Obama will refuse to do the dirty work of taking serious leadership in financial matters. The reason is obvious......he is a financial moron and will continue to put his ideology high above the practicality of our country's precarious financial position.

The headline is mis-leading! There is no Budget stalemate, there is a Budget OBSTRUCTION. And yes, the Party Of No, is the CULPRIT...again! The Republicans are absolutely willing to totally destroy the U S ecomnomy,while pointing fingers at others for the economic situation.

Alas, Obama is taking too long to fix the mess they, the Republicans, made under Bush/Cheney...when according to 'DICK' Cheney, deficits and debt don't matter. But now, the Republicans say the deficit and debt, are problem #1. Uncle Sam has a spending problem!!! Oh... , the hypocray stinks to high hell...and to their supporters ...MOOO to you too! LOL

Obama doesn't know HOW to Lead! He is NOT a leader. Furthermore, his progressive/socialist left liberal agenda does NOT lend itself to America but then he hates our country anyway!

Why raise the budget when it will only lead to more spending?

Focus on illegal immigration, welfare reform and bringing manufacturing back to the USA.

ldj: How is it that you see the republicans as holding everything up when its those on the left that are not willing to cut spending if the right is not agreeing to raise taxes.

Why can they not just deal with cutting spending, then come back later to look at raising taxes?

It seems like every thing the left is accusing the right of doing, is exactly what they are doing themselves. This all seems very shady to me.

The "shellacking" continues.

ldj:

You mean the mess that the Democratic Majority Congress made under Bush/Cheney, don't you?

the fact that these politicians in washington cant solve a common sense problem shows their incompetence.

The first thing we need to do on the economy is raise a 60% import tax on goods from China, this will take away profits from companies shipping overseas. Keep in mind if you are one of the people that says "china will retalliate," that we feed China (their corn comes from the USA). This also applies to other asian nations.

Then we need to provide tax incentives to companies opening new industrial jobs in america, this will encourage them to open a new factory and hire workers. Simple rule, if you open a new factory then we wont tax you for a while. And since every job in industry creates roughly another 1.5 in the support sector this will put america back to work.

Following this, we need to secure our borders, what is the point of creating a job if the illegals will take it. Im not saying land mines, but i am saying that something must be done.

Next, we need to cut welfare. We should create work programs for people who loose jobs, making them report to a government workstation during normal work hours and do the jobs that are left undone in a normal municipality (cleaning off graffitti for example). With these jobs being created, people will no longer have an excuse to sit on their a** and take your money. Keep in mind, its YOUR money that they get in a check...

Finally, with more workers means we collect more tax revenue, and with no welfare we take away a huge expense. With that left over money we need to begin paying off our bills as a nation, and once that is done maybe we should start burning the extra cash as a way to increase the value of our dollar (yes that last part was a joke).

In the end lets just hope common sense prevails.

@Spider

Democrat Jedi: (With wave of hand) These arent the Democrats we're looking for. The Democrats dismissed early that day.

Republican: Uh... no.

In a nut shell It is not my fault. I did have the majority in the house and the senate. But, it is still Bush's fault ! LMAO

What's this? Obama is going to give a speech? There's something new. Oh, wait, that's right... Giving speeches is the only thing he actually knows how to do properly. Is it a coincidence that he got hammered again in the polls yesterday and has called a press conference today?

Putting Joe Biden in charge of anything so important is basically an admission that Obama knows he can't handle the situation himself. But at least he can stand at the podium and pretend he knows what the hell is going on.

Because 61% of the population has utterly unrealistic expectations about how long it can take to recover from a Depression. The last one this big took 10 years and didn't end until we were forced by Japan into the largest manufacturing boom this country has ever seen.

Why can they not just deal with cutting spending, then come back later to look at raising taxes?

Why can't we raise the debt ceiling and look at spending later?

Why can't we raise taxes to historic levels and look at spending cuts later?

Why can't we close loopholes and get rid of corporate subsidies and cut spending later?

Why can't republicans focus on JOBS first, then worry about cutting spending?

Didn't the party of "No" already pass a budget? In the house anyway?

Ah, the usual suspects up early this morning. Did you all get your talking points from Karl this morning? Seems like it. Don't spend all that "Citizen's United" money in one place.

So Faithfulalways, whatever poll ranks Obama low on the economy ranks Congress even lower.

Jim, Obama is far from a financial moron. It's difficult bringing an economy back when you're blocked by Republicans every step of the way. Regardless, you still can't explain why GDP has gone up every quarter since Obama came into office.

Annierich, you sound like Sarah Palin and Bachmann combined. Obama is leading just fine. I don't know why people think the President writes legislation. I find a total lack of leadership by Congress on the whole jobs issue in the US. Republicans did run on jobs didn't they?

Brent, Democrats have agreed to the cuts, at issue is closing the corporate loopholes, which Republicans are saying is a "tax hike" and walking away from the tables.

Spider, you continue the Jedi mind trick by diverting Bush's responsibility for our mess, by blaming the Congress of that time. I keep reminding you that Bush could have vetoed anything at anytime.

KC, anyone that doesn't find fault with lowering taxes, starting two wars, with the mantra "deficits don't matter" are faulty themselves.

Backcountry, its normal for Presidents to delegate. Hell, Cheney practically ran the country under Bush. The President shouldn't be involved in every negotiation. Furthermore, no big corporation operates that way either.

I don't see Republican candidates holding press conferences and taking hard questions.

Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times when Bush was President. Why the sudden "concern" for the deficit now?

We the corporations, the Democrats have already agreed to the cuts. Republicans won't go for closing corporate loopholes which they frame as "raising taxes".

Let's raise revenues and make cuts too. Why won't republicans consider that?

Eric, why are they putting any kind of stipulation on spending cuts? Why don't they just do it then come back to the other issues?

And Clotho - You're argument doesn't hold much water seeing how Bush sucked as President and the house was controlled by the democrats.

faithfulasalays- If polls are so reliable why did Truman defeat Dewey? Polls change with the wind and really are just a signature second in time without committment.

Gallup has the President up 1% today. I note that Republicans in Congress have a way lower approval rating that President Obama. Try 29% approval for the GOP on Polling report and a 68% disapproval rate.

6/16-20/11

29
68
2
1

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

O BROTHER....Yet ANOTHER speech...oh, that's right, he's on the campaign trail and this is just free advertising/campaign speech. AS USUAL we'll hear of lot of nothing, a lot of patting his own back, well trying to give the appearance that he is working at Pres. more than he's campaigning. Yeah, right...

Well, I'm not going to waste my time listening to him blame, read what he's been told to read, put on a good performance, blah, blah, blah....And as usual, say NOTHING. Probably just needs to be seen in before he hits the links.

Did the polls also get the shellacking of 2010 right?

Well it isn't going to be a speech Aggie, no teleprompters. This is the setting he gets into trouble at because he gets off message and says things he regrets later. He is no good without a script to keep him on the tracks.

Eric, what cuts? I'd like to see them in writing?

Why did Obama blow off his OWN appointed debt commision?

Eric, if republicans didn't block things, we would have needed to raise the debt ceiling a long time ago.

MCMetal - I thought the democrats controlled the house so if I was wrong, my mistake.

It doesn't change the fact that Bush still sucked as President so quit pointing at him and what he did to justify the current administrations failures.

B.O.'s not getting his way so he is going to cry about it again, is anyone surprised?

Here are the highlights to expect during the dictators speech:

A. Everything is Bush's fault.

B. Remember everything would be far, far worse if not for me; Despite things actually being worse now I saved the universe from imploding.

C. Everyone who is not a Democrat is "Extreme" or "Obstructionist" no matter how much I ignore the constitution, and no matter how much me and my party say "no".

D. We must "invest! invest! invest!" i.e.(spend! spend! spend! on even more "stimulus") and I need a higher debt ceiling to keep borrowing to keep funding the cover-up of the true state of the economy.

E. The "recovery" is going to take off NEXT month.

F. I just authorized a reduction of troop levels in Afghanistan .... "Mission Accomplished".

Brent-independent, the dems, Pelosi and Reid had the house and Senate from jan of 2007 to jan of 2011.

We the corporations, the Democrats have already agreed to the cuts.

Eric,

How about providing some specifics or a link or some source that provides details. I asked you yesterday what Obama and the democrats detailed plan was for reducing the deficit and all you could come up with was an article regarding raising taxes. Where is Harry Reid's detailed plan?

MCMetal,

Actually the R's raised the limit 4 times from 01-06, twice in '02, once in '04 and once in '06, from 5.9 Tr to 9 Tr.

The D's raised it once in '08 to 10.6 Tr and many more times over the last 2+ years to 14.3 TR.

So in 6 years R's raised it 3.1 Tr, Dem's 5.3Tr in 4.5 years... Your facts are wrong... again.

Metal

Doesn't matter. Now is now. And as of now there will be no debt ceiling raising.

Now next matter...Illegals...not illegal immigrants...just the illegals. There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" You either legally immigrate or you are in the country illegally and will be shown the door. Yes i do not give a rats asp if it makes my big mac cost 10 cents more.

MCMetal, $300B a year for 7 years does not compare to $1500B a year 3 years in a row!

Jr, the talks going on that Biden was facilitating aren't "in writing" yet. Nothing is holding up the deal on the debt ceiling except the Republicans refusal to close corporate loopholes.

Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes? They aren't now.

So we'll default on our debt rather than close corporate loopholes?

Oh, do you mean the wars that Obama has continued and expanded??

And i suppose Lybia is Bushs' war to huh?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/debt-ceiling-limits-through-the-ages/

ERIC, thanks for providing a source to back up your "cut" claims...

PS, GE would have paid taxes had Obama not given them over $4B in tax credits... OOPPPS!

I love when people who have no idea, education or background in tax policy talk about it like they know everything!

Eric, great posts. I see all the Faux Noise gang is here, spouting their usual lies and distortions. I hope the Pres. tells them to take a flying leap, without some more revenues coming in, we are doomed. All the top economists say too much cutting will tank any recovery, and that is just what the TPups want. But the vast majority of Americans will know who is bringing this disaster again. And they will bear the blame and pay the price for this new crisis.

Michelle, what recovery?

You can raise tax rates to 100% for every cent over $250K and you'd still be over $500B short...

Liberals just want to keep kicking the can!

MCMetal... maybe you missed that every comment has a NYT link to it... Are you saying the leftist NYT's insn't credible?

What a joke you are!

sandtrich

The debt ceiling increase just allows the government to function and to pay existing obligations.

You left out future obligations. Try making $2000 a month and spending $4000. You can just put the extra $2000 on your credit card. Once you hit your limit on your credit card, call Visa and explain that you need a higher limit to spend your way out of debt. Tell us all how that works for you.

Now, a responsible person would start by limiting their "obligations". In other words...cut spending.

Or, if you're a liberal president, you fix it all by giving a campaign speech.

MCMetal, what are you 12?

Have you ever admitted to being wrong? (which i'm sure happens more often than not).

And in 2007 how did Pelosi and Reid change that?? They spent MORE! And didn't fix any of the problems!

In fact, they made things worse in hopes that Obama would win!

You seem to be wrong about EVERYTHING... how many times the DC was raised, how much it was raised, who raised it...

Keep up the ignorant partisanship! I think your RA is knocking on your door!

MCMetal: I don't know if you have me pegged as a republican in hiding or someone that supported Bush or the terrible decisions he and Cheney made while they were in office but I was furious with how Washington was doing things then and I'm furious with how Washington is doing things now.

michelle - why must people start up with the media driven propaganda comments as opinions like the rest of ignorant republicans and democrats do?

Oh Fox said this so it must be true - Oh CNN said this so it must be true.

Give me a break. Try turning off the politically motivated news shows. Look at things for yourself rationally and then draw your own conclusions about what's what. I can assure you my opinions are not derived from watching Fox News, CNN or reading news stories on MSNBC.

Collapse the economy...vote Obama 2012

Prove me wrong!

You can't, instead you'll keep up with the Ad Hom while we get you booted from NV. Then the real adults will have a fact based conversation.

Brent,

If you follow Michelle's comments, she tends to resort to Ad Hom attacks when she can't provide any facts to prove you wrong.

Alwaysfaithful posted this a few days ago.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

So do you think anyone that the whitehouse allows into this conference will have the guts to ask the president why he's flipflopping?

Rick-

keep dreaming and drinking that Obadchebaga kool-aide

Joe... because it's his butt on the line this time... Politics 101!

What happened? Did FOX News website go down? All I see is Obama bashing and right wing hyperbole.

No wonder the House can't write a jobs bill. The republicans are too busy blaming Obama for the air they breathe. Coincidently, they refuse to take any blame themselves.

Remind me, just how great was the rein on republicans when they had control?

Wait get the press! This is a great photo op!! And the Pres will have some where to look other than the American public directly.. Quick scramble! Get the unfree press.

MCMetal, I recall the GOP using the "War on Terror," as their mantra to spend, spend, spend with the sky the limit. Now that we the people and this nation are suffering as a consequence of their proven bad policies. The GOP is using our pain for political gain and just wait people have had it with them. The GOP is trying to blame President Obama for anything and everything and Americans are not buying it. The GOP is purposefully sticking it to Americans and many are saying get ready. People are angry as hay and the next election won't come soon enough to kick those red's out. I agree with Pelosi that we need a balanced approach of increased tax revenue, tax cuts and dare I say it spending cuts. What all Americans do every day by trying to increase income to pay down debt and cutting their spending. Time the GOP did the same for this country and it's future.

Wow, MCMetal has gone off into the full lib attack mode! Blame Bush didn't convince anybody on the thread, so now we're all targeted for some good old reliable insults and namecalling.

Mary and I remember Obama the Dem's continuing every sinlge bit of that mantra... Please remind me who just signed the Patriot Act 100% back into law??

Bosslimo, what's with all the deflection?? Do you finally realize Obama has nothing to run on so he and you have to stick with the "blame bush" approach for everything?

As long as the deal contains real spending cuts in something close to a 75/25 split between cuts and tax increases, I'm ok with it. But, that's only if they are real spending cuts - not the political accounting games that they did with the budget deal.

Oh, and removing exemptions is a tax increase. Changing a tax law because it was poorly worded isn't a tax increase, but when the law clearly states what a company or individual needs to do to get X amount of tax benefit - when you change that wording to get more money, it is a tax increase.

MC Metal is loosing his control. Not only Republicans and conservatives are posting here independents , 61 % of Americans do not beleave in Obamanomic . We are going in the wrong direction GOT IT!!!!

insults are the trademark of one who lacks the mental acumen to articulate a point with intelligence and fact.the response of denigrating those whom you disagree with is the cornerstone of a life rooted in ignorance........with a liberal dose of stupidity as well.

why won't the publicons consider tax increases, because grover turdquist is their god, and ayn rand is thier version of mother theresa

stupid americans like you ?

MCMetal

Conservatism is a mental disorder

I think the book titled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" has been out for a number of years. As a Progressive, you should at least try to come up with something a bit more original........

the only facts that apply to your parroting of all things liberal are contained in post 1.82.......

the fact that you responded to 1.82 iron boy points out that you obviously felt the need to defend yourself......self incrimination is sure a b!tch dontcha think!

Just mark MCMetal's post's as Inflammatory... He'll go away soon!

real michaud, The Republicans realize an updated tax system need to be done... but they aren't going to put everything in writing on the table until the Dem's/Obama puts SOMETHING in the form of 100's of BIllions a year in cuts...

It's called Politics 101, the Republicans won't show all their cards until the Dem's at least show one of theirs!

Mc Metal

You are a disgrace even for liberals. You can't even think . Don't call liberal to yourself is a bad propaganda. :)

I keep seeing the Republicans say that "everyone" will need to contribute to fixing the economy, yet they have not said one thing . . . NOT ONE THING . . . that shows THEY will contribute.

The Republicans want to take jobs away from OTHER people (unions and government workers) and destroy medicare to fix the economy. But they are NOT willing to make one contribution themselves . . . they want to force someone else to suffer in order to fix everything.

The Democrats want to raise taxes AND cut spending . . . raising taxes on the rich includes rich Democrats. So the Dems are willing to make sacrifices themselves to help fix everything.

What this all comes down to is that the Republicans would rather put millions of people out of a job, instead of paying 3% more in taxes. They actually want to INCREASE unemployment and destroy millions of families just to save 3% . . . 3 f***ing percent. And somehow they claim to have "morals".

So come on, Repubs . . . tell me how YOU will contribute to helping fix the problem. What will YOU sacrifice. You are extremely eager to force someone else to sacrifice, but what will YOU DO?

MCMetal

BTW I warned everyone that once your rights or freedoms are whittled away at or simply taken , you don't get them back............

Do you mean like my right to work? My right to not pay union dues? Or could you mean my right to choose my own healthcare and doctor? Or maybe it's my right as to whether or not to pay for my medical out of my own pocket or purchase insurance?

Possibly my right to drive a vehicle that doesn't get good gas milage since I am the one paying for the gas? Or my right to pack a lunch for my son?

smater zinc baby you can't reply with anything other than insults?.......you still lack the ability to communicate with a shred of intelligence and your big mouth only proves that point time after time.( to be fair your small brain is equally culpable)

Thoughts from Cali, so can YOU provide a link or source to what exaclty, (in writing) the Dem's/Obama plans/ideas are?

It would appear , I say appear , that the Repubicans keep raising the bar.Since none of us are privy,that I know of,of what is REALLY happening other than what the Media of both sides are saying we should be after BOTH sides to " d-nm it"just do thier jobs as we HIRED them to do and stop the bickering.

Thoughts from Cali, you do realize even if you increase the tax rate from 35 to 38%, Mr. Buffet will still only pay 15% of his income in taxes?

Again, if people want to talk tax policy please at least have some knoweldge of what they are talking about and don't go off spouting some left wing or right wing ignorant talking point provided from Rush, Ed or Madcow!

Here is a graph showing all of the debt ceiling increases since Reagan. Neither side has a leg to stand on. Let go of your party lines because they are lies. And don't trust a politician, it only shows your ignorance or your delusion.

Old man, I agree! It would be nice to see an Actual plan instead of all the blame game from the leaders and media.

"We're going to need to look at the whole budget," said the president. "And eliminate waste wherever we find it."

