed as "poor." You raise taxes on people who make 0 dollars....you get 0 taxes.
Didi,
Probably because you are accusing over one hundred million people of thinking the same way. Your dislike for what has happened to this country should not have one party solely responsible for it.
It took two parties to get us in this mess and it will take more at this point to get us out. It is obvious the two party system will never work.
Cut the deficit ? Tax the rich ?
Yeah, right !! Mr. Obama has NO intention on cutting the deficit.
Yeah, right !! Tax the rich to reduce the deficit. The more the government can "tax" folks, the more money Mr. Obama and his Progressive Left will have to spend on their "social agenda".
And, figure the odds of people in the Obama Administration paying their current taxes, let alone higher taxes. Why doesn't Mr. Obama DEMAND that his staff pay their BACK TAXES ? And where is the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury on taking these people to COURT and publishing their names and the amount of BACK TAXES they owe ?
Ido,
After those taxes are paid, maybe they can get the taxes owed by celebrities and professional sport players.
Mike in SA "Roy, you must have tuned out in the middle. He stated he is going to "restructure Medicare".. Does that sound like leaving it on autopilot?"
Thanks for the laugh.
How about this "Obama says that he will 'solve the debt crisis' , but offers no details."
Wow, he said it, so I guess that makes it true, because Obama always keeps his promises, right?. What's that old saying "You can fool some of the people all of the time....".
lol
What I heard in this speech was, unfortunately, an awful lot of class warfare rhetoric, followed by even more non-specific convenient fiction. Dissapointing.
MR. ROY WILSON,
your link is NOT a government website! FYI, government web sites are denote by the .gov.
This is -NOT- legitimate and I find it deceptive that you would represent it as such!
Allow me to educate you and the other posters who agree with your "research methods."
2 clicks to confirm the nature of your "source."
Web Site Creator:
Christopher Chantrill blogs at
www.roadtothemiddleclass.com .
His post for this day -----------
We're Winning
THE TROPES that the president used in his deficit speech Wednesday were the kind of tired talking points that you expect when you go to a liberal dinner party--any time this past 20 years.
Congratulations - I don't believe you are not a novice user at all. I believe you are employed by the RNC to spread misinformation and deception.
Didi, your comment was offensive, especially the second paragraph, which was full of talking points the Democrats say against the Republicans. If you are going to say BOTH parties are responsible for where we are, then don't spend most of the post lying about the Republicans. In all honesty, the Democrats are now the party of NO. No to reducing the deficit, no to becoming fiscally responsible. It just came out how much is ACTUALLY saved in the budget that was just signed. Not billions or trillions, but only millions. The budget was a load of crap and no real progress has been made.
willowbrook -
So, you actually believe that over the past 30 years (Reagan and Bush, Clinton started to reverse this trend) the rich did not get richer and the middle-class did not decline?
I take these topics very seriously and seek truth. Please go waste some else's time.
Why must extremists continue to look for or even create LIE to substantiate their beliefs? It's OK to be wrong as long as ones pursuit is the truth.
How far into an abyss must one go to become so self-deluded.
--------------- Again, this is the truth no matter how hard some may try to obscure it!
FYI, 80 percent of our debt occurred under a GOP President. That means at a bare minimum a GOP leader signed off on almost all of our debt.
Most of the debt applied to Obama was either signed by Bush before his exit or in response to the recession left to him!
And this accounting for the last 20 years...
StopTheLiesNOW
Lets be truthful then. Don't you think the "middle class" has been very greedy over the last few decades as well? Looking for possessions to appear rich instead of living a frugal life and saving money?
The rich will always get richer if they are smart with their money. Just like a middle class person can become rich over time by planning and saving.
I take this very seriously as well. I want people to understand we can change this trend. The government will never be able to do anything about it. They control policies not our individual actions.
As for the second part of your post. We have all seen it's not just one party making decisions. Both parties have signed off on everything ever passed.
I say we confiscate all of the assets from the top 400 richest people in the US and use that to pay down the debt.
Ooops! If we did that it would only pay this year's projected deficit. Then what?
I would not use Wikipedia is a formal setting. But given the nature of data I've see on this forum so far, this will do just fine...
Kinda thought this article was about Obama's speech and his plans for our budget. Why do many of you keep blathering on about Bush; who cares. How will you, or Obama, solve today's crisis. Trust me, it won' be done by blaming Bush.
True, for six years he and the republicans were to blame for our increasing debt (911 was a real crisis though, costing real $), but since 2006 (5 years now) that responsibilty has been on democrats. Obama is our president, his party runs 2/3 of the government (3/3 up until 3 months ago). What will they do with that responsibility? What should they do? Give us your intelligent responses, not your whining over the past.
And please. Class warfare overstatements are nothing more than silly political talking points w/out substance, move on.
StopThe Lies, so nice you finally decided to show up today. Still no proof of your assertions. And a few Democratic talking points thrown in as well. <sigh>
Still have no idea why you think the rich should pay more than their share in taxes. I guess you are a fan of wealth redistribution. What's in it for you?
As I said to Cali earlier. Those who have the money are the ones who create jobs. What are they supposed to do, give their money to the govt. and then ask for a loan so they can develop those new jobs? Doesn't seem very responsible does it? Poor people don't create jobs and govt. jobs do not fuel the economy.
Additionally, it was recently released that of the top contributors in the last 20 years to political campaigns, 11 of the top 14 were Unions who gave over 90% of their contributions to Democrats.
AND you do realize that the largest employer in the United States AFTER the US govt. is small business? NOT large corporations. Most are privately owned or small classification corps. owned by individuals. These individuals are paying taxes on the profit of their companies on the INDIVIDUAL income tax returns. So your generalizations just don't cut it.
@ Sven - love the post!
My plan is simple:
There has not really been substantial inflation since the year 2000 (though I sense it coming). Our budget was manageable then (a little under 2 trillion) Cut all non-defense spending back to those levels period. And from now on, never, never, send our military into a country unless we are invited or forced. And always make that country pay for our involvement (every penny, including family settlements to those who've fallen) by way of their resources without applology.
Bobby Jones Bia
Only a fool believes the entirety of our problem are the result of a single party. But most of our problems are due to GOP fiscal policy and the problem right now is we have an extremist element in control of the GOP.
The Democrat of today (Obama) is effectively the GOP of yesterday (Reagan). Reagan would not make it in today's GOP.
Insert link. I guess links don't appear at the end of a post.
Seriously Lies?
"The Democrat of today (Obama) is effectively the GOP of yesterday (Reagan). Reagan would not make it in today's GOP."
Do you really believe that?
Kennedy would not fit in with today's democrats (more in line with today's republicans) but your comment is just plain silly. You really believe our country is becoming more conservative, and Obama is like Reagan? That is either purposefully ignorant, or seriously delusional.
willowbrook
Everything I identify above, and this is all you have to say? WOW! Here you go, something for you to dismiss...
What this depicts is the direct and known correlation between income- wealth distributions and decrease in economic demand leading to recessionary conditions.
There are classes one can take at your local community college.
I'm afraid I must conclude where I began -- with the obvious. Work before leisure.
StoptheLies, you have yet to say something, you've not identified anything. That's why you've not gotten a response other than "proof for your assertions."
And maybe you need to get out there in the real world instead of relying on classes at the local college. As I can tell you, as a person, who has worked in both worlds, (public and private,) there is a difference between theoretical business models and real business practice.
Tod-2791955 -
Why are you people so demeaning and so close minded? Seriously?
What I am not is brainwashed like so many in this forum. The world is not as black and white as you and the kind in here seem to think.
Sad.
------------------------------------
Link that should have been included above! There's a problem on this site transposing links.
Jesus,
I have a background in software development. This site is frustrating. Using IE9 may be the problem here.
Willow, thanks for the advice but I have a PHD and I run my own business. Try again. What I don't do is watch Fox News. Really, I must go now.
ADMINISTRATION --- Why are my links being REMOVED from my posts??? My links were included in both posts above and now they are gone!
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Well, I pasted my "text" links (no html or scripting) in here twice.......... 10 years of PHP, ASP, MYSQL, etc. development behind me.
hmmmmm. I don't have the time to troubleshoot this. Is MSN owned by Fox News now? LOL.
Sorry Lies, but I feel demeaning language is language that insults someones character, or motives. I am insulting the logic and intelligence of what you wrote. I also have to agree with Willow; you have really done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims (80% of debt etc.) without any substance.
All I get from your posts is that you want to tax the rich, blame republicans and continue the class warfare debate, fine. I don't agree, that's opinion, yours and mine. Many of us are trying to go beyond this blather and deal with the real problem; stop the spending increases and cut the budget back to 2000 spending. Why is that so hard to understand, and why does that get such a violent reaction from those of you on the left?
The reason is a philosophical one: Left= govt. good, we want more of it (Obama). Right= govt. bad, we want less of it (Reagan).
Tell me; who is really fighting for (motivated by) power in this philisophical debate?
The prez without a clue! Another teleprompter speech full of platitudes delivered with an arrogant attitude! I was almost as impressed as biden. Rome burns while biden sleeps. Hahaha
-----------------
Admin - using Notepad to transpose URL but need to use "Remove formatting" to get page to accept.
@ StopThe Lies, if you are new to the site, you don't automatically get to post links. Somehow you have to earn the privilege. I'm pretty much done for today too, I need to finish the company's end of month. You see, I am CFO for a small S corp, so it is not like I'm making this stuff up. And no, I don't watch FOX news. Software development? I work in manufacturing. And I have a Masters, and I can tell you, but don't take it personally, I've known a number of PHD's who didn't have a lick of common sense. They were stuck in the world of Theory and had no interaction with the nuts and bolts side of the world. Much like our President. That was a true disappointment for me during the last election. His work and education history were a big negative for me and swayed me not to vote for him. I am sad to say I was right, I wish I would have been wrong, but everything that has happened in the past 2 years prove me correct. The President lacked the practical knowledge to see both sides of the story and successfully bring the two sides together. His additional mistake of surrounding himself with staff with the same background as him has been a downfall as well.
Obama has finally shown some strength standing behind ideals which got him into office while attacking his opponents for their weak, baseless, and harmful stances.
The last politicians to bring us out of economic crisis were Democrats, plans which Obama has been modeling his plan after. This is one of the most reasonable plans created, as he's finally showing strength and standing behind ideals instead of compromising with Tea Party/ rich people backed opponents.
Deals to bring us out of Economic crisis aren't easy, but at least Obama's trying to make the best of both worlds. He's trying to bring our economy under control while causing as little suffering as possible for the American people. Why is it so hard for people to see that?
StopTheLiesNOW "MR. ROY WILSON, your link is NOT a government website! FYI, government web sites are denote by the .gov. This is -NOT- legitimate and I find it deceptive that you would represent it as such!"
The BLS/gov site definitely is a government site.
The other site I referenced lists all of the government sites that they based their data on, and I verified enough of them to satisfy myself that they were indeed accurate. It's just a convenient place to get a variety of information, rather than researching a large number of other sites, but if you want to 'quibble', go ahead and review all of the President's Budgets for the last 35 years and extract the information from them for each year - You'll find the same information anyway.
PS - Since I'm not a Republican, and never voted for Bush or McCain, I doubt that the RNC would 'hire me'. Are YOU paid by the DNC?
Willow, I am in manufacturing too and I can't understand why in the world you would have ever considered him in the first place!
Common, what economic crisis are you talking about that dems brought us out of?
tod,
Defense is a huge part of our budget and we do need to cut some of it.
How about making unemployment and welfare loans? Lets say an interest free loan that would need to be paid back with in a certain time frame after you stop collecting. Just like child support can be garnished from your wages, these social programs could be garnished as well if you are not making your payments.
I realize we pay for unemployment insurance while we have a job, however our current system is not working.
At least it would make people think twice about collecting. I think unemployment is the most abused program around. I know people who collect unemployment and do cash jobs all the time.
How about running government like a business. If we are in debt which we are now. Politicians or anyone working for the government doesn't get paid. Just like a small business owner would not be making money if his or her business was in debt. This would make people running and working for the government more accountable to "We the People" the whole reason the government is set up in the first place.
As a whole I don't really see a problem with government programs. The problem I see is the programs are way to susceptible to fraud and corruption and really don't hold anyone accountable for anything.
The only other person to make huge spending cuts in an economic crisis was Herbert Hoover, a Republican, and this not only furthered the but made it worse.
History shows that the less you invest in your country, the less your country is going to make. If the budget is going to be brought under control, we have to maintain a large investment in our country while reforming our budget and bringing in more revenue where tax cuts and loopholes do the smallest good
This site actively edits posts, removing URL links selectively perhaps by timestamp or userid. Censorship by any other name. I would not have expected this from Newsvine. I know of no policy on posting links and if it exists it needs to be denoted better. If you can't win the argument, cut off bilateral exchange. Congratulations.
Act2 - At first I didn't know anything about him, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But the more I learned about him, the less qualified I found him to be. That was the number 1 reason I didn't vote for him, second was his big promises. No one, of any party, can promise that much.
Willow, Your last post has also been my experience (especially with PHD's), and I believe is the main reason why agreeement is so difficult. After spending years in the private sector I became a teacher. I am surrounded by wonderful people who mean well, but unfortunately, have never been in the real world. They live in a world of theory, and have no interaction with the outside. The right has its bubbles also (some religious groups). Unfortunately the left's bubbles are the ones shaping our future generations in the classroom.
Stopthelies, I just realized my shortning of your name (lies) could have been seen as demeaning, not my intention.
We were brought out of the Great Depression by FDR and a budget surplus was created and a plan was made to pay off our debt by Clinton, the first one in history. The budget has been dealt with very well in the past couple decades by Democrats.
If everyone knew their history, half these posts wouldn't even be up here. Doesn't everyone go to history class as a kid? Do people understand that history is deeply involved with politics and problems today? Maybe msnbc should post related history to every article, then all these baseless comments would go away
Common sense,
Politicians would not like to see people thinking. They are happy being able to convince people their party is right or wrong with as little effort as possible.
The career politician is the most dangerous person to our country. They are just as guilty of spreading lies as any other misinformed citizen. The most common tool used is exaggeration.
Well they might not go away, but I wish people were more informed. We would a lot more intelligent conversations and arguments on here
Common sense, your arguments might make some sense if you had mentioned our 14 trillion dollar debt and the fact we are adding 1.6 trillion to it yearly. Or the fact that the "huge cuts" you mentioned paid for 3 days worth of interest on that debt. Our budget has almost tripled since 2000, and it has doubled in the last 2 years. Every man woman and child in the U.S. now owes (China I Guess) 45,000 dollars.
Why is it so hard for you to see that many of us want cuts back to the year 2000 (budget under 2 trillion)? Are we in so much more desperate need of all the entitlements we have added in the past 11 years than we were in 2000?
"plan was made to pay off our debt by Clinton" sorry commonsense but that's revisionist history. I am all for the the budget proposed durring the Clinton era, but congress proposed the budget under republicans, Clinton was fiscally conservative enough (and smart enough) to agree to it. Nice try, and I don't see that happening today, do you?
to Roy Wilson,
Whether you referenced a government website or not really is of no consequence since you took no time or effort to make the numbers relevent to each other. You are portraying deceptive information because no calculations have been performed to make the relationship between the numbers relevent! I looked at the websites you referenced and it is nothing more than raw data in noway have the neccesary analysis been done on them to draw any of the conclusions you have made! The number of people employed in 1964 has no relevance to the number of people employed in 1974 unless you look at it as a number of people employed in teach of those years as compare to the total number of employable people.
StopTheLiesNOW "FYI, 80 percent of our debt occurred under a GOP President."
Another unsubstantiated claim. I ran the numbers for the last 47 years (98% of the debt), and this is the truth;
Republican Presidents oversaw 56% of the debt increase.
Democratic Presidents oversaw 44% of the Debt increase.
Of course, we should take into account that Republican Presidents were in office for 69% of that time, while Democratic Presidents for only 31% of that time, so it would appear that debt increases per year in ofice under Democratic Presidents averaged more than under Republican Presidents.
PS - Since Congress sets the budget and deficits each year, not the President, I would argue that deficits are more a function of Congress' actions than those of the President. That's why my Post #1.80 is more relevant.
Tod, we are much alike, I taught 1st then went to the Private sector. It can be a night and day difference. And I totally agree with your post. Especially about the part of the Left shaping our future. It has been a great disappointment to me to see how Left leaning education has become, especially at the college level. By the time these kids get to college, they have no trouble assuming the Professor's political agenda is right and true and don't take the time to see if there is anything else out there. It actually isn't the place of the Professor to teach Political agenda as fact, but it happens frequently. Colleges used to teach students to think critically, to seek out and find complete information. I wonder what is going on these days......
Roy Wilson,
AS EVER, you are short on substance and fact.
The...speech....yesterday....was ....part... of...a...discussion/process..which...laid ...out... parameters ...and ...guidelines. That was its purpose.
The plan is for a formal committee to come up with details by the end of June this year.
Willowbrook: "I wonder what is going on these days......"
Up is down, down is up. On a whole lot of issues; "The King has no clothes" but it seems no one of consequence will say so. (maybe Trump, just kidding, he's fun to watch though)
As long as students are required to take two years (at least) of general ed. (brainwashing humanities classes) I don't see any hope. Liberal arts degrees (which most teachers have) are no different, and teaching credential classes are worse (almost made me reconsider).What I would love to see is a requirememt that all teachers spend at least ten years in the real world before they are allowed to teach. Unfortunately, not many would be willing to go backwards (payscale) like myself (ouch!!).
Common sense, FDR put people to temporary work on infrastrcture (roads, bridges, dams, piers, electric grids etc.), Obama has only given infrastructure lip service, while adding permanant government programs.
