Stop these senseless expensive wars, raise taxes on the rich and close the corporate loopholes!

Vital social programs and services for our elderly and disabled should be off the table!

Social programs were never a function of the federal government until FDR. Defense is a function of government.

Stop the perpetual welfare state - individual and corporate.

Colburn's plan will not get a hearing because of the revenue increases. Neither will any plan that requires any increases get extensive coverage for the same reason. The progressive caucus also has a plan that has received little coverage.

The confusion over the debt vs. the deficit is part of the problem, and apparently one shared by the freshman congressional members. The two need to be decoupled and handled as the separate issues they are. Raising the debt ceiling should be a no-brainer. That money has already been voted upon and appropriated by congress; we don't get to change our mind after the money's been spent.

As for Cut, Cap and Balance, the Center for Budget Priorities has a good breakdown on that.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3537

Nick,

And all three plans are far WORSE than what Obama has proposed. Why not just take the 4 trillion in cuts Obama plan has instead of the much less 2.4tillion?

Well, Nick it's really hard to say given the fact the the so called '4 Trillion' plan never really identified the detail of WHAT will be cut, WHAT will be reformed, WHAT will be changed, or WHO will be taxed and WHEN the taxes are effective.

No big deal I guess if you just wanted to point fingers!

That why you need Cut, Cap, and Balance!

The problem with raising the debt ceiling and not including spending reduction, is that washington mentality. That is the way business has been done in the past, and if the debt ceiling is raised with a pledge to make spending cuts later - the spending cuts just never happen.

And all three plans are far WORSE than what Obama has proposed. Why not just take the 4 trillion in cuts Obama plan has instead of the much less 2.4tillion?

Nick, Obama's so called plan with zero details doesn't bring down the current debt. It only reduces the debt we would incur over the next ten years.

It's not leadership when none of the plans that you put forth are worth the paper they're written on. Any fool can write a line of words on a piece of paper and call it a plan, which is exactly what the baggers have done.The baggers in Congress have let Wilbur Norquist undermine our democracy by having them sign pledges that keep them from acting as responsible members of government. They will all be thrown out in 2012.

Nick, is that like Obama budget plan to cut $100 Billion that only cut 3 Billion?

Marlen, Ending Bush and Obama's wars, going back to Clinton's rates on the top 2% and cutting Obama's loopholes would save about $200B a year...

What about the other $1450 Billion?

We know what happened with the "Obama plan" ....... it was voted down 97 to 0!!!

Cutting $4 trillion over 10 years merely slows the rate of deficit growth. Our country needs to cut about $16 trillion over the next 10 years. Then, if and when revenue catches up, we can begin paying the deficit down !

Cap Cut and Balance is a terrible idea. The required 'balanced budget amendment' will hamstring our government in the case of a real crisis.

If the GOP starts to negotiate through compromise, then it might be time to take them seriously again. As long as they insist on dismantling our social safety net while leaving overspending on defense and ill-considered tax cuts off the table, they are not negotiating in good faith.

@Joe: Is that the same Sen. Coburn that wants to slash TRICARE benefits for our retired military folks and raise the Social Security retirement age to 70? No thanks..

Ok honest question here..

WHAT is it exactly you think is wrong with the Plan Put forward?

IS it that we are cutting too much? Not cutting where you think it needs to be cut, or cutting from where you do not like?

Is it the Balanced Budget Amendment? The one thing that you have people from both parties screaming needs to be put in place?

Id it because tax inscreases are not on the table right now? After all it was Obama himself when he extended the tax cuts who said, raising taxes in a recession is not a good idea.

OR is it ( and this is the reason I think for most of yall ) that it is comming from the Tea Party.

So put politics and your hatred for the tea party aside.. WHAT is it that you do not like about it.

Nick-3262014

And all three plans are far WORSE than what Obama has proposed. Why not just take the 4 trillion in cuts Obama plan has instead of the much less 2.4tillion?

Do you even know what the cuts that Obama is proposing are to get $4 trillion? You don't. No one does because it's a number he through out without specifics. Everyone on Morning Joe this morning agreed. Now, I am in firm disagreement with the Republicans also being unwilling to close some tax loop holes to make up revenue as well. But again, there is not firm plan on what tax loop holes will be closed and for whom. There are no specifics and both parties are posturing for the good of themselves.

and it looks like I cannot type today,, My fault on the Typos

What about the 4 Trillion plan Obama has already said he'd support?

Obama's is the most aggressive. It's time to be aggressive.

Too bad the parties care more about winning/power than they do about compromise and the country.

I find it funny that the President would veto a bill that would mandate balancing the budget. I guess spending is all he wants to do. As far as a real crisis, I would say that spending more than originally in the budget would be allowed, pending circumstances. In case most of you don't know the one loophole everyone complains about including the president on the corporate jets is the one he put in the stimulus. That is his deal. He is out there in the bully pulpit complaining about the republicans not wanting to increase taxes yet he will not put obamacare on the table. As Steve Wynn billionaire and affirmed democrat voter said this is obama's deal. Business with the capital to invest are not and that is both republican and democrat business's because of the gov't policies. They are all frightened by his regulations (both sides) and his persistence in the word redistribution. Maybe if Obama would put a plan in black and white for all to see we could understand and make a determination on which course to follow. Until then I would go with what is on paper. Saying it is great for soundbites but it doesn't make it in the real world.

Bookem' Danno Social programs were never a function of the federal government until FDR. Defense is a function of government.

Stop the perpetual welfare state - individual and corporate.

Read a history book. Please.

PLEASE?

The problem is very simple. The republicans absolutely refuse to compromise. Their stand, quite simply, is that they would rather drive the economy over a cliff than ask billionaires to share in the sacrifices that the rest of us have to make to balance the budget.

"My way or the highway" is NEVER a way to get things done. The democrats have compromised over and over again, allowing deep cuts to federal programs that help everyday Americans. The republicans, on the other hand, have taken the position that no bill will be passed unless the democrats give up everything the republicans want -- and get nothing in return.

If this battle ends up in economic disaster for our country, the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the republicans.

Mark-423819 What plan? He never released a plan... unless you are talking about his failed budget that didn't get one Dem Senate vote!

The GOP has put 3 plans in writing... the Dem's 0... who is really leading this country?

Junicon,

Kind of reminds you of the health care bill doesn't it?

Government is extremely irresponsible. It's a great idea to impose a new amendment to control spending period.

The Republicans were scammed by the Democrats in HW Bush's presidency. Bush promised not to raise taxes in his infamous "read my lips" speech. But 2 years in his term the Democrats promised huge spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. The president Bush obliged but the cuts never happened. His presidential re-election suffered because of this (and Perot).

A similar scenario, though much larger in size and scope, is playing out today. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Republicans, take heed. Democrats do not bargain in good faith.