I wonder if he means Biden? Maybe Holder? How about the Fed, the Department of Education, Obamacare, Stimulus money, his wife's extravagant vacations? The ridiculous amount of foreign aid?

Obama continued, "I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans ... it would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we have to make some tough choices to cut our deficit."

Nice lie here. He didn't cut taxes, he just kept them the same....unless GE and Goldman Sach's constitute "ordinary Americans" Oh wait!!! Maybe he means that since his policies have reduced everyone's paycheck, that we're all paying less in taxes?

He added, "Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead."

Call us all naive Mr. President....we thought you were going to lead.

Obama said if the U.S. defaults on its loans, the consequences will be significant and unpredictable. "August 2nd, we run out of tools to make sure our bills get paid," said Obama. "There is no reason we can't get this done now."

Consequences to who? The IMF? Wall Street? China? There is a reason "we" can't get this done now....you, and congress refuse to cut anything.

Cutting the deficit (notice it isn't cutting the DEBT) by $4 trillion over 12 years means that the debt will be over $20 trillion at Obama's pace of spending....and it isn't going to work.

I truly hope they don't raise the ceiling.

Chip -

There you go, avoiding the question by turning it around and responding with a separate question.

What's wrong? Too afraid to answer? Or maybe you know that you DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER, so you twist the discussion.

Well I am calling you out . . . man-up and answer the question. Don't twist it around, don't change the subject. ANSWER THE QUESTION. What will Republicans sacrifice to fix the problem? If YOU are demanding the jobs of others . . . if YOU are demanding that we put people on the street, out of work . . . what will YOU also sacrifice?

Or maybe a miracle will occur, and you will actually be man enough to admit that your plan requires no sacrifice from yourself, and you want to place the burden entirely on someone else. I doubt you have the courage to admit this, but let's find out.

So come on, Chip . . . let's hear it.

We could tax 100% every penny of adjusted gross income over $100,000 and we STILL would have budget deficits -- along with a collapsed economy. Level of taxation is not the problem. It's a red herring used by those who politically benefit from class warfare.

Having said that, I agree with Obama when he says we need to eliminate corporate loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies. Where we part ways is when he wants to single out specific targets. If you're going to do it, then it should be across the board. No loopholes, breaks, and/or subsidies to Big Oil (Exxon, etc.) and also no loopholes, breaks, and/or subsidies for Big Green (GE, etc.) either. It's across the board BO, not just OK for your buddies to get massive tax breaks but not OK for the others.

BTW, here's a hint to those on the left...ending Big Oil subsidies and the ensuing price hikes will hurt the working poor much worse than it hurts the rich.

Hey MCMetal why you don't go to Greece , they need more people like you over there to tear down their own country.

Thoughts, the GOP has already agreed to large DOD cuts, has already agreed to ending a lot of deductions/loopholes.

See the difference is the GOP has made these ideas public, some were in the Ryan plan and many other have been released by leaders. Yes, they lack some details but they are legit plans (no i'm not talking about the medicare changes).

Where are Obama's and the Dem's plans? And "it's all on the table" doesn't count! Also keep in mind that Obama and Reid are 66% of the govt right now... but haven't put out ANY ideas...

Joe, Ironically over 3 months ago, the GAO showed how obama could cut $200B a year in "Waste"... but he hasn't even acted on it! Shows just how serious he is!

MCMetal, aer you refering to all those rights which your hero Obama just took away from us?

Okay, enough you idiots.

MCMetal- I get it. You're mad as hell. But as I've read down through this thread your comments get more and more belligerent and inflammatory. Hey, I get mad too sometimes, but when the argument breaks down into childish ad hom rhetoric, it's time to simply move on.

Chip D- I'll make this easy. You're an ass. That's it. That's all. Oh, and if you really believe half the things you've posted, you're also clueless.

I'm an independent voter. I'm also an equal-opportunity party basher. BOTH sides of the aisle have FAILED to do anything meaningful in terms of our economy for decades. If you idiots still seriously believe that one side or the other is completely to blame, then as a nation we deserve to fail miserably. The funny thing is, eventually, Americans will get tired and disenfranchised with the current president and will vote in a republican nominee. At that point, the vitriol will remain the same, but the accusations will switch directions. Nothing else will change, and all the stupid people, including the ones apparent on this forum, will continue to believe the same stupid things. But politically, NOTHING will change.

Why? Simple. BECAUSE IT IS ONE PARTY, WITH TWO FACTIONS!!!! An open mind, and some bathroom reading material, will easily expose our system for the BS it truly is.

But you guys keep on thinking YOUR party is the only correct party to lead our nation. Personally, I would just rather our whole f---ing economy collapse so that we can re-build it back up again the way it was mean't. Yup, people will starve and die. It's too bad, but it's the price we will eventually pay for our ignorant apathy as a nation.



Bill Containing Debt Ceiling Increase
New Debt Ceiling Level Enacted
Number of Republicans in House Voting “Yes”
Party Controlling House/President

111-H.J.Res.45 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (debt portion deemed passed in the rule, )
$14,294,000,000,000
0
Democrats/Obama

111-H.R.4314 – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)
$12,394,000,000,000
0
Democrats/Obama

111-H.R.1 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka TARP)(2009)
$12,104,000,000,000
0
Democrats/Obama

110-H.R.1424 – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)
$11,315,000,000,000
91
Democrats/Bush

110-H.R.3221 – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)
$10,615,000,000,000
45
Democrats/Bush

110-H.J.Res.43 – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, S.Con.Res.21
$9,815,000,000,000
0
Democrats/Bush

109-H.J.Res.47 – Debt limit increase resolution (2006) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, H.Con.Res.95)
$8,965,000,000,000
214
Republicans/Bush

108-S.2986 – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)
$8,184,000,000,000
206
Republicans/Bush

108-H.J.Res.51 – Debt limit increase resolution (2003) (deemed passed in the budget resolution, H.Con.Res.95 )
$7,384,000,000,000
214
Republicans/Bush

107-S.2578 – Debt limit

In 2012? Anyone else!

Chip -

Holy S**t, do you have a reading problem? I didn't ask for a plan . . . I never said we should raise taxes to 100% (no Dem has EVER said that) . . . I asked how YOU will contribute?

You want to force OTHER Americans, OTHER citizens, out of their jobs (unions and government workers). YOU want to actually increase unemployment and take away jobs from average citizens.

So, if you are so willing to FORCE other people to sacrifice for our economy, what will YOU or any average Republican sacrifice?

If YOU are not willing to make a sacrifice yourself, you have NO right to try and FORCE someone else to sacrifice their job for the economy. So what will YOU sacrifice, Chip? What will the average Repub sacrifice?

Stop changing the subject and answer the f***ing question, you coward.

old man, if you say the Republicans keep raising the bar, then you obviously have some very selective memory. Republicans have stated from the beginning that while they would agree to close some loopholes, they would not agree to raising tax rates.

INDY, so now facts aren't true and not believable?? I've never said the GOP wasn't to blame... I've only said they are less to blame for the current budget issues when they have 1/3 of the power...

But you want to come in here on your white house and pretend you are an "indy" and pretend you are above the fray of the two parties...

I've seen your posts in the past and I know you are anything but independent.

Thoughts, I'm a coward?? Sorry, you had more than 1 question in your pointless rant.

As far as what I am willing to do, i'm more than willing to delay SS and medicare till age 67... I'm from NYS, I already pay my share of taxes!

Small Town Pete, funny that you didn't go back to the Clinton administration and show how many times the Republicans agreed to raises in the debt limit then. Of course that would run contrary to the disingenuous "point" you're trying to make, wouldn't it?

You also somehow completely fail to note -- for comparison's sake -- that Barack Obama himself voted against the only Republican requested debt increase he was subject to. Of course again that would run contrary to the disingenuous "point" you're trying to make, wouldn't it?

I'm still in partial shock over Mr. Obama's comment "Call me naive, but my expectation is that leades are going to lead".

How would he know ??? As with the health care bill and other items he wanted, he sits in the background like the old Wizard behind the curtain and bleats out an occasional "stop the bickering" or "we need to have an adult conversation" but does absolutely nothing as far as being a "leader".

If he believes that he is any kind of "leader"...then yes, he is indeed as 'naive' as it gets.

MCMetal... it's 2011, Bush hasn't been in office for 3 years. Yes bush messed up big time...

But as your favorite leftist tv channel says it's time to look FORWARD... Bush hasn't signed a law in 3 years... that's been OBAMA!

You can keep looking back all you want and keep blaming Bush... I'll look forward and work to make this country a better place!

Chip- you posted "Thoughts, the GOP has already agreed to large DOD cuts, has already agreed to ending a lot of deductions/loopholes."

Really? 'Cause the last time I read Ryan's budget plan it actually called for an 11% increase in defense spending, and I don't recall any it closing any tax loopholes, either.

You post "facts", as you say, but they don't add up to reality, and you have only given one reference so far concerning the debt ceiling. Most of your posts are OPINIONS that sound a lot like parroted talking points.

As for my political leanings, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's it. I register independent. If you choose not to believe that, then so be it. It matters not.

MCMetal, again keep showing us all how little you know about tax and budget policy.

If you take out the "tax cuts" and wars, your still over $1 Trillion short...

Medicare, Medicaid and SS, plus all the other "social programs" have grown at over 2.5 times inflation over the last 20 years... but they aren't the problem right?

Indy, try using google, The GOP has put more than 1 plan/idea foward, the Ryan paln wasn't the end all be all... The majority of GOP leaders have come out FOR cutting the DOD...

What specifics have the Dem's come out for? (some details needed).

I've asked for this 5 times now... and they only answers I get are deflection or BUSH BUSH BUSH.

Mike in SA, please take a moment to READ what he posted, those were the HOUSE votes, Obama was in the Senate.

As for Clinton it was raised twice, once under all Dem's, once under all R's.

The R's have increased it more times, but for a less total amount as noted in my post way above.

tony

He is not naive. He is just playing politics, he is in reelection campaign , he is not going to lead ", is not convenient" for him . He need to blame Republicans for not increasing the ceiling debt. It is the Chicago stile.

OK, Chip...just assume for a minute that I am stupid and/or lazy. Can YOU please 'google' a GOP plan that has been brought to the congressional floor, or at least made its way past committee, that shows a majority of GOP reps consenting to DOD cuts??? If you're going to make the claim, then you do the homework for us!

My lunch time is over. I have to get back to work. But I'll check in later to see if you've drummed up anything concrete.

MCMetal, what I love about you most is you claim to be independent, but call everyone who disagrees with your ideas, some a pretty far left wing, a conservative...

You also ignore that many of those loopholes for corps were created by the Dem's... you alswasy forget that it was OBAMA who gave GE almost 4 BILLION in tax breaks and then made their CEO his job CZAR!

MCMetal, you know very little about SS... what are you 19 maybe 20? 95% of people who pay into SS WILL NEVER get as much out of it as they have paid in.

It's called a Ponzi scheme... it's why Madoff is speding 200 years in jail!

Indy wait a minute... Beyond the Ryan plan nothing has been brought to the floor, and I never said that anything more has...

But the GOP has atleast brought one plan to the floor and the Dem's have.... oh right ZERO!

Chip -

As far as what I am willing to do, i'm more than willing to delay SS and medicare till age 67... I'm from NYS, I already pay my share of taxes!

Are you serious? In your demented reality you actually think FORCING people out of jobs, and putting their families on the street, is the same as delaying your SS and medicare for a couple years?

In reality, you will probably work beyond 67 anyways, so it is not a true sacrifice. But besides that, you honestly believe that a few years delay is the same as FORCING people out of work?

Just like I thought . . . YOU are not willing to make a true sacrifice, but you are more than willing to FORCE other people to fix the problem for you. And you actually claim to be the "moral" party . . . pathetic.

"It has been building for 3 decades , and the biggest contributors to it are tax cuts and defense spending that is completely out of control ; not these "entitlements or social programs" Republicans always babble on about." - MCMetal

You're completely off-base, dude. Tax cuts consistently end up raising revenue.

Don't believe tax cuts raise revenues? What if I showed you that the Bush tax cuts brought in $1.5 trillion in revenue over 6 years above the inflation adjusted pre-cut baseline? Would you believe it then or would you ignore it and keep advancing your disingenuous liberal rhetoric?

That's right MCMetal...the Bush tax cuts didn't just pay for themselves, they brought in $1.5 trillion more in revenue cumulatively between 2002 and 2007 than would be expected tying revenue growth to compounded rate of inflation. It was the explosion of spending during the 2000s that caused the deficits, not Bush's tax cuts. (We both apparently agree that spending has been out of control).

Now, here are the numbers to prove that:

Revenue for all of 2001 - $3557.94B X (inflation rate for 2002) 1.59% = $56.57B. $56.57B + $3557.94B = (expected 2002 revenue) $3614.51B. Expected revenue for all of 2002 - $3614.51B X (inflation rate for 2003) 2.27% = $82.05B. $82.05B + $3614.51B = (expected 2003 revenue) $3696.56B. Expected revenue for all of 2003 - $3696.56B X (inflation rate for 2004) 2.68% = $99.07B. $99.07B + $3696.56B = (expected 2004 revenue) $3795.63B. Expected revenue for all of 2004 - $3795.63B X (inflation rate for 2005) 3.39% = $128.67B. $128.67B + $3795.63B = (expected 2005 revenue) $3924.30B. Expected revenue for all of 2005 - $3924.30B X (inflation rate for 2006) 3.24% = $127.15B. $127.15B + $3924.30B = (expected 2006 revenue) $4051.45B. Expected revenue for all of 2006 - $4051.45B X (inflation rate for 2007) 2.85% = $115.47B. $115.47B + $4051.45B = (expected 2007 revenue) $4166.92B.

Expected cumulative revenues 2002 through 2007 adjusting for compounded annual inflation - 3614.51 + 3696.56 + 3795.63 + 3924.30 + 4051.45 + 4166.92 = $23249.37B.

Actual revenues 2002 through 2007 - 3299.19 + 3440.38 + 3891.15 + 4243.60 + 4696.05 + 5166.12 = $24736.49B

Actual revenue with Bush tax cuts $24736.49B - $23249.37B (expected revenue adjusted for compounded inflation) = $1487.12B (amount of revenues above what was expected that were taken in with the Bush tax cuts).

This is not an isolated occurrence either. The same thing happened with Reagan's tax cuts for the top marginal bracket, Kennedy's cuts to the top marginal bracket, and Mellon's cuts to the top marginal bracket. Every time it's been done, it's raised revenue because it increased economic activity. Is that enough for you to keep from continuing to blindly drone on with that same "tax cuts add to deficits" mantra?

We conservatives here have already agreed that DOD needs to cut spending, I've shown tax cuts actually raise total revenue, discretionary spending is really just a drop in the bucket comparatively, which leaves...the "entitlements" you are so determined to coddle.

LMAO!!!! CRASH AND BURN BABY!!!!!!

Thought, Actually, I'm set to retire at 59, but I'll prob work to 62.

Who will be put out of jobs govt workers? I'm sorry, but the govt role isn't to provide jobs for people, it's to protect its citizens and going bankrupt and becoming a third world nation ismuch worse than fire a few govt workers...

I am willing to pay more... but not for the current govt! i am willing to pay more to pay off our debt, not to making sure the single mom down the street get's a boost in her welfare check!

We actually had a surplus with Clinton/Bush in FY01, and Clinton had a surplus 98-00 (and Johnson in '69). However, surplus hasn't been used to decrease the national debt since Ike! Blaming Obama/W is pretty shortsighted since every Congress/Administration since 1958 has led us down this sad, sad path. Although he has yet to do it, I think Obama can balance the budget and make a surplus if he makes it a priority - HE HAS TO; the question is - will he?

MCMETAL, since you obviously haven't educated yourself, 95% of those "tax breaks" big oil get's, are open to EVERY US company!

Also, you did know that Ethonal get's 5 times more in tax breaks than big oil right? Ignorance of the facts isn't an excuse!

Thoughts from Cali

I keep seeing the Republicans say that "everyone" will need to contribute to fixing the economy, yet they have not said one thing . . . NOT ONE THING . . . that shows THEY will contribute.

The Republicans want to take jobs away from OTHER people (unions and government workers) and destroy medicare to fix the economy. But they are NOT willing to make one contribution themselves . . . they want to force someone else to suffer in order to fix everything.

Removing the ability for unions to collectively bargain does not remove the job....it does remove the overpay, the golden parachute benefits, and the ability to stay employed without doing any work.

You may want to go and read the Medicare and Medicaid Trustees report before accusing the republicans of destroying medicare. Healthcare Reform is what will destroy medicare. In one year, the solvency of medicare went from 2029 to 2024 based on the current laws.

What would a conservative be willing to sacrifice? Here are a few things I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice:

The department of education

The federal reserve

stimulus money

free trade

foreign aid

foreign wars

UN and NATO contributions

welfare for illegals

healthcare for illegals

a high speed rail

an emmissions free coal plant that the technology doesn't exist for

all tax loopholes for any company that outsources labor to a foreign country

government pensions

"Mike in SA, please take a moment to READ what he posted, those were the HOUSE votes, Obama was in the Senate." - Chip

Chip, I did and I know exactly what point he was attempting to make -- that's called comprehension. The point he was trying to make was not to show what the House as an entity has done historically, but rather the point was that Republicans are being disingenuous in their actions. That they are more than happy to spend freely when they hold the Presidency, but when they don't, they simply try to be obstructive for their own political gain. He tried to do that by cherry picking his years. He also tried to do it by not showing what the Dems have done historically for comparison.

I pointed out two things that run contrary to his intended purpose -- to show Republicans are the only ones being "political" in voting against some hikes but not others. I showed that this was not the case when Clinton was President and I showed that Obama too did the same thing when given the opportunity...it doesn't matter if he was in the House or Senate when he did it, he still did it.

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 in a Republican controlled congress by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (three Republicans). It passed due to a compromise with Democrats. Republicans got their repeal of Wall Street and the Democrats got legislation related to the Community Reinvestment Act. I didn't support either bill, but the deregulation of Wall Street was horrific. That enabled the 2008 recession to happen and the Republicans have the primary blame for it.

Democrats can be blamed for offering a compromise to pass it.