And since you're so worried about our knowledge of history, you might want to include a small detail that helped bring us out of "The Great Depression"; something called WWII, remember that?
Bobby, I could live with that.
Willow states: "The President lacked the practical knowledge to see both sides of the story and successfully bring the two sides together. His additional mistake of surrounding himself with staff with the same background as him has been a downfall as well."
And that, unfortunately, is the most disappointing truth we face in trying to move forward. (20 years under Jeremiah Wright should have warned us away)
Willowbrook,
You are entitled to your preferences. However your comment is false. Perhaps your sources are misleading you. Obama has delivered or is in the process of delivering on every promise he made.
Congress slows a lot of things down. We know that Republican Senators continue to filibuster at 3 times the pace ever seen before in American history.
I think we need to get rid of majorities in our political structure. I would like to see a three party system with equally gauranteed seats.
There are 535 members of congress (I think not sure). If we need to subtract or add a few to get an equal number who cares. So that would leave about 178 seats for each party. We would be responsible to vote people in for each party.
Instead of putting these politicians up for election against everyone they are only running against their own party.
As voters if we had to vote for a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. I feel we would all be more responsible with our choices.
This should cut down on campaign spending. Take some of the influence away from special interest groups and make politicians work together because nobody will ever have a majority and be able to slam their beliefs down our throats.
Then instead of bitching about a two party system we could bitch about a three party system! Wooo Hooo! It takes away nothing...its not the title that defines the corruption and adding a third thumb will not fix all the woes, neither will adding a fourth, or a fifth, or a sixth, it keeps going, and going, and going.
You say you are an Independent, but what is it that defines being one...independence perhaps? What you would have then is two parties ganging up on one and one voice silenced. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who would be the silenced.
You are missing the point of guaranteed seats. Like ganging up isn't a problem now? Hence the problem with a majority.
What was the problem in the late 1700's? Taxation without representation right? Well I am being taxed like crazy and don't feel like anyone represents what the average American stands for.
So you are saying that two versus one is a lot better than 1 on 1? I do however agree with your last statement...we are indeed suffering from taxation without representation. What is needed now is the same action that was taken then.
Bobby
There is the party which looks out for people, and the party that looks out for Corporations.
By the way, taxes are at their lowest point for many decades.
Backhouse. 1. The President made more promises than he could ever accomplish. 2. Many of those promises are not for the good of the country as a whole. All I've gotten from the promises you think he accomplished is ever increasing government compliance, and regulation, (Unnecessary and profit draining.) and an accelerated end to our company's health care plan. We would have had more time if he hadn't signed the health care disaster. Additionally, now I have to look forward to working until I die, which will be much sooner, in all likelihood since I won't have health care. I've worked all these years and always had a policy thru my work, now he takes that away from me. I don't want our country giving Illegals the right to vote. It is bad enough they are draining billions out of welfare and are sending billions back to their home country, yet the President turns his back on AZ to support the President of Mexico when he came to the US to disrespect AZ's attempt to protect it's citizens. I'm not glad of all the backward steps we've taken in the last 2 years. I hope we can get out from under this as soon as possible. I wouldn't want to be the President who will be known for reducing America to Third World status.
Without jumping directly into a war with the most advanced military force ever. I think a third party would be a better start.
Three party system would not necessarily be two on one. There are congressmen on both sides of the aisle that are only there because those are the choices. Some have even switched.
I don't ever think it would happen. However I would like a third party to be able to compete with the democrats and republicans.
Backhouse
Federal tax rate might be low. That's not the only tax.
We all pay for society in general every time we make or spend money.
If we are this far in debt, and are taxed continuously how is there any party right now looking out for the people?
Democrats get just as much campaign money form corporations as republicans. However the "party that cares about people" is the only one that steals money from it's workers and donates it to the democratic party.
Backhouse: "You are entitled to your preferences. However your comment is false. Perhaps your sources are misleading you. Obama has delivered or is in the process of delivering on every promise he made"
Seriously? Did you really just post that? Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan (I'm actually glad about those unkept promises) On foreign policy, he is copying line for line Bush's policies, is that what he promised?
What planet are you living on, why do you think the ultra-left is hammering him on a daily basis. He is breaking the promises he made to them, and they're ticked. (Libya)
Roy Wilson,
What we now call the Bush Recession was largely the result of deregulation and free market capitalism gone wrong. That is to say, all the unfettered cowboy economics favored then as now by the Right wing.
And it all began quite some time before a Democratic Congress was elected in 2006.
Willowbrook,
I am truly sorry that you believe the things you write are factual.
More backhouse blathering,
Thought I would go on with the broken promises if you don't mind;
Recess appointments, raisng taxes on those below 250,000, Health care negotiations on C-span, No health care mandates, Nafta, Public financing, gay marriage fli-flop, Nuclear energy flip-flop, Partial birth abortion flip-flop.
Do you really want to play this game Backhouse? Your proclamations are really quite astonishing, and would be amusing fiction if so many of your fellow story tellers did'nt prattle off the same faslehoods.
Stick with what you believe Obama and the Senate should do to fix our current crisis. Who cares what Bush did, we've had the dems in power for 5 years (fiscally). What should they do oh captain of bolded truth? Do share your fettered uncowboy wisdom.
Tod,
Many will disagree with you. Obama's approach to foreign policy is completely different to the Bush Administration's. To your examples: Gitmo was blocked in Congress. Iraq is ending. Military will start drawing down from Afghanistan this year.
What I can tell you about the 'ultra-left' is that they will not go backwards, not for Ryan and not for Walker.
"Democrats get just as much campaign money form corporations as republicans. However the "party that cares about people" is the only one that steals money from it's workers and donates it to the democratic party."
Good one Bobby, I only wish I was'nt one of those they steal from. It really irked me when the California teachers union took my hard earned money (1 million $'s) and gave it to that bastion of education; The no on prop 8 group who were fighting to legalize gay marriage. (no matter what your beliefs on the subject, that was wrong)
Tod,
The source of your information is the problem. If you do really want to be current and not just be as nasty as possible, why not think about Ryan's plan to end Medicare, give $200,000 to every millionaire, kick seniors and children to the curb, while adding to the deficit and costing 2.2 million jobs.
Bobby Jones,
You're talking about union dues, right? In a closed shop situation, workers have democratically voted to pay dues. In an open shop situation you have a choice ~ for example the money can go to charity in lieu of union dues. Interesting to note that those who don't pay dues to the union, still get union representation if they need it.
Without unions stepping in to create good working conditions over a long history now, we would still be earning 5 cents an hour and all the lotto tickets we can eat.
Backhouse,
There is no doubt unions did a lot for America. The key word is DID. Special interest groups have taken over both parties. The union is now nothing more than a special interest group.
I am not going to call shenanigans on your union dues choices, and being able to give to charity instead. Only because I am not sure. I have worked in two separate unions and dues were not an "option". Giving money to charity was also not in the equation.
Which unions is this option available? Also what union can you join and not pay dues and still get representation?
Backhouse, just says stuff, not truthfull stuff, just stuff. If he really wants to make his point, he bolds his stuff. Somehow he thinks that makes his stuff true.
we do not need a 3rd Party. What we need is to vote ! Everybody ! not 40 % or 30 % but 100% !! Maybe we can give a 100 dollar tax break for voting in an election. Would be money well spent , but along with this tax credit, we need to eliminate campaign contributions. Yes, eliminate not reduce.
Does it make sense for all to vote if they have no clue what they are voting for?
Willowbrook: You say that "everyone is making less money", since the recession started?
Google: record profits 2009 and 2010. Then take not of how many banks, insurance and other corporations come up. You also haven't factored in all the CEO's(again, google it) who still collect the same million dollar salaries(and many times bonuses), even when the companies they run aren't doing well.
Your comment is completely ridiculous, and false.
Backhouse, I feel really sorry for you that you are the willing tool of the Administration. Everything I said in my last post is currently happening to me. This is what I have to do for my job. We are praying that we can continue to support a health plan come August 1st. (When our plan renews.)
Oh and Obama's approach to diplomacy?It is either copying Bush, OR, (when he goes out on his own) really embarrassing for America. Not his job to apologize to the world because of his personal opinion of America.
@ American Lobo - You can cherry pick articles if you like, but the reports are contradictory. I'm sure that those on salaries, and the Unions managed to hold on to their money, but MANY Americans did not. It is just like all those MSN articles that say we are on the upswing one day and then has an "unexpected drop" the next day. And to have a record profit year after being bailed out is not really a record profit year. (Wall Street and GM for example) And, btw, what about those quarters where the companies lost money, guess that is OK, you only count the quarters in the black????? The companies doesn't see it that way. Overall, most lost, not gained. (Especially 2009)
1, Not sure what your news source is, but the present and past Administration could not be further apart on international diplomacy.
2. Tod, instead of going after my writing style, why not say something substantive.
3. Bobby, how do you define a special interest group? Corporations are not democracies. Corporations are not individuals. That is how we know the Supreme Court is wrong on Citizens United. Unions are democratically elected bodies and saying they are not will not make it true.
And the most ridiculous post on this thread goes to 4moreyears (I can only assume an Obama fan).
Right now, when we are spending 1.6 trillion more than we bring in, and captain brilliance suggests we pay people to vote. Wow!! Because all of the people who don't vote, or don't have enough of a clue on how to vote, should be the ones who decide the direction of our country, huh?
Ya know, in a prior post I was called demeaning and nasty. I am quite sure some may take it that way. I try not to attack a person's character or motives, but when someone says something that is just plain stupid, or declares some fanciful self-perceived unsubstantiated truth, I'm gonna call you on it. Think before you doltpost.
Here you go backhouse, its a re-post. Give usyour wisdom on whats wrong with it and suggest something of your own. Something the present administration with a democratic senate can do to to pay down our 14 trillion dollar debt, and balance our current 3.7 trillion dollar budget (of which we must borrow 1.6 trillion per year). Lets hear it, because all I've heard you do is blather on about Bush, evil corporations, fictitious democrat unions and Obama's supposed campaign promises.
My plan is simple:
There has not really been substantial inflation since the year 2000 (though I sense it coming). Our budget was manageable then (a little under 2 trillion) Cut all non-defense spending back to those levels, period. And from now on, never, never, send our military into a country unless we are invited or forced. And always make that country pay for our involvement (every penny, including family settlements to those who've fallen) by way of their resources without apology.
You may not like the cuts, but please tell me; what in our society has changed so drastically since 2000 that we need to spend over 1 trillion dollars to prop it up (that 1 trillion does not include the war spending over the past 10 years)?
P.S. when I think of a democratically elected body, I think of our system, where that body can be elected out. My union will never allow a vote to be elected out of office. Once they have been given power you cannot elect them out of power, and all new hires have no voice. I'd say thats abit different.
Tod
I wrote
Maybe we can give a 100 dollar tax break for voting in an election
As in an idea, maybe stupid but where is all that donated money going anyway? In effect donations are also paying people to vote - is that stupid too ? Well maybe
In 2008 the candidates for president raised more than $1 billion. That would have been 10 million 100 dollar credits.
Also if no fund raising allowed, the candidates would have to be resourceful and come up with alternative ideas on how to get their message out. Also, no other political ads allowed. Let people get information on their own.
There is huge difference between the government taking my tax dollars and paying people to vote, and me donating willingly, huge.
I don't disagree that our present campaign contributions system is a filthy mess. I have to pay for candidates, programs and philosophies I want nothing to do with (my union dues). Is that stupid? Yes it is. Is our current system stupid and corrupt? Yes it is. Should it be further filthified by introducing a government pay incentive to vote. I don't think so, not even maybe.
Backhouse,
Special interest groups: Donate money to political groups (usually for campaign funding) The goal of these interest groups is to influence political policy in order to help themselves, not the country.
Example: GE donated to Obama's campaign. After he was elected, Obama helps GE negotiate with the Chinese to boost GE's revenue.
Now the thing you need to understand is a lot of these corporations will donate to BOTH parties in order to cover their butts. You also need to realize this is the corporations money not the workers of the corporation.
When the union takes your dues and donates money to the democrats only they are the number one special interest group out there. They only want to push one agenda because the democratic party for the most part supports them. The difference is unions could be putting more of that money into your pension instead of wasting it on campaign funding.
Now unions are not democratically run. If you are referring to being able to vote for your union steward, sure that is true. However you can't vote on where and why they spend your dues. That is already determined for you.
Now in regards to corporations you are wrong. They are democratically controlled. Those controllers are the board of directors and stock holders who vote on many aspects of what the company does.
In short corporations have many people to be accountable to. Unions are accountable to nobody and pretty much do what they want.
In the 80's union members made up about 25% of the work force. Today it is around 12%. Now if workers thought unions were a good thing that number would not be falling, it would be on the rise. The other important piece of info is that if you plan on going into certain fields, teacher for example. You pretty much have to join a union if you want a job. So when you add that to the equation the rate of union workers would be well short of 12%
Unions seem to be bad for people, but why is it ok for businesses to join together to bargain collectively for tax reductions and incentives?
well how do you get everyone to vote ? What about forfeiting one's citizenship if they miss more than 3 elections ? Since when they do not vote they are creating power at the far right and far left. These groups go out and vote and are able to command attention because they participate. But they are at most 20% of the electorate. The other 80% if they participate, will completely reduce the fringes to where they belong. Not voting is hurting this country and it should be considered as un American
I am not saying it is. They are both guilty of attempting to influence policy. The unions are just the ones stupid enough to try and convince people that by "paying your dues" they have your interests at heart. If they did your health insurance would be cheaper and your pension would be a lot bigger.
4moreyears,
I understand your point about people not voting. The way I look at it if you don't want to vote you have nothing to complain about. Millions of people have died for us to have this system.
Look at how the democrats have got people to vote in the past. "Rock the Vote" Like putting a concert together and inviting millions of young people to come and watch makes them any smarter. All it does is make the young people think the democratic party is "cool" and now they will vote for them.
I agree we need more people to vote, but I want educated voters not idealists.
Sadly, Unions have lost power, maybe because of past behavior. But is it better to be an employee that has no real say in how a company is run ? Employees are the company but many in Management forget that... they think they are the ones that make the difference because they can make nice charts and talk the talk, then they give you a 2 or 3 percent increase to cover cost of living and they call it a raise. At the same time they are paying themselves far more. And one can be fired quite easily.
Bobby, good points.
I am just saying that when you have more people participating, it marginalizes the extremes as well as those that do not educate themselves about the candidates and ballot questions. I am continually shocked at how a poll is conducted where 60 plus percent are in favor of some bill and then we wind up it being voted against. Discouraging to say the least.
4moreyears,
That is where personal responsibility comes in. Many people lack it and it can't be blamed on a corp as a whole. I have worked for corporations, unions, small businesses and myself. The thing that stayed constant was the way I lived my life. I put my financial security first and never had the need to blame my company.
To be honest working for the corp was the easiest. So many people and full of so much waste that nobody really cared what you did and you still got a check. Kind of like the union. Working for a small business or yourself is the hardest and the government should do more to help these people. Not corps and unions.
#1.226 I completely agree.
I worked for 10 years in a small manufacturing company of 6 people.
I work now for a large multi national corporation.
In between I served in the Air force and worked with my Dad as a Carpenter.
Best was working with my Dad, next best was the small company. The large company pays well but I still work hard like I did for my father. There are those in large companies that get away with little or no work.
Money is important but not everything. Families instill a work ethic, not companies or the Government or unions
Hmmn? Something to agree upon, Though I would have to say; Private companies are better at getting rid of the lazys than the public sector (union run).
I have never been part of a Union, so I do not really know specifically if there are lazy people more often in Unions. I am currently in Germany on an assignment with my company. They have a strong union that has kept high paying jobs in Germany. But at the same time many German companies are opening manufacturing centers in the USA where there are no Unions. So like anything, there is good and not so good when it comes to viability of Unions in today's world wide economy
Its not that there are more "lazys" in unions, its that they are harder to get rid of, and they know it. Oops, I guess that means there may end up being more after all.
German company's coming her to avoid unions; that's interesting. Our company's head to India and China to avoid the unions and regulations.
renee219-2390107 "to Roy Wilson, Whether you referenced a government website or not really is of no consequence since you took no time or effort to make the numbers relevent to each other."
I post factual information that is relevant to the topic at hand, and leave it to the reader to read it and 'draw their own conclusions'.
I'm sorry if that's difficult for you to do.
Backhouse "Roy Wilson, What we now call the Bush Recession was largely the result of deregulation and free market capitalism gone wrong."
You must be talking about the dereulation that was signed by Clinton, since Bush didn't sign any. In fact, Bush pushed for MORE regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Democrats in Congress (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) blocked it.
Liberals need their hands held. They get distracted easily. They're like toddlers with ADD.
I know some people may have different views, but if we can all hold hands boy-girl, boy-girl I'm in.
Ghoster0071 FOR PRESIDENT!
Hello everyone, I know WE as people in this wonderful nation we all call home are a little upset with whats been going on with the government behind closed doors. These are the people that WE elected, that WE put in power. They should NOT be able to just close the doors on the people that MADE them who they are. That is unfair!