I only wish more people would see this problem and consider both ideas of the Democrats and Republicans (without the petty name-calling, mind you). Instead of listening to pathetic leaders who do nothing but divide this country based on far right and far left, people need to actually start working together to solve a very serious problem that is our debt limit.

Obama's plan is a decent one but bottom line is we don't have 10 years to save that amount of money.

The Cut, Cap, Balance idea also has its pros and cons.

I do agree the rich need to be taxed more but I also agree that some serious cuts need to be made.

Oh my God... no name calling in this post! How can that be...

Chip...

This is MSNBC and we're dealing with liberals... Facts...shamcts...no one cares to hear the truth. The truth is that he is incapable of leading. That would actually require the POTUS uniting both sides. Excellent campaigner...check. Excellent speaker...check. Leader in any capacity...EPIC FAIL.

Jamie...

I like the thought, but it HAS to start with the POTUS. You can't unite the country from the bottom up. It must start with him and yet he insists on demonizingthe right. Clinton was able to garner support form both sides. Reagan was able to garner support form both sides. Obama never left campaign mode and is pushing us farther apart. If there were any sincerity on Obama's part, he would live up to his campaign promise to unite the country. So far...he has only done his best to psuh us apart.

Joe,

Try not to listen to Faux Noise or the polls associated with it. My area of the Country is Tennessee and a great many Tennessee Republicans blame the Tea Baggers for ruining the good name of the Republicans and they WILL vote Democratic in 2012 and they say the Tea Baggers are ruining the nation.

Just raise the debt ceiling and be done with it with no strings attached. Do it now!!!

And thats my Opinion....

Jaime, I agree with you, but Obama plans has to real numbers behind it!

What you should read up on is Coburns plan... 9 Trillion over 10 years, 8 trillion in cuts, 1.5 trillion from DOD, 1 trilion in tax increases!

neither fringe likes it which to me means it's the best plan!

Magnum Serpentine, I work with 100 small business owners in Tenn, from Memphis to knoxville everyone has been very displeased with Obama. none will vote for him...

Chip...I agree. From the basics I've read with Coburns plan, I am in love with it! I hate the Democrats plans on taxation especially on the ones who actually provide the jobs. And hate the Republicans stance on not closing tax loopholes. Coburn's bill appears to tackle all the issues dear to both sides in equal distribution.

How can any sane economical person think raising the debt ceiling instead of controlling spending is ever a good thing?

Try asking your bank to raise your debt limit and give you more money for your mortgage. See how far that gets you for one thing. Secondly it just means you will take even longer to get out of debt.

Do people understand how much our interest payment alone is right now. How is going farther into debt a good idea?

Americans are growing more dependant and ignorant by the minute across the country. We are doomed.

Too bad all the whining doesn't add up in political donations - So how is fund raising going for the GOP these days? Here's your sign...

I find it interesting that MSNBC didn't report on Coburns plan which cuts 8 Trillion, over 1.5 Trillion from the DOD and adds over 1 Trillion in revenue!

I think most of us would like to cut wasteful DOD spending on weapons systems even the military doesn't want. But cut 1.5 Trillion from DOD? That stands NO chance. Congress will not tell American soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors to throw rocks at the enemy and oh, by the way, do it with a substantial pay cut. The American People will decide in 2012 how they feel about the Republican desire to turn their Social Security over to Wall Street and their Medicare over to the Insurance companies!

When they show you who they are...believe them!

OL, most of the cuts come from removing a carrier group and shrinking overseas bases... it doesn't do anything with regards to weapons.

Not to mention your last 2 points are 100% false... so stop making stuff up.

What kills me is that liberals cried when banks were called "to big to fail" by Timmy G, but now they scream at the idea that govt is to big to fail...

But then again wall st doesn't had out welfare.

Junicon

"The problem is very simple. The republicans absolutely refuse to compromise..."

Really? When did the dems compromised? When they tricket the GOP by "cutting" spending that was marked for termination already to get the budget passed few months ago?

"My way or the highway" is NEVER a way to get things done."

Hmmm, ask Obama, he will tell you how the GOP has to sit in the back of the car or stay out of this.... does that sound like "my way or the highway"?

"The democrats have compromised over and over again, allowing deep cuts to federal programs that help everyday Americans."

Everyday Americans want to work and earn their living, not be fed by the govt... it is the other Americans who rely on govt programs to go by, noone is proposing to take help away from the elderly and the sick/disabled but has been enough helping out the poor who despite trillions being spent at them remain on the same level. Wonder why?

"The republicans, on the other hand, have taken the position that no bill will be passed unless the democrats give up everything the republicans want -- and get nothing in return."

Hmmm, and Obama is saying he and the senate will veto the House bill.... what does that look like?

"If this battle ends up in economic disaster for our country, the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the republicans"

Only a moroon would care whose fault it was at that point... stick to your guns and wait for that moment

Once the bill stalls, the Senate could then try to move forward with a bipartisan plan that would give Obama sweeping powers to increase the debt limit. That backup measure faces furious opposition among many conservatives, but it's nonetheless seen as probably the most viable option for avoiding a catastrophic default.

I would rather see the country default then see the people give up civil liberties that will make our government even MORE autocratic. Look at how Hitler came to power, he started by being elected Chancellor, then he gained more power by negotiations, then Hindenburg died (mysteriously...) and he absorbed that office, and pretty soon you have a dictator. Sure he fixed Germany's economy, and then he watched it get bombed and invaded. The ability of the presidents to go to war without congressional approval is bad enough, the executive branch should not be given any more power!

THE PEOPLE of this country ELECTED the house of Representatives to REPRESENT us, Using the EXECUTIVE branch to CIRCUMNAVIGATE the peoples REPRESENTATION in our government will make us an OLIGARCHY. The Fed needs to back off, and the mainstream media needs to get back to journalism (rather then biased tabloid political reporting) before we all start watching FOX news instead of NBC!

OBAMA is the one that has refused to extend the deadline, OBAMA is the one that left the table and refused to negotiate, OBAMA is the one that quadrupled the deficit, WE WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR BLANK CHECK IN 2012!!!

Junicon:

"My way or the highway" is NEVER a way to get things done.

"Take a seat in the back"? "Pass this bill by Monday or else"? Sound familiar?

The democrats have compromised over and over again, allowing deep cuts to federal programs that help everyday Americans

Name one deep cut to a federal program that helps everyday Americans. Just one!!! Name one compromise the democrats have made (other then the extension of the tax levels so that unemployment could be extended).

Sorry, you can't compare Obama to Hitler...

This is just more "Do nothing Congress" playing political games while the majority of Americans suffer. These republican MILLIONAIRES, elected to office do not have to worry about paying bills and especially about paying any taxes.. They vote loop-holes for themselves and their wealthy buddies, while the average person struggles to get buy.

Evangelical B.S. is all it is and it has been going on in the halls of congress for way too long.

Christ on a cracker, this budget could just as easily been named "How to Destroy the Middle Class in Three Easy Steps!"