The following year in 2000, Republicans passed the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act, the single most horrific financial legislation in our entire history. It was a set of loopholes for Wall Street white collar criminals to exploit. It contained the infamous Enron Loophole to enable the Enron scandal to happen. It also has specific loopholes for credit default swaps not being regulated, loopholes for predatory lending and derivatives fraud. The master mind behind the legislation was Republican Senate Banking Committee Chairman and ex Enron lobbyist Phil Gramm. Gramm should be in prison for what he did. He was the great enabler of the recession.

Mike in SA-
Blow me, I posted that because they were having disagreements about how many times Bush raised the debt cieling compared to Obama. If you want to go back further be my guest, but do it yourself. Its not my responsiblity to do your homework for you. Nice try to make it look like I was hating on the repubs and making some kind of point. Your typical BS....

Every gal of fuel alcohol is subsidized at .45 cents. In many cars ethanol decreases the efficiency by ten percent or more.....In other words 10 gals of ethanol will get you no further than 9 gals of straight gasoline.....Does anyone see the waste here??

All of you are arguing about the SAME Party - The Republicrats.

Both want the same thing Centralized Federal power so they can rule from Washington and dictate what all the little serfs will do. It's SO tiring listening to these sides go round and round with the same 30 second sound bites (handed to you from Ministries of Propaganda) forming your arguments about the details that don't matter to that big picture. The Federal Government has no mandate to anything really but provide for the common defense. Everything else should be the States purview. But you people in both parties with your great intentions to mold the world in your own image handed over all the power to a Federal government who now teach and indoctrinate you into the Slavery of Centralized Government.

WAKE UP.

One thing I keep hearing the democratic supporters repeating, is that our defense spending needs to be cut. I am in complete and total agreement with this. The defense spending is way out of control as well and there is so much money that gets wasted by the D.O.D. you would be shocked.

They cannot say everything is on the table but then say "Oh! Well not that".

Come on Washington get your sh#t straight already please.

J.A-522495: I don't see any waste if I'm the person receiving that $.45 subsidized and then sending $.10 to the person in Congress that voted my way. :-P

MCMetal, I see that facts disturb you. That usually means you live and breath mindless rhetoric. How sad.

Mike is SA -

You can not claim that tax cuts are the ONLY reason for revenue increases during the Bush years. Any rationale person knows that there are many, Many, MANY different factors that play into that.

If it were ONLY tax cuts, then the extension would have helped create jobs . . . it did not.

Republican logic dictates that continuous cuts will create jobs and revenue. This is a logical fallacy because if you cut taxes to 0%, you will have no revenue. Similarly, if you cut them to 1%, or 2%, you will see a drastic decrease in revenue and the complete destruction of our economy. So a continuous, never-ending cut to taxes is not the answer.

The issue is that there is a balance between cuts and increases, depending on the other economical factors at play . . . including unemployment. The Republican plan calls for tax cuts (decrease revenue) and around a million jobs cuts (increase unemployment). Furthermore, their only rationale is an assumption . . . yes, an ASSUMPTION . . . that private business MIGHT make up for the loss. However, current private companies are meeting current demand levels with current employment numbers. There is no reason for private companies to hire more employees until demand rises . . . and increasing unemployment is a REDUCTION in demand, not an increase.

I supported Bush, and voted for him, when he passed his tax cuts, because the economy was in a state that we could afford it. However, now our economy is in a completely different state, thus we need to adjust our strategy.

MCMetal, you may want to re think your comment...

Iowa - 2187.7 million bushels Dem gov 1999-2010 R 2011- current
Indiana - 918.4 million bushels Dem gov 1989-2005 R 2005- current
Nebraska - 1477.4 million bushels R 1999- current
Minnesota - 1260 million bushels R 2003-2011 Dem 2011 - current
Illinois - 1971.6 million bushels Dem 2003-current.

The two largest corn states are BLUE!

mountainmike- good info, gives me somthing to research and read through tonight. Here is Time's list of the top 25 people responsible for the financial crisis.

Angelo Mozilo
Phil Gramm
Alan Greenspan
Chris Cox
American Consumers
Hank Paulson
Joe Cassano
Ian McCarthy
Frank Raines
Kathleen Corbet
Dick Fuld
Marion and Herb Sandler
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Stan O'Neal
Wen Jiabao
David Lereah
John Devaney
Bernie Madoff
Lew Ranieri
Burton Jablin
Fred Goodwin
Sandy Weill
David Oddsson
Jimmy Cayne

Let me get this, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have had a majority in both house of congress since 2005 in 2008 we gave Obama, Pelosi and Reid a super majority in both houses and the White House ..... in 2005 the DOW was 15,000, today 12,000......in 2005 7 million Americans were unemployed today 22,000,000 million Americans unemployed.

Today Obama, The Ghettonator, is blaming Republicans who have a majority in only one house of congress and only for the last 4 months and no White House for the economic mess. Jesus Christ please help Obama see clearly he's ways are flawed.

Mark- Why are you comparing 2005 unemployment numbers to today's numbers? Did you not notice a little something happening in 07-08?

Oh and BTW 22,000,000 million = 22,000,000,000,000 which is incorrect.....

You either write out 22,000,000 or just simply say 22 million. Do you need to go back to math class?

"Blow me, I posted that because they were having disagreements about how many times Bush raised the debt cieling (sic) compared to Obama." - SmallTownPete

Then why on earth would you include who voted which way at all? That has nothing to do with what you are supposedly trying to show. I mean, that wasn't your point at all, now was it? Give me a break.

Sigh... theirs no point in talking to you MCmetal...

To Quote:

Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us “change,” and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, “change” always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.

Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear. Today we are living in a fantasy world. Our entitlement programs are insolvent: in a couple of decades they will face a shortfall amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the housing bubble is bursting and our dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China every day in order to prop up a bloated overseas presence that weakens our national defense and stirs up hostility against us. And all our political class can come up with is more of the same. One columnist puts it like this: we are borrowing from Europe in order to defend Europe, we are borrowing from Japan in order to keep cheap oil flowing to Japan, and we are borrowing from Arab regimes in order to install democracy in Iraq. Is it really “isolationism” to find something wrong with this picture? With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multitrillion-dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in—this is not a misprint—130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.

This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it. If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America. That is why I wrote this book.

Paul, Ron (2008). The Revolution: A Manifesto . Grand
Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution, we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office.

Paul, Ron (2008). The Revolution: A Manifesto (p. 66). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

"Obama also called on lawmakers to renew a Social Security payroll tax cut that took effect on Jan. 1...."

So extending tax cuts to businesses who create jobs is "unsustainable" but extending tax cuts to Social Security which we already know is going to be bankrupt soon is supposed to be somehow sustainable?

I suppose the actual bankruptcy of Social Security will occur on the next presidents watch so America can just deal with the consequences then right? Brilliant plan King BO.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Barack Obama 2006

He added, "Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead."

Barack Obama 2011 (today)

By your own admission Mr. President...isn't raising the debt ceiling a sign of failure?

Chip-D

Im from Indiana and I can tell you that our governors are the redest dems you will ever meet. If you ever notice in elections we are pretty much the first state to turn red every time. Our representatives have almost always been a republican majority. Our state senate has a Republican Super Majority until 2012. The last time Indiana voted for a dem president since Obama(50%-49%) was in 1964 and the last time before that was in 1936.

I am a lifelong Republican baby boomer living in Indiana, a state that has voted primarily Republican since joining the Union in 1816. From 1940 to now, the only Democratic presidential vote was in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson enjoyed a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. In 1992 and 1996 Indiana earned once again an old, unofficial title of being the “reddest state in the Midwest,” by shining out as a red island in a sea of Democrat blue on the electoral map.

Just wanted to point out that simply having a democratic governor for a few years doesnt mean Indiana is a Blue state.

Here's history:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ&feature=relmfu

These finanical problems were seen 6 years ago.

Mike in SA-

Then why on earth would you include who voted which way at all? That has nothing to do with what you are supposedly trying to show. I mean, that wasn't your point at all, now was it?

I didnt include it, thats how the chart was organized moron. Go fact check the Resolutions if you want to try and distpute the stats. Get off your lazy butt and do your own research if you got a problem with it.

Why are you even complaining about the truth? Does it hurt or something? Show your side in a bad light? I mean really, why does that list upset you so much......

MCMetal, there was an average of 5% job growth rate each year Bush was president until the Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and then the Senate in 2008. Look it up if you don't believe me. I think most people would love to go back to the days of 2000-2006 instead of 2006-2012.

"If it were ONLY tax cuts, then the extension would have helped create jobs . . . it did not." - Thoughts from Cali

After the tax cuts the Bush economy enjoyed 52 consecutive months of jobs growth -- the longest in US history. This when the jobless rate was at or near the natural unemployment level.

"Republican logic dictates that continuous cuts will create jobs and revenue. This is a logical fallacy because if you cut taxes to 0%, you will have no revenue. Similarly, if you cut them to 1%, or 2%, you will see a drastic decrease in revenue and the complete destruction of our economy. So a continuous, never-ending cut to taxes is not the answer."

I was not advocating further cuts, I was correcting the fallacy that previous tax cuts have increases debt. They haven't.

"The Republican plan calls for tax cuts (decrease revenue)"

The Republican plan calls for maintaining the currently level of taxation for private tax payers, not tax cuts. It calls for closed loopholes and a lowering of the corporate rate -- which is currently one of the highest rates in the world -- a plan that the President's debt commission said would RAISE revenue. I've also shown you in real world terms that tax cuts do not equal decreased revenue. Yet somehow I'm sure you'll go ahead and keep reciting this rhetoric though, no matter how untrue.

"However, current private companies are meeting current demand levels with current employment numbers. There is no reason for private companies to hire more employees until demand rises . . . and increasing unemployment is a REDUCTION in demand, not an increase."

Yet somehow in each modern case of tax rate reduction, the reductions came at times of increasing unemployment and reduction in demand, yet those cuts reversed the trend of rising unemployment and falling demand. The whole point is that the cuts increase economic activity thereby increasing demand and reducing unemployment. It's happened every time. Christine Romer herself -- the former Chairwoman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers -- came to the conclusion that tax increases and decreases had more than twice the economic impact as government spending does. But hey, if you're not going to believe her even when she's basically admitting that she's been wrong for most of her life, then your never going to takes those blinders off.

Small Town Pete.

I don't know how that list doesn't include Franks and Dodd.

I also noticed Bernacke and Geithner were suspiciously absent.

Where is Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman)?

Quote from the article.....

....cutting deficits too quickly could slow the weak recovery of the U.S. economy.

Oh brother....laying the groundwork for more Democratic spending programs!

"I didnt include it, thats how the chart was organized moron." - SmallTownPete

OH! I get it! You're one of those liberals that don't feel any responsibility for whatever rhetoric they keep regurgitating. I'm clear now.

Joe go ask Time Magizine buddy. Its not like I pulled those names outta my butt.

Thank You for making my point

By the way Dems had control of both houses of congress after 2005/6 but not the super majority they enjoy after the 2007/8 election in which they got the White House to boot.

Since taking control, the Dems have done nothing but wreck the economy

Record deficits....Record unemployment.....Record foreclosures....Record number of people without healthcare....destruction of pension, especially unions....tax revenues falling off a cliff....4 wars....record suicides....Record number of States about to go bankrupt....record food stamps...record welfare....record lows in auto sales.... 400,000 PLUS new unemployment claims every WEEK.

Is this the G D record you're defending......tell me you got a better arguement for re-electing Obama and any of the Dems.

Crack is Whack mo Gubba'mint cHeEze please.

"Are you going to laughably claim that anyone here who has ever posted a link to ThinkProgress , HuffingtonPost , DailyKos or any other liberal/progressive site , wasn't immediately dismissed by you , regardless of its validity ?" - MCMetal

See now your just making a fool of yourself. Usgovernmentrevenue.com as well as usgovernmentspending.com are nothing more than simple searchable tables of raw data. Don't let the raw numbers confuse you. Don't be scared of them dude.

Mike in SA-

Obviously something in that list bothers you. What responsibility are you talking about? Is there incorrect data in the post? Then you want to talk about regurgitating rhetoric, what a hypocrit. Thats all I have seen from your posts. Youre about to get ignored.

Here let me put it in all caps and slow it down for you a little bit, you seem to be having trouble.

I POSTED THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES BUSH RAISED THE DEBT CEILING COMPARED TO OBAMA.

Two things were important, when the debt ceiling was raised, and who was president.

Take it or leave it A-hole.

Great Leaders in times of adversity inspire their citizens to greatness, Washington's farewell address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Rosevelt's"the only thing We have to fear...."speech,JFK'S "Ask not what Your country can do for You", Reagan's"Bright shining city on a hill", and Obama's,....." I didn't do it! ", "Not my fault",You guys work it out,tell me when You're finished and I'll give a speech taking credit,meanwhile, I'll be on the golf course if You need me", yup,fundamental change has come to America.

Andrew the American – post 1.8

Explain to the whole world how The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 didn’t push us further into the abyss of depression. It was phased in over 1931, 1932, 1933. and unemployment grew 1929 – 3.14%, 1930 - 8.67%, 1931 - 15.82%, 1932 - 23.53%, and 1933 – 24.75%? NO, it wasn’t the whole cause but it only added fuel to the fire – that is why I showed you 1929, & 1930.

And what would you say to China Countering by tripling our interest rate for all the money we have borrowed from them? WOW!

Barry post 1.15

Because 61% of the population has utterly unrealistic expectations about how long it can take to recover from a Depression.

Really Barry?

Apparrently 61% of the population is aware that Bush and Reagan had us out of recessions in 18 months each. What they may not be aware of is the Depression of 1920. 1920 Unemployment rose from 4.9% to 9.5%. By the end of 1921 unemployment was at 6.7% and by the end of 1923 it had returned to 4.9%. Bad performance is simply bad performance - and we didn't get to be the #1 Worlds economy by accepting poor performance.

HINT: they didn’t use the HATE the rich (and really hate everyone) policies that we are entrenched in right now.

Sandtrich 1.27

You leave out a very important fact – congressional approval was and poll average of 20% in November 2010 and the only poll in December approval was 13%. Thank you for advertising the recent approval numbers so I have opportunity to show that more Republican control brings higher approval numbers – maybe America should put more in both the House and Senate!

Not only that , but you are IGNORING a host of polls that have been telling the republicans it is 50-50 to stand firm or compromise and 80 – 20 that democrats in congress should be compromising. Democrats holding firm is going to be a boon in 2012 – so , I think America is noticing what is REALLY going on!

MC Metal

Conservative Media was outraged at the spending and some of the programs. You don’t listen to the conservative media – only the Mainstream media wants to break the Conservatives – and the best way to do that is ignore the Conservative media unless you can twist what they say to make them look like ignorant, racist, rich, homophobic, women-hating, bigots.

But then from reading your posts you are hopelessly entrenched in your ideology by anger – something spinmeisters like to take advantage of.

CalifGina – 1.147

Surplus in 2000? – not really. In that year the US acutally borrowed another $18 Billion according to the US Treasury Department.. The record would have gotten better except the dot com bubble burst which created a recession that started in June 2000.

Mountainmike – 1.152

“The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 in a Republican controlled congress by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (three Republicans).”

This statement is so bad and so wrong – even Wikipedia has this one correct. The only provision of Glass-Steagall that was repealed was the one that kept Banking, Investment, and Insurance separate! What it cleared the way for was CitiGroup to be created with the Merger of Travelers Insurance, Primerica, Citibank,and a couple of others. Foreign companies were already merged and starting to gain competitive advantage because of it.

What was most wrong with that act was the Democrats insertion of the CRA strengthening clauses. Those changes significantly increased the number of bad loans being made. Denial of loans to people who qualified per FHA rules of no down payment, little evidence of income, waivers of credit history requirements could look forward to every federal agency investigating them, just because they were alleged to have discriminated opened the floodgates of the bad loans that entered they system. The misrepresenting these loans were the results of people not wanting to be stuck with what the Federal government says finance must do.

90% of the dissagreements on this site would not be occuring IF people actually stopped trusting the opinion of their favorite political party.

Obama said talks led by Vice President Joe Biden had "identified more than $1 trillion worth of spending cuts already. But everyone also knows that we need to do more to close the deficit," he added, citing a goal of $4 trillion.

Oh God…help us! You know what happened with the last closed door meeting…Obamacare!

On Libya, the president defended American participation in the NATO military action, saying the U.S. had carried out a "narrow mission in an exemplary fashion" against a tyrant who was threating to "massacre his people."

Can you say HYPOCRITE???? Wasn’t Saddam doing the same damn thing and Obama was adamantly against it!

SmallTownPeople..."blow me"..."moron"..."a-hole"...I can tell I'm not exactly dealing with a mental giant here.

"Obviously something in that list bothers you. What responsibility are you talking about? Is there incorrect data in the post?"

It's a disingenuous cherry-picked list. And then when I call you out on the incomplete and disingenuous nature of the list, your response is "What me? No, its not MY list." As soon as YOU post it, it's YOUR list. Man up and take responsibility for it or don't post it.

"Then you want to talk about regurgitating rhetoric, what a hypocrit. Thats all I have seen from your posts. Youre (sic) about to get ignored."

I see your taking the typical liberal tactic of accusing somebody of what you're guilty of. I've posted regarding four things here. They are as follows:

1) That taxing 100% of every cent of taxable income over $100,000 still wouldn't balance the budget. My bad, I should have said "taxable income" of over $100,000, not adjusted gross income. From factcheck.org

"We attempted a loose calculation of Coburn’s specific claim. We looked at adjusted gross income (that’s gross income minus common deductions) for those earning at least $200,000 in 2008 — the IRS doesn’t break it down by $250,000 — and we subtracted $100,000 for each filer. We ended up with $2 trillion, enough money to cover the projected deficit. The same calculation for taxable income produces $1.62 trillion, a bit less than the deficit. But, again, Coburn talked about earnings, not taxable income."

A fact. Not rhetoric.

2) That the Republicans from day 1 have said tax rate increases were a non-starter.

A fact. Not rhetoric.

3) That the Bush tax cuts increased revenue. Which I copiously document.

A fact. Not rhetoric.

4) That your list is disingenuous in nature and purpose, which it is.

A fact. Not rhetoric.

So please, go ahead and ignore me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Actually I find your arrogance laughable...like I would care.