My Platform:
First off, Fighting is not the answer, we need to come back together as a whole nation, we're fighting about ridiculous issues, that just don't need to be fought over. Picking parties is a great example of this, How about instead of voting for parties, we start voting for the person and what they CAN do for the PEOPLE instead of PLAN or MIGHT do. Second of all, We have got to stop these wars! They are what tore this country apart in the first place, all they've done is run up an astonishing debt that will take years even after the wars are over to pay off. Thirdly, WE NEED INDUSTRY! We rely on so many different countries for products and everyday needs, and what do these countries that WE'VE given industry to give us products that try to poison our children with lead, and try to give us diseases through our food? NOT OKAY! Industry is what this country was founded on and the hard working men and women of yesteryear would be ashamed to see what this nation has become. We need to become an industrialized nation again, instead of a service industry. That alone would bring millions of jobs back HOME, and take unemployment to an all-time low. Let's bring back the mills, steel, and ship yards, these are jobs that pay good family wages and have excellent benefits, not to mention the product is FAR superior and TOXIN-FREE. Sounds pretty good to me. Also, don't think I've forgotten about the corporate banks, only companies this large would be able to pull off a scam like they did. Have you ever seen the government fork out large sums of money to help an individual person, NO! This is NOT a fair game, why does big brother and his corporate backers get to pick on US? WE elected these officials into office and all THEY do is steal from us and keep us in the shadows, I for one WILL NOT stand for this anymore! If you like any part of what I said, Please on election day, Vote for Ghoster0071. Last note, "WE THE PEOPLE" does not stand for "WE THE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT" it does not stand for "WE THE PEOPLE, THAT ARE RICH" it stands for "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES" AND THATS WHAT WE WILL BE AGAIN!
Hey tyler who are you to take away someones freedom of speech?
ghoster0071 for pres. who will vote for me?
Roy Wilson,
Not to difficult for me to understand to difficult for you to take the time to see what actual relevence the numbers have.
Raw data means nothing it takes comparitive analysis of those numbers in order to make intelligent conclusions from them. So if you don't have the time or the knowledge to make useful references to them go to a reputable site which has done the hard part for you, but then again you probably weren't able to find the statistics to back up what you were saying so you wouldn't want to.
I didn't imply whether or not your chart of numbers was or wasn't factual because they were irrelavent with now analysis!
I would like to thank BO for making everything so clear - good job, now I can sleep at nights without a worry or a fear. Burma Shave
When a President projects his plans 12 years into the future, it's as good as saying nothing.
No its as good as saying your unable or unwilling to do the math
And in the AM Electra Shave!!!!! Or maybe live life to the fullest, splash on some High Karate........
Yes you are right ...it did not take the Republicans 12 years to push America so far in debt. Think back, it was not so long ago when Clinton fixed the deficit. I love how selective memory puts the blame on BO.
Ryan's plan is also is projected into the future. There is not one respected authority on the debt situation that says it can be solved in the short term. It will take years for the changes, anyones changes, to have an impact.
Your comment is as good as saying nothing as it says nothing of worth.
did you not listen to the speech or oberve history hodaka? If President Bush followed through with the Clinton plan we wouldn;t be hving this argument. thnigs take time, but bad elections can really screw things up.
Totally agreed. Excellent speech. No one should cut funding away from NEW ENERGY Technologies.
Ryan's plan is also is projected into the future. There is not one respected authority on the debt situation that says it can be solved in the short term. It will take years for the changes, anyones changes, to have an impact.
Ryan's plan actually has *GASP*... specifics in it on how they will actually do what they propose.
Obamas never specifies anything, he never has and says they'll get to that further down the road...same old crap.
I believe Ryan's plan went out to 2040! It also solved the Medicare issue by privatizing it, just like the R's wanted to do with Social Security before the whole damn mess blew up and the market tanked.
I think Obama's health care plan had a lot of specifics, actually.
Bret - Congress holds the purse strings - not the president, unless he is in lock step with congress.
1994 was about cutting spending - a.k.a. the "Contract with America" mandate. Written, signed, and followed by Republicans - and similar to today, only these guys aren't quite as aggressive so far.
Here let me help! Republicans propose $5.8 - 6.2 trillion in cuts (ONLY CUTS) over 10 years. This still doesn't quite make a balanced budget, but it it a lot closer than Obama!
Obama is offering cutting the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years - mostly through raising taxes.
Ok DB so your perfectly willing to allow the continued loss of about $1.6 trillion in revenue due to tax cuts and tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy, and corporations, whom do nothing to reinvest that money back into the country they live/are based in? I'm sorry, if they don't want to invest in this country, they can be taxed to Hell and back. They want to start investing the money they make back into this country, then we can talk tax breaks. When top earning companies get paid back their taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars, there is something increadibly screwed up with our tax system.
"Ryan's plan actually has *GASP*... specifics in it on how they will actually do what they propose"
It does?
Huh.
I read the whole thing and it was pretty much nothing but vague notions. Maybe 8-10 pages of substance in a 73 page plan.
The rest of it was libertarian douchery, chicken little crisis selling, Attacks on Obama and the Democrats, and demagoguery.
You must have gotten a special pro version he didn't release to the general public.
Bret Talma,
Think back, it was not so long ago when Clinton fixed the deficit. I love how selective memory puts the blame on BO.
I love when no brains praises a President for fixing a problem that Congress controls. You're cute.
Bret, what planet are you on. Clinton didn't balance any budget. Congress did. A Republican Congress. You have the selective memory, as all liberals do.
Clintons famous "triangulation" where he got that congress to do pretty much what he wanted is so painful you have completely blocked it from your mind I guess skiddy.
Guess what, it appears he shared the secret with Obama.
Eric - Ryan's plan does call for ending the tax breaks and loopholes. Not saying the plan is perfect, but that is one thing it does call for.
When a President projects his plans 12 years into the future, it's as good as saying nothing
Interesting, Ryan's plan is a 10-20 year plan, so your argument is weak. FAIL
"
Eric - Ryan's plan does call for ending the tax breaks and loopholes. Not saying the plan is perfect, but that is one thing it does call for.
It also calls for a 10% tax cut for the wealthy on top of the bush tax cuts.
Ryan's plan actually has *GASP*... specifics in it on how they will actually do what they propose.
Obamas never specifies anything, he never has and says they'll get to that further down the road...same old crap.
Its not his job to come up with specifics as there isn't an 'Obama' plan. He laid out what he thought was acceptable from the debt commission and also spoke to the need for the cuts to be SHARED SACRIFICE.
Ryan's plan is a blueprint. It will not be enacted as written. Neither will the Debt commission plan, the Gang of 6 plan or the other plans floating out there.
You conservatives are looking for purity in the plan that you will never achieve. Like it or not the final compromise will be ideas from all the plans most likely and will require DEM votes. And it will never fly with the American voter is its not viewed as fair and shared sacrifice.
The Ryan plan exacts NO SACRIFICE except the elderly, disabled, middle class and women. The rich and corporations sacrifice NOTHING in his plan and in fact are given 2 Trillion in further tax cuts.
NO SHARED SACRIFICE = NO DEAL
If you are talking about GE, you need to read the correct information. The 3.2B refund was a scam by a fake company pretending to be GE. Do your research first!
It also calls for a 10% tax cut for the wealthy on top of the bush tax cuts.
Indeed it does, it also does NOTHING to penalize our jobs being shipped overseas by these greedy corporations. The GOP thinks thats just 'good business'.
"Indeed it does, it also does NOTHING to penalize our jobs being shipped overseas by these greedy corporations. The GOP thinks thats just 'good business'."
And that's correct. In fact he pushes for further deregulation across the board.
Here is Paul Ryans, Screw the old, vets , sick and poor
But make sure the rich are provided for
Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing
short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private
insurance, and the voucher's growth
is far slower than the expected
growth of health-care costs. Medicaid
is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by
a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health
care, Social Security gets guaranteed,
private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present
arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget
problem.
An
important note to understanding how Ryan's budget saves money: It's not through privatization, though
everything does get privatized. It's through firm, federal cost controls. The privatization
itself actually costs money. The CBO's analysis of Ryan's Medicare changes
tells the story well:
Both
the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty
surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health
care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.
Under
the Roadmap, the value of the voucher
would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the
voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates
for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the
program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased
insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private
market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by
Medicare.
Moreover,
the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects
that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to
purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than
traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care
services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current
law. Beneficiaries would also bear
the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of
obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.
That's
a bit of a slog, so here's the translation: The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors
themselves. The money seniors would
get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care
costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means
that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or
how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is
important -- Medicare currently pays
providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors
trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the
private market.
It's
hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something
"rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is
rationing, and that's not a slur. This is the government capping its payments
and moderating their growth in such a way that many seniors will not get the
care they need. This is, in its simplest form, a way to limit the use of a
finite resource: Money.
it's
a blunt object of a proposal, swung with
incredible force at a vulnerable target. Consider the fury that Republicans turned on Democrats for the
insignificant cuts to Medicare that were contained in the health-care reform bill,
or the way Bill Clinton gutted Newt Gingrich for proposing far smaller cuts to
the program's spending. This proposal
would take Medicare from costing an expected 14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to
less than 4 percent. That's trillions of dollars that's not going to health
care for seniors. The audacity is breathtaking.
But
it is also impressive. I wouldn't
balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes. His solution
works by making care less affordable for seniors. I'd prefer to aggressively
reform the system itself so the care becomes cheaper, even if that causes
significant pain to providers. I also
wouldn't waste money by moving to a private system when the public system
is cheaper. But his proposal is among the few I've seen that's willing to
propose solutions in proportion to the problem.
Paul Ryan’s spending reductions over the long term come from
promising to eliminate Medicare ten years in the future, I was wondering how he
achieved any meaningful debt reduction within the normal ten-year baseline. The
answer... is that he doesn’t.... All the various cuts that take place before
the Great Medicare Phaseout don’t compensate for the tax cuts that Ryan
proposes, so relative to current law debt goes up. Then further out in the
future if we implement the Medicare elimination plan, debt starts to decline.
This is nothing
new. It's how plutocrats and their
lieutenants have always behaved. Prosperity for the few, austerity for many.
Every time we enable them, in messaging or policy, we screw ourselves.
Skiddy - Then you had a Republican President and Congress for the next 6 years. What happened then? The defecit went up big time. Give credit where it is due.
Obamas having a Pelosi moment. You have to support his plan in order to see whats in it! The details will come out after the 2012 election.... after the deficit has been run up an additional 5 trillion we'll be told he saved us 1 trillion and will save us another 3 trillion by 2020. Kind of like the jobs numbers. Smoke and mirrors from a man whos life revolves around admiring himself in the mirror while smoking.
I suppose the republicans' projection of 10 years is immediate but the president's 12 years is doing nothing.
No, the smoke and mirrors are the republicans' forte. Repeal and Replace (with nothing) "Death Panels" (because insurance companies don't have those... right) "Seek charity."
MTpolitico..As clear and concise an evaluation of a foggy cloudy speech as there ever could be....good job !!
Somewhere over half of only 535 people got us into this mess...yet it's going to take millions and millions of us to do the "shared sacrifices" needed to get out of this chasm we are in....Thanks alot...Let me know when Congress starts feeling any pain...
Bret Talma - Yes you are right ...it did not take the Republicans 12 years to push America so far in debt. Think back, it was not so long ago when Clinton fixed the deficit.
Correction Bret Talma, the supposed President Clinton "Budget Surplus" and the National Deficit (Debt) are two different Entities. The real indicator of the US Economy is the is the National Debt, not the Budget as proposed by the US Politicians for US Politicians for their own Political Goals (motives).
President Clinton Interest on the National Debt: $18.9 Billion
President Bush Interest on the National Debt: $16.6 Billion
Do you want to know why the US sucks right now, research:
1. The removal of the Glass Steagall Acts, Legalized the Causes of the 1907 Depression, 1929-1939 Great Depression, and the current 60-100 Trillion USD "Global Economic Crisis" consisting of the "Mortgage Crisis", "Wall Street Crisis", "Banking Crisis", "Credit Crisis", etc.. (done by all Polticial Parties).
2. Free Trade Agreements and Amendments that Legalized the "Outsourcing" of US Jobs, US Manufacturing, US Technology. (done by all Political Parties).
3. Stated impacts of over 23 Million Illegal Aliens at the US as a National Security Threat. Previously stated by: 1. President Eisenhower, Operation Wetback, 2. President Bush's 2006 Illegal Alien Act, 3. Current US Laws, 4. California Proposition 187, 5. etc. etc. etc....(stated by all Political Parties, especially those of US Congress of the US Congressional Intelligence Committee(s) (both Houses)).
1., 2., 3. are those things that President Obama should have done, not "Health Care Reform" as payback for Campaign Contributions:
PBS Frontline "Obama's Deal"
Unlikely ally of health care reform: business
Insurers, drug companies came on board early and may profit from it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35989945/ns/business-us_business/
Per President Obama's Law (Health Care Reform Act), the Insurance Corporations get $67 Billion, the Medical Device Industry gets $20 Billion, the Pharmaschuetical Industry gets $23 Billion USDs and the US Citizens get the Bill of $1.7 Trillion USDs (not adjusted for Inflation). Stated in the Source of New Revenues section of President Obama's Law (Health Care Reform Act).
MJL -- how succinct and clear! But the Republicans are ALWAYS for the rich....who do you think pays to put them in the House and the Senate. I would LOVE to see the government get rid of lobbyists and campaign funds coming from ANY business! Maybe then, and ONLY then, would we get a politician that would vote for you and I and not vote the way their puppet masters order them to vote! Making Medicare a private solution is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, and if they even BEGIN to try to do that with Social Security...the uproar will be so loud, they'll be able to hear it in their fancy offices in D.C.! They seem to forget that the gross majority of the voting population are the boomers!!! And, we can vote them out if they try to take away the things we've been paying into for all the years we've been working! What they REALLY need to do is to pay back all those IOU's that they owe to the Social Security account.....we'd have plenty of money for the next two or three decades!!! Oh yeah, that'll happen!
You make the assumption that there was a better choice. Secondly, you think there is a magical presidential candidate that would fulfill the nation's needs.
We, as voters, are left with two choices. The corrupt and the corrupt. We choose the lesser of two evils, based on our political beliefs and morals at the ballot box. Do you want an 18 gauge screw or a 6 gauge screw; either way, you're getting screwed.
Didi-376564 - MJL -- how succinct and clear! But the Republicans are ALWAYS for the rich....
How about researching who "Mr. Corporate America" is. Hint: He is NOT a Repugnant nor In Depends (Adult Diapers). In 2010 He Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court on Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions. After his previous failed Presidential Campaigns as the Senator of Coal Poor Pennsylvania, he became the Senator from Delaware as he found out that Delaware is the "Key to Corporate America". In 2011, he was fined (slapped on the wrist) $200,000.00 for admitting that prior to the 2008-2009 Elections he received nearly a Billion USDs from each Corporation (US and Foreign) as an admitted violation of the McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Law (Act).
His major Campaign Contributors and Constituents are:
(List from 2005) Delaware: Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Bank of America, Wilmington Trust, First USA / Bank One / JPMorgan Chase, AIG, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays plc, GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ISDA, and those States with Corporations Incorporated at Delaware.
Over 50% of US publicly-traded corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware;[1] the state's attractiveness as a corporate haven is largely due to its business-friendly corporation law. Franchise taxes on Delaware corporations supply about one-fifth of its state revenue.[2]
1. Delaware Division of Corporations
2. Delaware Fiscal Notebook - State General Fund Revenues by Category
The list is important because in order to obtain Electoral College Votes in time the November December 2008 Bailout had to be passed by Democraptic Party Controlled US Congress to buy the January 2009 Electoral College Votes. As it is the Electoral College Votes that determine the US President and Vice President, not our "Popular" Votes, just like the second term of President Bush, the Electoral College Voting in opposition to the "Popular" Votes, and the US Supreme Court verifying the Electoral College Votes (so no the Electoral College does not "always" vote according to what the "Popular" Votes are). References as correlation to the physcial locations of the recipients of the Bailouts to the Electoral College Votes. This is one of many reasons that the Electoral College must be eliminated.
Did Bush (43) get any of the action, yes; but the majority went to the Demoncraptic Electoral College Votes (physical locations):
Location that Benefitted for President Bush (43), Reference Businessweek.
8. University Park, Texas
Share population in finance and real estate: 18.83%
Nearest large city: Dallas
Population: 24,582
Median Household Income: $110,976
You can see from the above what US Congress (all Parties) considers as "Middle Class" Income.
And yes, Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups, etc. must be made completely Illegal, as "Crimes Against the Citizens and Government of the US".
Didi-376564 - Making Medicare a private solution is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard
It already is private, as US Insurance Corporations contracted by the US Government for Management of Medicare (per President Obama on Face the Nation, September 20, 2009). In my other posts pertaining to real Universal Health Care for All US Citizens ($42 per month for unlimited Medical Treatments) I outlined how All US Medical Programs could be Managed by A Real US Government Entity (responsible and accountable to the Citizens of the US).
There's only one reason to gather (steal) all the wealth in Washington. Then obama can be the one who doles it out who ever he wants. The definition of SOCIALISM!!! We need to decide which direction to go. Can't look for obama to change.
The President took a tiny, careful baby step in the right direction. Much, much more to be done. Somebody, somewhere, somehow has to be willing to bite this bitter bullet and drag this spoiled nation, kicking and screaming, back to fiscal reality, politics be damned. Who can do that?
I did not like the use of scare tactics on the elderly regarding medicare and social security. The Republican proposal for changes only applies to people who are less than 55 years of age --- under the Republican proposal there will be NO CHANGE whatsoever for people age 55 and older.
In May 2010 the debt was 12.9 trillion and the GDP was 13.7 trillion dollars. In less than one year the debt has risen almost one and a half trillion dollars, 1.4 trillion which the government has to borrow to meet expenditures. Last May the debt was such that each individual taxpayer owed $117, 380.00.