Social programs were never a function of the federal government until FDR. Defense is a function of government.

Really "Dano"? Really? Might I suggest you begin your re-education with the very beginning of our Constitution ... (emphasis mine for clarity)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would consider caring for elderly and disabled to be "promoting the general welfare". Yes, eliminate abuse of the system ... but retain our humanity as well. Did the writers of the Constitution envision Social Security -- of course not. But they didn't envision going to the moon, automobiles, and the Internet either.

BTW: I'm not real sure the Vietnam War, or an unprovoked invasion or Iraq exactly qualifies as "common defense" either. And I say that with full support of the men and women who fought/fight there and with full condemnation of the politicians who sent them!

Beth,

when did

Promote the general welfare..

Get turned into Provide the general welfare that we have today...

There is a huge difference between promoting and providing.

Sorry, you can't compare Obama to Hitler...

Why not, because Hitler killed Jews? Im looking purely at how Hitler gained power, and merely crossing it with how Obama is progressing now. Anyone that disagrees with the thought of analyzing history in an attempt to learn from it is ignorant of the truth that is hidden within the history that they scorn. Why should we make the mistakes that the Weimar republic made? Im not saying Obama is evil, im saying look at how much power he is amassing.

The vesting of to much power in a single man is a nightmare of our republic, look at athenian democracy when they turned to Pericles as a tyrant. He led them to destruction and conquest (mixed in with some plague), and made Athens the most hated greek city at the time for its imperial ambitions within the Delian league. Not to say that all Kings are bad (look at Soloman for example). Monarchies have lasted as a succesful form of government, but we are a republic, we made the choice long ago that no single man should be vested with the authority of a nation. That decision requires every citizen to butress the cause of defending their own liberty, and THAT is where America is failing most of all.

Chip D,

Why are you such an unhappy person?

"Job Creators" my proverbial back end! When I live in a Country where I pay more taxes then the most profitable corporation "anywhere and of all time" (Exxon Mobile) and then they add insult to injury by taking what is all "our" hard earned tax paying dollars and giving it to the same in the guise of subsidies (corporate welfare) then... there is something terribly wrong with what goes for so called Capitalism these days!

After ten years of Bush tax cuts where are the jobs? The Republicans would have you believe that they are the friends of small and medium businesses when in fact they answer only to Free Enterprise killing parasitic big monopolies and foreign owned multinationals. The game is rigged... these cancerous perversions of pseudo Capitalism are anti supply and demand, anti innovation, anti competitive, anti Free Market and they shrink and KILL JOBS (let me repeat that... KILL JOBS) or send them overseas! And after all this the Republicans want to reward them with loop holes, corporate welfare, tax abatements, tax refunds and control of entire markets... seriously and all paid for by seniors, the sick, the poor and what is left of the Middle Class!

YOU CAN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET WITHOUT REVENUE! If you cut all discretionary spending to zero it would't make a dent without REVENUE!

Terry, FYI, the richest member of congress and the US are liberals...

Tank,

Well according to the liberal Hero Obama rasiign taxes would have costed us 1,000,000 jobs... did he flip flop on that?

You pay more in taxes than GE because Obama gave them 4 BILLION in tax credits...

If we raised the taxes on the top 2% back to Clinton times and got rid of those Obama loopholes it would be $85B in revenue... on a $1650B deficit.

I love watching people who have no clue about tax policy shoot off their mouths!

Beth, the PREAMBLE of the constitution isn't law...

Beth,

Actually promoting general welfare is a reference to protection from tyranny. Not caring for the old and disabled. The concern was for every citizen to have an opportunity, not to hand things out.

The key part to the constitution was Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Life isn't easy or fair, however everyone has the same opportunity.

Until Obama and the Democrats can put a plan on paper and not just claim numbers their delusional lackeys will continue to attack the party of actual ideas. Lets see their plans detail where the cuts are going to be made and by how much.

Junicon, sorry, I attended public school and we didn't cover much US history. Can you tell me what federal social programs existed before FDR?

This is the minority wagging the dog.

The debt ceiling is PAST debts and has nothing to do with the budget. They are holding a gun to our head.

Shame on the Republicans. And what is the old saying? Paybacks are a bitch. Progressives and reasonable people will not forget this.

Why would the dems waste their time with a plan when the republicans sole number 1 purpose is to remove him from office. He is smart enough to know that the leaders in the house have no balls when it comes to the tea party and even if he has a budget that ended the debt and saved america they would vote no. He knows that, I know that and you know that.

Every single one of you Obama haters sound just like a fox opinionist. It almost as if you don't look at all angles and make your own decisions. Just spit out what beck and hannity and o'reilly said the night before. typical and useless.

Why is it that someone doesn't have a far left wing point of view they get all their info from Fox News?

Why don't you like dealing with facts Funnystuff?

If the country borrows 40% of what it spends and it has maxed out on it's credit card, how does this not have anything to do with the budget? You either increase the maximum on your credit card or you don't spend any more than what you have in the bank.

COO, the debt ceiling has to do with FUTURE debts, not passed debt.

But you are right, progressives won't forget this, because their HATE for everyone that isn't left of Obama is unrelenting... and you want to talk about a minority, i haven't seen one poll that put's progressives above 10% of the population.

Shame on Dem's for not taking this problem seriously!

Chip D-2844144

COO, the debt ceiling has to do with FUTURE debts, not passed debt.

Incorrect Chip D. Please don't give others false information.

The debt ceiling needs to be raised to guarantee payment of past debts.

You can argue politics, but do not mislead with incorrect facts.

Chip...

Business leaders eh??? Of course I would expect them to vote Teabagger party especially since it was Big Business that launched the Tea Baggers...

And thats my Opinion...

And all three plans are far WORSE than what Obama has proposed. Why not just take the 4 trillion in cuts Obama plan has instead of the much less 2.4tillion?

Because the $4 trillion in cuts don't actually exist. This plan was for a tax increase NOW and then promised cuts somehow materializing AFTER the 2012 election. Right, like that's EVER going to happen. So democrats could campaign on their spending cuts they passed knowing full well they'd never actually have to pass them. All smoke and mirrors.

If we don't REALLY get our financial house in order and soon, it will be too late to ever recover from the crash that is coming. No one wants cuts, but the eventual pain will only get worse as time goes on.

Teabaggers this, Democrats that, Gop sucks..... Don't raise the "debt ceiling". Stop giving welfare checks to illegals and deadbeats. Abolish our current tax code and implement a 17% "sales/flat rate" tax to be collected at purchase (from everyone, illegals too). And cut your own wages and drop the "golden parachute" health care us tax payers supply you with and get something more affordable. Or do without like some of your slaves.

The "We can fix this.... As long as it's done my way...." attitude that's coming from Washington, will never solve anything. It's gonna get worse before it gets any better.