Mike in SA-

THE TRUTH MUST HURT!

Cherry picked list? Um no its a complete list of the last 2 Presidents debt ceiling raises. How is that cherry picked? What did I leave out? I mean thats what a cherry picked list is, that your suggesting I choose to include some information and purposly left some out. Again you obviously are upset over something that list shows or you wouldnt still be dragging on about it.

4) That your list is disingenuous in nature and purpose, which it is.

A fact. Not rhetoric.

Your opinion, not fact. I love how you put fact by all your points like it makes it more believable. Those are all your opinions, or these discussions wouldnt even be happening now would they? If that was all fact, then why would the repubs and dems be arguing over anything.

The FACT that you think all your opinions are fact shows me how much of a mental giant you are. LOL

Mike in SA = iGnOrEd

SmallTownPete...Yes, cherry-picked. You see, your list first appeared in this article. Well, that is the whole original list appeared in that article. Of course your list is a manipulation of the original so to fit somebody's disingenuous purposes. As soon as that list was pared down, it was cherry-picked.

So yes...fact.

LIES!!!!

Not fact, look at the table in the article you cited.(BTW thats not where I got my list) So there is more than one website that has the same list that shows what I posted in its entirety, I didnt manipulate anything. Where do you get that I changed anything on that list?

Please either refute the factual statistics in that list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

Thats why youre ignored. A hypocrite, spewing right wing rhetoric that cant handle the truth.

Hmmm...lots of words for somebody ignoring me.

You see that's the problem with just regurgitating somebody else's rhetoric without checking behind it like you do. It's obvious that the article I linked to was the original list. That somebody else took it, manipulated it, and posted the manipulated version somewhere for you to grab -- and not credit -- just shows how you'll gladly use cherry-picked numbers as long as they support your point and a lack of care and responsibility for what you put out here.

Your posting the list, means you endorse its contents. That it's manipulated means you endorse the manipulation. Man up dude.

Thank you Sally!

Please either refute the factual statistics in that list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

I stand by my statement.

Please show me where my list differs from yours? Ive been waiting for you to show me how its different but all you do is spew your BS. NO FACTS, JUST OPINIONS.

DB- yes really, Surplus in 2000. I get what you're saying, thou. You can have surplus in your budget, but then still borrow money on top of that - and what good is that? But don't confuse the annual fiscal budget surplus/deficit with the compounding national debt. We rarely budget to pay off the national debt and that's a major part of our problem.

Once again, the campaigner in chief PROVES he is NOT a leader!

He tells congress to stay put...but he trots off to Philly to campaign!

HYPOCRITE! Do your damn job...or lose it!

"Please show me where my list differs from yours? Ive been waiting for you to show me how its different but all you do is spew your BS." - SmallTownPete

This is the first time you've given any indication that you were so blinded by your rhetoric that you couldn't see the difference between the two lists, so don't tell me "I've been waiting...". My bad for assuming you had the comprehension of more than a third grader.

Your list removes the last line of the original list showing Republicans almost unanimously supporting Clinton's 1997 request for a rise in the debt ceiling. Again...fact. Of course as I noted, that would run contrary to the point you try to make with your manipulation of that original list.

The difference between now and 1997 is that now we're almost bankrupt and we're hurtling off a financial cliff.

Will someone kindly take Obama's Battleship game away from him before he blows the rest of the small businesses out of the water! How does he think he's going to grow jobs when he continues to blast businesses with more and more regulations. Add more taxes and they'll all get smart and shut down before they lose every last farthing (and their home equity).

@Eric-913730

Backcountry, its normal for Presidents to delegate. Hell, Cheney practically ran the country under Bush. The President shouldn't be involved in every negotiation. Furthermore, no big corporation operates that way either.

Yeah, you’re right. This debt ceiling thing isn’t that big of a deal after all right? No need for the President to get involved in such a trivial matter. Why not pass it off to Joe “I make Dan Quayle look like a genius” Biden.

<end sarcasm>

WOW are you retarded? This is the last two lines from the chart on the site you provided...

107-S.2578 – Debt limit bill (2002)
$ 6,400,000,000,000
211
Republicans/Bush

105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997
$ 5,950,000,000,000
193
Republicans/Bush

Where does it say Clinton? I understand this is probably a typo, but I didnt purposely leave it out because it was referring to Clinton's debt celiing raise, it more likely simply got cut off while copying and pasting. Then your going to bring my comprehension level into this, How many times do I have to say that I didnt change anything and for you show what information was supposedly manipulated?

How is that cherry picked? What did I leave out? I mean thats what a cherry picked list is, that your suggesting I choose to include some information and purposly left some out.

, I didnt manipulate anything. Where do you get that I changed anything on that list?

Dont you think a third grader should be able to comprehend that? So where does that leave your comprehension level?

Also I already pointed out that the only thing I was looking for was the debt ceiling raises for the last two presidents. Its not like I searched for a list with how many republicans that supported it like your suggesting. I love how you jump to that conclusion though. Tells me just the type of person you are.

Uhhhh...who was the President in 1997? And you're calling me retarded SmallTownPete???

BTW, how many times do I have to tell you that you're responsible for what you post, not who you stole it from. Once you post it with your name, you've endorsed it and own it.

Ya im calling you retarded because your list is inaccurate. The same thing your complaining about, you freaking hyporcite!

Once you post it with your name, you've endorsed it and own it.

post #1.194 you cited an inaccurate list

The list you cited is where I got the information for post #1.206, your the one that kept saying I took Clinton off that list. HE WAS NEVER ON IT. I didnt change a freakin thing. SO AGAIN WHAT DID I MANIPULATE???????? And if anything is true i left off the inaccurate part of the list in my orginal post #1.117, albiet by accident.

I already pointed out that the only thing I was looking for was the debt ceiling raises for the last two presidents. Its not like I searched for a list with how many republicans that supported it like your suggesting. I love how you jump to that conclusion though. Tells me just the type of person you are.

Please either refute the factual statistics in my original list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

Give 'em hell, Barry!

They DESERVE it, and the average working stiff needs YOU to stick up for him and her.

I'm not sure he can "give them hell" from the golf course or the campaign trail.

Notice how he tells everyone else they have to stayto finish the debt cap bill, then immediately leaves for vacation.....again.

Gotta love Barry. At least he's consistent. Vacation, press conference, vacation, golf, vacation, press conference. Not a single shred of real work done.

"The list you cited is where I got the information for post #1.206, your the one that kept saying I took Clinton off that list. HE WAS NEVER ON IT. I didnt change a freakin thing. SO AGAIN WHAT DID I MANIPULATE????????" - SmallTownPete

As I stated before in #1.203, you removed 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Please try to keep up.

"Blow me, I posted that because they were having disagreements about how many times Bush raised the debt cieling compared to Obama."

.....................................

"I already pointed out that the only thing I was looking for was the debt ceiling raises for the last two presidents. Its not like I searched for a list with how many republicans that supported it like your suggesting. I love how you jump to that conclusion though."

These explanations would be great...except -- contrary to how you would like to portray it -- absolutely nobody in this thread is disagreeing about how many raises came under Bush vs. Obama...nobody. Please feel free to point me to the posts where there is disagreement on this point. What I do see is a whole bunch of this...

"Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times when Bush was President. Why the sudden "concern" for the deficit now?"

........................

"The 1st 6 years of Bush the Boy Blunder's godawful presidency were with a GOP controlled House and Senate ; the debt limit was raised ONLY ONCE when the Dems were in control..................It was raised SIX TIMES when the "party of fiscal responsibility" ruled...........What a joke"

................................

"Why exactly is pointing out the hypocrisy of GOP politicians when it's a sitting Republican president as opposed to a Democratic one not a valid argument ?

When did ANY ONE REPUBLICAN scream bloody murder about the deficit Bush and Co were adding to/accumulating ?"

......................................

"So why didn't they block it any one of the SEVEN TIMES it was raised during Bush the Boy Blunder's godawful presidency ?"

...then your post of the cherry-picked list. So yeah...I think your motivation is pretty transparent.

"Ya im calling you retarded because your list is inaccurate. The same thing your complaining about, you freaking hyporcite!"

BTW...that list is the original of YOUR list. I simply found the original and pointed you to it. You're seriously grasping at straws now.

As I stated before in #1.203, you removed 105-H.R.2015 – Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Please try to keep up.

How about you try to keep up. I already told you I didnt remove anything, personally I dont care if you believe me or not. SO AGAIN REFUTE THE STATISTICS OF MY POST OR STFU.

Your only problem is that it shows your buddies in a bad light. I think its hiliarious that your still crying about this.

absolutely nobody in this thread is disagreeing about how many raises came under Bush vs. Obama...nobody

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA REALLY?!?!?

So why didn't they block it any one of the SEVEN TIMES it was raised during Bush the Boy Blunder's godawful presidency ?

Chip D-2844144
MCMetal,

Actually the R's raised the limit 4 times from 01-06, twice in '02, once in '04 and once in '06, from 5.9 Tr to 9 Tr.

The D's raised it once in '08 to 10.6 Tr and many more times over the last 2+ years to 14.3 TR.

So in 6 years R's raised it 3.1 Tr, Dem's 5.3Tr in 4.5 years... Your facts are wrong... again.

Please list where you gathered the above "facts" , because they are pure BS ........

Nobody was arguing over what? This isnt a disagreement about who raised the ceileing how many times?!?! I mean nobody was talking about that, LOL Oh im sorry they didnt call out "OBAMA VS BUSH WWDEBT CEILING RAISE" just to notify you...

BTW...that list is the original of YOUR list.

First of all you claim its the ORIGINAL, what proof do you have? Secondly, no its not my list, I already pointed out to you that your list came from different source. KEEP CRYING MIKE!!!!

Im gonna say this one last time just so there is no mistaking that you understood it (you being slow and all, gotta give you every opportunity).

Please either refute the factual statistics in my original list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

Get it yet?

"Nobody was arguing over what? This isnt (sic) a disagreement about who raised the ceileing (sic) how many times?!?! I mean nobody was talking about that, LOL" - SmallTownPete

You tried to say you posted your list to clarify how many times the ceiling had been raised under Bush vs. how many times under Obama. Show me where they once mentioned Obama. You're trying to tell me your point was to show that the Dems have raised the ceiling 6 times in only 4.5 years while in the previous 6.5 years the Republicans only raised it 4 times? You're trying to tell me that you posted this in support of Chip D. and his anti-Democrat stance??? Because your list applied to the context of that argument proves Chip D.'s point to be right. Your Democrat buddies will surely be very disappointed to know you've switched sides!

"Your only problem is that it shows your buddies in a bad light. I think its hiliarious that your still crying about this." - SmallTownPete

Your problem is you seem to think that I think it's a bad thing. You keep saying this over and over like you believe I think the Republicans are doing something wrong. They aren't. Finally somebody...anybody...is doing the responsible thing in Washington and not just rubber stamping debt ceiling increase after debt ceiling increase. It's about time. And I don't care who wasn't being responsible before -- nobody was. What I care about is that somebody finally saw the light and are doing something about it.

The issue is your rhetoric -- trying to "prove" that the Republicans are being purely political -- and using a set of data that was manipulated to mislead regarding the Republicans' intent.

"First of all you claim its the ORIGINAL, what proof do you have?"

By all means, you're invited to find one older and document it as I have.

"Im (sic) not interested in your biased BS opinions."

And yet you're still here after telling (promising?) me that I was to be ignored nearly a week ago. You just can't help yourself can you?

You're trying to tell me that you posted this in support of Chip D. and his anti-Democrat stance??? Because your list applied to the context of that argument proves Chip D.'s point to be right. Your Democrat buddies will surely be very disappointed to know you've switched sides!

WAIT!!! So which one is it?!? Am I biased for the repubs or the dems?? Now your trying to play both sides of the fence? LOL Flip-Flop much??? I

Show me where they once mentioned Obama.

Wow you really are an idiot. Show me once where they mentioned Clinton. Oh so they didnt talk about Clinton so by your arguement I didnt have to provide that info? How clueless can you be? Just because they didnt write down Obama's name doest mean anything. They were talking about how many times the debt limit has been raised in the past ten years. How many presidents have we had during that time?? So because I provided the ceiling raises for that time period im supposedly biased but your not....

The thing is you can take the statistics to prove any point you want to try and prove. I was not proving a point, I was simply providing the statistics. Your the one saying I am being biased, but its actually you whos being biased.

Your problem is you seem to think that I think it's a bad thing.

If you dont think its a bad thing, WHY ARE YOU STILL CRYING ABOUT IT? Its obivous that the list upsets you in some way even though you cant prove it wrong. How long are you going to sit here and cry that a list of factual data is biased? If you dont have a problem with it then what are you argueing about? YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE YOUR STILL HERE.

They aren't. Finally somebody...anybody...is doing the responsible thing in Washington and not just rubber stamping debt ceiling increase after debt ceiling increase. It's about time

LOL they arent doing anything about it. They AGREE the debt ceiling needs raised they just want to make sure they arent getting tax hikes so they are holding the increase hostage until they can get that guranteed. Thats not being responsible, thats being greedy selfish bastards.

The issue is your rhetoric

LOL my rhetoric? Your the one saying factual information is biased!! You did it over and over saying your BIASED OPINIONS were facts THATS WHAT RHETORIC IS. Youre such a hypocrite.

And yet you're still here after telling (promising?) me that I was to be ignored nearly a week ago. You just can't help yourself can you?

You have been ignored, the thing you obviously dont understand is that it works the same as when someone gets reported. It minimizes your comment and I can choose to look at it or not. Its hilarious to sit here and watch you cry about this and try to paint it as rhetoric while you sit there and spew your right wing BS. Ill let you be a hypocrite all day long if you wanna keep doing it. The reason youre ignored is so I dont have to see your biased BS opinions on any other posts, because I saw it all the day before on Faux News "We Distort, You Comply"

"First of all you claim its the ORIGINAL, what proof do you have?"

By all means, you're invited to find one older and document it as I have.

See the point is for you to get proof that yours is the original. But as you can see its not, and I do have proof unlike you that just spews rhetoric...

A Brief History of Debt Limit Votes in the House

May 20, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

Google that and see what comes up. Oh what was the date on yours? The 22nd yea thats the original one because Mike in SA says so!!! Hes a genius, just take his word for it!!

Hmm look at this!!! Donny created an almost identical list back in Jan 2010!?!?!

The Republicans Haven't Always Been Against Raising the Debt Ceiling

January 28, 2010 - by Donny Shaw

Imagine that!! Yours is not the original that you claim it is? I thought you were supposed to man up and take credit for what you post. I mean everything you post is 100% accurate right Mike?!?! Or not.

"MCMetal, I see that facts disturb you. That usually means you live and breath mindless rhetoric."

Mike in SA

I think your the one that lives and breaths mindless rhetoric as you have shown time and time again.

This is how sad you are. A) The list you use to show that mine is not the original is from the same freakin' author!!! B) It's not even the same freakin' list!!! Your shortened list -- like the original I pointed to -- was of HOUSE votes, not SENATE votes.

"WAIT!!! So which one is it?!? Am I biased for the repubs or the dems?? Now your trying to play both sides of the fence? LOL Flip-Flop much???"

It's also sad when you can't tell when I'm making fun on you. I in no way seriously think you were attempting to support Chip D.'s point and the Republicans. I've pretty much made clear what you were doing.

"Just because they didnt (sic) write down Obama's name doest (sic) mean anything. They were talking about how many times the debt limit has been raised in the past ten years."

You're initial excuse was "...they were having disagreements about how many times Bush raised the debt cieling (sic) compared to Obama." So the fact that nobody ever mentioned Obama is pretty central to it and means a lot. Also, nobody mentioned 10 years either. You just made that one up too.

"YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE YOUR STILL HERE."

No, I'm still here because I like toying with you. It's entertaining watching you twist and contort.

"You did it over and over saying your BIASED OPINIONS were facts THATS (sic) WHAT RHETORIC IS. Youre (sic) such a hypocrite."

You've said this more than once even though in #1.192 I documented for you all of my claims in this thread. All of my claims are supported by verifiable unmanipulated fact. But then you're one of those liberals who believes it's so just because they say it's so...that is rhetoric.

"You have been ignored, the thing you obviously dont understand is that it works the same as when someone gets reported. It minimizes your comment and I can choose to look at it or not."

This is hilarious! What freakin' good does it do for you to ignore me, but then open and read every freakin' post I make? ROFLMAO!!! Yes, you're very entertaining!

You see, your list first appeared in this article.

NO IT DID NOT FIRST APPEAR IN THAT ARTICLE. Thats how sad you are. You cant even admit when you are wrong. The list was copied by the website you claim is the owner of the original list.

A) The list you use to show that mine is not the original is from the same freakin' author!!!

I dont care if its the same author, Its not the original list or the original website. As I pointed out to you, your site posted the list two days after the REAL ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Come on Mike man up!

B) It's not even the same freakin' list!!! Your shortened list -- like the original I pointed to -- was of HOUSE votes, not SENATE votes.

And this is how dumb you really are. I was showing you that this guy writes for that website(even more proof yours is not the original), and he has created MORE THAN ONE list using the same format. The one from Jan 2010 is almost identical to the one from May 2011 except it shows senate votes. Thats why I said almost identical, because he used the same format except he changed from house votes to senate votes, Was that to big of a jump for you understand?

Chip D-2844144
MCMetal,

Actually the R's raised the limit 4 times from 01-06, twice in '02, once in '04 and once in '06, from 5.9 Tr to 9 Tr.

The D's raised it once in '08 to 10.6 Tr and many more times over the last 2+ years to 14.3 TR.

So in 6 years R's raised it 3.1 Tr, Dem's 5.3Tr in 4.5 years... Your facts are wrong... again.

Please list where you gathered the above "facts" , because they are pure BS ........

HMMM HOW FAR BACK IS '01? TEN YEARS... CAN YOU NOT DO THE MATH?!?! How sad can you be that because they didnt actually say ten years in their post that I somehow manipulated the statistics because I said I looked for the limit raises in the last ten years? LOL get a life.