The numbers bandied about in Washington are a joke. It is like attempting to cover a hemmorhage with a band-aid. Bicker away, blame the rich, take all the money from the rich people and you haven't made a dent in the debt. Hell, our national debt is close to the entire planet's GDP.
Brian -
Are tax shelters illegal? Who set up the tax shelters? Why, I believe it was the IRS.
Nice try, but all the IRS does is collect taxes under the Tax Code, which comes from Congress under pressure from constituents and lobbyists.
Even though I did not vote for him. I agree with Obama 100% when he vowed he would not allow benefit cuts for the poor and the elderly to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
"Obama laid the blame for the rising debt on the spending increases and tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush and the recession that struck in late 2007. "We lost our way," he said."
Is that a joke??????
Bush's spending averaged only $2.396 Trillion per year.
Obama has averaged spending of $3.487 Trillion per year, which is 46% higher than Bush.
Greed is what Rethugblicans are all about. Take from the poor, elderly, and middle class; but don't take from the Republicans, esp. don't raise the wealthy elite taxes.
55 and older huh? what about the 54 and under that are on SSI because they are disabled and "surviving" off $674 a month? what about them? no cola while all our costs go up. ive about reached the end of my rope. every one loves to classify us as "lazy slobs" id kill to be able to work, but i cant, so instead im rotting away on $674.
oh im greatfull to have what i have. if i was in a 3rd world country id be dead by now. but atleast it would be quicker than whats happening to the disabled in this country today. that couldnt earn the magical 40 points to get full ssd, and are stuck on ssi..
It's apparent that BO doesn't feel the sense of urgency that the public does in getting our fiscal house in order. He seems to want to take baby steps when he should be taking leaps. It seems to me that many politicians can't visualize a bankrupt USA? IF your anticipation of increased revenue constitutes your decrease in deficit spending, you've done nothing. You need to physically reduce your expenditures to make "cuts" in the federal budget. BO is by no means a fiscal conversative. It's ironic that he would cut 500 billion out of medicare for HCR, which he did do, now, jumping up and down that he doesn't want to change medicare. Seems to me that he already did? BO seems to be the class warfare king. 3 or 4 politicians, Pelosi was one, said HCR was a civil rights bill. Might be that most of the 50 some million without health care are minorities? The Republicans were elected to keep the Dems in check. That's what they're expected to do.
Pelosi was one, said HCR was a civil rights bill. Might be that most of the 50 some million without health care are minorities?
What exactly are you saying here?
Is it really necessary to call GOP conservatives names. I know there are some that misspell Obama. I don't want to be like them. I try to confine my comments to the issues.
It would seem that the republican conservative teabagger crew is out in force on these boards....... spewing forth and doing the usual smoke and mirrors thingy as per usual. LOL
Wonder how much they are being paid to post this regressive stuff on message boards...... perhaps I can get in on the action selling bull pucky to the gullible masses... hmmm
Didn't I hear that the P Ryan regressive budget would take 70 years to control the deficit?
Yet a 10 to 12 year plan proposed by the Prez to reduce the deficit is frowned upon..... wow
I can see Ryan's point though....... in 70 years ...... most of us posting on this message board will be dead anyway..... and those left will either not remember what it was like to be free or if they do, they can sit around the oildrum fire under a bridge somewhere, reminising about when they could afford healthcare and food at the same time.... LOL
Many of you want these super wealthy polititians- many who are in the 10%-to take a meat cleaver to the reduce the deficit, with your continued drone about leaving debt to your imaginary kids and grand kids....... and I mean imaginary kids and grand kids.
It would seem that these republicanteabaggerconservatives don't even want you folk to have children anyway....... hmmmmm
How is that abstainence working or will be working for you all.... although living under a bridge somewhere is not exactly conducive to much tango-ing......LOL You know contraceptive etc will be banned......
If people do not survive now, do you really think they are going to be able have children to leave debt to? Didn't know that dead people could procreate......
Zombies do not procreate....... zombies do not procreate..... at least in the movies they do not..... hmmm
Or perhaps you do you want to bring children into this world to be serfs to the top 10%...... who knew that folks would want to be enslaved......
Who knew that slavery, poverty, lack of healthcare, lack of education possibilities, lack of high paying job opportunities, while older people die in pain and suffering because they cannot afford the cost of living etc was that great...... so that P Ryans and the other top 10% with a rocket can get another hugh taxbreak and corporations can continue to not pay any taxes, outsource jobs and receive subsidies and refunds...... LOL
Why is it that many of these regressive ideas come from polititians who are from states who get more money back, than their states pay in? Hmmm
Obama talks of creating Jobs, when everything he does causes us to loose jobs. I wonder what kind of grade he got in economics 101. The Government needs to get out of the way, Obama wants Government to control more and more of our lives.
Obama wants to feed at the public trough for a few more years and then someone else can fix it. NO NO NO NO fix it not NOW do not keep putting off the fix. STOP SPENDING more than you have. .
"In his fiscal year 2012 budget plan, Obama aims for publicly held debt to be 76.3 percent of GDP by 2014 (higher than it is today)."
In other words, if the debt doesn't keep getting worse, something drastic will have to be done.
That's no problem - just keep spending, and the debt will certainly get worse.
Is Obama for real?
Once again I see that the salary and benifits of the members of congress, supreme court, and presidential office are not on the chopping block. It wouldn't matter if it was Obama or someone else in the oval office, NONE of these guys are willing to lead by example like that.
I think, and this is just me, that since congress dictates what minimum wage, social security, medicare, and medicade are paid out at, then these should be the wages, retirement plan, and health plan of congress. Put them all on minimum wage, social security, medicare, and medicade and then we will see who is really interested in running for office! Most (maybe all) of these people aren't in it to represent and serve the people of the US, they are in it for the power, money, and influence.
Everyone has some solution to the matter. Some are good some are dangerous.
But to trim the government needs to be taken into caution because it does recirculate wealth that would otherwise be in the hands of a few.
In my opinion the organizational dynamics needs to flow more properly. The first thing that needs to be done is have all the non-department such as NASA, NOAA, Bero of Statistics, Grants, etc and assign them to an additional department (I like the idea of R&D).
Then like lean industrial practices cut everything out that is non-functional within the role of the department.
Then erase tax exemptions on the W-2 so that everyone that is not working under the table is contributing something. The way I see a person can't spend what they don't have. Then increase the percentage by a slight tangent line based off of individual earnings.
As predicted, Obama jumped right on the “tax the rich” bandwagon because he has conditioned his highly gullible zombie followers to believe this is the solution to all their problems. It has been pointed out that, factually, if the income tax were increased by 50% for everyone, the annual deficit would still be in excess of half a trillion dollars, and that’s before any downturn in the economy that would surely result from these increases is factored in. The drive to “tax the rich” is more ideological in nature than any sound fiscal policy.
Consider that, during the presidential campaign, Obama was asked by a journalist if he was in favor of increasing the capital gains tax. He indicated that he was which prompted the journalist to reply that, factually, when the capital gains tax is low, more money flows into the treasury and each time it was raised, the treasury got less money. The journalist asked Obama if he knew this to which he replied that he did. Then, the journalist asked, why would you raise the capital gains tax? Obama replied that it was a matter of fairness.
Fairness? To whom?
What was witnessed here was Obama’s Marxist/socialist ideology, an ideology the major media routinely conceals from the people.
"whom do nothing to reinvest that money back into the country they live/are based in?"
SO where do the rich put their money? Their mattress?
NO! They invest in the stock market, put it ihn banks, buy stuff, employ people.
All of these things are what makes up our ecompmy in the first place. Do you really think its the poor that put all this money in circulation? 14 Trillion a year?
What an ignorant statement, class envy at its finest.
"Indeed it does, it also does NOTHING to penalize our jobs being shipped overseas by these greedy corporations. The GOP thinks thats just 'good business'."
So, you think we hold corporations here by force? What a childish naive outlook.
Out tax code does NOTHING to promote or discourage offshoring because the government does not control where companies place assets. IF other countries want to offer lower tax rates, that is their right, and it is the right of any company to go where their cost are cheapest.
The only think forcing companies off shore is the US's highest corporate tax rate in the entire world.
When will you numbskull's understand that?
Tax the wealthy! I live in NY my nephew earns 35000/year as a State park Assist. Admin. The union just settled no wage increases or step increases thru the year 2015. He contributes 25 % to his health care it will now be 35% taking more of his pay. All I hear is sacrifice from the people in power including Corporations which run this country by buying the politicians. All this while my State law makers vote themselves as raise last year earn a 6 figure salary with all kind of perks in pay outs they receive. Sacrifice My Arse. The middle class cannot sacrifice anymore. Tax the Rich you bet. Free markets are not working. Too much greed and no control for the people who do not have the money to buy influence. Tax the rich you bet. A social government is all that is left. The private sector businesses rake in profits while their employees are treated like second class citizens. Pay rates fall, benefits disappear and there is no end in sight until we are reduced to a 3rd world country where 2% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. Mark my words this is where we are headed. Just look at the events taking place all around us. The working middle class is hurting. It is a difference of paying a mortgage buying food for us to buying 80,000 dollar auto or where to take the next vacation for them. Tax the wealthy!
First of all, people that say Bush tax cuts caused deficits is not correct. Revenues were up while R's had everything after the new tax policy went into effect. Capital gains revenue more than doubled in just 3 years. Problem then is as it is now ...they spent more than they took in. I know the usual crowd will say .. you spew lies. So go look up the numbers its easy at CBO.
I was optimistic that the pres would say something to realistically handle medicare. The first half of the speach was an anti Ryan speech. Literally half was anti this, anti that. Next quarter was Blame Bush. Last quarter was Tax the rich. You guys realize you get 100B at most on "tax the rich". What about the other 1.4T deficit? Then what? Then what is his plan?
His plan uses a 4% GDP expectation, which is more than 25% higher than almost any economist you can find, R or D.
His only real cuts are 400B in defense, right when he put us in a 3rd war. Which we will get stuck there too. Without troops on the ground, we are pissing in the wind.
We're screwed either way. The system HAS to reset its self, its the natural process of a capital market. By delaying it will only make things worse when it happens.
Our dollar is worth less than the Euro, Pound, Canadian and Australian dollar (its still going down......). Come on people, wake up. Stock up on food, save your money, and just wait it out.
What was witnessed here was Obama’s Marxist/socialist ideology, an ideology the major media routinely conceals from the people.
Silly. Of COURSE it's Marxist/socialist to defend THIRTY-THREE SENIORS from having to pay an extra $6,000 for healthcare, when that $200,000 is really meant for ONE WEALTHY PERSON.
Cardog: I think we have a disagreement as to what the Repub's plan is for medicare.
Cut fraud out of Medicare and save money? Don't you remember how Obama was to do that, in part, to fund Obamacare. Don't you remember how Obama between the time he got elected and got Obamacare passed did nothing about it. Can you tell me what Obama has done about it since Obamcare was passed. Why does Obama keep saying we can save a ton of money by cutting Medicare fraud when it is not a future problem but a present and historical problem which he could have addressed yesterday and could address today? Why is he always promising to do something in the future and then not it. All the man does is make promises -- he is always campaigning in lieu of acting as President.
We could save a ton by eliminating Medicare fraud -- but we have to act to get it done.
Cardog: In light of you rather arrogant, confusing and misleading post at #2.57 I did not feel comfortable w/ my post at #2.66 indicating that we had a "disagreement" so I went back and checked. My post at 2:38 is perfectly accurate and I stand by it 100%. Your implication that medicare will change for people who are presently over 55 is simply incorrect.
Everybody is blameing Obama for this mess, it's congress that spends the money with the Repubicans filabusting to get there way. My question is how much did the demecrats have have to give up to get there bills passsed ?
Yeah, I remember how those rat bastard Republicans filibustered everything Democrats tried to do in 2009! Those bastards "They killed Kenny!"
Without the filibuster we would be even further in debt? Apparently they made their point the the American people. They won big!
Compromise is great when both parties have good ideas. Not so much when one party just wants to sink the initiative entirely.
Compromise is the only way they can govern, the lack of compromise is why nothing is being accomplished. The far left and the far right are the ones who speak the loudest. And our leaders today are allowing this split therefor no compromise.
Great, so he's telling us it will take future Presidents and Congress' around 40 years to get us out of the hole that he primarily got us into. Sweet. Yes, I know we were in the hole with Bush but Obama has managed to take the Bush deficit (entered into over 8 years mind you) and MULTIPLY IT BY TEN IN ONLY TWO YEARS.
This guy is a putz pure and simple...he's spending the country into poverty...He's got the country on a leash that he's pulling right into another great depression and we're like the dog locking its legs, sliding, pulling back on the leash with everything we've got but can't stop it from happening.
Welcome to the new USSR.
I agree. It's not like he's going to do anything right now. Just like the promises he made to focus on Jobs. Maybe he'll do that in his Retirement Years, but he's done nothing but make the un-employment rate higher, after promising, lowering it was "his top priority". I no longer believe anything he says.
actually we've been digging ourselves this hole since World War 2.
Multiply it by ten? Show me those numbers.
And yes, it will take us longer than one presidency to get us out of debt, and it has been that way for at least 30 years.
This is simply untrue! You cannot (actually you can) write lies and proclaim it as truth. The global recession was responsible for most of this crap and most of this crap (the global recession) came from Bush.
Please people read facts and think them over in your head instead of repeating rubbish you hear on fox in the likes.
Wrong on all counts 12/21/2012.
Go hide in a cave somewhere 'til winter solstice 2012, and practice your putz with a soccer ball.
Multiply by ten as it was around $1 Trillion when Obama took office (PER OBAMA EVEN TODAY) and now it's upwards of $14 Trillion. So, my mistake, multiply it by 14...
And yes, I realize we have had debt far before Bush or Obama, but Bush began an upward trend (I didn't care for him in his 2nd term either) and Obama has put that trend on steroids.
As for Bret Talma, YOU need to READ THE FACTS buddy. Fox news is rubbish, but you know I'll take blatantly openly conservative over sneaky liberal (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC et al) any day of the week. Plus, OBVIOUSLY (I'm here right) I'm not only getting my news from Fox...I get it from Fox, MCNBC, CNN & sources like Reuters & AP. All but Fox think Obama may as well be Jesus Christ; that alone tells me where they are coming from.
Trying using your own head, your own thoughts to base your opinions, not the media talking points. Do the math.
How long did it take for us to get out of that defict hole Reagan put us in?
BTW, "multiply (the Bush deficit) by ten in only two years"? Leave it to a guy named after a supposed date of Armageddon to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion. Even if anything you said was even close to accurate, 12/21/2012, at least Obama didn't borrow trillions of dollars to give to corporate fat cats. Oh, and wasn't it in fact VP Cheney who claimed deficits didn't matter in a recession?
Neo-cons: Making @%&# up since 1981
www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html
That looks closer to a 9 than a 1
BHO is just another Julius Nyerere going down the same road step by step taking his country into bankruptcy. He is the puppet; who is pulling the strings??
Great, so he's telling us it will take future Presidents and Congress' around 40 years to get us out of the hole that he primarily got us into.
Were you born yesterday, or are you a moron, or do you have Alzheimers disease. Do you recall the state of the economy when he was sworn in, didn't think so, well let me refresh your memory the economy was losing 600,000 jobs a month thanks to the good ole boy from Texas and his corporate puppets. I find it an enigma why poor white people from the south vote Republican. All republicans care about is the well to do people who can afford to line their pockets with cash and getaway junkets. To say Obama is the primary cause for the mess this country is in would be ignorance on a grand scale.
Yikes!....December 21st 2012--take a Valium.....I like your ambition to be right, but you are wrong.
good going john 1894652, some of these moron conservatives can't get that through their thick heads, or maybe they're playing dumb.
Dantana - how exactly am I wrong?
John, I never said the economy was not already in shambles when Obama took office and I have specifically said that I thought Bush sucked in his 2nd term - trying READING what I wrote buddy; not what you want to believe I think...HOWEVER Bush and other Republicans like McCain TRIED to introduce bills in congress to slow the bubble in housing well before it burst but DEMOCRATS like Obama felt these bills would hurt minorities, low income people etc because they would no longer qualify to purchase a home.
Again, not a fan of Bush, but Obamas voting record speaks for itself, he was just about lock step with all the bad decisions Bush made, so sorry, but he IS HOLDING THIS BAG TOO.
By the way, for the one guy that said the national debt was $9 trillion when Bush took office, lets say you're right (I'm not, but for the sake of argument here)...If it were true that's $9 trillion over eight years...little more than $1 Trillion a year. Obama has increased that to over $14 Trillion, a difference of $5 trillion and he's been in office 2 years so he's averaged an increase of $2.5 Trillion per year, a 150% higher debt accumulation rate than Bush. So, no matter how you cut it, Obama is bankrupting us - PERIOD (but again for those of you that apparently can't read, so was Bush in his 2nd term).
Funny December...
What you fail to acknowledge was that Bush had 8 years to ruin an economy that was on the upswing...for the most part. To be fair I think it was actually taking a slight dip in 2000 when Bush was elected.
So if you do the math...Bush ruined 8 years of good work...in 8 years.
Obama has had 2 years to try and right the ship...I really don't see how that is anywhere near possible.
Oh and if you look at the amount he has spent in these two years and say that it's way more than GWB spent in 8...I submit to you that the dollar was a much stronger currency then than it is now.
Just something for you pro-Obama folks to think about. If Obama et al really wanted to help "the little guy" in this country, how best is that acheived? By giving them stuff which they currently do or by facilitating a platform for someone to succeed on their own? Democrats continue with entitlements for one reason and one reason only...To KEEP the masses "little guys" so they will continue to vote them into power.