Obama and the democrats want to destroy this country so he can be king and the celebs and demos can be courtesans. It has always been that way and always will be as long as we keep them in power. I am sick of the democrats using our tax dollars to buy votes. The poverty stricken I hope will one day get wise and see that the real purpose of the democrats is to keep them poor and uneducated.

Here's the real Tea Party Republican plan: Devastate, Destroy, Dodge and Dismantle. Time to show these overindulged little rich bois Mummy's not always going to say "yes" to everything these twerps whine over.

1. Cut all subsidies to any corporation that has earned record profits during this recession.

2. Cut all subsidies to states with balanced budgets who don't need assistance from federal revenues.

3. Rollback tax credits on anyone earning over $1 million dollars to pre-Bush taxation levels.

4. Cut spending on all but the most necessary federal funding for new state projects.

5. Create new legislation that stops corporations from taking federal revenues if they're not doing US business IN the US or employ foreign workers offshore.

6. Create new legislation that prevents any corporation from increasing consumer prices more than 1 time in any fiscal year. If they can't live with a tight belt, neither can we.

Chip Democrat has a deal, $5 trillion in cut and asking tax increase and close all tax loophole for a trade off. GOP just said no they want only cut no close tax loophole or tax increase.

Beth-440386, I think you lost a little bit in translation there. By saying "promote the general welfare", I don't think they meant "get out the checkbook and start writing". I think the freedoms we have in this country go beyond simply "promoting" the welfare of it's citizens. There is no reason for one not to succeed, without handouts from the gov't, here(granted the job market now sucks... Thanks politicians for selling us out). The welfare system has taken the "want to" out of people because someone has told them they don't have to.

ewent, It's both political parties that don't give a damn. They just won't it done their way or it's not gonna work.

While I may not agree with all the details of the Republicans' plan, the question is, where is the Democrats' counter?? What have they got besides raise taxes on the wealthy?? The last time they got their way on tax increases on the wealthy in exchange for budget cuts, the tax increases happened, but the cuts never did (maybe they just haven't gotten around to it yet!).

Obama says "progress has been made" you know, i could of possibly believed that statement if anybody BUT Obama had said it. The Obama says game is what has got us in to deep horse sh!t...he can't be trusted.

TkWIs

Democrat have a deal, $5 trillion in cut and asking tax increase and close all tax loophole for trade. GOP just said no they want only cut no close tax loophole or tax increase.

So any souce information to this deal???? Nothing I have heard has thrown out the 5 trillion number.. You wouldnt be making $hit up now would ya.

Of course Republicans won't close loopholes or what they like to call "increase taxes". Those are not tax increases. If you were supposed to pay 28 to 32% in federal taxes and your tax cuts reduced that to 6%, how is rolling back to the 28 or 32% a tax increase if you were supposed to be paying that in the first place?

This is just more wealth protectionism by the same kind of Republicans who did this during Hoover's term of office. Robber Barons by any other name are still Robber Barons.

obama is tarnishing the well earned reputation of the boy who cried wolf...........his constant blabbering makes the wolf boy seem credible and trustworthy.

So you've seen the 5 trillion in cuts that the democrats have already agreed to? I don't think you have, you have heard the president say he will cut 5 trillion from the budget. If history teaches us nothing more, it teaches us that Democrats are not to be trusted until its in writing in a passed bill. President Reagan trusted democrates when he granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the 80s. Democrats swore if Reagen would just give amnesty to the illegal aliens they would get busy on immigration reform. After Reagan granted amnesty, the Democrats would never bring immigration reform to the floor of the house and senate. In the early 90s the dems promised Bush one, we'll get the budget under control, if you agree to these tax increases, Bush gave in, never saw anything in a bill and we all know what happened next. The republicans would be idiots to trust the democrats and shouldn't agree to anything until they see exactly what Obama and the dems plan to cut from the budget.

President Obama doesn't go around loudly proclaiming he intends to be rid of Boehner or McConnell does he? This president has all the leadership skills this country desperately needs right now.

When you look at it right, the mess should have been cleaned up by 2008, not 3 years later. You don't walk away from a table leaving a mess, do you? Weren't we all taught to put things back in the order in which we found them?

Was there some reason, the Republican Administration had to end with zip in federal revenues?

Do you know anyone who loses a fortune and gains it back in 36 months? Most people who lose huge sums of fortune never get it back much less recoup in less than a decade.

Leadership Skills? LOL! He has NO skills other than being a bullsh!t artist and a master of the teleprompter!

Four out of 10 Americans believe the President and Congress are giving the worst performance they've seen from their lawmakers in their LIFETIME!!

Lets see, Clinton had a 10 year plan to lower the defecit. He actually had a surplus depending on how you look at it, before he handed the country off to W. Then what happened..oh yeah...the Republicans said a big F#$% Y(*!!!!!! got into some wars (why are we in Iraq again), gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy, which resulted in zero jobs and lead us into a huge recession and massive deficits. Deficits don't matter you see...until a Democrat is in office. So what if Obama makes a 10 year plan that lowers the deficit....if a Republican gets into office, they will just slash taxes, end SS and Medicare (for Christian reasons no doubt) and cause major deficits again. But let me ask you this...all of you 'The Govt can't do anything right' crowd....why do you have such blind faith in the private sector doing the right thing?

The President and the GOP leaders of the congress have a workable plan that would stabilize the US debt, and could raise the debt limit in a responsible way, today.

This is the same plan the GOP put forth only a few months ago.

The only exception is that the President is asking the wealthy top two to three percent of the population's tax credit installed by the Bush administration be nullified.

The wealthy paid it before and could very easily pay it again.

The fact is not one single wealthy tax payer in this tax bracket is saying anything to the contrary.

Not one.

The only ones saying anything are people who could only whish they made 250 thousand dollars or more a year.

So if the wealthy who can pay are not crying about it, why is it that this is a issue at all?

Stop dreaming you make 250k or more a year, and get out of the way so the Politian's can wrap this up and get on with creating more jobs.

Get turned into Provide the general welfare that we have today...

There is a huge difference between promoting and providing.

Social Security isn't PROVIDING -- people have PAID THEIR MONEY into it. Medicare is also PAID FOR.

And chip -- I never said the preamble was LAW, but it's definitely intent.

Actually promoting general welfare is a reference to protection from tyranny. Not caring for the old and disabled. The concern was for every citizen to have an opportunity, not to hand things out.

And actually bobby, I think you'll find more scholars agree with my take ... welfare equals the well being of the people.

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

There WAS NO SURPLUS. Say it with me. NO SURPLUS. Clinton used intragovernment holdings (Social Security funds) and paid down public debt, giving the ILLUSION of a surplus. It was NOT. This is ALL EASILY LOOKED UP.
Stop perpetuating the out and out LIE of the surplus.

This president has all the leadership skills this country desperately needs right now.

LOL! Obama's leadership skills? Oxymoron.