P.S. I provided the information for ChipD and MCMetal so they would see how many raises there was by how much and who was in office. They obviously disagreed on the FACTS. I really dont care who it proved to help or who it proved was right.

you're one of those liberals who believes it's so just because they say it's so

This is exactly what your doing! You have absolutely zero proof that I am being biased. I wasnt trying to prove a point with the statistics, as Ive stated. Its your OPINION that I am being biased. "Your the one that believes its so just because you say so, That is Rhetoric." HYPOCRITE

Continuously raising the debt ceiling is an important indicator....Most of us believe that overspending has gone on for a long time, including Bush 2 terms. Now it is being raised because of tremendously alarming debt growth....That is not excused because it was raised in the past. It is an alarm going off loud and clear to a high pitched level never before reached....You dont turn that alarm off by just spending more and making excuses....Wake up!!! The Obama spending level is a crisis....

Let's see, your explanation has gone from 1) you were providing information about how many times President Bush raised the debt ceiling vs. how many times President Obama has (until I pointed out that nobody was discussing Obama) to 2) you were providing information about how many times the Republican Congress has raised the debt ceiling vs. how many time the Democratic Congress has to 3) you were providing information about how many times the debt ceiling has been raised over the past 10 years. I'm just waiting to see what your next explanation is. You sure are taking the shotgun approach to it though.

Meanwhile, at the same time you have a different explanation that has gone from 1) your list was incomplete because you accidentally had an error when you were cutting and pasting it to 2) you actually intentionally provided exactly 10 years of data because that's what they were talking about. Again, the shotgun approach.

"See the point is for you to get proof that yours is the original. But as you can see its not, and I do have proof unlike you..."

And your trying to say that the May 22nd list is not the original list that yours comes from because the author had a previous list that...well...you know...looked at...different...data. Really? You're going with that as an argument? That its the same list...only different? Again, ROFLMAO!!!

I just pull the strings and watch him dance.

A Brief History of Debt Limit Votes in the House

May 20, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

Are you trying to deny that this is the ORIGINAL ARTICLE?!?!?!?!? Please tell me how this list is different from the one you sourced???? Come on Mike man up!!

Let's see, your explanation has gone from

LOL you cant really be this stupid. Ive already told you how many times that the REASON or EXPLINATION for me providing those statistics was because they were disagreeing how many times the debt ceiling was raised.

Do I need to repeat that?!?! How many times do you need to hear it before you understand??

When I searched for debt ceiling raises, I specificaly searched for the raises from the last two presdients. Which happens to span a time period of ten years. I guess thats too hard for you to understand though, because you obviously still dont get it.

you were providing information about how many times the Republican Congress has raised the debt ceiling vs. how many time the Democratic Congress has

When did I ever compare that? This shows how retarded you are. The only reason I provided the second table of information was to show you how wrong you were to claim your site was the ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Which is a complete LIE. So now your not owning up to it, which means your still claiming yours is the original. So how does it feel to be a LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE?

COME ON MIKE, TELL ME YOURS IS THE ORIGINAL AGAIN. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOURS IS THE ORIGINAL.

"Are you trying to deny that this is the ORIGINAL ARTICLE?!?!?!?!?"

It's the same article by the same person, word for word, punctuation mark by punctuation mark. It even has the same John Boehner pic.

"Please tell me how this list is different from the one you sourced????"

I never said it's different. It's not different from the one I sourced. They...are...the...same...article. You're the one who somehow is trying to argue that the two are somehow different even though they match verbatim.

"COME ON MIKE, TELL ME YOURS IS THE ORIGINAL"

It is the same...original...article. That the article is posted -- verbatim -- in two different locations doesn't change the fact that it is the original article. That's like saying the second printing of a book is not the same book.

"When I searched for debt ceiling raises, I specificaly searched for the raises from the last two presdients. Which happens to span a time period of ten years. I guess thats too hard for you to understand though, because you obviously still dont get it."

You know, that would be more believable had you not originally stated that it was an accident: "...it more likely simply got cut off while copying and pasting" and "And if anything is true i left off the inaccurate part of the list in my orginal post #1.117, albiet by accident".

In light of your original explanation, that you now claim that cutting the list was intentional for the purpose of showing the last 10 years is not believable at all. In fact it's laughable.

"When did I ever compare that?"

..........................

"So why didn't they block it any one of the SEVEN TIMES it was raised during Bush the Boy Blunder's godawful presidency ?

Chip D-2844144
MCMetal,

Actually the R's raised the limit 4 times from 01-06, twice in '02, once in '04 and once in '06, from 5.9 Tr to 9 Tr.

The D's raised it once in '08 to 10.6 Tr and many more times over the last 2+ years to 14.3 TR.

So in 6 years R's raised it 3.1 Tr, Dem's 5.3Tr in 4.5 years... Your facts are wrong... again.

Please list where you gathered the above "facts" , because they are pure BS ........

Nobody was arguing over what? This isnt a disagreement about who raised the ceileing how many times?!?! I mean nobody was talking about that, LOL"

Here you indicate that you posted your list to resolve MCMetal's and Chip D.'s point of contention. That point of contention was how many times a Republican Congress had raised the ceiling as opposed to how many times a Democrat Congress had raised the ceiling. So are you now claiming you didn't post your list to resolve this point of contention?

Pulling the strings...pulling the strings. Watch him dance!

LOL Talk about dancing!!!

It is the same...original...article.

Really because the ORIGINAL was posted 2 FULL DAYS BEFORE YOURS. Thats where I got the ORIGNIAL. SO HOW IS YOURS ORIGINAL AND MINE ISNT?!?!?

Spin baby spin. Keep on lying to yourself Mike. You still cant man up to the fact that your post isnt the Original and your still trying to LIE about it.

You see, your list first appeared in this article.

This is a complete LIE. Because my list FIRST appered in the article I provided, with a date stamp that is on the ORIGINATING website. You can try to spin your BIASED BS OPINONS any way you like. Doesnt change the FACT that mine is the ORIGINAL and your just a HYPOCRITE trying to push your OPINION.

"Your the one that believes its so just because you say so, That is Rhetoric." No proof to back up any of your claims, all of it is your simply minded opinoins because you have a problem with factual statistics. Keep pushing your rhetoric, HYPOCRITE.

First you claim

B) It's not even the same freakin' list

Then you say

I never said it's different. It's not different from the one I sourced.

Seems to me like your the one thats dancing.

Original- belonging to or pertaining to the origin or begining of something.
-that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

Us Unemployment Extension News is not the origin of this article, they simply copied and pasted it 2 days after the ORIGINAL ARTICLE was posted. This is blatently obvious by the fact they link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE on OpenCongress.org at the bottom where it says Open Congress: Blog.

"First you claim

B) It's not even the same freakin' list

Then you say

I never said it's different. It's not different from the one I sourced.

Seems to me like your the one thats dancing."

See, here you go again with chopping stuff off to suit your purposes. What I said -- in full -- in the first statement was: "B) It's not even the same freakin' list!!! Your shortened list -- like the original I pointed to -- was of HOUSE votes, not SENATE votes." That's how sad you are. I'm obviously talking about the January 28, 2010 list of Senate votes compared to the original list of House votes in that first statement. But again, the full answer I provided didn't match your rhetoric, so you of course shortened it to fit your rationalized "argument". How funny that you're proving my point that you'll gladly use manipulated material to support your rhetoric. I'm not dancing at all because the comments you quote me from are on two different topics. One statement was on the comparison of the January 28th Senate list and the other statement was on the comparison of the House list. Again, you're grasping at straws and imagining things that clearly aren't there...no matter that you say they are.

"Really because the ORIGINAL was posted 2 FULL DAYS BEFORE YOURS. Thats where I got the ORIGNIAL. SO HOW IS YOURS ORIGINAL AND MINE ISNT?!?!?"

It's...the...same...freakin'...article. Again, if Random House publishes the original version of Moby Dick and Simon and Shuster publishes the same exact version of Moby Dick verbatim the next day, they are still publishing the original version of Moby Dick, no matter what freaked out rationalization you can try to come up with trying to show they aren't. And BTW...the list you posted is not the original because you chopped a bunch of stuff off.

"Because my list FIRST appered in the article I provided"

No, YOUR list first appeared June 29th 2011 in post #1.117 and is -- typically -- uncredited, undocumented, and manipulated.

"Seems to me like your the one thats dancing."

You really need to stop listening to the voices in you head.

How sad can you be?!?!

B) It's not even the same freakin' list

This is either a LIE about my list, or a LIE that your suggesting Im saying they are the same list. I never said it was "the same freakin list" if your referring to the 2010 article, so why would you even say that? The 2010 article was provided to give you more evidence that your source cited did not produce the ORIGINAL list.

Then you start talking about book publishing. The book you buy is a copy of the ORIGINAL. The manuscript is the ORIGINAL, the books you buy in the store are copies. Thats what ORIGINAL means, there is ONLY ONE, the BEGINING, that from which a COPY is made. The same thing with your source they COPIED from OpenCongress.org. Where was the article ORIGINALLY posted.. Oh yea, thats right OpenCongress.org, the ORIGIN of the article.

no matter what freaked out rationalization you can try to come up with trying to show

Freaked out rationalization is what your coming up with, again showing the full blown HYPOCRITE you are. So your suggesting the definition of the word ORIGINAL is a freaked out rationaliztion. Then your obviously out of touch with reality.

Your whole arguement is based on the assumption that I manipulated the list for biased purposes. The thing is, I didnt write any opinion with the list what so ever, therefore you have no proof of any biased intentions, just your feeling(voices in your head) You really need to stop listening to them.

The FACT is that I provided a list of FACTS about debt ceiling raises.

"MCMetal, I see that facts disturb you. That usually means you live and breath mindless rhetoric."

Mike in SA

That list of FACTS must really bother you alot to motivate you to put so much time into talking about this which you know is pointless... Or is it that you just want to spew your rhetoric? Maybe you need this small victory to make your life a little better? Sad really.....

It's been 3 days on this debate. I'm over it.

"This is either a LIE about my list, or a LIE that your suggesting Im saying they are the same list. I never said it was "the same freakin list" if your referring to the 2010 article, so why would you even say that?"

Because the Senate list is not relevant to the House list. They...are...two...different...lists.

"The 2010 article was provided to give you more evidence that your source cited did not produce the ORIGINAL list."

The House list and supporting article in both cases are from the same source...Donny Shaw. In fact the article clearly notes that he had produced an earlier, different, Senate list. You weren't providing any "more evidence".

"Then you start talking about book publishing. The book you buy is a copy of the ORIGINAL. The manuscript is the ORIGINAL, the books you buy in the store are copies. Thats what ORIGINAL means, there is ONLY ONE, the BEGINING, that from which a COPY is made. The same thing with your source they COPIED from OpenCongress.org. Where was the article ORIGINALLY posted.. Oh yea, thats right OpenCongress.org, the ORIGIN of the article."

If that's the standard -- where the article began or the "MANUSCRIPT" -- I think it's extremely likely that the "original" is sitting on Donny Shaw's PC or laptop and that the OpenCongress.org posting was a COPY of that. Also, you have a really hard time wrapping your head around the concept of intellectual property, don't you? This should be obvious considering your own plagiarization -- which by the way is against the code here. OpenCongress.org does not own the copyright to the article...Donny Shaw does, and no matter where it gets published, as long as it hasn't been changed (like your post does) or he rescinds that copyright, it's the original. That is unless you want to insist it's the one sitting on his PC's hard drive.

"The thing is, I didnt write any opinion with the list what so ever, therefore you have no proof of any biased intentions, just your feeling(voices in your head)"

Yeah, that and your 3...4...5 stories surrounding the list. It was an accident...no, it was intentional...it was Bush vs. Obama....no, it was Rep. Congress vs. Dem. Congress....no, it was the past 10 years...no it was...

That combined with your historical postings...you're as believable as Marc Weiner.

If that's the standard -- where the article began or the "MANUSCRIPT" -- I think it's extremely likely that the "original" is sitting on Donny Shaw's PC or laptop and that the OpenCongress.org posting was a COPY of that.

More BS, your the one that claimed that you had the ORIGINAL. YOURS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. Get over it! Your absolutely wrong!

Furthermore, book publishing is very different. Your getting into grey areas of book collecting when talking about originals and manuscripts. I only brought up manuscripts to try to get you to understand that a published book is a copy. Which you obviously didnt understand...

First edition most often refers to the first commercial publication of a work between its own covers, even if it was first printed in a periodical: the complete text of Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea appeared in the September 1, 1952 issue of Life magazine, yet the generally accepted “first” edition is the hardcover book Scribner’s published on September 8, 1952.

As you can see, in this case, the ORIGINAL is not the first edition. Book collecting and publishing has its own meaning for orignal. You could be talking about the original text (which is unedited for language changes over time).

Because the Senate list is not relevant to the House list.

Stop right there. I never said it was relevant to the House list. It was provided to show that the source you cited was not the ORIGINAL source. THATS IT. Where did I try to compare its relevancy in any other way? Again your twisting the facts....

Yeah, that and your 3...4...5 stories surrounding the list. It was an accident...no, it was intentional...it was Bush vs. Obama....no, it was Rep. Congress vs. Dem. Congress....no, it was the past 10 years...no it was...

Those were all answers to questions you posed. Why this, why that, why are you an idiot? You asked why it was cut off... It was an accident, I didnt mean for anything to get cut off, how is that an excuse/story for posting this list? Its an answer to your question. If I was being biased, the first thing to be cut out would have been the 2007 debt limit raise that shows no republicans voted for it.

Then I said I was only looking for the last ten years because thats what they were talking about. Why is that so hard for you to understand?!? It was simply the time frame they were talking about and what I searched for. If thats an excuse then why didnt you complain about me not including all of Clintons years?!? Why just cry about the last raise in his presidency???? You should have been demanding me for the complete history of debt raises, but then that would just show how much of a lazy A-hole you really are.

Rep congress vs dem congress? When did I ever give that as my excuse/story?? Your the one bringing that up. AGAIN The only reason I provided that was to show how wrong you were to claim yours is the ORIGINAL. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS? Do I need to just start copying and pasting preivous posts?

"you were providing information about how many times the Republican Congress has raised the debt ceiling vs. how many time the Democratic Congress has"

When did I ever compare that? This shows how retarded you are. The only reason I provided the second table of information was to show you how wrong you were to claim your site was the ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Which is a complete LIE.

Yet you throw it on the list as one of my stories/excuses. LIES!!!! AGAIN THERE WAS ONLY ONE REASON FOR ME POSTING THAT LIST AS I HAVE SAID FROM THE START.

Your as believable as G.Bush trying to tell America that Iraq has WMD's again.

" I only brought up manuscripts to try to get you to understand that a published book is a copy."

Hard to believe, considering you were claiming "mine is the ORIGINAL" and then "Thats what ORIGINAL means, there is ONLY ONE, the BEGINING, that from which a COPY is made.". You were the one claiming yours was the original but somehow mine wasn't and then bringing up manuscripts. The point I was making and which you now seem to support is that they are both copies of the same original content -- unedited, verbatim, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation. Glad you finally see the light.

"Those were all answers to questions you posed. Why this, why that, why are you an idiot? You asked why it was cut off... It was an accident, I didnt mean for anything to get cut off, how is that an excuse/story for posting this list?"

Ahhhhh...see, you might have been fine if you had just left it at that, but you didn't stop there, did you? You went on to say that where you cut the list off was intentional, not an accident at all. But now it is an accident again??? I'm just trying to make sure we're clear on this. After days of this "I was looking for 10 years" stuff, you're back to claiming "accident", right? I mean it can't be both and accident AND intentional.

"Then I said I was only looking for the last ten years because thats what they were talking about."

Whoa! Hang on! Doesn't this directly contradict what you just said only one paragraph ago? I thought it was an accident. Man, just when I thought you had picked a story and were running with it! Well, back to square one I guess. Or maybe it can be both an accident and intentional! I'll be sure to alert Oxford to recall all their dictionaries to change the definition of "accident" from "1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury"...Merriam-Webster too: "b) lack of intention or necessity".

"Why is that so hard for you to understand?!?"

Because your story has gone from accident, to intentionally president vs. president, to intentionally congress vs. congress, then the intentional specific time period story, then back to accident, now apparently back to the intentional specific time period story -- the last two stories within the period of two paragraphs. Twisting and turning. Twisting and turning.

"It was simply the time frame they were talking about and what I searched for."

Again, reversing course on the whole "accident" thing you were running with a paragraph earlier.

"If thats an excuse then why didnt you complain about me not including all of Clintons years?!? Why just cry about the last raise in his presidency???? You should have been demanding me for the complete history of debt raises, but then that would just show how much of a lazy A-hole you really are."

Because the list you plagiarized from and manipulated didn't include any more of Clinton's years...only one. I thought that was pretty obvious considering this whole conversation has been about you manipulating that list. But hey, if it gives you another chance to show your "intelligence" by name calling again, who am I to stop you?

"Rep congress vs dem congress? When did I ever give that as my excuse/story??"

You yourself said you posted the cropped list in relation to a disagreement. You yourself then point to the following disagreement:

"Chip D-2844144
MCMetal,

Actually the R's raised the limit 4 times from 01-06, twice in '02, once in '04 and once in '06, from 5.9 Tr to 9 Tr.

The D's raised it once in '08 to 10.6 Tr and many more times over the last 2+ years to 14.3 TR.

So in 6 years R's raised it 3.1 Tr, Dem's 5.3Tr in 4.5 years... Your facts are wrong... again.

Please list where you gathered the above "facts" , because they are pure BS ........"

This disagreement is about debt ceiling raises with Rep. Congresses vs, Dem Congresses. Are you now trying to deny you said that you posted in relation to this disagreement? That's the core of your argument. I mean it wouldn't shock me for you to now try to deny it, but you really should either own up to it or deny it.

It used to be fun watching you dance. Now it's just sad.

Rep congress vs dem congress? When did I ever give that as my excuse/story??

Hard to believe,

Hard for a biased POS to believe. Ya we can all see that. You see what you want to believe then say thats what it is.

But then you're one of those liberals who believes it's so just because they say it's so...that is rhetoric.

Now to where you LIE some more, putting words in my mouth I never said.....

You went on to say that where you cut the list off was intentional, not an accident at all.

There you go putting words I never said into my mouth, SPEWING LIES, this is what I said:

And if anything is true i left off the inaccurate part of the list in my orginal post #1.117, albiet by accident.