As long as "the little guy" needs what the democrats give them (equality regardless of the truth; we're not all equal) the democrats will continue to provide in exchange for power. THAT IS THEIR DRIVING FORCE.
What do you think unions are these days? They're nothing but a money laundering organization for democrat candidates.
As the saying goes, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. The democrats give the daily fish in exchange for votes - 100% pure and simple. It makes me sick that people don't get that.
And by the way, the republicans aren't the solution either in case you're wondering...I see no "party" solution out there at all.
December,
Seriously where did you get this number (one trillion) from. I cant find it. Really unlike many I can accept being wrong...just tell me where I can find that number with respect to the USA Federal deficit in 2008.
FearTheSpear, the tech bubble burst right before Bush took office, then he had 9/11 almost immediately after taking office and the country THEN was unified in going to war in Iraq (Monday morning quarter-back that all you want, I don't care). So he didn't exactly inherit a bustling economy and safe and secure country either. Additionally, as I mentioned previously he and many other Republicans SAW THE HOUSING & BANKING BUSTS COMING AND TRIED TO STOP IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED - DEMOCRATS KILLED THOSE ATTEMPTS INCLUDING OBAMA IN THE NAME OF THE LITTLE GUY THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE TO GIVE HOMES TO THAT HAD NO CREDIT, NO INCOME AND NO ASSETS; and POOF, here we are. Obama also continued that practice AFTER the bust (home buyer tax credits).
Despite the tech bust, despite 9/11, despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the country was still doing well through Bush's first term. It was in the 2nd term when Bush decided he was apparently a democrat now that things started really going down hill and all your buddies like Obama were voting with Bush on the mistakes that were made that led to where we are. Obama is continuing to make those mistakes but he's making them on epic levels at this point.
Bret Talma, did you watch Obamas speech today? HE STATED IT IN HIS SPEECH "The deficit was at $1 Trillion when I took office"...
He's stated it many times before today as well, so I'm taking him for his word.
lol! There is a first time for everything.(taking him for his word) No I did not see his speech. I have to finish reading it when I have finished my priorities. WORK !!
December 21st 2012
I will say this. I respect your posting as it is not just PURE Conservative drivel unlike some...but I can still see where your tendencies lie...conservatism.
There is nothing wrong with that and I do agree with some of what you said in your response to me and before that.
I just want to be clear that while it is true that the tech bubble burst just before he was president...it wasn't as big of an economic issue as many make it out to be...but that is just my opinion.
Bush also had to deal with 9/11 not too long after getting into office. I don't want to Monday morning quarterback the Iraq issue but I don't think the country was as unified as you think. I always believed that the war was a bad idea because they could never make the connection to 9/11. Saddam was an S.O.B. who deserved what he got but I just don't think it was necessary at that time. I also don't think that many in the administration or in congress really thought through the economic reprecussions of nation building...which is where our money went. I especially fault the administration for already knowing the costs, in some respect, because of Afghanistan and still ignoring it.
I do have to disagree with you that the Republicans, or Democrats, saw any banking and housing bubbles until it was too late. They didn't see ENRON and I don't think they saw much else. There was too much deregulation, mainly supported by Republicans but also by Dems as well, going on.
That is what killed us. You can't play the game by having rules and then take them away all at once and expect people to play fair.
As far as the country still doing well after his first term...I don't know about that. Jobs were becoming a little bit harder to find...admittedly it did improve a bit...but it seemed at one point that things were improving a bit too quickly and no one from ANY party really tried to do anything. There may have been a couple of voices of reason (from both parties) and of course, as is common in Washington, no one ever listens.
As for "my buddies" and Bush voting together on things...well...I say that while maybe all of those times where they all agreed...was because something had to be done (not that I agreed with them all) but I say that Bush was trying to stop the hemorraging and finally listening. Too bad he waited until things were falling into the tank to try to work with everyone.
Look I strongly believe that it takes time for things to take effect. Things looked bad for the Clinton's first term because Bush Sr. didn't take the necessary steps but he made sound fiscal decisions and, at least fiscally, managed to create record surplus budgets...
Bush Jr. he rode a pretty good fiscal wave because those surpluses covered his spending and he never really attached the wars to his budgets...they were funded separately...you have to acknowledge that. His second term really showed how far we'd sunk and the last two years of his term confirmed that.
December 21st: First of all, when Bush put together his budget, he left out the trillions of dollars he spent for the Iraq/Afghanistan fiasco; so, of course, it looked like he spent less than our current president.
Secondly, HOW did the rich pay their way -- most of the large companies have outsourced MOST of their jobs to other countries, where they don't pay taxes, and they don't get charged any taxes because they leave the money there.
Thirdly, the rich have NOT paid for a generous portion of social services....the taxpayers have paid for these. With the rich getting large tax cuts, and the middle class getting nothing, it's difficult to see how you can honestly say that they paid for these.
Lastly, most of these big CEO's and the politicians that they "own" didn't get their money from hard work....they got it from family relations, etc. There's probably very few of the CEO's that you could say honestly worked their way up from the bottom!! Believe me, if they had, they'd understand what "being in the middle class" really meant, but they probably wouldn't remember it!
momentoftruth83, John-1894652, Bret Talma, Ciewywtb42mh6sps-23,
Read and Comprehend post #2.31.. Unless you want to be eating Great Depression Era Dog Food Stew.
If number 1. from post #2.13 is not corrected by reinstating the Glass Steagall Acts, the next "Crisis" of 54.6 Trillion USDs will plunge the US into something worse that the Great Depression.
I also mentioned the baloney from all Polticians (all Poltical Parties) about "Budget Surplus" versus US National Debt.
As far as Iraq, 1998, US Law, US Congress's H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act", after the failures including 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox did not Overthrow President Hussein, US Congress pre 9/11 2001 reappropriated funds to continue H.R.4655, and after denying President Bush's request for Oil Exploration of the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), telling him that if he wanted Oil go to Iraq to get his Oil; this was after the US lost 2/3rds of the US Daily Oil from Venezuela, US 6 months of Strategic Oil Reserves.
To continue Iraq "Overthrow of President Hussein", the intelligence from previous 1998 President Clinton State of the Union Address (previously approved by US Congress), H.R.4655 (previously approved by US Congress) was used as justification (previous written agreement by all US Politicians of all Parties, majority, with only a few objections) for US Senate Passage of the US Senate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.
just a hint, when you do the research, do it as Cause + Effects (Symptoms) = Results, worked backwards as Results + Effects = Cause(s). And realize that the Cause(s) might be interrelated, requiring the use of the Interrelated Systems Management Approach to see the whole picture (all the Causes, as a possible means to determine Solutions (usually by eliminating the Causes of the Problem(s).).
Replying to a collapsed comment - how far have I sunk?
Anyway, just wanted to tell you I figured out that 1 or 9 to 14 number. You confused the deficit under Bush with the debt under Obama. The debt is $14 trillion and was $9 trillion. The federal deficit increased by $1 trillion because federal spending increased by $1 trillion (from about $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion.) Anyway, just wanted to let you know.
You Jackass
December 21st 2012, it was fine up until this. Leave the insults somewhere else.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Ryan did what he needed to do. Obama did the same. Meet to the left of the middle & call it a day.
I'm sure Ryan did, not so sure Obama isn't playing catch up. I'd go so far as to say Ryan dragged Obama kicking and screaming to the table. None of his plans so far had ANY Cuts. He project 1 Trillion is savings from Obamacare, that will never happen.
Now we know where everyone stands....just wait for the end result, in July. I'm gonna watch a little cspan stay off the networks and stay off this thread... take a politcal break.
Anyone who respects Ayn Rand as an economic genius deserves to be laughed out of office.
Ryan did what he needed to do. Obama did the same. Meet to the left of the middle & call it a day.
Hell no meet to the right and WAY right and call it a day... Its been proven that the left do not want to cut anything. Hold their ass to the fire.
I want $3 cut for every 1 that you get from tax increase. Gvmnt is too damn big.
We as a country survived and prospered BEFORE Medicare/Caid, Social Security, we can prosper without them IF we had to. Im not saying we need to get rid of those programs, but they defiantly need to be reigned in.
Basically the Rand philosophy is "what good for me is good -screw everybody else".
America has become far too tolerant of this misogynistic attititude, to the point that elected and wanna-be elected candidates see nothing wrong with spouting it in public. They used to be called "self-centered SOB's", but maybe we're just like the frog in hot water - increase the temperature slowly and we don't even notice.
RealAmericansFirst,
While I agree that Rand went too far in her faith in unmonitored capitalism, I think her general principles in faith in people to provide for themselves if given the right motivation is correct.
Also, when reading any author I think it's instructive to research their background to see where they were coming from - in Rand's case she got out of Russia in the early communism days (which, by all accounts I've read, were brutal). I think this helps explain her extreme distrust of government interference. I think she went too far, but I think it's useful to learn where she came from.
Ryan did what he needed to do. Obama did the same. Meet to the left of the middle & call it a day.
Absolutely, its going to be a compromise. No way around it. The GOP pseudo-purists will have to compromise sooner or later.
December 21st 2012
Yep, corporations provide jobs to people, treat them like @!$%#, the employee are at the hand of the employer,
But, big corporations didn't have to pay a corporate tax thank to the Repubs.
IT IS PAY BACK TIME< GET USED TO IT
BuyBackYourSouls - Well said. I admire both Rep. Ryan and President Obama for laying out a roadmap for solving the debt crisis. Now, it is time for Congress to use common sense rather than ideology and and influence from campaign donors to bring forth the great ideas from both plans in order solve the problem.
Both plans project well into the future. This country is not going to solve the problem overnight, much as many of us would like to think. We have a history of deficit spending, going back well beyond President Obama and President Bush. Additionally, our fragile economy certainly puts a "hitch" into solving the debt problem.
I thought that President Obama did a good job during the first part of his speech defining the problem. And, while I'm sure some will disagree, I didn't find it to a particularly partisan speech. Yes, he criticized Rep. Ryan's plan, but praised him for coming forth with the plan. And, he called out the liberals, as well.
Correction, like it or not ryan laid out a PLAN, the President laid out RHETORIC, there is a difference!
Mike - Why so hostile? I should have said the President Obama laid out a framework. You are correct, that Congress must provide the specifics. However, I still admire, as I previously stated, both Rep. Ryan and President Obama. Is it too much for you that I can praise both of them?
Mr. President. You and Your Congress approved the Tax Rates that are currently in place, during your Lame Duck Session last December. Anything you do now, is NOT a Cut, but is an Increase in Taxes. It's like you don't think anyone is paying enough to spread around to those "special" people or causes you like. I'm sorry, you just look foolish changing your mind so soon after you just signed Tax Rates into affect. BTW, this has become a pattern of behavior that makes you look bad. You propose a "Budget" then come back 3 months later with another one. You campaign on Jobs and change your top priority to Healthcare, then to an un-approved war with Lybia, then to raising taxes after you signed them into place. It's getting quite pathetic!
jeremy, during the medicare/social security era we became the most prosperous country the world has ever seen, with wealthy tax payers paying at a far higher rate than Obama proposes.
Name a country with low taxes and a weak government... you can't because there aren't any. A strong government and enough taxes to support it are a prerequisite for prosperity. For low taxes and weak government, see Somalia.
ZipZag: The tax rates that President Obama is working on raising is that of the public who is making over $250,000, if I am reading correctly, not for the mostly middle class who currently pay taxes.
As for the "un-approved war with Libya," there has been NO war with Libya...we co-joined with NATO to assist with air strikes. That's a bit far away from being in an actual war (much like the one our ex-president got us into).
You need to read a little before you start spouting off things that you apparently don't have much knowledge of.
Name a country with low taxes and a weak government..
joe, there is a difference between a weak government and a small government, what we have now is a weak government, but what we prefer is a small government.
I don't understand something. Please explain why it is more or less common knowledge that there is rampant fraud in the areas of SS, Medicaid/Medicare, and every other social welfare program, but instead of simply growing a spine, and enforcing polices to reduce and punish those who commit a CRIME, or even bothering to write laws to punish this; we just give up on these programs?! EX. Planned Parenthood. It is already ILLEGAL for federal money to be used for abortions except in SELECT extraneous circumstances. However, we have senators screaming about rampant slaughter houses that care only about killing babies (in an already overpopulated world), totally ignoring the fact that PP saves millions of taxpayer dollars a year by providing preventative health care for those who cannot afford anything else. Would you rather pay for someone to a have a pill or a shot, or a routine sexual health check-up; or would you prefer your money go to help support an unplanned child, illness or some other form of welfare that is definitely more expensive.
I'm sorry to ramble and I know a lot of this isn't well written (that tends to happen with only 5 hours of sleep in 2 days ) But I hope that the government will get the point and go after things worth while like tax-loopholes for Corporations and the wealthy (Tom Cruise gets a farmers loophole for having a few acres on his property, yeah um shouldn't be allowed thanks).
Point, it's amazing how fast savings will add up by making small cuts across the board to bring programs back under control, than by simply doing political brain surgery with a chainsaw.
The government cannot govern a morality issue. It WAY oversteps the bounds of the constitution if it does. I have no problem with abortion, but some women use it as another form of birth control like condoms or the pill. Some people ruin it for everyone.
Peggy/florida, 4.16, How about telling that to your new govenor in florida....... LOL
By time he is done you folks won't have much of a state left that isn't owned by corporations and rich foreigners and populated by uneducated sick people..... where his intrusive policies do not reach......drug testing folks etc
But on the other hand you will be too poor and uneducated to organize to do a push back......as he would have sucked out all the money from education etc and by which time corporations will no longer be paying taxes as he wants to abolish corporate taxes and put the loss of revenue on the backs of the old people and other poor homeowners, who probably will no longer own their home anyway..... so you also will not have any working infrastructure......... hmmmm
"Obama saved some of his sharpest rhetoric for Republican proposals to end traditional Medicare for anyone currently under 55, and to give the states near-total control over Medicaid.
For Medicare, he said, "It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn't worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck — you're on your own.""
Now that's the THIRD thing Obama has said that I agree with - hm, in three years....
so basically we be screwed! LOL
I'm just going to sit back and wait for this house of cards to collapse.
Aren't you a special one, unfortunately this is not a house of cards, this is our country, while you kick back waiting, your well being and livelihood could come crashing down too. Maybe sitting back and waiting isn't such a good idea.
Hey, how did you get a house of cards? I never got a house of Cards or one made of anything else. Maybe I need to be of a different orientation, gender, race or religion to get a house from Obama. Hey, I know, maybe I need to be an illegal alien. Then I'll bet I get a house too from Obama!
Roy, I'm with you and most of the American people I know are. And most of the Republicans in my town know we need to raise taxes. They've told me so. I'm below $100,000 a year, but I have no problem with a 10% increase. What say the rest of you? Even Warren Buffet said he'd happily pay more taxes if someone would only ask him. Why is it that the Republicans can't hear us? Not even their own party members.
Well, John. I will tell you what is special about me. Unlike you, I know better than to believe whatever puppet is in the White House, and have prepared accordingly. The debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. No hike in taxes will do it. Spending would have to be massively cut NOW and not over 10 years. The dollar is not going to last that long.
We are looking at default, but more likely default via hyperinflation. Do yourself a favor and do what you can to make sure your family can handle some severe shocks to supply chains for awhile.
Who said that $3 cut and $1 taxed thing? After reading the article, whoever said that quote was right on the money. The $4 trillion will be $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenue.
Well, John. I will tell you what is special about me. Unlike you, I know better than to believe whatever puppet is in the White House, and have prepared accordingly. The debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. No hike in taxes will do it. Spending would have to be massively cut NOW and not over 10 years. The dollar is not going to last that long.
We are looking at default, but more likely default via hyperinflation. Do yourself a favor and do what you can to make sure your family can handle some severe shocks to supply chains for awhile.
I disagree Deke, excuse me if I refuse to give up on the economy. It took 11 years for things to get this bad after the surplus Clinton left. And yes the Surplus was because Clinton was so stubborn. He forced a GOP controlled house and Senate pass a budget they hated. The country had to endure 2 shutdowns before the GOP got the message.
Clinton forced the GOP to march in lock step with him on taxation. And they controlled the house and senate. The GOP only controls the house at present. I'm certain there will be an attempt to filibuster a debt limit increase unless the GOP in senate gets its way. Guess what since the increase involves financial matters it can be passed by reconciliation. Just like the budget Obama will force the house republicans to pass. The GOP will dance to Obama's tune by June of 2011.
Wade-
11 years? This situation was inevitable as of 1971. That was when the currency was removed totally from the gold standard and the dollar became 100% fiat. The Clinton "surplus" was a myth, since he made up for the shortfall by robbing social security. How's your hero sounding now? Blaming this mess on either of the two parties and not both (where the blame belongs) is an exercise in ignorance. Obama knows absolutely nothing about economics, nor does he have any real say over the economy. If you are looking to a politician to fix your problems, you have a long wait ahead.
Wade, you need to educate yourself on economics and history. Not the Keynesian nonsense that is the policy of the government and the Federal Reserve, but actual economics. This economy is going to collapse, and it is being done by design. I haven't "given up" on anything. You can't give up on something that has no hope of being fixed. It is mathematically impossible to get out of our situation without destroying the dollar. So what you should be doing now is getting ready for that inevitability.
Deke, you do realise that even with the weak dollar and the high price of gold, ther is not enough gold in the world to represent each US dollar in circulation and in a virtual state, right?
You do realize that the price of gold wouldn't remain where it is now, right?
You can have a gold standard with any amount of gold.
One might agree to a temporary tax hike if it were used only to pay down the deficit, and then only after the spending were severely cut. Too many unemployed to try it right now?