Was there some reason, the Republican Administration had to end with zip in federal revenues?

Hmmm..I don't remember what year it was that the government didn't collect taxes. Could you tell us?

Do you know anyone who loses a fortune and gains it back in 36 months? Most people who lose huge sums of fortune never get it back much less recoup in less than a decade.

Donald Trump. Maybe he should be president huh?

Oh and ewent, COO and Junicon...I'm still waiting....name ONE SPECIFIC SINGLE cut to a program that Obama is proposing.

lol: Obama called the proposal "a very significant step", saying it's "broadly consistent" with his approach on reducing debt and deficit.

It seems our President's ego is even larger than suspected! He's pretty much solely responsible for doubling our debt within 2 years! Now he is trying to get some credit for the work of others trying to get us out of the mess he had a large part in creating! Unreal!

He had me convinced he single handedly killed Osama bin Laden, but this is too much.... !

I do not believe that even 1% of you actually KNOW what you are talking about. You are all just repeating something you read or heard and getting all worked up about it because some commentator, news outlet, or political pundit has poured gasoline on your frustrations.

I share your frustrations with Congress for it's failure to address the issue in a mature and rational way.

I share your fear (yes fear) that we have been headed in the wrong direction for more than a decade and have digging ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole.

Yes, I agree it has got to stop and we need to learn to govern within the limits of our income.

But shouting political talking points and insults at each other is NOT the answer and is NOT going to solve anything. Calm down. Take a chill pill. Have a glass of wine and above all stop listening to talk radio or the news.

When you stop yelling "off with their heads" and begin encouraging intelligent discussion and rational, practical solutions, we'll see progress.

Some of you want to blame the rich, others want to blame the poor living on public assistance, the left wants to blame the right and vice versa and none of you are correct.

WE ALL CREATED THIS PROBLEM and the only way we are going to work our way out of it is if we ALL pull together.

So, calm down, keep your rhetoric to yourself and let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

Magnum...

Re: 1.40

Can you say "slope heads"?

But he called the plan “balanced” and “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on” in his administration. "We’re in the same playing field,” he said.

Oh, so smoke and mirrors with no real cuts, just increases in taxes? Sounds like more garbage to me.

So $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction from $1 trillion in tax increases and $2.7 trillion in spending cuts???

Not enough Mr. President and I hope the House kills this thing quick and sticks with their cut, cap and balance bill.

Sorry, I don't think having a national debt of $25-30 trillion in 2021 is something managable.

Go back and cut more.

Suffering from the foaming of the Tea Baggers and the Wall Street Democrats has me happy. The more complaining I hear from the psychotic end of either group about negotiating, the more I know that the plan makes sense.

Loving the middle for making the emotionally challenged chew their own faces off!

If Obama has endorsed it, then it isn't worth considering.

Cut/Cap/Balance isn't even good enough.

Just don't raise the limit at all. Pay the essentials and then apportion out the rest as best possible.

No default. No increased debt. No downgrading of our Bond Rating.

There you are, Skip. We miss you over on FR.

Then what happened..oh yeah...the Republicans said a big F#$% Y(*!!!!!! got into some wars (why are we in Iraq again), gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy, which resulted in zero jobs and lead us into a huge recession and massive deficits.

Well, seems people forget 9/11 happened that changed this country's course. Bush fully expected this country to be debt free within the decade. But as usual, and why I dont trust these politicians who promise us long term anything, the unexpected happens.

And those tax breaks went to everyone. Not just the wealthy. Stop lying.

Chip D-2844144 No a person living in NYC making 200K is certainly not a billionaire, but speaking as a person living here in NYC a person making $200K is doing very well indeed. They can afford to live in any part of the city that they want with a doorman, take the car service to work every morning while the house keeper cleans the apartment and the kids head off to their private school.

I don't feel bad for any of those fancy upper-west siders and BPC residents having to pay more taxes. Not bad at all and neither should you.

Don't try to make anybody feel sorry for a wealthy-- yes *wealthy* person having to pay more taxes. The days of tax breaks for the wealthy will come to an end. If not now, then soon.

Hal... this is exactly the point the Reublicans are trying to make. The jobs created by this "wealthy" person you want to tax more include the doorman, car service, housekeeper, and private school personel.

Now you increase his taxes, a couple of these people, if not all of them, will out of the job.

Thanks for proving our point.

Thanks Matt, good to hear from you.

AZChzhd

Hal... this is exactly the point the Reublicans are trying to make. The jobs created by this "wealthy" person you want to tax more include the doorman, car service, housekeeper, and private school personel.

You are joking, right? A small tax increase is not going to make a difference to them.

"Gang of six"

LOL, what a term to use, "gang". What are they, thieves, or something like the Bloods and the Crips? Wow, what a mentality we have in Washington these days.

This is absolutely crazy. Instead of all this BS, do the following:

1. Raise the debt ceiling, clean, no strings attached like we have done always.

2. Get back to the economy. Work on job creating legislation and develop methodology to pay for what ever it costs. No more unfunded legislation!

3. Start long term debt reduction talks where we left off, but take the time it needs rather than signing on to quickie designed, unstudied reactive plans.

We need to get back to working on the economy as the top priority. The debt is important, but it wasn't important for the Bush years so waiting a while longer doesn't really hurt much, whereas all this debate will likely result in higher borrowing costs because of all the uncertainty. That just raises the debt. We should do as Moody's suggested and eliminate the debt ceiling altogether as they say it will actually serve to lower borrowing costs because of eliminating the uncertainty. What we are doing right now will most likely raise the debt even if we never borrow another dime. Just a 1% increase in rates will cost us another $150 billion each year on the existing debt.

On jobs, take two approaches. One create a Democratic plan funded with $100 billion of new revenue, (i.e. taxes) The second plan, use the Republican approach of cutting spending and or tax cuts to the tune of $100 billion. Set evaluation criteria to be looked at one year from now, which would be before the elections. See who's plan creates the most jobs. If they both work, great! We need the jobs. If one approach is more successful than the other, that would be valuable information for the voters to use in making their 2012 decisions.

We need to stop the stupid debate which by the analysis of almost all economists say is presently hurting the economy and will most likely lead to higher borrowing costs.

Thanks 1NewDay, this is one of the most intelligent posts I've read here.

You're absolutely right on all 3 of your points -- the only debate might be whether #2 takes priority over #3 or vice-versa, but there is no question that #1 is the most immediately critical issue.

If they do not raise the debt ceiling in time, our borrowing costs will probably go up 1% or maybe even more -- even though we technically will not default, because there is still enough money coming in to service the debt. The simple fact is, not raising the debt ceiling means U.S. debt is more risky, and greater risk translates to higher interest rates -- exactly like what happened to Greece, who by the way also has not defaulted on their debt.

Like you said, even a 1% increase in interest adds $150 billion more each year to our deficit, and we get nothing for it in return.