Not by accident at all? Hmm Im pretty sure thats exactly what I said. Then you LIE some more.

Hard to believe, considering you were claiming "mine is the ORIGINAL

You were the one that tried to claim you had the ORIGINAL. Remember?

BTW...that list is the original of YOUR list.

Anyone who looks back on your comments can see how BIASED your arguements are. YOUR THE ONE THAT CLAIMED YOU HAD THE ORIGINAL. My post was the ORIGINAL posting/article/website/chart. It was the ORIGINAL, no matter how you want to try and twist it, it doesnt matter.

Whoa! Hang on! Doesn't this directly contradict what you just said only one paragraph ago? I thought it was an accident.

Spin Spin Spin. Its so obvious what your doing. I already explained to you what I searched for. That is seperate from the reasoning for posting it. But hey if it makes you feel better to try and run in circles be my guest. Ill just copy and paste all my old posts because I have already answered this.

You keep claiming that I manipulated the list. Where did I change any data? That would be manipulation, kinda like how you keep putting words in my mouth. Your manipulating what I say with LIES.

You yourself said you posted the cropped list in relation to a disagreement. You yourself then point to the following disagreement:

LOL You Yourself gave yourself the answer but your too stupid to realize it.

This disagreement is about debt ceiling raises

Thats it, thats all I was trying to settle. The disagreement about debt ceiling raises.

Yet you throw it on the list as one of my stories/excuses. LIES!!!! AGAIN THERE WAS ONLY ONE REASON FOR ME POSTING THAT LIST AS I HAVE SAID FROM THE START.

Whats sad is your lack of comprehension and feeble attempts to put words in my mouth.

That's the core of your argument.

Says you... When did I ever claim thats the core of my arguement? Now if you really want to find out what the core of THEIR arguement was ask them.

Its obvious that your a biased POS, and a hypocrite. Case in point, by your definition of rhetoric:

But then you're one of those liberals who believes it's so just because they say it's so...that is rhetoric.

Show me what data was manipulated, not omitted, but ACTUALLY manipulated.... Show me where I changed around statistics to suit my own means, Which is what manipulated data is. SHOW ME WHERE THE FACTUAL STATISTICS ARE WRONG.

See your problem is that you cant refute the FACTS, so what do you try and do? Distort my answers to your questions to make me look biased, when all you did was show newsvine how much of a bised POS you really are.

Please either refute the factual statistics in my original list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

You're not even a challenge anymore.

"'You went on to say that where you cut the list off was intentional, not an accident at all.'

There you go putting words I never said into my mouth, SPEWING LIES, this is what I said:

'And if anything is true i left off the inaccurate part of the list in my orginal post #1.117, albiet by accident.'"

These next words explain your intent.

"Then I said I was only looking for the last ten years because thats what they were talking about."

Those are your own words -- not mine -- regarding your intent. I'm not putting any words in your mouth.

Then you go flip-flopping again from "mine's the original" to "they're both copies of the original" back to "mine's the original". You're beating a dead horse and might I add, not very well.

Then you resort to chopping off my words in mid-sentence ("This disagreement is about debt ceiling raises with Rep. Congresses vs, Dem Congresses.") to try to support your invalid point. Of course this shouldn't shock me at all, considering.

Then you wrap up by rationalizing that omitting entries from a list of data is somehow not manipulating that list of data.

I've grown bored of watching you contradict yourself and firing shotgun blasts of irrational arguments. I've got better things to do. However, I somehow have little faith that this is the ultimate end of it, even though I'm "ignored".

You are a baled faced liar.

where you cut the list off was intentional, not an accident at all.'

It was never intentional. YOU ARE PUTTING THOSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Then I said I was only looking for the last ten years because thats what they were talking about."

Thats what I searched for when I found the list. How many times do I have to tell you that? KEEP LYING TO YOURSELF MIKE. Whateve makes you feel better.

they're both copies of the original

Here you go putting more words into my mouth. How does it feel to be a liar?

Its obvious that your a biased POS, and a hypocrite. Case in point, by your definition of rhetoric:

But then you're one of those liberals who believes it's so just because they say it's so...that is rhetoric.

Show me what data was manipulated, not omitted, but ACTUALLY manipulated.... Show me where I changed around statistics to suit my own means, Which is what manipulated data is. SHOW ME WHERE THE FACTUAL STATISTICS ARE WRONG.

See your problem is that you cant refute the FACTS, so what do you try and do? Distort my answers to your questions to make me look biased, when all you did was show newsvine how much of a bised POS you really are.

Please either refute the factual statistics in my original list or STFU. Im not interested in your biased BS opinions.

Thats what your whole point is right? That I manipulated the statistics. REFUTE THE FACTS MIKE. PLEASE SHOW ME SOME WHERE I MANIPULATED DATA.

You two are hillarious that your still going back and forth.

Think about this:

Pursuant to the flowchart I'm linking below on Critical Thinking;

Step 1. Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Step 2. (If the answer to step 1 is yes) If one or more of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that arguement (with everyone)?

critical-thinkers.com/2011/03/critical-thinking-the-rational-discussion-flowchart/

If the answer is no to either, you're not really having a discussion.

Critical thought is not the strong point of either the ultraliberal or the neoconservative. We sem to have one of each vying for "Most Biased Poster".

Im simply trying to show that my post was not biased, and that I didnt manipulate data.

1. No, nothing is going to change my mind because I know what my intent was.

I searched for a chart of debt limit increases, thats the first one I found. Hes suggesting that I purposely used a list showing republican votes to make a biased point, which is incorrect. If he wants to believe that, I cant change his mind, but what was I supposed to do? Not defend myself?

Do you two honestly think I was being biased?

Gharms what ultraliberal view points have I been trying to push? I havent talked about politics that much in my posts on this thread, simply defending myself against someone claiming that I manipulated data. How is that Ultraliberal?

Man I couldn't even read the wall of text you two have posted over the last week and a half, so I couldn't side with either of you, nor fault either of you. I just thought that on going back and forth was humorous for its length. I didn't want to "stop tracking" the vine, and figured one of you would eventually give up, but day after day there you both were. (Still makes me chuckle).

At some point you have to let it go an realize you can't get everyone to see your position, or correctly assign your motivation. Sad... but true.

:)

I'm sorry, that was pretty narrow minded of me to put you in that box. It's usually the zealots of either side that are the ones unwinlling to see anyone else's points.

The facts don't change though. Critical thought is made up of considering all positions, discarding those that are obviously biased, giving weight to both sides of the argument, then making an informed decision based on this information. If you just dismiss the opposition and and refuse to even be open to having your mind changed, you're not critically thinking.

Hey Gharms, if you happen to look at this in the future, let me explain.

I frankly was enjoying the fact that after saying he was ignoring me multiple times (after first cussing me out), ultimately he just could...not...control himself. At my whim and instigation, he continued arguing with me almost 2 full weeks after first saying he was ignoring me. I have to admit, his lack of self control was very entertaining to me and I made multiple references to that throughout the thread. After a while even the "cat toying with the mouse" game got boring to me.

BTW...if a person's first words to me are "Blow me"? Well, that person can pretty much be guaranteed that I am going to make them my personal toy.

It's usually the zealots of either side that are the ones unwinlling to see anyone else's points.

You see Mike, Your the zealot that cant see anothers point of view. You promote your belief that I posted manipulated data without any proof what-so-ever that I actually changed data. It was your biased view point that lead to this whole discussion.

So yea please explain to Gharms how you only see your view point as valid. Oh wait your not trying to explain that. Your back to try and insult me by saying Im your play thing? LOL get a life.

I did not try to promote any view point with the list. SIMPLY STATED FACTS. I really dont care what you believe because you have shown me and everyone here that you dont care about facts, just your own skewed opinons.

BTW...if a person's first words to me are "Blow me"? Well, that person can pretty much be guaranteed that I am going to make them my personal toy.

When you call me disingenuous, what response do you expect? From the start you had a problem with the FACTS of that list. If you have a problem with facts, you can blow me.

BTW.... Those werent my first words to you. We have talked in other posts, so I knew the biased POS you were, thus why I told you to blow me.

The President can't force either House or the Senate pass anything. The 2011 budget was approved in February. So what is your point?

hey TReed, how was the 2010 budget they passed when the liberal redistributionists controlled both houses and the executive?

liberals wont even admit when its obvious they are being used.

@Treed

Funny how that fact is conveniently overlooked when it comes to President Bush and going to war in Iraq and Afgany-land.

Sweetie, you know Obama instructed the Senate to vote against his February budget, since changes made since February rendered it obsolete, correct?

Even someone with half a brain who didn't know that, would have to wonder about any bill that got zero votes from either party, correct?

liberal redistributionists

Ok, couple things...

First, Please explain with links to factual information how the liberals have re-distributed anything beyond the billions to corporations?

Second, How does being a regressive concentrationist move our country forward rather than benefit the top 0.1% who already have money?

Third, you do know that Obama is very moderate and anytime a teabagger even claims he is beyond a center-left President they demonstrate their complete ignorance to American public policy.

We'd have a compromise if the Republicans would consider closing corporate loopholes...which they won't.

Sometimes you have press conferences to get the truth out, rather than dealing with hyperbole and lies.

mitchj- Do you rememberr George W. Bush leaving Washington, D.C. with a multi-trillion dollar budget and entitlement plans which included extended uenmployment benefits and TARP money that would not go into effect until Obama was seated as president? You cannot point fingers at just one side of the aisle, they are both dirty.

clotho - "Sweetie, you know Obama instructed the Senate to vote against his February budget, since changes made since February rendered it obsolete, correct?"

Wow, what foresight and leadership.

His annual budget is useless before the ink dries but I'm sure his decade long takeover of healthcare is right on the money isn't it?

Ron Paul 2012

It has now been over 750 days since the Congress has passed a budget - and of course the Democrats have been in charge. They not only spend 50% more than they takein but they don't evenobey the statute to pass a timely budget.

chris-2920872

It's been just as long on the Republican Medikill Budget Bill. Even the die-hard botherhood of republicans broke rank and voted against that. Do you know how bad a republican bill must be to have republicans voting against it?

The senate didn't cast a vote on the president's budget bill because the bill was outdated. Everyone, including you knew they weren't going to vote. What happens? You add that to your propaganda machine.

No, I guess you're just lop-sided. Never mind facts.

Obama's lips are moving, but he is not saying anything.

Obama is stating general topics, everything has to be on the table, like cut military spending, cut entitlements, raise taxes, is not a plan!

Where are the SPECIFICS of Obama's plan?

WHERE IS OBAMA'S SPECIFIC PLAN FOR AMERICA?

America LACKS leadership!

The President lines out what he is trying to do to solve the nations economic issues, ask for cooperation from his fellow politicians. The topic and reason for the press conference was to speak to the American public about the economy.

So the reporter intent on distracting the concentration and conversation of the president and congress away from resolving a real crisis situation asked the president if he thinks this year’s skirts hemlines are too short.

Directly asked whether he now supported same-sex marriage, aside from the actions of individual states, he said: "I'm not going to make news on that today."

Stop bullying the politicians into a corner.

Get out of the way.

The United States economic vehicle is mired up to the doors, it’s broken. Continuously fighting over who drove it into the muddy hole and asking are we there yet does nothing to solve the many issues on the table.

If anyone has a specific idea that could help these politicians post it, we would all like to see it.

I don’t care if you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent put it out there… may be you can be a part of the solution, instead of a distraction.

MtMike...

This president never actually has "a plan" on anything...he puts forth an idea and expects others to do the grunt work at his bidding. That way, he can try to shield himself from any blame.

The mis-named "Affordable Health Care Act"...I'd bet he still has not even read it.

Really??? Vine 1 was deleted??? Bogus.

and because of that i am reposting my earlier comment mike:

the fact that these politicians in washington cant solve a common sense problem shows their incompetence.

The first thing we need to do on the economy is raise a 60% import tax on goods from China, this will take away profits from companies shipping overseas. Keep in mind if you are one of the people that says "china will retalliate," that we feed China (their corn comes from the USA).

Then we need to provide tax incentives to companies opening new industrial jobs in america, this will encourage them to open a new factory and hire workers. And since every job in industry creates roughly another 1.5 in the support sector this will put america back to work.

Following this, we need to secure our borders, what is the point of creating a job if the illegals will take it. Im not saying land mines, but i am saying that something must be done.

Next, we need to cut welfare. We should create work programs for people who loose jobs, making them report to a government workstation during normal work hours and do the jobs that are left undone in a normal municipality (cleaning off graffitti for example). With these jobs being created, people will no longer have an excuse to sit on their a** and take your money. Keep in mind, its YOUR money that they get in a check...

Finally, with more workers means we collect more tax revenue, and with no welfare we take away a huge expense. With that left over money we need to begin paying off our bills as a nation, and once that is done maybe we should start burning the extra cash as a way to increase the value of our dollar.

In the end lets just hope common sense prevails

HeyMr. President! Nice job there painting another target on the aircraft industry in Wichita! That really must have took some balls to attack those evil corporate jets. Or maybe you just don't understand all of the thousands of folks (as you like to call us) have jobs because we build them here. Are you really that mad at the planes? They are only machines by the way. I know you mad at the people who can afford to buy them. But guess what? We really like selling them to them.

I wonder if you wil ever be happy until every industrial city in the USA looks like hmmmmmm, Detroit?

Great American Leaders have always taken charge, played the hand they were dealt,and inspired their citizens to greatness during times of adversity, Washington's farewell address,Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Roosevelt's ,"the only thing We have to fear" speech, JFK"s, "Ask not what Your country can do for You...", Reagan's ,"Bright shining city on a hill",.....and Obama's...."not my fault!,somebody else did it!, don't blame me, it was those other guys!".....,Yup, fundamental change really has come to America.(This too is a repost from vine one ).

Obama tells congress to "Get it done"???

Sounds like the Stimulus, TARP and Obamacare....legislate without debate, vote on it and we'll see what's in it later.

The ultimatum that Congress should send back is a resounding "NO"

That or instead of raising the debt ceiling to this astronomical number to fund this bloated, wasteful government for 2 years, they should vote to increase the debt limit by the amount that Obama and his cronies cut the 2011 budget by....$100 million.

Andrew,

In all due respect, does your commmentary on welfare include government programs such as the Farm Subsidies? Following is an excerpt from Wikipedia on this program (this is not the entire narrative as it is very long, I have just tried to insert the more poignant parts of it):

...........................

"The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"^[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills date back to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support. A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion.^[12]

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.^[13] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.^[13] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments.^[14]

"Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops."^[15]

Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple.^[15]

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.^[16] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

Farm subsidies have the direct effect of transferring income from the general tax payers to farm owners. The justification for this transfer and its effects are complex and often controversial."

.....................................

It should be noted that 2 of the 3 top recipient states are red, Farm Belt states; Texas and Iowa, where people consider themselves to be self-sufficient, against big government and anti-socialist. (I won't go into M. Bachmann and her over than $250K subsidies for her WI farm). Also note that the current trend is for the recipients to be the larger, more profitable farms. Something seems inconsistent here.

Perhaps you could help explain this, and I do mean that in all due respect. Have a very good day.

P.S., I DO have problems with all of our welfare programs, not when they help people who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times, but because the government does not do a sufficient job in stopping the cheats. I also bristle at the fact that in spite of having a job, I shop for stew meat on sale while some people can buy ribeye and filet with their food stamps, so I am NOT a flaming liberal.

By the way Detroit I'm not picking on you just pointing out what was done to al of you.

faithfulalways #1 has been deleted and all 176 ++ related comments attached to it ! Why ? No clue from MSNBC.

I guess the bulk of those 176 ++ related comments was mostly anti-Obama so "a decision was made" to eliminate the comment in its entirety. Censorship ?

.....reasonable spending cuts.....

Reasonable ? How can Mr. Obama state this when his staff implemented a "covert program" costing taxpayer thousands of dollars then had it come to an immediate stop because of media attention ? UNDERCOVER MEDICAL PATIENTS. On one hand, he wants "reasonable spending cuts" but fails to follow his own "suggestion".

The president said both parties must be prepared to "take on their sacred cows" as part of the deficit-reduction negotiations.

Those Obama "sacred cows", i.e., union jobs, contiunue to flourish. Remember, Mr. Obama said that SEIU's agenda is his agenda. Another Stimulus #2 program anyone ? I wonder if these jobs are going to be "shovel ready".....everyone giggle.

"We're going to need to look at the whole budget," said the president. "And eliminate waste wherever we find it."

Repeat from his top to bottom review of Federal Agencies for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse during the last Presidential election campaign.

The president said members of Congress needed to stay in Washington until budget negotiations are finished — even if it means canceling other plans back home.

Yep, ground Air Force 1, and all other Presidential aircraft, instead of going on campaign tours and start being a LEADER. Appointing non-negotiating Mr. Biden to take charge of getting the parties to come to an agreement of the Nation Debt limit and deficit reductions was a disaster. Maybe it is time for Mr. Biden to take another overseas trip.

Obama said that while lawmakers have been taking regular recesses, he's been in Washington working and challenged lawmakers to "stay here" and "get it done."

Was this a Joke ? Working ? With whom ?

"At a certain point," Obama said of congressional leaders, "they need to do their job."

Yes, it has been 2 1/2 years and still working on being a Leader. Where is your budget for the last two years and where are the jobs you have within your laser sights, think about every night when you go to bed, and wake up every morning thinking about jobs ?

I am not a Supreme Court Justice.

Mr. Obama stated he could not say that the U.S. involvement was constitutional in accordance with the War Powers Act. Then, shortly thereafter, stated that DOMA was unconstitutional even though it is a FEDERAL LAW.

Synopsis of Mr. Obama's speech: reiterated his political agenda and reaching out to his voter base.

The biggest need is for something to be done to fix Medicare, which is going to go bankrupt in about 15 years. We have only a few choices;

1 - Increase the employee contributions so the program is fully funded by increasing the Medicare contributions from $1.45% of payroll to 3.75% of payroll. That's an extra $1,125 per year ($94 per month) for the average employee.

2 - Reduce Medicare spending, with something like the Ryan plan or some other method.

3 - Some combination of the above 2 choices.