SS ain't broke, just raise the retirement age, small $ increase later if needed. Most of us don't have money left to save after the taxman hitteth us.
Stop wasting money. Reorganize the fed gov't by consolidating depts, dump the excess administrators.
Mari.....Social Security would be LESS broke if the government would QUIT "borrowing" money from the account and refusing to pay it back! There would be more than enough money in the account to sustain it for several decades. The problem is that they took money out of this account and used it for their "pork" projects, etc., and in return, we got worthless IOU's. Maybe someone needs to address stopping this particular habit!
And, you know, I really don't mind waiting until I'm 70 to retire (and I'm 65 now and working a full-time job). I can only hope that I last that long! And, I don't object to paying a couple of dollars more in taxes to make sure that others can also have a decent retirement, but I also agree that NO one should totally depend on SS....you need to have a 401K plan, a savings plan, and keep your debt low. Apparently, that doesn't seem to be the case, especially with our younger generation! They want to spend, spend, spend, and then complain because they have to pay into Social Security so that the boomers can survive. They seem to forget that we paid into Social Security in our younger days to keep some more senior individual from falling into the cracks. No one should have a problem paying into SS....eventually, we're ALL going to need some sort of retirement money; but, as I said above, don't make that the ONLY money that you have coming in.....be responsible!
Deke, I do not think you realise how little gold we have compared to how much money. The difference is so big each dollar would be worth a few atoms.
We have 286.9 million ounces of gold. Backing the M1 money supply of $1.569 trillion, gold would be worth about $5,470 per ounce. It's going to get there anyways due to Bernanke's run away inflation of the money supply. If you counted the digital money supply, it would be worth more per ounce as valued in dollars. You attack precious metals and defend digital money, and you can somehow justify your position? Fake money that doesn't even exist is somehow fine with you? Good luck with that.
I've got news for you, ScoMata. Those paper dollars in your wallet that you so covet are going to end up being worth nothing. It happens to every fiat currency that has existed - almost 4000 of them. Inevitable, and not too far into the future. After that, things that have actual value - gold, silver, land, food, other commodities - they will still have value. And your dollars will be so much paper.
Deke where were you in 1999 we had a SURPLUS under Clinton? Therefore we went from that Surplus to 14 trillion in debt in 11 years. I do keep up with politics.
Practice what you preach. And stop telling me to get an education. I am, the things I am learning however have not led me to your conclusions.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Look at the years the budget was balanced>
The debt only went down for one year during Clinton. Big freaking deal. And by the way - let me stop you before you slap me with the "Republican" label. George Bush was an idiot, and should probably be in the Hague. I could say the same for the other puppet in chief Bill Clinton. Obama is worse than both - he fooled a great deal of the public into thinking he gave a crap about them. He works for the banks. Period.
Here's some news for you, Wade and mairslim:
http://networkedblogs.com/gCj5L
I hate to ruin your "rah rah" party, but it's over. Get ready for it or you will be wishing you had.
"the things I am learning however have not led me to your conclusions"
You are looking in the wrong places. If your source has an on switch and your La-Z-Boy in front of it, you are not getting valid information. And believe me - I practice what I preach. I'm not the one that's going to be standing stupefied when my bank account becomes worthless.
Invest in gold! We are borrowing .40 per every dollar. The budget was only balanced with trick accounting. It drives me crazy when they say clinton balanced the budget it has never been truly balanced with real style accounting. If a business used government accounting they would be in prison unless they get the government to bail them out and sweep it under the rug.
Gold is good, but silver is better for several reasons. It's an industrial metal as well as precious, historically the gold:silver ration is 15:1, and we're running out of it! Silver is rather an interesting metal and has many uses. We are using more than we pull out of the ground each year. Plus, JP Morgan is manipulating the market by selling paper silver that is not backed by actual bullion. When silver gets to about $50 (could happen by summer), JP Morgan is going to be in serious trouble.
Of course, gold is no slouch either. Nor is platinum, palladium, etc. The next one to take off will probably be copper.
If the shoe fits wear it Deke. I'm calling you a fiscal conservative at the very least. Deny that if you can. Except for this post I did not use the word republican to refer to anyone and I am not using it now in reference. I can't prove you are a member of the GOP or the tea party. So I am .
"The debt only went down for one year during Clinton." It not only went down there was a surplus. You proved nothing with your post. Insulting me will do nothing to win me over. I know there are sites that will maintain that Clinton did not create a surplus. When you insulted me your post lost all credibility with me.
If you don't like what I type, your free to disagree with me. I draw the line when I it is implied I am a idiot. If you disagree with me, please limit your disagreement to the issues. I refuse to consider an insult as a valid argument.
"You are looking in the wrong places. If your source has an on switch and your La-Z-Boy in front of it, you are not getting valid information. And believe me - I practice what I preach. I'm not the one that's going to be standing stupefied when my bank account becomes worthless."
Not only is this insulting. I consider it inflammatory. Arguments like this will only cause me to dig in deeper. They will not move me in anyway. You made a claim I expect you to be able to prove without any personal attacks on me.
Uh, in no way was that inflammatory or an insult or a personal attack. All I was telling you was to not get your news from TV, or you are going to be shocked when the excrement hits the rotary oscillator. I'm not sure how that's an attack, but whatever. I suspect, like many message board warriors, that you were looking for an excuse to "shut down" the discussion without accepting the information you were given. It's a common tactic and I see it often. "I perceive an insult, so obviously that discredits information I am unwilling to accept because it challenges my worldview!" If that's the way you want it, Wade, then have at it. You've been warned. Prepare for events to come or not - that is your choice. I wish nothing but good things for you and yours.
Inflammatory is in the eyes of the recipient. Denials will not change my opinion that post 5.17 was inflammatory.
I do not accept that the economy is going to break down on what is essentially your word. I want you to do more then it's going to break down. Deke I have a scientific mind. Saying something without being able to prove it is merely stating a opinion without proof. I'm willing to go to the mat and research something. Either do as I ask, prove your case, or stop wasting key strokes. What I am asking is not unreasonable.
And one last thing Deke, making false claims about how I feel is not a valid argument. Stop projecting or trying to analyze me. I want to see proof of your claims, do research, I can be won over with logic. I have done my best not to attack you personally.
"Inflammatory is in the eyes of the recipient."
Bingo. So you allowed yourself to be insulted due to a construct in your mind. Your offense did not come from me since you created it. I, in no way at any time, "attacked you personally". Your perception is only reality for you.
As for the rest, did you look at the link I provided? That's a good starting point for your scientific mind. I am not going to do your research for you, nor do I care if you believe me or not. Discussions of this nature almost never result in one person convincing the other that they were wrong. I am not even going to delude myself into thinking that you will change your mind. You still believe in the left/right paradigm. Congratulations! You, like millions and millions of others in the US have fallen for the old "divide and conquer" tactic. Only history and experience is going to snap you out of that. I wish you luck on your journey.
You aren't worth the key strokes any more. I prove my case over and over again and you won't admit it. Welcome to my ignore list Deke.
LOL good luck. You haven't written anything as proof of anything. It's not my problem if you get insulted over something someone writes. That is your issue - not mine. I've told you insult was not meant nor the intent, and yet you imply otherwise. Here's an idea, Wade - learn to be less sensitive to written words. Work on some self-esteem and it won't be an issue.
As for your "ignore list", I suspect it is littered with those that present a view different from the one you cling to. I sure hope I don't lose any sleep tonight over this "slight" against me.
OK, who in the GOP today would do a better job...and how?
Dantana-656969 "OK, who in the GOP today would do a better job...and how?
Representative Ryan ..... read his plan to see how.
Danatan already has his mind made up that Obama's newest plan is great. He also thought his previous plans to spend us into oblivion were great too. He's not even looking to see that none of Obama's plans did anything but hurt him and that the GOP plans have always brought sanity to this monsterous problem of the Dems spending, spending, spending money confiscated from those who actually work.
Right--gut Medicare and Medicaid so you can slash Corporate tax rates and codify the Bush Tax cuts in perpetuity. Even Ryan says his plan will not even touch the deficit for several decades . If Democrats were to try that you'd be yelling redistribution and "socialism" and "entitlements" but when Republicans want to redistribute all the burden to the working class and middle class so that the upper class can get tax cuts it's called "fiscal responsibility". George Bush Sr. had it right: Voodoo economics strikes again. Didn't fly then and it won't fly now.
Ryan's plan extends the Bush tax cuts and cuts the corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%. Then he wants to cut the budgets of Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps and low income housing. Programs that account for only 21% od the federal budget but being used to make 66% of the cuts.
Sound fair? Sound like it's time for everyone to help this country out of it's situation?
I am just a bit confused on why there wasn't any GOP affirmative action while we where digging the debt ditch for 8 years, but now its like they don't want to admit that they spent their butts off and NOW they want to fix everything. Obama seems as if he has the attitude to spend money to make money in certain areas that would benefit the American people-not perfectly, but a better job than some of the GOP candidates still acting spastic and angry. Again, who would do a better job and why (I am all for it)?
I read his plan Roy it needs to include taxing the rich and cutting military spending in order to make any difference at all .And I'm A registered independent,both sides are doing the same things they always do,leave out the things that keep us believing that they actually are fighting amongst themselves and then make a couple of backroom deals to look like they have accomplished something.Put everything on the table and then they just might accomplish something that will benefit the American people.
Give a good reason to permanently extend tax cuts forever. You cut taxes when the country is poor, and raise them when the country is rich. If you can't raise taxes at all, ever, then we'll never have any protection from recession and will never be able to reinstate programs cut to balance the budget.
The whole process of "deficit" reduction is flawed at best the deficit which has fluctuated over the years is only the tip of the iceberg the bulk of it is the National Debt and the interest payments on that debt. If any regular person or even state government was as deep in the hole as the national government they would have had to declare bankruptcy what does the federal government do?? They fire up the printing presses and print a few trillion extra dollars to pay the interest on the debt, how long can this go on???????
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Her record of voting in the Senate shows her to be more Moderate than many in the GOP. She has consistently shown that she does, in fact, understand that governing means compromise.
I would do a better job, and I'm not affiliated with any party. I'm pretty sure many many Americans out there would do a great job as well. Do what's best for the COUNTRY not for your PARTY and not for YOU. The two party system has failed us, they care about ideology more than results. Sick. Everyone should write-in Stephen Colbert.
ROY WILSON-336103
Ryan? RYAN???????
You've got to be kidding, he want to do away with medicare, medicaid , ssi, ssdi, vets benefits, but he want his rich buddies off the hook,
Nope , it is their turn to annie up.
RYAN SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who in the GOP today would do a better job...and how?
Representative Ryan ..... read his plan to see how.
I guess you are talking about Count crapula, I read Ryans plan which is pretty short on specifics too, of course the only specifics are the same old Reaganomics type bull@!$%# that started this country down the path to unsustainable deficits. Ryan's got a plan alright and it sure sounds familiar tax cuts for the rich and Corporations and let them urinate on the middle class.
Representative Ryan ..... read his plan to see how.
I DID read it. The rich sacrifice NOTHING, and the elderly, poor, middle class and women bear 100% of the burden. And the baby boomers who will cost the entitlement programs the most don't pay a thin dime more.
Not gonna fly.
Sorta like that promised 'trickle down' effect that never materialized to justify their tax cuts. Gap between richer and poorer is getting larger.
Dantana, the "affirmative action" plans the GOP put in place, were called Civil Rights legislation that the Dems opposed for more than 30 years.
Tim, I agreed with almost everything you said until you got to the "entitlements" that the "boomers" get without paying a "thin dime." I don't know about you, but I'm 65 years old, still working a full-time job, and the government has been taking Social Security out of my check (involuntarily, I might add) for 45+ years! I have to work until I'm 70 in order to retire and get a reasonable amount to supplant my 401K and savings. What I paid in for those 45+ years went to support a more senior retiree so they could live comfortably....do you now expect me to do with less because the Government has been "stealing" money from the Social Security Account to pay for their "pork" projects, leaving us with worthless IOU's that they will NEVER pay back? So, "most" of us HAVE paid more than a thin dime in the many years we worked, so I have to disagree with you on that point! The boomers wouldn't "cost" anything if the government had kept their greedy hands out of our account!!! Enough said!
ZipZag, you're referring to George Wallace and the Dixiecrats. A far cry from modern democrats. Rand Paul said he believes the Civil Rights Act is government overreach. He think a restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to mexicans or gays or women or any other class of people he's got an issue with.
AP, voodoo economics? Look it up, under Bush we had the highest revenues in our history. His main problem was letting congress spend what they wanted. His highest two years of deficits were under a democratic congress. The worst three years since was caused by a democrat President, senate, and house. People like you will not even admit there is a problem with Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI. If by chance the liberals and democrats to admit a problem, their solution is always raise taxes. The concept is pretty simple. If you have $1,000 in your pocket, you are apt to spend part or all. If the government takes $500 of it, you are less apt to spend any of it or none of it. It is such a simple concept and shows the intelligence of liberals that can not understand 2 plu 2 equals 4. Bottom line is that obama is afraid to address the Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI issue, again. The dems are doing the same thing. obam's speech was nothing less than a campaign speech. We do not need a campaigner now, we need a leader. Time after time, obama demonstrates his lack of leadership. The dems will wait until these programs are bankrupt before waking up. By the way, how much or what percentage of taxes are enough? Many dems want as high as 50% or more. If the dems had their way between federal, state, county, and city taxes were added up, people would be paying 60% of their income in taxes. Would you like to work for 7 months out of the year for free? I doubt you would. If federal spending solved our problem, their would not been a recession, since the dems spent a ton of money.
Just another typical Democrat speech, the way to solve the problem is the typical Democrat answer, raise taxes, this guy who is supposedly our leader is one big joke.
Actually taxing the people that have enjoyed write offs and tax cuts for 50 years should be a given it's not raising taxes it's taxing fairly
BO is right about closing the loopholes for the ultra-rich (whoever they are) and his Hollywood pals. But, everyone needs to pay "their fair share." Everyone has to have skin in the game. Everyone, or nearly everyone, has to pay something for government. Otherwise it is just too easy to tax someone else.
I have never earned more than 75K a year and that was with mondo overtime but I have been enjoying tax cuts since Reagan and before that during Nixon so tell me again how the Dems don't tax the middle income people and the Reps don't cut their taxes, every time the Dems have the Whitehouse and Congress at the same time it costs me a few percentage points of my income, and what for; so people that have no interest in bettering themselves can sit on their duffs and live better than I can give me a break.
You right, Cliff, who TF raises revenue when there's a budget shortfall? That's just crazy talk.
Let's just tow the typical Republican line of cut taxes for corporations and the uberwealthy, because their lobbyists give legislators the coolest schwag, and cut all the programs that made the modern middle class possible because they might benefit all the peoples we don't like and wished were all Ayn Rand idealists, and maybe one day the Laffer Curve will kick in and then ponies for us all!!
If the premise is the uber wealthy are evil and won't pay their fair share, then what do you think will happen when you raise their tax rate? Do you think they will just say "gee, I think I'll just pay more taxes and that's that"? Or, do you think they will say "my desired monthly income is $100k and the government is now taking $5k, so I guess I'll layoff $5k in workers to make up the difference"?
My guess is they layoff workers to maintain their income level...
Cliff - I fear that you did not listen to his speech. He provided a comprehensive explanation to the problem, spending percentages, and called for Democrats to make cuts. Did you even listen to him?
Everyone needs to actually listen to our elected officials, rather than listen through the ffilter of the liberal and conservative media.
Just another typical Democrat speech, the way to solve the problem is the typical Democrat answer, raise taxes, this guy who is supposedly our leader is one big joke.
As opposed to the typical Republican plan lower taxes on the wealthy and Corporations and let the trickle down begin. Most of the middle class is still waiting to be pissed on with that trickle down. Instead of trickle down the middle class got @!$%# on by the Republicans. Now Ryan and the republicans want to take the mother of all dumps on the middle class and poor. Our President isn't a joke, but your words are because they lack substance.
Cooch,
How do you figure that it's fair? A flat tax, now that is fair!
Here's my proposal:
Legalize weed - Charge a tax to growers, suppliers, and buyers. Heavy users will be restricted to burger flipping, tv acting, singing, and farming on Hemp farms.
Tax ALL the churches, yep ALL churches, their free ride is over, last time I checked gods don't need money.
Legalize prostitution - Charge a sales tax to Johns and income taxes to workers. Require a monthly health check-up by medical nurses, hey I just added medical jobs!
Pull out of the Middle East and ignore all sides including the Jews, they're the chosen ones let them fight their own battles, maybe the OT god will intervene this time like he used to in the old days...I'm just saying, where's he been, maybe they should pray harder for another parting of the parting of the Red Sea to drown their enemies!
Issue immediate pay cuts to Congress and the Senate, while they are at it, give them 4 year terms and eliminate their pension plans. If they don't like it, too bad. Quiting is an option.
Make the first lady pay for her own jewelry and clothing, while we are at it, collect from the estates of the previous first ladies as well, and the tax payers need a refund for frivolous remodeling bills, really does it require new dishes every time a new first family moves in? Hillary, Nancy, Barbara...yeah you know what I'm typing about!
Cut government write offs, like fuel, they should pay for their own gas, or drive smaller cars...what do they need black suburbans for anyway? Turn off the AC as well in the White House, last time I was there it was chilly, I had to wear a sweater in the summer. That's what the president told us, practice what you preach right?
Stop bailing out worthless companies, if you can't make a profit, maybe your products suck and should go away...GM I'm looking at you, the only decent car you've made lately is the Vette.