COO....It might. The 5% increase on $250,000 is $15,000. Thats not really all that small. One of those will have to go I would imagine.

remember our new's company's and media are told what they are allowed to report on, and even then sometimes they are even told what to say, that is how badly our country has become corrupted

Too bad the President has said consistently since the last attempt at repealing the rich entitlement minded folks' tax cuts that it would be on people making more than 1,000,000 a year.

So all the baggers' crying about the poor people making 250,000 a year not affording it is essentially b.s.

Partisan, Partisan, Partisan BS!

It isn't 10 years ago or 20 it is today and tomorow. We have an aging population baby boomers are soon to be baby booming old timers (no pun). This is going to be a large weight on the back of the youth. So it isn't you it isn't me it is the youth we must focus on. Get your fiscal house in order and invest in the youth it will benefit you!

The more money you have the more active you are the better the economy! All this ownership and hoarding, FEAR isn't creating the flow we need for tomorow!

Get over Yourself, I don't doubt your right within the context of your thinking.

Now it is time for all the past and present politicians, senators, congressmen and president and all the advisors and every single one of the aides and other government hangers on to bite the bullet and help. Reduce their salaries, pensions, healthcare etc. They got us into this mess so they should be the first to ante up and help us get out of this mess!

Here is a prime example. Weiner snetzel had FOUR 4 offices with rents, telephones, staff computers, isps, and all that equipment and who paid for it? WE DID! Now why the hell did he need FOUR OFFICES? Just to send out pictures of himself? Immediately too should be cut. One in his district and on in Washington D.C. is one too many! Obama needs how many people to tell him what to do????? Why cant we combine the FBI and The CIA? Why do we need so many secret police organizations? Department of Defense can be rolled into the FBI and the CIA and who knows what else is out there? TSA and all this duplicate wasteful spending. CUT CUT CUT! I hear that TSA is now a 6 BILLION dollar bureaucracy! What the hell for? Just put it under the FBI or CIA or Department of Defense and cut it down and slim it down.

MDB123

Partisan, Partisan, Partisan BS!

It isn't 10 years ago or 20 it is today and tomorow. We have an aging population baby boomers are soon to be baby booming old timers (no pun). This is going to be a large weight on the back of the youth. So it isn't you it isn't me it is the youth we must focus on. Get your fiscal house in order and invest in the youth it will benefit you!

The more money you have the more active you are the better the economy! All this ownership and hoarding, FEAR isn't creating the flow we need for tomorow!

Get over Yourself, I don't doubt your right within the context of your thinking.

What kind of "large" weight do you think the "youth" will have if the GOP do away with SSI & Medicare????

MJL

What you meant to say is the GOP doing away the GOP! That would be a fools errand.

Kill the ones who gave you life and the best Country on Earth?

Our military leaves no one behind!

No I said what I ment. The GOP will see to it that the "Youth" HAVE to take care of their parents , it the GOP get their plan.

Goodbye Medicare/SSI

Bottom Line!

I understand than why take care of the wounded? Most will never fight again!

I don't know ask the GOP what the hell they are trying to do.

Since the bipartisan government already spent us into this mess, they are going to tax us from now until they bury us six feet deep. I see no plan for the politicians to suffer one iota to get us out of what they put us into. And it is for every local, state and federal politician to suffer more than the regular population as they were supposed to take care of us as duly elected officials. We trusted the s. o. b.s and now we got this. They didn't listen to us yelling to stop spending and now they want to bury us. They should be the first ones to get the ax and have their salaries, perks, staffs, offices and all their goodies cut off!

Rminds me of Abbott and Costello, they made millions and trusted their accountant who never paid their taxes and they had to work for many years only to pay what they owed. Costello died before he paid off.

Now we trusted the %^#%^# govt and we got to pay for their mishandling. And believe it, it is not going to be a picnic. Every pork barrel bill every congressman who twisted and turned and made a back door agreement to get somebody a $$$ favor should be forced to get that money back! All those accounts and favors that were paid have to be paid back to the government!

Gop is playing tactics! They know these extreme views have no chance of getting the votes necessary.

Number one objective is to make Obama a one term president!

If they appear to be the crazy Ultra Ultra Conservative it just might make Obama and Dems really look like socialists.

CUT: everything necessary for a functioning US, but not social security or medicare, the biggest drains on our budget.

CAP: everything necessary for a functioning US, but not the pork or the unnecessary pet projects.

BALANCE: because cutting everything necessary for a functioning US, while leaving the biggest, least necessary, wasteful institutions in place will balance the budget.

That constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the stupidest attempt at PR I have ever seen. I cannot believe the Grand Old Party has been reduced this Tea Party crap.

Tax cuts for the wealthy were at one time a great, valued necessity. None of us have been employed by poor or middle income people. The problem came when those tax cuts were allowed to be enjoyed by the same Anti-American American corporations that, by the will and servitude from both Republicans and Democrats, were allowed to and WILLFULLY did sell out Middle Class America overseas.

It's been over 30 years now, and continues, continues, continues...

Connect the dots, simply put. All can. Revenue is down, entitlements up, and it's not those that are collecting the entitlements fault. I'd venture most, if not all, WANT their jobs and lives back.

TBTF, the bailouts.... then stab us in the back.

SS would be solvent if not illegally allowed to be used as fractional reserve collateral on government borrowing and illegal Fed Reserve printing. See how all goes hand in hand? We ALL pay into SS our entire working lives.... this isn't entitlement, this is invested, this is money taken FROM us in order to live AFTER paying into it. Medicare as well, though admittedly there are caveats in it.

Bottom line, no real issues are being addressed by either Donkephant, common sense economics is gone, lies perpetrated, and divisive tactics keep people fighting over Blue vs. Red and keep most from focussing on reality, from DEMANDING real representation, real American Interest Representation for Her and Her Citizenry.

Have fun...................

I just have one question and some common sense remarks.

Besides staying with their playbook of saying NO to anything Obama proposes, like raising taxes on the super wealthy and the obscene profits of the oil corps. just how long will the GOP continue to cut taxes and spending-10, 20, 30 years?! I've got some news for all of them and their supporters-the population will be growing as you are cuttung services! Come on folks, even you Tea Baggers will be screaming when your Social Security $ will not buy you enough cat food to eat let alone your meds, while the super wealthy are using their social security $ to pay their bar tab at their country clubs. The answer?! Simple, put a means test on social security-if you don't need it you don't get it! Yes you paid into it, but you also paid into unemployment insurance and you don't get that back unless you prove need.

But I'm just an old Marine that thinks for himself.

Gunny, Semper Fi

"Justin Ruben, executive director of the left-leaning group Moveon.org, said the “Gang of Six” plan “appears to ask seniors, the middle class and the poor to bear the burden of deficit reduction, with cuts to Social Security benefits, billions in stealth cuts to be named later, and no real effort to make corporations and millionaires pay their fair share.”