The idea that we can continue paying 100% of Medicare costs while collecting only 39% of the payroll taxes needed to pay for it is unsustainable. If people want full benefits, then pay for them. There is no 'free lunch', unless you're on welfare, in which case someone ELSE has to pay your share.

my response to roadhouse is a part yes and part no:

Private farms that are attempting to compete with massive coorporate farms are the main ones driving innovation in that field. For example, if you go to a store and by a red delicious apple chances are it was grown by a coorporation that knows exactly what to grow and is content to keep growing that same product, while private farms cannot compete with the quantity of coorporate farms and as a result are forced to innovate by experimenting with new apples. If the new apple is unnsuccesful as a food then the farmer can sell it to make apple cider (providing him a safety net). Thus I have no problem funding the inginuity of the private farmer, while the coorprate farmer is already making his money and doesnt need any help. When I say fund, I mean it in terms of tax deductions though, not welfare (dont give him money, just dont take the little he has).

Now, in general I was referring to checks for people that are out of work. However I was also referring to jobs programs run by the fed that are discriminatory (yes they have them even though they claim to not be biased), bailing out banks and companies, providing funding to pay peoples morgages. In general I am simply saying to stop giving money to the jerks that refuse to get a job, and the jerks that bit off more then they could chew intentionally. Dont get me wrong, there are people out of work that cannot find jobs and really want to, and that is why i offered the above process.

In short, you need to do a two step process, close the window on welfare and open the door to self sufficiency. In addition to cutting trade with china and securing the borders...

Also, i like how roadhouse and i have kept it clean and respectful, maybe everyone else should learn to talk on the issues rather then the people. Our country might be a better place...

Mr Obama comes across as the "Blamer in Chief". He always says "I take responsibility," but in the end he doesn't. He blames Fox News. He blames ATMs. He blames congress. He blames "my predecessor". He blames everyone BUT himself. "I've spent the last two years trying to cut taxes," etc.

The American people are tired of a president who just makes excuses.. The people are tired of no results (accompanied by words of how great the results are). The people are tired of debt. We are tired of failed policies.

In the beginning, Mr Obama inspired people. People thought he was really going to do great things. When he talked about a new openness, people were excited about it. Now, almost three years in, we all see that "new" just means more corrupt. "No special interests" doesn't really mean no special interests... They are just different special interests. The economic policies haven't produced anything but higher debt and higher unemployment.

I hope that those running against Mr Obama attack his record head on, because that is where his vulnerability lies. The things he's done haven't worked, and he refuses to acknowledge it. The people know, though. We are not as dumb as he thinks, which is borne out by the polls that show 60% of us believing that the country is on the WRONG TRACK.

So Mr. Obama what are your ideas?? What is your plan? You are the "leader" of the free world! LEAD!

mitch j:

MITCH J is a foul mouthed troll. His profanity need be CENSURED!

Metal, what does Bachman have to do with Obama's Debt problem? Or lack of action?

I love that instead of defending Obama record, people attack the other party or people!

MCMetal,

So are you saying that Obama taking credit for those "shovel ready" jobs as a result of the Bush stimulus??

And see if you can follow this...over 40% of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax and at the same time, they want others to pay more... Please explain that one...

Obama says..get it done..ie...give me what I say I want.

Sorry man but you have to understand you are not going to get what you want now. You pissed off everyone with closing doors. You buy people to vote your way to get your way.

Debt ceiling is not going anywhere as long as the House holds true. Reduce your big gov.

Roy Wilson #2.26,

Roy, Medicare is estimated to be broke in 15 years. You don't suppose that the $500-billion diverted from it to Obamacare had anything to do with the first sentence of this post.

Bernie Madoff wasn't running the biggest Ponzi scheme, our federal government makes him look like a rank amateur.

It appears that neither the WH nor Congress know how to properly manage our money. Perchance we should convene a Constitutional Convention that will severely limit the size and power of our central government.

All of you are arguing about the SAME Party - The Republicrats.

Both want the same thing Centralized Federal power so they can rule from Washington and dictate what all the little serfs will do. It's SO tiring listening to these sides go round and round with the same 30 second sound bites (handed to you from Ministries of Propaganda) forming your arguments about the details that don't matter to that big picture. The Federal Government has no mandate to anything really but provide for the common defense. Everything else should be the States purview. But you people in both parties with your great intentions to mold the world in your own image handed over all the power to a Federal government who now teach and indoctrinate you into the Slavery of Centralized Government.

WAKE UP.

Bruce-308647

Mr Obama comes across as the "Blamer in Chief". He always says "I take responsibility," but in the end he doesn't. He blames Fox News. He blames ATMs. He blames congress. He blames "my predecessor". He blames everyone BUT himself. "I've spent the last two years trying to cut taxes," etc.

The American people are tired of a president who just makes excuses.. The people are tired of no results (accompanied by words of how great the results are). The people are tired of debt. We are tired of failed policies.

No we are TIRED of the GOP BULL @!$%#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time," Obama said during a press conference--his first major solo conference since March. "Malia's 13, Sasha's 10 … They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all nighters. Congress can do the same thing."

Where was this comment last fall when Pelosi REFUSED to even wrtie a budget...

Obama is ANYTHING but a leader!

JK1963

MCMetal,

So are you saying that Obama taking credit for those "shovel ready" jobs as a result of the Bush stimulus??

And see if you can follow this...over 40% of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax and at the same time, they want others to pay more... Please explain that one...

GW"S stimulous? You mean the one to bail out the banks? THE BANKS? It was NOT for shovel ready jobs, Do you understand about the Zero federal income, it is the ones way BELOW POVERTY< P O V E R T Y< do you know what that is????????????????

Get some new info and rheteric, you need to stop with Rush, Fox and the far right BS

A couple of quick thoughts:

1. August 2nd is a "hard date"- Is that due to the impending debt ceiling collision or that the Obamas are going to Martha's Vineyard for their vacation?

2. Interesting line about the President using a "blunt challenge to the republicans in Congress". Is the blunt challenge that he's pointing fingers at the republicans because they aren't giving in?

3. Tax breaks for oil companies- Haven't we already established that the oil companies don't get tax breaks and pay a 43% tax premium?

4. Will Congress decide that doing their jobs is more important than taking off a week for Independence Day?

Eric-913730 #2.6,

Have you forgotten who controls our federal government?

Hint: the puppet masters.

The debt ceiling WILL be raised! The Rebuplicans are "over a barrel"! If the Republican controlled House does not raise the borrowing limit, the country and perhaps the world will plunge deeply into depression and the U.S. dollar will no longer be the reserve currency for the world. The stakes are just too high to bluff on this decision. Once again, the limit will be raised and the U.S. will not default. How it will be done is another question. However, I feel and believe the Democrats have the leverage on this issue, if only they will use it!

Obama pretty much hit this dead on the mark and look at all the wing-nuts lose it. So much for these boards being dominated by liberals as I've read several times here... lol.

Faux News headline today - "Obama's solution to budget - TAX HIKES!" Well, so much for Faux News "fair and balanced" BS. Now for the truth:

Obama wants Bush era tax breaks, that were never meant to be permanent, ended. And so does most of America. Obama and Dems are also agreeing to considerable budget cuts -- as they should!

What's Obama's plan I see asked so many times here? Doing something other than saying NO and obstructing at every turn I do believe.

Temper, temper, else the arrogance is on you.

Time for the states to do the right thing. The federal government is broken. The Hubris of this president is unimaginable, considering his economy of talent (like that?) and the fact that he has run up the debt at a rate 27 times higher than in human history. Remember the reichmark? The newsreels with ermans pushing money around in wheelbarrows. No more spending on wars. That's a good first step. Bring home all our troops, and take reparations from terrorist nations in oil. End the drug war. And turn off the corporate spigot. A tiny handful of highly overpaid losers do not have rights over us all, and it is time for them to go. The truth is if you were to reset the global economy, and cancel every existing loan on the planet, in an orderly fashion a hand full of rich people would take a writedown for about 1 quarter, and the world economy would recover.

Barack Obama has "deficit-attention" disorder.

He cannot stay focused on the $1.6+ trillion dollar shortfall. If he repeals the Bush-era tax cuts, it will raise taxes on EVERYONE who pays tax ! Many of you seem to forget that those tax cuts were across ALL LEVELS of taxation.

If he repeals it only for "the wealthy", singles making over $200k per year and joint returns for over $250k per year ............. then it won't make a significant dent in the deficit !

Does anyone, especially in the GOP, realize that in order to control the deficit, you have to get revenue from somewhere??? You can't pay a bill if you've got nothing coming in to pay it with. It's as simple as that!!! Taxing people with incomes over $250,000 just a little more won't kill them. Hell, I don't make a quarter of that, and I would not seriously mind adding a couple more dollars if I thought it would pay the deficit! Taking away the big money going to oil companies, pharmacy companies, etc. would bring money INTO the government to pay down the deficit! It certainly won't hurt since they make billions in profits! And, if they have to pay a little more in taxes, I'm sure they'll just find more loopholes to get around it! As for causing corporations to hire fewer people....they're already doing that! Give me a break...the GOP needs to get off their duffs and understand simple math.....no money coming in from raising taxes, etc., no money to pay off the deficit! Not raising the debt ceiling isn't going to help either....it's just going to cause a bigger catastrophe!!!

Taxing people with incomes over $250,000 just a little more won't kill them.

Either MSNBC Business or Redtape ran a series of articles around tax time comparing what people like this in different parts of the country had had left over versus what low income people had left over. After all of the municipal, county, state and federal taxes were paid they had less left over than the people not getting taxed and getting government assistance did. I would say that yes it would figuratively kill them.

I would not seriously mind adding a couple more dollars if I thought it would pay the deficit!

Anyone can send in a check to the Treasury whenever they want. Sorry but it goes into the general fund.

Before people that do pay taxes are asked to pay more those that did not have to pay anything should pay.

jim-1455434

Barack Obama has "deficit-attention" disorder.

He cannot stay focused on the $1.6+ trillion dollar shortfall. If he repeals the Bush-era tax cuts, it will raise taxes on EVERYONE who pays tax ! Many of you seem to forget that those tax cuts were across ALL LEVELS of taxation.

If he repeals it only for "the wealthy", singles making over $200k per year and joint returns for over $250k per year ............. then it won't make a significant dent in the deficit

It will NOT raise taxes for the majority of the people, he want to end the Corporate Tax LOOPHOLES that the GOP and Norquist want. Do a little studying, what you are saying is wrong.

StopTheLiesNOW

Obama pretty much hit this dead on the mark and look at all the wing-nuts lose it. So much for these boards being dominated by liberals as I've read several times here... lol.

Faux News headline today - "Obama's solution to budget - TAX HIKES!" Well, so much for Faux News "fair and balanced" BS. Now for the truth:

Obama wants Bush era tax breaks, that were never meant to be permanent, ended. And so does most of America. Obama and Dems are also agreeing to considerable budget cuts -- as they should!

What's Obama's plan I see asked so many times here? Doing something other than saying NO and obstructing at every turn I do believe.

Temper, temper, else the arrogance is on you.

You are right> Obama said he would extend them temporarily, Too bad Mr Norquist take your money and your agreement with the GOP and shove it.

Robin Steele

Time for the states to do the right thing. The federal government is broken. The Hubris of this president is unimaginable, considering his economy of talent (like that?) and the fact that he has run up the debt at a rate 27 times higher than in.....

Isn't it funny, Iowa had a SURPLUS when Branstadt was elected, not by me, and now we have a deficit issue, OMG, thanks repubs, thanks for nothing.

mitchj,

knock off the name calling it is a violation of News vine, good thing I don't work for them or you would be banned.

Sally, Tyler, please do something with his insults.

In 2011-----13 Golf Outings and 33 Fundraisers...Gettin' er done Barry O.

"The Senate voted unanimously to reject a $3. 8 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in January"...97-0

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

He has NO PLAN...just threw a bunch of numbers out there.

Gordon90N "Roy Wilson #2.26, Roy, Medicare is estimated to be broke in 15 years. You don't suppose that the $500-billion diverted from it to Obamacare had anything to do with the first sentence of this post."

No. That was a phony 'cut' that the Democratic Congress told the CBO to 'assume' would be made so they could claim Obamacare would result in a 'surplus' of about $100 Billion over 10 years. There was never any intention to actually cut Medicare - in fact, not only did they not 'cut' the $500 Billion, they INCREASED spending by about $240 Billion for the 'Dr. Fix'.

So The Democrats actually turned their own Obamacare budget 'surplus' of $100 Billion into a budget 'Deficit' of an additional $640 Billion with Obamacare.

What's that old saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t".

Here is my solution to the debt crisis (My 2 cents worth, which I'll gladly contribute towards the debt);

1 - Let the Bush tax cuts expire for the 'rich', and eliminate most of their 'loopholes' = A Deficit reduction of $1.5 Trillion over 10 years. (a)

2 - Either fully fund the cost of Medicare or cut its spending = A Deficit reduction of $1.4 Trillion over 10 years.

3 - 'Tweak' Social Security by 'gradually' increasing the retirement age to 69 (over 50 years), and increase contributions by one-quarter of 1% for both employer and employee = A Deficit reduction of $400 Billion over 10 years.

4 - Cut 'Discretionary' spending by 10% (it has grown by over 30% over the last 2 years) = A Deficit reduction of $1.6 Trillion over 10 years.

5 - Leave the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle/lower classes (we need them for economic recovery).

That's a Deficit reduction of $4.9 Trillion over 10 years, even more than the $4 Trillion recommended by the Debt Commission.

I welcome any comments (provided they are worth at least 2 cents, and you agree to contribute that towards the National Debt).

(a) - While such a big tax increase on the 'rich' will have some negative effects on the economy, I believe it is both necessary and fair.

Let's keep this REALLY simple;

The interest payments on the debt amount to about 5% of the spending. There is no reason whatsoever for us to 'default on the debt' by failing to pay that 5% when it falls due.

We can argue over the remaining 95% of spending, but it's crazy to pretend that we will pay everything else, but let our debt payments go into default just to make a political statement.

Let's get real.

There is no 'hard date' for avoiding a default on the debt.

There is also no reason to choose between paying the debt payments and paying Social Security or Medicare. There is plenty of room in 'Discretionary' spending to make significant cuts.

All I know is when you have one side that refuses to work or do anything for the middle class and small business, you know their are agenda is for helping the wealthy. They do not have any plans and their only goal is to hurt this nation. Welcome to the new Right. They are so far right, they want the majority to pay in blood rather than work with the Democrates. To refuse to tax the wealthest 1 percent says it all.

Bruce , if Crazy Eyes Bachmann is the GOP nominee , the Republicans are toast.......How exactly is she going to criticize Obama on his record , when hers is even worse , starting with her being the biggest Bush cheerleader during that imbecile's entire godawful presidency.................?.

What exactly is your problem with Michele Backman? What exactly does "Crazy Eyes" mean? You've made up a derogatory term and used it when it's entirely meaningless. Like a two year old calling someone "poopy head" or something. What in her record is terrible? Specifically? It seems to me like you are criticizing without offering ANYTHING specific that you are criticizing. Oh, she supported president Bush. Well so did about every other Republican. So is that it? She has crazy eyes, a bad record (that you don't specify) and she supported Bush? If that's all that disqualifies her, then that's pretty lame.

On the other side of the ledger, she has been a tax attorney, has post doctorate degrees, has been both a state legislator and congresswoman, as well as a successful businesswoman. That hardly sounds like someone who is "stupid" or ignorant. I doubt there are many post-doctorate tax attorneys out there who are not very, VERY bright. I honestly don't think you have a problem with Michele Bachman. I think you have a problem with ANY conservative you see as a threat to your man Obama getting a second term. Whoever the frontrunner of the day is, you will all hate and deride, because that is what you do. You don't debate policy. You call names.

@roywilson

Add:No payroll limit on SS deductions. And the shape of these young kids today the diabetes spending will be going through the roof and I wonder how many will make it to 69.

Keep America's money in America. End the war, stop all this donating to other Countries. End NAFTA and bring in line our import duties.

And just for kicks start a war with China on human rights issues and cancel our debt to them. lol

Also, just as fact this is the first time in American history that we have not raised taxes to support the war. We need to go back to the old tax rates this Country had but the wealthy elected officials won't vote against their own pocketbook.

'They need to do their job ... That's why they're called leaders'

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann said this?

Obama wouldn’t know a leader if it smacked him up side the head!

"You stay here. Let's get it done," he all-but-lectured lawmakers, holding open the possibility of keeping Congress in Washington unless there is significant progress by week's end on a deal to cut deficits, raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit and avert a threatened financial crisis.

"Republicans have been leading and offering solutions to put the brakes on this spending binge," added House Speaker John Boehner. "The president has been AWOL from that debate."

Gee Barry...YOU caused it! Why don’t YOU stay home for a change and get something DONE?

genevieveva "All I know is when you have one side that refuses to work or do anything for the middle class and small business, you know their are agenda is for helping the wealthy."

Do you REALLY think that all the Republicans care about is helping the top 5% of the richest people in the country? Why would they do that? That's like saying all the Democrats want is to bankrupt the nation and let millions of illegal immigrants in so they will vote Democratic. Both statements are just ridiculous.

Did it ever occur to people that perhaps the Republicans oppose tax increases because it will shrink the size of the pie, and EVERYONE will be worse off?

And perhaps the Democrats favor more 'wealth redistribution' because there are many people in this country that are 'living on the edge', often through no fault of their own, and we need to give them a helping hand, and the 'rich' can afford to help.

How about recognizing that there are legitimate differences as to what is best for the COUNTRY in the long run, and stop with the 'demonizing' of one side or another.

speaking of tee time,

bush was never in office:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/11/politics/uwire/main3927378.shtml

ldo:

a "covert program"

Are you referring to Libya? Please let me know if you are because I have a lot of references which will prove you wrong on this point.

UNDERCOVER MEDICAL PATIENTS

Seriously? I believe this is the proper response for outlandish statements such as that one.

i.e., union jobs, contiunue to flourish

Yes. Yes I am giggling. As a matter of fact, I joined the vine while still laughing at a newsvine post I had just finished reading.

and start being a LEADER

I am SO sorry you and so many others here missed the memo.

and where are the jobs you have within your laser sights

You must've missed the jobs memo as well.

Synopsis of Mr. Obama's speech: reiterated his political agenda and reaching out to his voter base.