Dig for oil in Alaska, sell Caribou meat to Europe the Danes will love it!
Let China, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, well basically the rest of the world help other countries out after a disaster. I like Japan and all, but it's wealthy, it can take care of it's self. And if a country is not wealthy, well it needs to figure it out, maybe it can sell pot?
Stop funding the media, that's right smart Americans know that the media is owned by those behind the government. Right George Soros?
Let generation X and all generations after opt out of social security and medicare, or suffer a lawsuit on our behalf to the federal government for misappropriation of funds, and for taking bribes towards presidental campaigns issued by the Pharmaceutical industry...George Bush you know what I'm talking about.
Ask for the money back that our government, in it's ever growing stupidity issued to banks, instead of to tax payers, with PENALTY AND INTEREST! We all know why the banks were taken care of...Obama we know you were in bed with Fannie and Freddy...pay your own bills next time, you should have left it on the nightstand when your hour was up.
Send Mexico and all countries that have illegal aliens in our prisons a monthly bill. Also let our hospitals bill Mexico for services rendered to it's citizens...Our president must never ever side with another country against us again, or he can be deported to whatever country he likes better, on his own dime. If Mexico has a problem, they can come collect their citizens or pay for citizenship. You know they can also give us land in trade...I like Cancun and where the pyramids are.
"Typical Lberal drivel. Go after the job creators. Let's add higher taxes to New EPA, Financial Reporting and Healthcare liabilities. Suck i"
Job creators JQ? Under Bush the country hemorrhaged jobs by the thousands. President Obama's policies creating jobs.
"CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs"
"Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2#ixzz1JSqd2xmj"
Corporations did not create Jobs under Bush's tax policies and they are only doing so at a snails pace now. And you want to reward outsourcing U.S. jobs with even more tax cuts? Where is your mind?
Ron 1861300, you said, "If the premise is the uber wealthy are evil and won't pay their fair share, then what do you think will happen when you raise their tax rate? Do you think they will just say "gee, I think I'll just pay more taxes and that's that"? Or, do you think they will say "my desired monthly income is $100k and the government is now taking $5k, so I guess I'll layoff $5k in workers to make up the difference"?
My guess is they layoff workers to maintain their income level..."
Yeah, that's Republican ideology. What you're arguing is that giving the rich a tax break means that they'll use the money to hire people or they spend more. It does NOT work. A large part of the deficit created under Bush was caused by the tax cuts he introduced. Those cuts, in part, almost KILLED our economy. The rich don't use the money to hire people. It never makes it into the economy. "Trickle down economics" doesn't work, and that's been proven time and time again.
The only way to fix this problem is a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. The Republicans are going to have to give up their sacred cow and get real if things are going to get better.
Oh look, another liberal blaming Bush for things the Congress has control of. HUGE surprise there.
PS= Most of those jobs were lost in the last 2 years of Bush's last term. Wanna guess who controlled congress then? Someone needs to go buy a US Government for Dummies book.
Gharms, do you think legislation exists in a vacuum? If you deregulate high finance in the early part of your presidential term it will more than likely be the cause of the finacial collaspe you experience at the end of your term.
Let me put it in even simpler terms for you to follow: you can't blame the war you started at the start of your presidency on the the guy who replaces you eight years later.
That's the problem with the avergae neo-con: they love to start mess, but refuse to claim any of the fallout when and where it inevitably lands; they just work it to land on your kids or grandkids or on the poor or on the elderly. But the last thing they ever want to do is admit that the fallout is of their own making because that would mean Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, the Laffer Curve, and all the other auspices that inform their wet economic fantasies were all wrong, and the Blue-eyed Lord knows that won't work.
I just wish the next time yall choose to be contrary for the sake of watching a presidency fail you don't be such blatant hypocrites about it.
Yes Gharms and I hope you find a good one. I am a political science minor in college. Care to back up your claims with research? If not all your claims are just groundless hot air.
"I'm a super smart liberal and I know how government works! Everything is the president's fault!"
You should ask your college for their money back ASAP.
http://www.gather.com/viewImage.action?fileId=3096224746219130
That was real hard to find. You'll notice that the bulk of the jobs were lost in the last 6-8months of Bush, and Congress was controlled by Democats at that time. Conversely, now that Republicans have control of the house, jobs are back on the rise. I know this is going to be "groundless hot air" to you because you're a liberal, and anything contrary to what you believe is always either wrong or biased.
NoneoftheAbove: I liked what you said except for ONE thing....the pyramids are in South America.....not Mexico. Other than that, you're pretty much RIGHT ON. The only problem is that if the current generation is allowed to "opt out" of paying Social Security.....where will the money come from for the boomers to collect, especially AFTER they've paid in religiously for the past 45+ years (unfortunately, most of that was "borrowed" by our government in exchange for those USELESS IOU's that they refuse to pay back).
My words were "Yes Gharms and I hope you find a good one. I am a political science minor in college. Care to back up your claims with research? If not all your claims are just groundless hot air."
I never even came close to posting the mockery of my words you posted. And for the record I am a center left moderate.
Now either answer my question as given or don't answer. If you choose not too. And if you must insult me to answer me it's still hot air. The I saw was the same as the one I posted.
Insults will do NOTHING to win me over. Try harder Gharms.
Addendum to my previous post. The URL you posted showed the same chart mine did. The rest of the U.R.L. shown the the same disdain for government as the Tea Party.
He's still blaming as usual! Nothing new here
#9 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:37 PM EDTTrue vicki ''it's bush's fault'' what a weak leader we have in the White House.
Reality - if you want somebody to blame for all of this
The following people are perhaps worthy of some of it
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
January 26, 1998 in a letter to President Clinton
Spelled out what they were going to do with Iraq once they were in position of power. Luckily for them, that opportunity came in 2001. Just google neocons letter to president Clinton and read it. They proudly signed their names to this document, like they were signing the Declaration of Independence . In 2001 they were in a position to carry out this search for Weapons of the mass destruction kind (are there any other kind of weapons that are not?)
here is the first sentence
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policytoward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the MiddleEast more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.
and
That strategy should aim,above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power
and then you also see in this letter all of the talking points which became the Bush mantras
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction
American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council
crying shame Clinton , chased 21 year old strange , instead of taking Bin Laden , when the Sudan offered him up !
I for one believe that Bin Laden is in Saudi Arabia and not in any cave out in Pakistan.
1)Rich people, pay your taxes. Get rid of the loopholes (GE)
2)Close bases in foreign countries and bring our service members home (so they can spend their wages in THIS country while defending it).
3) Invest in R&D for alternative fuels and forms of transportation to get us off of foreign oil.
Guess what folks, we just made a HUGE dent in the national debt, strengthened the dollar, gave healthcare to all Americans, and made us safer as a country...PLUS we have a surplus!
You're welcome.
#10 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:38 PM EDTAt least until we have to spend trillions on fighting a war on our own turf. Ask the Japanese how that worked for them or even the French.
FTW, to a point I agree. But, we all need to pay our fair share. The top 1% of people pay for 38% of their income in federal taxes. 47% of people pay 0% in federal income taxes. Is this fair? We need either flat tax getting rid of all deductions or sales tax, but get rid of the income tax. With a sales tax, no one escapes the taxes. We are always so ready to say the rich or wealthy need to pay more or their fair share, but we always forget that a huge percentage of americans pay nothing in federal taxes.
Mark: I have a question -- how many of the 47% of people who allegedly don't pay any taxes are disabled, retired, unemployed, etc.? You can't get money from people who don't have it to begin with. We need to either legalize the aliens that are here so that we can start forcing them to pay taxes, or we have to get rid of them to lower costs! Either way, I keep hearing about the 47% who "don't pay taxes," and I wonder EXACTLY who you mean. Some people make so little money that they can barely afford to live, much less pay more taxes!
I keep hearing this 38% tax rate for the rich, is't it closer to12 or 15% with all thier deductions, most that are not available to the middle class.
@old man - What deductions you get depends how much money you make and how the money is made.
Average Tax for Individuals 2008 (Total Tax / Adjusted Gross Income)
So I guess if the actual tax rate you pay is based on how good your accountant or accounting software is.
I am not a huge fan of Obama. I honestly hope he is serious about cutting all areas of the budget. That I do agree with.
#11 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:39 PM EDTYou hope he's serious this time? What about all the other 623 past promises he's made and failed to do? You hoping it will be different this time is just sad. Sorry Bobby.
Zip,
Not sad,
This time it is critical. If the budget and debt ceiling are not figured out soon. The impact will be far greater than the last recession we experienced.
Hard to take this guy serious on reducing spending when he is a liberal spending president! I guess he can see the light now!
Yeah I would say this was a campaign speach!
Liberal spending president? Ask yourself why these "fiscally responsible" conservatives didn't see it fit to say much, or take any action when daddy's boy was pissing away a record surplus? Two unfunded wars he didn't even have the stones to represent on the budget, and an unfunded medicare fiasco to name a few things. I don't agree with a lot that Obama is doing (e.g., embracing Immelt as a jobs csar and spending too much) but so much of the spending that so many people abhor was designed to pull us out of the mess that Bush created.
stageleft you might be correct about conservatives not doing much in regards to spending for 6 years of the Bush Administration, however the last 4 years it has been a democratic congress doing the spending. And in the past election 87 new members of congress on the republican side plus 6 senators were voted in and they ran on a platform of cutting spending and that is what is driving this crescendo of cut spending now. They deserve a chance to prove they are fiscally conservative and not big spenders don't you agree.
Obama has spent more than all other presidents combined including George W Bush and it has NOT helped the econmy at all. In fact, Obama has made things a lot worse. He did not want any spending cuts last Friday!!!! What a change, without hope this time!!!!
James - As many have posted, Congress is in charge of the pursestrings, not the President. And that means both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Donna - please turn off FAUX News. Bush's budgets totaled almost $21 trillion. Obama's budgets so far have totalled $7 trillion.
Quite a bit less than Bush, and nowhere CLOSE to "all other presidents combined".
Ignorance is NOT always bliss.
No richard they ran on a platform of job creation! Where are the JOBS?
Obama has spent more than all other presidents combined including George W Bush and it has NOT helped the econmy at all. In fact, Obama has made things a lot worse. He did not want any spending cuts last Friday!!!! What a change, without hope this time!!!!
What @!$%#ing math are you using, I suppose you went to the Jon Kyl school of bull@!$%# math, though I guess you could put out a statement like Kyl did regarding Planned parenthood using 90% of their budget for abortions. Of course after Kyl said that he released a statement saying that what he said in the Senate chambers was not supposed to be taken as a factual statement What a @!$%#ing loser Kyl is and you're right on his heels with bull@!$%# like that.
I will be fair about the whole thing. I don't believe Obama and Reid have the nuts to cut spending the way it needs to be done! I also don't know about Bohner, but it is the GOP (Tea Party Movement) that are getting people to think about our spending.
Obama just needs to realize, if the USA can generate $1.00 of revenu in a year, then the budget must be $1.00 or less! PERIOD! I don't know what is hard to grasp on that. Yes, there will be cuts across the board. I don't want to hear about the LIBS crying the GOP want old people to die, or they want women to die! That is crap and the LIBS know it! Talk about putting the fear into people!
Here's a great chart to show you the total federal spending by year and the deficit:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1902_2015&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed_G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Cavebear your right job creation and cutting spending. I don't know seems if you cut spending it frees up money to reduce debt/deficit and allows for stability which helps business's grow their business which requires more people to be hired. More people hired results in more tax revenues, more paying into ss and medicare, more people working allows for more disposable income. Something I learned in business classes at maryland. Seems reasonable.
My apologies on not including job creation up front.
The budget is proposed by the President for requests for funding of federal programs. Congress then reviews and creates a budget bill that is then reviewed and approved by the President.
There is a difference between a budget and a deficit. A deficit is the difference between the expenditures and the amount obtained as revenue for the fiscal year, which is then added to the National Debt (credit card).
A surplus means that you are taking in more revenue than your expenditures and thus can use this amount to reduce your debt.
FYI - according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, there was no real surplus during the Clinton years as shouldn't we have seen a reduction in our National Debt? I only see it increasing, so means - Political lies/math.
During Bush's first 6 yrs with a Republican controlled Congress - total deficit was around 2.8 Trillion.
Bush's last year and now Obama with a Democratic controlled Congress - total deficit for those almost 4 years is 5.2 Trillion.
There is the math folks.
Obama telling us that it's the Bush tax cuts that are the reason we are in this debt mess is just BS. The 2 yr extension for the wealth is estimated at a cost of $81.5 Billion and a total cost of all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion. Source
The debt limit should NOT be increased. It's not fiscally responsible, cut our spending People as we should not be asking for a increase in our line of credit when we are maxed out!
whatrutinkin - You're wrong on the Clinton years - take a look at the chart I posted in #12.9 - you'll see that there is no red during the majority of Clinton's terms.
And even though it may SEEM logical that lower taxes create jobs, it has never actually happened in the history of this country. See posts #20.10and #20.12.
There are many reasons for that, but the main one is that 100% of tax money stays in this country and is reinvested in the economy while only about 55% of tax cuts to upper income levels stays here and works for everyone.
RealAmericansFirst - not sure what your chart shows as yes, there is no red, but it is comparing deficit to GDP - not debt. Please review a true sources on the subject, such as the US Dept of the Treasury for a start.
Below is data from the US Dept of the Treasury during the Clinton years, showing that the national debt increase rather than decreased, thus no surplus. Again smoke and mirror's
TreasuryDirect is brought to you by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt.
09/30/1999
5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993
4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992
4,064,620,655,521.66
FYI - last time the debt was truly reduced was in 1957 (Eisenhower)
Cavebear.....have you been reading the news lately? It seems we've had tremendous job growth in the 2 years that President Obama has been in office. Unemployment claims have gone down considerably and more jobs are being offered. You need to keep up with the news of the day.
And you need to join us in the real world. People claiming unemployment not claiming it anymore doesn't automatically mean they found a job. It means a good deal of them have run out of funds to collect on. Furthermore, you have to create 157,000 jobs a month just to cover new entries into the worker pool. That eans if 200.000 jobs were made last month, only 43,000 of them weren't offset by new possible employees entering the fray. Now, considering we have almost 15 million people out of work, I would hardly call it "tremendous job growth".
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-unemployment-number/19833935/
Also, as you can see, the jobs started to tank right about the time the Democrats took over congress, the ones who make policy and control spending. The jobs TANKED right after they took over. As you can see from the graph for nonfarm 2010-11, there's hardly been any job growth when compared to Bush's term in office, which had a HUGE spike in jobs.
But you keep telling yourself that the Obamessiah is fixing everything better then everyone else.
PS - You'll notice how the job market stayed stagnant through 2010, and as soon as it hit 2011 (Republicans took the house), they spiked up once again.
Borat Obumbles is full of crappola.... He talks about 12 into the future. Cut out the crap NOW!!!!!!!!! We are on the edge of slipping back into a 2nd recession. Stock market is phony as the Fed is propping that up.
#13 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:39 PM EDTIt is literally impossible to resolve the debt now. If the government shut down all spending whatsoever and continued to tax us, it would take us 4 years to pay off the debt we have now. Add another few years for the interest the debt will accrue during that time. That's about 7 years into the future if the Fed becomes a giant money pit we shovel our taxes into. 12 years with a functional government sounds kind of optimistic when you make that comparison.
What's the Ryan's plan time line again...? the next 10 years, right... so much better...
alghourd - Your type of comment scares me more than any problems the United States faces. In fact, I heard someone affiliated with the Tea Party insult a representative from New Jersey, rather than discuss the issue. It is this type of dialogue that makes it impossible for intelligent and vigorous debate to occur. As the President stated, we will make progress solving our problems only through this debate.
Alghourd: You may not agree with what our president is doing, but please have the common courtesy to respect his position.....he is President Obama! People who call him names are ridiculous and have absolutely NO respect. What did your parents teach you (or maybe they didn't).
Odumbo and the DemokRATS can drive the deficit up to 14.3 trillion in 2yrs and now he says he can reduce it by 4 trillion in the 12yrs. I'd like to know what he's been smoking (pun intended). I guess in the next 2 years he's going to drive it up another 28.6 trillion dollars.
#14 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:40 PM EDTMaybe those Republican passed TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY over the last two decades have cut revenue and exacerbated the problem?
Ever think of that?
peteMT -- What effect do you think it has had to allow half the nation to pay zero in taxes? Shouldn't everyone living in the country benefiting from our society have to pay something?
tax cuts for the rich...please show us all where the truth is in that BS...
if you can... and please no crap from moveon.org.
Jay dishonesty is not clever. In 2008 the deficit was 10 trillion. so yes it went up 4 trillion in the worst global recession since...well before you and I were born.
When your assssss is out in the street with no home and no job and your mother, father and all the family has nonthing to eat, you will wake up like all the other fools and see that this man has worked solely for the working class man since day one. We live in a world that is closely connected, when China sneezes america cathes a cold. Do your home work about this entire problem which is global and stop listening to all the retheric and racist dialog. The republicans first agenda in November was to work on their tax breaks, not the deficit.
peteMT, tax cuts for the wealthy today would be only a drop in a rain barrel. You want the wealthy to really make a difference, then vote in people that will raise a flat tax for them of 95% over 5million per year retro to 1985. And that includes New York's financial institutes profits. That would put a big dent into it.
Jay T --Why don't you and the gang just confiscate the property of those who are " rich". Why the pretense of a tax. You know those that make over $200,000 per year. Because, why should they have a right to utilize their skills, talent and industry to actually make more money than you and the skillless , irresponsible, leftists out there. That's the socialistic way, isn't it? Then see how quickly your country sinks into the mire of the third world with the wise and productive gone and only the irresponsible and clueless grasshoppers left.