Most people are missing those words. Gyorgy Soros the most powerful man in the Democrat party , with radical ideas control the government behind the scenes , he make Democrats dance his song and unless he support a plan that bring this country down that plan is not going to pass. Soros want this country down because this is the way he make is fortune and he put his eyes in this country while he invest heavily in China one of our biggest creditors , he blame Republicans for stay in the side of the rich and corporations that send jobs to China. This is the man we should put our eyes on him.

But 2 years in his term the Democrats promised huge spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. The president Bush obliged but the cuts never happened.

but his son made up for it by cutting taxes and massively increasing spending

"The American ruling elite is engaged in the greatest robbery of working people in US history. In the bank bailout of 2008-2009, the financial aristocracy effectively transferred to the federal government its bad debts and losses from a decade of reckless speculation. Now the working class is being compelled to pay the price for Wall Street’s looting of the Treasury through the destruction of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs in education, the environment, transportation and housing."

The class politics of the US debt ceiling crisis

19 July 2011

Official Washington and American media attention will be focused for the next two weeks on the August 2 deadline for raising the federal debt ceiling. Without congressional action to increase the debt limit by that date, according to the Treasury Department, the US government will be unable to borrow money to cover payments, including Social Security checks being sent out to 50 million recipients on August 3, and interest payments on US government bonds due later in the month.

In order to understand the significance of the debt ceiling crisis, and the measures being proposed to resolve it, it is necessary to cut through the lies and distortions of the Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington, reinforced by the commentaries in the corporate-controlled media, both liberal and conservative.

Why is the demand for “deficit reduction” now being voiced so unanimously in every quarter of official American politics? What are the fundamental class issues that underlie this campaign?

The American ruling elite is engaged in the greatest robbery of working people in US history. In the bank bailout of 2008-2009, the financial aristocracy effectively transferred to the federal government its bad debts and losses from a decade of reckless speculation. Now the working class is being compelled to pay the price for Wall Street’s looting of the Treasury through the destruction of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs in education, the environment, transportation and housing.

When they hear Barack Obama, John Boehner and other political and media representatives of big business declare that “there is no money” to sustain vital programs on which tens of millions of working people depend for their survival, workers should think back to the financial crisis that erupted less than three years ago. There was no suggestion then that “there is no money” to save the banks from collapse. On the contrary, staggering and essentially unlimited sums—as much as $23.7 trillion in combined cash, loans and guarantees from the Treasury, Federal Reserve and other institutions—were made available to defend the capitalist system and the financial interests of the super-rich....

....No one should be under any illusions about the dimensions of the cuts that are being worked out in Washington. The Obama administration’s focus is on implementing changes that will be devastating to the working class. These cuts will plunge millions of working people into conditions of poverty, hunger, disease and premature death.

As far as the ruling class is concerned, this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fatally undermine social programs, particularly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which the financial elite regards as an intolerable burden. To the extent that Obama has taken the lead in this attack, he clearly feels himself strengthened politically, while the congressional Republicans are in visible disarray....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/pers-j19.shtml

oskar-1391552 are you a total imbecile? Name a lawmaker involved in debt talks who took out a SHORT position on government bonds? (essentially betting AGAINST the government?). Clue: GOP

So who exactly is working to destroy our government?

Without a balance budget amendment to our Constitution, our politicians will only kick the can further down the road which is exactly what the Democrats want since elections are next year. This is what our politicians have done decade after decade. Even Colburn agrees with that point being the author of the bill Obama now magically endorses. Too bad he wouldn't support the 9 Trillion Colburn wanted originally in spending cuts over 10 years that would have put us back on the road to healing.

3.7 Trillion reduction in spending cuts OVER 10 YEARS will not offset Obama's and the Democrats spending for the past 2.5 years. Heck, we are on track to add over 1.7 Trillion to our deficit this year alone! Like I said, kick the can down the road.

Obama endorses 'Gang of Six' deficit plan

The “Gang of Six” plan would:

• Shift to a new measure of inflation called “chained CPI” which would have the effect of reducing future Social Security benefits by mandating smaller annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Oh Barry, that will COST you BIG time!!

The group which devised the proposal is composed of three Republicans, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, plus three Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia, and — perhaps most importantly — Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Of course, you gotta have a Chicago THUG involved or Barry would never approve

Last night when this article was posted, I was going to respond, concerning the shortfalls of this group and the fact that budget bills come from the House, not the Senate, but waited as I didn't consider the gang of 6 all that important. Now, reading all the posts, I can tell it didn't matter anyway. I will say, it is incredible just how many do not understand how important it is to balance the budget and work on a plan of paying down the debt. Are you the folks who borrowed beyond their means and now, if you didn't walk away, have a home that is worth less than the mortgage? Overspending cannot be sustained, the quicker Washington figures this out, the better for then entire country.

@ Tyler - when are you going to stop posters from using the derogatory words "Teabagger, or Bagger?" If you are going to allow these words, then, you should allow cuss words and other derogatory terms. I find them extremely offensive. Look up what teabagging means....it is right there in the adult section of Wickpedia. The term has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party and has no intelligent value on the 'Vine. It is used by Trolls to put others down.

ivan, NC

You do understand that 100% of the members of Congress are rich don't you? This is one reason why there are loop holes in our tax code for the rich beside supporting special interest groups desires that are also rich.

I have no problem with getting rid of tax loop holes, but don't think the ONLY loop holes are found in the Bush tax cuts. This is why I am for a complete tax code overhaul. Throw the entire code out and replace it with several pages describing a consumption tax that America will pay when they spend their money. No more "tax shelters" since you don't pay taxes until you spend it.

So, let's pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling, cuts spending, and includes an amendment to balance the budget. Let's then take on a bill that addresses the tax code since that is a much bigger job than cutting spending that both parties agree with and the credit raters require for us to keep a triple A credit rating keeping our interest costs down helping our recovery.

Dude - well said.

Thanks Ron.

@FedUpWithFed - FYI - Dick Durbin is from Southern IL, not Chicago. Even Obama is smart enough to remove himself as much from Chicago politics as he can.

Obama and the wrong are endorsing a plan that will hurt America,s credit rating. I am sure the wrong don't care as long as they continue being wrong.

"Too much debt – Moody’s threatens to downgrade U.S."

http://economicsnewspaper.com/policy/german/too-much-debt-moodys-threatens-to-downgrade-u-s-30593.html

The path the wrong are going down is going to hurt America, not help it.

CAP, CUT, AND BALANCE BILL

I find it odd that the media hadn't reported on this bill while it was being orchestrated and now Obama claiming he would VETO it. IT'S JUST AN OUTLINE THAT WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE. The details can be worked out but Obama already refuses to discuss it.

For those of you that would like to read the Cap, Cut, and Balance Bill outline that passed the House yesterday, HERE IT IS. After you read the bill outline, ask yourself a question, does anything in this bill outline look bad?