Yes. That's what politicians do. Just look at the Republican and Tea Party leadership. Go ahead and tell me those "leaders" don't do the same. If you do not like the way politics is being done, I invite you to change the players or failing that, change the playing field...oh wait....they're already doing that, aren't they? Never mind then. My bad.

Obama, our current Sociopath In Chief, is trying to make you think he's being fair by proposing closing a few tax breaks for the wealthy but in reality the money it would cost the wealthy would be a drop in the bucket compared to the spending cuts he is going to inflict on the poor, elderly and sick:

Obama backs trillions in "painful spending cuts"

By Patrick Martin

30 June 2011

At a press conference Wednesday, US President Barack Obama reiterated his determination to impose trillions of dollars of spending cuts on the elderly, the sick, school children and college students. He appealed to congressional Republicans to agree to a handful of minor tax increases on the wealthy to provide the fig leaf of what he called a "balanced" program of deficit reduction.

In his opening statement and on several occasions during the 70-minute appearance before media representatives, Obama embraced deficit reduction as the central priority of his administration. He described budget-cutting in the same terms as the Republicans, calling it, "part of an overall package for job growth over the long term. It's not the only part of it, but it's an important part of it."

The claim that deficit reduction creates jobs is an absurdity that until recently would have found support only among the free market ideologues of the ultra-right. The practical effect of slashing federal spending will be to further contract the US economy, adding to the impact of the destruction of 535,000 jobs through state and local government budget cuts over the last two years....

....While the budget cuts already agreed to in the Biden talks are equivalent, on a per capita basis, to the austerity plan that has provoked mass opposition in Greece, the tax increases outlined by Obama at the press conference are a drop in the bucket for the financial aristocracy that dominates America.

Obama repeatedly referred to ending tax breaks for corporate jets, but such a measure would cost CEOs only $3 billion over ten years. The other tax increases he proposed include limiting deductions for hedge fund speculators ($20 billion), ending tax subsidies for big oil companies ($72 billion), and restricting tax deductions for the highest-income households ($100 billion).

In other words, even if all these impositions on the wealthy were to be adopted—a more than unlikely event—the total would come to a little under $200 billion, less than half the amount proposed by the Democrats the week before, and less than one-tenth of the total deficit reduction package. So much for balance...

....Nowhere in his press conference did Obama attempt to explain the source of the frenzied opposition to tax increases by the Republicans, since this would have involved an acknowledgement of the selfishness and maniac greed of the dominant social layer in American society.

Obama is just as much a political front man for these financial parasites as the Republicans. Last week his reelection campaign staged a Wall Street fundraiser, which as the New York Times noted, "raised $2.3 million, outpacing an original projection of $1.5 million."....

...First Obama grovels before the investment bankers and hedge fund speculators, seeking—and getting—their cash. Then he postures as the protagonist of "equal sacrifice," demanding that billionaires forego a tax deduction, while school teachers lose their jobs, students their scholarships, and the elderly are forced to choose between paying for prescriptions and heating their homes.

All sections of the ruling elite, Democratic and Republican, conservative and liberal, understand the game that is being played. They all chuckle when Obama pretends to berate the wealthy, knowing full well where his real class loyalties lie.

Working people must develop an equally clear-eyed understanding of the class interests underlying the political fictions of the two-party system, and act accordingly.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/budg-j30.shtml

To all of you screaming about loopholes:

You do know that those loopholes exist because we use them to funnel money to fund our espionage both here and abroad correct? They will never be closed for this reason alone. As long as they exist, the government is breaking it's own laws to keep the information rolling in.

Furthermore, you all insist that 250k+ is super rich now? That's the last tax bracket. You do realize this right? You do realize that includes almost ALL of small businesses in America? The lifeblood of our economy? Yeah, let's raise taxes on small business during a recession. While we're at it, let's pass a health care reform that no one can tell anyone how much it will cost those same small businesses? That will really stimulate job.....lessness.

I hate to tell you, but the time for handouts is over, both corporate and welfare. No more earned income tax credits, no more child credits, no more paying people to not pay taxes, no more green energy rebates. These companies you all rail against that paid no taxes did so by leveraging past years losses against tax liability. It's been that way FOREVER. You act as if it's suddenly new, and shuck all the resposibility to the Republicans for it. Get a grip.

We can no longer afford to half step on any of these issues. Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed. Defense needs to be cut. Oil subsidies being cut will only lead to higher gas prices, but sure, let's get rid of them too since you all seem so gung ho about it. Not like they'll pass the cost onto the pump or anything. Corporate welfare has to go. Foreign aid needs to be suspended to ALL nations. We need to bring our troops home, close all but one army base on each continent, and call it a day. The blank check bounced. There's no more money to fret away.

We need less press conferences, and more action. Less blaming and more compromise. But I'll tell you one historical FACT. In the history of our country, when taxes have been raised, spending has been raised exponentially to match. It's never been a revenue issue. It's a spending issue.

Someone take away the Fed Credit card.

Every dollar you take from a wealthy person is a dollar they cannot spend on consumer goods. Raise taxes on them and it WILL cust the US jobs. Los Angeles found this out a few years ago when the recession hit. I read a story about how many people in LA rely heavily on the spending habits of the rich to make a living. When the recession hit, celebrities tightened their belts and the ones who were hit were the people lower on the food chain: Caterers, jewelry store owners, landscapers, pool installers, etc. For some reason, everyone seems to think that the "wealthy" have a never ending supply of money and government is entitled to it. So WHAT if a company has a corporate jet? If the company can afford it and wants to pay for it, it's THEIR business, not ours. By contrast, Mr Obama has attended 33 fundraisers so far this year at taxpayer expense in the biggest, most expesive "corporate jet" on the planet. It's time for the President to quit calling the kettle black.

MCMetal...

81% of respondents to some poll say "raise taxes of the wealty"...which basically translates to "raise somebody else's taxes, but not mine".

And this is surprising ???

The pollster should next pose the question " Should taxes be increased on people in every single income bracket but your own ?"...maybe they'd get 100% on that one.

Bruce...

I read recently that the wealthiest 2 to 3% of Americans are responsible for about 1/3 of all consumer spending in this country.

I'd bet the wealthiest 10% are doing over half the consumer spending nationwide.

And all those folks are now the bad guys who must be financially punished.

This must be the new America !!!

Bruce and Tony,

While I agree that attacking the rich is only the lefts way of continuing class warfare... their is a point in which the Rich don't spend anymore money.

If you made $30 MM this year could you even think of a way to spend that all?

A simple restructuring of the tax code that ensure the bottome 50% and top 2% pay atleast something would go a long way to help! Lower all the tax rates, treat ALL income the same and end all deductions!

Every dollar you take from a wealthy person is a dollar they cannot spend on consumer goods. Raise taxes on them and it WILL cust the US jobs.

OOOoooh...you mean like in supply-side economics, right? Well then, I'm sure you'll just love this historical reference from the great and famous René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson:

"Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé...Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!"

Ya what's your point. The French would be sprecken ze duetsch if it were not for the U.S.A. and her supply side economics.

You didn't click, did ya?

Mitch I hope you're right but Obama has too many supporters that will follow along blindly and the GOP is more than likely not going to nominate someone that a lot of us are not going to be able to support. For example, if say, Mitt Romney or Bachmann get the nomination, the majority of independents won't be voting for them.

brent, keep the faith. there are going to be big changes.

Yes Brent, I believe there will be a candidate we can support! But I know how you feel, I have sometimes felt like saying take 4 more years, Just to prove what a mess we are really in. But Im afraid the left will just keep saying what a mess Bush got us in and its going to take 14 years to get out of it! Then in 10 years we will be the United States of Greece! Rioting in the streets! Because everyone works for the Gov and its out of money! I see no where good for this country to go in the hands of the left. Im about to be shredded for my opinion!

mitch - So is it okay if the Republicans in the House prevents raising the debt ceiling? Then the US will default, the bond market will head south followed by the stock market and your 401K will shrink. So how is this good for America? Not saying the either side is right but I can't see it helping and if anything this would put blame on the Republicans for hurting the economy and hurt their chances in the election.

Not necessarily jollyoldsoul1 ! Many U.S. citizens are waking up to the fact that Obama wants to GROW government at every opportunity and to raise taxes to pay for it.

TReed, do you really think the fed govt cares about my 401K? lol, not unless they can tax it somehow. your premise is flawed, and holds no water when you start with "if the Republicans in the House prevents raising the debt ceiling". who controlled both houses and the executive before last November????

you have no argument, following up with "not saying either side is right" your statement is insulting, and beneath even you.

in general however, the fed takes in 2.2 Trillion/year. the bondholders and other contractual obligations are @80 % of our debt default requirements. we can simply pay those, and there will be no great market correction. your mantra about blaming a party is just brainwashed hogwash. those two parties mean nothing anymore, if you dont see that your part of the problem, please tell me your are not only a simple minded puppet.

TReed - Quit bringing up raising the debt ceiling when reckless spending is not being dealt with. I swear it seems like all you Obama supporters have no common sense whatsoever.

Cut spending FIRST. Good lord it cannot be that hard for you people to comprehend. You don't resolve the problem of being in debt by giving irresponsible people a higher credit limit to accrue even more debt.

Raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes can be looked at but only when wasteful spending has been stopped first.

Brent-

at this point a ham sandwich could run against Barry Hussein and win by a landslide-

Jimmy Carter tsunami style loss coming to a country near you-

Am I wrong in understanding that raising the debt ceiling isn't to spend more but to pay debts that were already spent?

You all also realize that the government pays contractors more than they pay their employees right? Meaning if I make $20/hr for the government, they pay me $20/hr plus benefits. If I work for a government contractor, I may make $25/hr but the contractor is charging the government say $70/hr for the same services.

Someone explain to me how shrinking the government in THAT sense saves money?

I agree SOME social programs need to be cut and for the record I am sure that there are conservatives that are using the "System" for paychecks.

@ Brent -- Why would independents not vote for the Republican nominee? Why cut off your nose to spite your face? They can't be that ignorant. They must know that an abstention or a vote for a third party candidate would be a vote for the current failed president.

And 3.7 Trillion on 2 wars that somebody started and no, it wasn't Osama the target skeet.

Because I shouldn't have to lower or change my convictions and beliefs because of political bull sh#t.

Why doesn't the rest of the country quit buying into whatever Washington and the media try to force feed us as the truth of things and start really looking at whats going on for ourselves? I'm tired of having politicians in office. Politicians have no problems with lying their asses off saying one thing with absolutely no intentions of following through with it. (That is not just a shot at Obama either).

Also, I keep on hoping that people are going to wake up and see how screwed up our current two party system is. We need someone in office who has no restraints or apprehension about crossing the aisle when dealing with the issues this country faces. Someone who isn't concerned with upsetting their own party. Screw the party. The republicans and democrats both, have failed us miserably and it is way past time for us to get a true independent in office and see how much progress we really can make.

We need people like that in the House and Senate not just the POTUS.

But unfortunately we don't have the numbers, so the independent candidates have to pick a democrat or republican side to represent in order to even have the slightest chance of being nominated or even making it in to the senate or congress.

If you really listen to the GOP candidates (at least the ones we know about right now), you can tell which ones are honest and sincere and which ones are just playing the political game.

Please people, don't keep falling for the same crap every election.

Yes we will be better with with the party of no in charge. They have the house now and I lost count on how many jobs bills they have introduced. Can of of you right winged lemmings refresh my memory

Ah yes, the republicans in charge would be so great for the nation.

Minimum wage repealed

Soc Sec privitized

Medicare/caid privitized

Gun control repealed

Public schools privitized

Emergency/Fire privitized

Civil Rights Act repealed

Anything and everything including the roads you drive on will be For-Profit

Hail to the Chief rewritten to Hail to the Chief Executive Officer

Oh yeah, the nation will vote for that!

Other than the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, which no Republican is for, I don't see much of an issue with your list. Why do you think any of these would be bad?

Let me guess..... you think that the government is doing a bang up job of running Social Security. The fact that they stole the money and endangered the program should simply be ignored, right? And, of course, I'm sure it will never happen again - the politicians would never, ever lie to us........

JC: Politicians never lie. Come on man.

Brent post 3.12 I agree. Also on 3.14 ----- JC ,And you think a for profit corp. would do better. You want them taking a percent of your retirement for operating costs.Or maybe fileing bankrupsy and lossing all of it.

old man,

I don't see that the government spending all the money on other things is a whole lot different than a company filing bankruptcy - no money in either case.

Personally, I would trust a company just as much as I would the government. Although the company might charge me a fee, I also assume that there would be regulations in place (as with banks, S&L's, etc.) to safeguard the funds. Remember - the government can change the benefits paid out, to whom, when, etc. any time they want. Isn't that what we are talking about? I'm 54 right now. If the Ryan plan passed, my Medicare benefits would change significantly from what they are now. And, 5 years from now, they could change them again. At least with a private company, I would have a contract for a specific set of benefits.

Believing that anything is safe is simply naive. Having more control over things (rather than allowing the government to dictate) is priceless.

I actually do not know how they can resolve all the problems we have right now. I know I heard Herman Cain talk about how Galveston opted out of the Social Security Plan in like the 70's and their returns from whatever retirement investing they were doing was significantly better than what the social security retiree pay outs are for everyone else.

I mean there is no way I can act like I have an answer or even the hint of an answer to all these issues.

I think spending needs to be cut dramatically, I think our Military should be pulled out of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and any other place like that. I think the tax breaks and tax subsidies allowed to big oil and big corporations should stop and above all, I think we should have elected officials in congress and the White House that we can actually trust.

My biggest problem with the way things are going right now is the politics of it all. I'm tired of being lied to and manipulated into believing things are a certain way when it is in fact a total lie. I want there to be honest people in office who truly care about all of us and want to protect our interests. I want the government to act on my behalf and not their campaign or political financial contributors.

And finally, I want there to be a whole lot less federal government control.

Until you all stop voting based on D or R, we will never again have a viable President in the White House, never mind a truly representation Congress or Senate, or an activist-free Supreme Court. The bickering about which party is responsible for the mess used to be amusing, now it's just sickening. BOTH are responsible. BOTH are owned by corporate interests. NEITHER gives a damn about the nation or middle class Americans. Anyone who STILL can't see that needs to be locked away and monitored closely for other signs of advanced stupidity.

flbikerchick---very well said- JC ---How easy is it for a big co. to break a contract?

There is only one true solution to the current Government stalemate over the budget.

PASS THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT NOW. Then cut spending so that the debt ceiling does not have to be raised.

First cut to make: Obamacare.

mitch j

brent, keep the faith. there are going to be big changes.

Yes, there will be changes, GOP will be GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THey can take Norquist and his contract and shove it.

DEMS RULE OBAMA 2012

We voters could take the solution into our own hands and try a nice bipartisan solution of voting out all Senators and Representatives who have been in congress more than two terms.

We already know that our system of Government works. Lets start again with individuals whom are not entrenched in and dependant on the money stream.

We have the ultimate winning hand. We need to have the personal initiative to use it.

Ah yes, the republicans in charge would be so great for the nation.

Minimum wage repealed

Soc Sec privitized

Medicare/caid privitized

Gun control repealed

Public schools privitized

Emergency/Fire privitized

Civil Rights Act repealed

Anything and everything including the roads you drive on will be For-Profit

Hail to the Chief rewritten to Hail to the Chief Executive Officer

Oh yeah, the nation will vote for that!

I will. At least most of that. But that's because I have enough common sense to understand that most of those cuts are in areas that the Constitution never provided for the Federal Government to do in the first place. Most of those programs should be the State government's place to deal with.

A few of your suggestions would be laughable if they weren't such disturbingly blatant fear mongering.

The sad thing is that there's so many on you on both sides of the one Party (Republicrats) that think the Federal Government can do things better than local government or private enterprise.

Time to wake up.

Same-o, same-o from the pres. Blame congress, blame republicans, blame the rich, can't cut spending, gotta raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow more funny money, can't cut budgets. Nope, and guess what? Social Security is the cash cow that is now full of govt. IOU's which they keep stealing from. Interest on the debt? Borrow more money from who, exactly?

mygirl1

Same-o, same-o from the pres. Blame congress, blame republicans, blame the rich, can't cut spending, gotta raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow more funny money, can't cut budgets. Nope, and guess what? Social Security is the cash cow that is now full of govt. IOU's which they keep stealing from. Interest on the debt? Borrow more money from who, exactly?

Put the blame where it lies, GOP ,Norquist and GW

ugh... god I hate this.... benram: Listen up -- first off, the Obamacare plan is not too different from Romney's healthcare plan.

I honestly see the Obamacare plan as a positive.

I mean come on, we all know that you can go to any big hospital, in just about any city or town,,, at any hour of the day, and find people with no insurance or even any intention of paying their emergency room visits - even it's for something as insignificant as a head or tooth ache, they will never pay their bill. That does not change the fact the health industry is as corrupt as our government and will turn it over to fees that can be paid by insurance companies or other rich patients which is wrong.

Yes that most definitely drives up cost - but when doctors and insurance companies decide it is OK to take advantage of a screwed up or incompetent system that has been established by the government ,,,, I can't remember my point now.......OH YEAH - ObamaCare actually looks reasonable and logical to me. - So take that point and shove it up your yoohoo.

Don't even look at healthcare right now ok?

MJL: You point your fingers at what you believe to be the causes and I'll comment on his speech, what he said and why he's full of BS. Blame Bush, please, who has been in office for three years now? Stimulus? Where did it go outside of filling cronies and supporters pockets? Remember how the teachers unions had to have that money or else? How many billions? How much of the money was then given to the DNC?

The GOP was hardly extant before and after he took office. Rememeber that? It was a majority democratic congress who, along with Obama, had a field day spending money. Then Nov. came along and the republicans were voted back, think that Americans maybe were a little tired of paying for the democratic goodies? Think that maybe Americans with a lick of sense knew that the party of tax and spend were going seriously overboard? The democratic congress, under Nancy Pelosi managed to avoid passing a budget, then sat back and whined and made up tales against anyone at least attempting to create some semblance of a budget.

Live in real time, look at events and actions rather than passing along the catch phrases from Obama's script. We are in deep do-do and this knothead only knows how to pass blame, dodge responsibility and create class warfare.