Gary, the tax doesn't effect the people making $200,000/yr but the super rich. Just the upper 2%, and the tax doesn't kick in until they make $5,000,000. If you ask me $5,000,000.00 makes you pretty rich.
Not sure which tax you are talking about. The new tax on health care for the wealthy was added to income over $200,000 for a single person and $250,000 for a married couple. Then there the extra tax for sale of property if it is higher than 400,000 for the same income levels of 200,000/250,000. So how does the new taxes not affect those making 200,001 for a single person or 250,001 for a married couple.
I can see a few more divorces coming soon or a few less marriages. 250,000 divided by 2 is 125,000. If you have a married couple where each individual makes 125,000 it is now worth it to divorce or not get married. No where near the "rich" level if you are not married but extra tax if you are.
So much for equal work equal pay.
God help us, at a time when we needed Secretariat, we got Tony the Pony...
#15 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:41 PM EDTActually we needed Secretariat when Bush 2 drove us into the rail and broke the back of our nation.
Still playing the "blame Bush" game huh ?
Tell me genius, Obama has been in office now for 27 months has he not ?
The national debt has risen dramatically, he got us into a war with Libya, he sued Arizona for trying to do a job the federal government was failing to do....he rammed through a massive government takeover of health care we cannot afford, he bailed-out his union buddies at GM, illegally screwing GM bondholders in the process.........and Obama has contradicted Obama many times.................you think this is all George Bush's fault ?????????????
Wow Jim, I totally agree with you! Obama has done more to destroy this country and the economy in 2 years than any other President in History! Your right about the stimulus money also, did you get a check? Well neither did I! I remember back in 1980 when the adjustable mortgages were the big thing, we lived in our home for two years and lost it due to the payment going so high we could not pay it. A lot of people lost thier homes then, but nobdy bailed us out! I am so sick of Dems blaming Bush for everything, at least he was a MAN and took control of bad situations..........God help us until election time in 2012
Bush and the GOP got us here. I will tell you what I'm sick of, claiming Bush was a good president. I hate Bush so much I don't ever want to be closer then 500 miles to him. I hate GOP lies that Obama is a bad president.
No on second thought maybe the GOP is correct. If the objective of today's GOP is to destroy the economy, then Obama is the worst President the country can have.
My objective is to see a strong healthy economy like we had in the 90s. From my point of view Obama is a vast improvement over Bush. If it takes cutting corporate welfare I'm all for it and increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent I'm all for it.
Who cares about which President was better or not, all I can say is that a Dem controlled House and Senate has not help in the last 10 years. During the 90's, Clinton's last 6 years, the House and Senate was controlled by Republicans.
Point is, having one party control the Executive and Legislative branches is just not good for the nation at this time to do reduce our debt and foster economic growth.
Corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy is only a small bit of our fiscal budget, so even if we removed both of them - we are still in a deficit and in debt. But that "welfare" for corps also included the Presidents pet project to move to alternative energy.
I'm sure many other countries that are trying to get themselves out of this recession will be more than glad to give "welfare" to corporations so they can say to their people that they brought jobs and thus boosted their economy.
Jim: President Obama did NOT take us in a war in Libya.....the U.S. joined NATO to do air strikes.....unlike the two wars that our past puppet got us into for NO reason at all! AND, to make it worse, that particular president didn't even put the COST of that war into his budget; so, of course it didn't seem to be as much as the current one.
Wow Jim, I totally agree with you! Obama has done more to destroy this country and the economy in 2 years than any other President in History! Your right about the stimulus money also, did you get a check
I guess you were unemployed Annie or you make over $75,000 a year as an individual, because myself and about 180 million other people got $400 extra cash in our pockets for each of the last 2 years. That accounted for about 1/3 of the American recovery and reinvestment act. (Stimulus) However if you were too stupid to take the Make work pay credit on your taxes you didn't see a penny of it.
Anyone notice his nose growing during the speech... crazy 3D TV,had to take the 3D glass's off, look like it was going to hit me right in the wallet!!!!!
#16 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:41 PM EDT21 deleted, Angela - NJ beginning with some grenade-trolling:
You republicans on here really suck
Leave the 'you people [insult]' rhetoric somewhere else.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
tyler - but "Borat Obumbles is full of crappola" is okay?
Number one rule of moderation:
You know when a bunch of people are making crappy comments so you make one too and you are the first to be banned, perhaps even the only one?
Ha ha, you lose.
I'm not a fan of either the President's approach or Ryan's. I hope some compromise can be reached that is more satisfactory to most people who are in the middle of the road politically. I do like the going back and forth of throwing out competing proposals. I hope it continues and decent consensus is reached. Split government works best anyway. One party rule is what has screwed us when either the Repubs or Dems had complete control.
#18 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:42 PM EDTBut what parts of each plan do you want?
Increase Taxes, and decrease social benefits or Tax cuts and increased social benefits? Because one of those plans will will get rid of the debt and one will make it worse.
I think the Bush tax cuts for millionaires should be repealed. But it will also be necessary to raise the retirement age for Social Security. When Social Security was first enacted, the life expectancy was much lower. Some people have already gotten back more than they had actually put in, as a result of that. Future generations are picking up the tab.
Many tax loopholes for corporations have to be closed while lowering the corporate tax rate overall. Also "farm" subsidies that allow the rich to pay lower property taxes because they have three chickens and a horse, need to go. I've seen people from both sides take advantage of that old trick. Libs and Conservatives. Jon Bonjovi paid $100 in property taxes in Jersey. Christie Whitman, former Governor of NJ, used the same trick. Obama's buddy Immelt is CEO of GE, who pays basically nothing in taxes.
Tax cuts and increased spending both stimulate the economy but both methods contribute to long term deficits. It's all the same crap just repackaged by whatever party is in power.
Ryan's plan depends on the repeal of Obama care to achieve it's goals. That ain't going to happen. They don't have enough votes to overrule a presidential veto, so that's pointles to even put in his proposal. That's also assuming it would make it through the Senate, which it won't. So his 6 trillion estimate is crap.
Obama's numbers on the healthcare plan are BS too. Even the CBO has revised its numbers regarding it and declared that it will add to the deficit. Plus 500 billion of what was supposed to come from the elimination of wate in medicare, used to help fund it, is double counted and even the head of Health and Human Services (Sebilius) admitted to that under oath.
Both sides are full of crap but somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Matt: No, you're being a bit too simplistic.
if you go with Ryan's plan, the budget cuts are replaced with tax breaks for corporations and high income earners, and in fact the deficit is worsened (he'd also gut national health care which would increase the deficit substantially over the next decade.) Even Ryan doesn't argue he's doing this to slash the deficit anytime within the next two decades. If you go with Obama's plan, you're going to slow growth, but at least you won't increase the deficit.
Social security would have been completely solvent if both parties had'nt borrowed from it without paying it back,That is a fund that working Americans pay into and only working Americans should get anything out of it
That Social Security "LOCK BOX" was picked a long time ago.
Wow, lots of posters confused about taxes.
Property taxes are a local government issue, has nothing to do with INCOME taxes, which is a federal issue that directly influences the deficit.
Don't call BS when you are dishing out BS.
Matt - Well stated. I believe that is what the President is calling for.
The point had more to do with the fact that some people game the system through subsidies , whether on a local, state or Federal level. Sorry I didn't clarify that fact. Deficit problems don't reside solely at the Federal level. My state is a prime example of that. And I still say both parties suck and they both got us into our current mess.
get real about cutting the deficit? ryan's plan indicates that he won't raise taxes but thinks that within ten years, our unemployment rate will magically go down to 3%, and all these magical workers and jobs will appear and solve all our budget problems. really??
just read the charts and PDF below, you don't need to read krugman's comments as he isn't a neutral sourse.
Everyone has complaints and criticism, what are your suggestions for the deficit? Since the President is a "putz" as you called him. How would you solve this mess that we are in that was clearly over 75% made by the previous administration?
He's doing the best he can with what he has to work with, and only talk from the GOP side. . You have to go back a long way to find the country in as bad as shape as it was when he took office. President Obama is on the right track, we need to help him clear the way of the GOP backsliding road blocks they keep throwing in his way. Vote Democrat.
She pulled it out her a$$. That is "progressive" math.....if you don't know, make something up and try to look normal.
Want to see where the deficit ditch came from?
$1 trillion in unfunded wars, $1 trillion for Medicare Part D and $2 trillion for the Bush tax cuts.
Do you like it in pie charts?:
What caused the budget deficit?
Or graphs?:
Chart Showing Clear Cause for Current Federal Budget Deficit
But we shouldn't bank on those that dug it to get us out, obviously.
You guy, you conservative guys, do remember that Georgie started out with a surplus, and a balanced budget. He blew that and then some in the first year. He ran an increasing deficit for the next 7 years handing Obama a near trillion dollar deficit to start with. Geez, the Repubs act like George left America in great economic shape when finally left. Get real. He said that he was leaving a mess to whomever followed him. And he was a man of his word.
Obummer could give up his considerable salary for starters, Congress should take a 20% reduction in salary, and all Federal employess should be downsized by at least 15%.
It's as accurate a figure as planned parenthood's clients being 90% abortions
It's as accurate a figure as planned parenthood's clients being 90% abortions
Touchet! Oh yes, Kyl's 'I didn't mean it as a factual statement' schtick...hahaha
Real American First - Tax cuts are not spending. They are non-collecting. In other words, if you don't have it, don't spend it. See now?
How would you solve the problem?
That was basically the question that the poster asked. well, here you go.
I think that is a great start. I would love to hear some additions and would love to hear a response from the owner of this thread.
rich - if you take away Earned Income Credit tax credits you're going to have to increase the minimum wage. There's no way a family can live off of $15,080 gross annual wages, which is what a full-time worker will earn.
The only way people in the bottom 50% are making it right now is government programs, as corporations in this country have decided it's more profitable to amass $1 trillion in cash than to pay a living wage.
The top 1/100th of 1% of households in this country earn an average income of $27 million a year. The bottom 90% of households earn an average of $31,327. That's serfdom.
I subsist on a little over 700 a month. I could live comfortably on 2611 dollars a month. That being said I agree with you RAF. What could support me might not do for a family of 4.
@RealAmericansFirst: I am not sure what data you are using to come to a conclusion that 90% of American families earn an average of $31,327. The 2008 tax data from IRS analyzed by Tax Foundation has average Adjusted Gross Income at $33,048 average for 50%. Could you point me to a reference that shows the income at a lower amount for the bottom 90%?
RAF
$31,327 / 12= $2610.5833333333333333333333333333 I rounded up to the nearest dollar, $2611.00.
The tea party fair tax
0-50000 50% tax-your a loser and deserve to pay heavy taxes
50000-100000 30% tax-your doing better and need rewarded
100000-250000 15% more reward for success
250000-1000000 zero tax you made the upper class!
above 1000000 zero tax plus sign at the bottom for your 100000 tax refund, you hire people and have earned it
#21 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDTwow.... where did you come up all that?? did you think all the up on your very own?
dpe of ed-u-ma-k-shin... tax dollars well spent ;(
As opposed to the progressive planned.
If you have worked hard and been a success and you make over $70,000, look at line 1 on your tax 1040 tax form. Write the government a check for that. Because everyone knows that any good jobs are created by the government. After all, the government knows better how to spend your money than you do. There isn't a spending problem in Washington. We just need to give them more money.
NO TAX INCREASES WITHOUT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Notice the president did not make any promises to balance the budget or to use any new tax money to lower the deficit. He spent a lot of time blaming Bush but didn't mention that of $14.3 trillion in the deficit almost $4.5 trillion was run up on his watch.
Write the government a check for that. Because everyone knows that any good jobs are created by the government.
Agreed, a lot of jobs are created by Corporations...in India, China, Mexico, The Phillipines....etc
And where is that GOP jobs bill anyway? Bueller...Bueller?
Notice the president did not make any promises to balance the budget or to use any new tax money to lower the deficit.
Well, Ryan's plan doesn't balance it . NO plan out there does. Please show me the numbers in Ryan's plan that say the debt will be 100% paid off and by when. Ill be waiting.
The debt reduction to zero plan is going to be a 20-30 year endeavor. Anyone that tells you otherwise is being a FOOL
Fact of the matter is that raising taxes will further incent businesses to move jobs overseas. Consider this, a US "S" corporation is taxes at nearly 40% while if that same entity was in South Korea (for example) they would be taxed at 10%. Not even close. How can any sane business man not look into adding 30% to their bottom line by moving overseas. We need to remain at least in the ball park with our tax rates to other countries or the wealth will move out of the US. Have that happen, then all you have left are the people standing there looking for a hand out not contributing.
We should eliminate tax credits that go beyond the amount that you paid into the government from payroll deductions. No reason anyone should get back all the money they sent into the government all year in payroll taxes and then have the government give them even more back.
We should raise the Alternative Minimum Tax Level so that dual income middle class professionals do not get hit with this tax that was designed inthe 1960's to go after the ultra rich. The income level for ATM has not changed in more than 45 years! Killing the middle class.
Lastly, you must spread the tax burden to more than just the "rich" One thing all are ignoring is that these too few provide way too much of the countries tax revenues. Should the wealthy have a bad year (think the stock market crash in 2008) then the government loses so much of its revenue base that they can no longer operate. This is exactly what happened in CA.
0.1% of the population pay 75% of the income tax in CA. (Fortune magazine april issue) Since the wealthy did not have agood couple of years, the state lost the majority of its income tax revenues and ran up huge deficits. No good businessman would put so many eggs in such a small basket. Very risky and poor strategy. But, all you ever hear about is taxing the rich more. They do no pay their fair share ....BS>
I do not consider myself wealthy, but when I have to pay over 56% of my take hoem pay to the state and the federal government in taxes, thats more than my fair share.
The government should not be in the business of re-distributing wealth.
Experience shows that lower tax rates for high incomes don't generate better job creation. As The Wall Street Journal reported, President Bush "shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records" in 1939.
The Bush administration created just 1.1 million jobs net, while the Clinton administration created 22.7 million (fact checked by Politifact using the latest data). In the six years after Clinton's 1993 tax increase, employment grew 16.2 percent compared to just 4.8 percent in the six years between Bush's 2001 tax cut and the Great Recession.
The top tax rate in the 1950's, which most everyone agrees were great for business, was 91% every year except 1952 and 1953, when it was 92%. Yep, just killed business and nobody got hired, right?
And, looking, the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is nowhere near the highest in the world due to all the write-offs, depreciation and tax credits we give them.
The U.S. effective corporate tax rate is 25.4% (for corporations reporting positive net taxable income).
That's lower than or equivalent to all these countries:
France 34.0%
Russia 31.9%
UK 27.9%
Italy 26.9%
Spain 25.4% (same as U.S. rate)
Austria 25.3%
Argentina 43.1%
Brazil 35.1%
India 33.6%
Japan 29.5%
S. Korea 29.5%
Australia 26.0%
Don't believe all the propaganda you hear, no matter how well funded.
When GE and Exxon/Mobil pay $0 tax, something is rotten in Denmark.
The top tax rate in the 1950's, which most everyone agrees were great for business, was 91% every year except 1952 and 1953, when it was 92%. Yep, just killed business and nobody got hired, right?
Actually, YES! It led to a recession in the later 50s that was ended by JFK lowering taxes which resulted in increased revenue to the IRS and job creation in the private sector thoughout the 60s.
RealAmerica, you are full of it. Every single one of those countries subsidises thier corporations. Airbus is a perfect example of this. You do not know what you are talking about.
You also ignored State, County and Local corporate taxes. All these add up to over 50%, which is by far the highest in the world.
Why would a corporation offshore to a country with HIGHER tax rates?
You have either been misled, or you are intentionally trying to decieve the readers here. You cannot show the US "effective" tax rates without showing those countries "effective" tax rates after government subsidies.
Which one is it?
Then there are VAT taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, and on and on. THEN you have the double taxation on dividends.
Run abusiness and then come back and brag about your misguided analysis.
THEN there are property taxes....it never ends in the US, that is the cost of the privilege of doing business in the most lucrative market in the world, many cant afford to stay at the table.
We either make it more affordable, or they will go elsewhere. They are not going elsewhere to pay more, that is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard!
Where are the jobs Scomata? We have had 11 years of the George Bush tax rate. Industry stopped hiring under GWB. I see no reason to continue rewarding industry for down sizing.
We are dealing with a terminal case financially -- there is no way we can survive an avalanche of debt with just a piddling amount, as suggested by the president, addressing the issue! An apt comparison -- a patient has cancer in his stomach and the doctor prescribes taking 2 Advil tablets every four hours, then "call me in the morning and tell me how you are doing!" Anyone ready to give the last rites to Washington DC????
#22 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDTActually that was a simple minded unrelated comparison that has no basis in reality. Instead of criticizing why don't you get involved and keep you country going.
Agree with another comment...Sure is nice to have an ADULT in the White House. One who DOESN T believe that it is the RIGHT on the have's to KEEP theirs, while the have not's cut back..for the good of WHOM ?
#23 - Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Biden attacks Romney tenure as venture capitalistBill Clinton to U.S., Europe: quit bickering over spendingObama raises $44 million for campaign, Dems in MayAmericans split on Obama's gay marriage decisionObama walks fine line in bashing Romney, courting Wall StreetFlorida governor takes aim at firms with ties to Cuba, SyriaNo boost for Obama from gay marriage decisionPaul hopes to influence Republican agenda at conventionNo boost for Obama from gay marriage decisionEx-Senator Edwards didn't know of payments, confidante testifies
Comment collapsed by the community
To new to rate.