Sorry my link above is not the right bill outline. Anyone have a link they can pass my way for reviewing what the House passed yesterday?

I have just researched the problem with Medicare, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's Budget (OMB) for 2011 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare over the next 10 years are $2.917 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare over the next 10 years are $6.621 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare program of $3.704 Trillion, and this single program alone accounted for about 64% of Obama's total projected federal deficits over the next 10 years. (a)

Obviously, something needs to be done, or the program will go bankrupt, perhaps in as little as 12 years. It's also clear that people cannot expect full benefits if they are unwilling to pay the full cost.

As I see it, there are two basic options;

1 – Increase the contributions by employers and employees to fully fund the program – I estimate that will require an additional $132 per month in payroll taxes ($66 each by employers and employees).

2 – Reduce costs significantly by limiting services, or something similar to the Ryan Plan (R-Wisc).

Perhaps the most realistic proposal would be a combination of some of each of the above.

It's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices.

(a) - It should be noted that Obama's Budget projections call for the National Debt to increase to $26.345 TRILLION by 2021, an increase of more than $16 Trillion over the $10.025 Trillion for Bush's last fiscal year in office (2008). I'm afraid that if we don't make drastic changes very soon, the downward 'death spiral' of our economy is close at hand.

Link????????

MJL-3 "Link????????"

The White House link for the projected Deficit (Table S-1) and the National Debt (Table S-14) is as follows;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Is someone going to come back and say that it is a revenue problem when the expected budget in 2021 is over $5 trillion?

medicare is clearly a cost control problem and is clearly demonstrating the massive flaws in the entire approach of our health care system. the entire system is based on rewarding the procedure and the pill, results are entirely optional, and in fact, the result that brings the patient back for another pill/procedure is actually rewarded. there is no monetary benefit for permanantly healing a patient

AZChzhd,

You said: "The 5% increase on $250,000 is $15,000. Thats not really all that small. One of those will have to go I would imagine."

You are simply wrong and even if it were 5% on all $250,000, that would be $12,500, not $15,000. But obviously you don't understand how taxes work. The increase would be on the amount over $250,000. If you make right at $250,000, there would be no change. If you make $300,000 the increase would only be on the $50,000 above $250,000. 5% of $50,000 is $2,500.

So that's what you are fighting so hard to protect. COO is correct, we're talking about a small increase.

but if you make 100 million a year, that would be 4,987,500 more a year!!!

but if you are pulling 100 mil a year, you can damn well afford another lousy 5 mil.

danwill - why don't we stop the class warfare and have everyone pay 2% of their income off the top in added taxes that go to nothing but paying down the principle of the deficit along with a balanced budget amendment. By the way that 2% would not be eligible for any kind of deduction what so ever, it comes off the top free and clean.

Cut, cap, and balance should fail because?

Because it is a reasonable approach to solving a problem Washington has been promising to tackle for years.

Because reasonable doesn't work in Washington, so when the unreasonable is working so badly, a reasonable solution is hardly the answer.

Because states with a similar approach are currently solvent, while those without it like California and New York are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Because it doesn't allow the government to spend away the hopes and dreams of future generations that have no voice in the matter.

But the real answer cut, cap, and balance should fail, just because.

Rick says: "Cut, cap, and balance should fail because?

Because it is a reasonable approach to solving a problem Washington has been promising to tackle for years."

It might seem reasonable to your standards, but it is draconian in the real world. The problem is two unfunded wars and tax cuts from Bush/Cheney that had to be put on the books instead of being paid for with emergency stop gap measures that the Republicans/Tea Partiers had no problem voting for when Bush/Cheney were in office.

Changes need to be made, but not at the expense of the middle class and the poor. People like you do not even know what the government pays for and, hopefully, you never need the government for support. You have the "cut, cap, and balance" voted in and you can kiss your retirement good by and plan on working until you drop dead.

The question is what do you cut? How about cutting out all the corporate subsidies that are given out each year in the form of tax credits / exceptions?

Why does the whole cut come from the social programs that benefit the poor and the middle class? What corporations won't profit from a balanced budget? Of course they will.

How about cutting the military? The Defense budget is 660 billion, almost as much as the rest of the world spends on defense combined! But no, Congress actually voted to pass a Defense budget that was 16 billion over what the administration has requested!!

Summertime

I'd like to see and hear more about the Coburn plan, but first address our immediate crisis and raise the debt ceiling.

Sorry Summertime, but this train of logic is EXACTLY why DC didn't cut spending in the 80's for Reagan or in the early 90's for GHW Bush. It's the old ... "sure we'll look at it later" approach. With this approach spending ALWAYS takes precedence over FISCAL RESTRAINT because of the "I want it" mentality. ALWAYS!

That, my friend, is the CRUX of the issue, isn't it!

BTW, the Colburn plan is a reasonable way forward. Nothing stopping the Left from backing that approach either ... except maybe the "I want it" mentality.

Well TreeHugger-631796 you have shown me the light. Balancing the budget is working in states all across the country, in homes, and businesses as well. Maybe there are those among us that feel the government should be paying for what it can afford, and not what it can steal from future generations because they have no say.

If the government was actually doing what it does today well, we would not be in this boat. When you outgrow your ability to control, major changes are needed. The government is awash in waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, and corruption to name but a few. Until they are forced to clean it up, they never will. Washington is very shortsighted, and nothing that will not affect them is worth caring about, plain and simple.

The question is what do you cut?

How about government waste and redundancies. These opportunities have already been identified in the GAO report from March 1st.

U.S. GAO - Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in ...

How about taking what the debt commission outlined and working from that point.

After we get rid of waste and redundancies then all political salaries and staffs need to be reduced. every single CZAR needs to be removed and all non essential government buying and travel needs to be frozen. each government agency and department head should be required to cut at a minimum 5% if not more from their budget that does not impact day to day operations.

Then we should start looking at the entitlement issue for the top and bottom.

kick-the-can-down-the-road......that's all that's ever done and now because of Obama doubling the debt, we're at the crisis mode. Raise the debt ceiling? I don't think I'd give permission for the Dems to take us down any further than we are.

what's the alternative?

jri37: "Collectively, these savings and revenues could result in tens of billions of dollars in annual savings"

We need hundreds of billions, not tens of billions. That's the low hanging fruit, I'm sure most of it is included in the plans discussed.

Liberal, I apologize for not being specific... It is a starting point. I thought people would understand that based on my last sentence.

Then we should start looking at the entitlement issue for the top and bottom.

I don't believe any plan except a portion of Ryan's even touches upon the GAO report.

The Biden negotiations were reported to have targeted "the low hanging fruit" first - which is this. They agreed to about 100 billion in cuts a year, so I'm reasonably sure most of this stuff has been included. Of course it's difficult to say because other than the Rayn plan nothing specific has been released.

But let's say all of this is done - $50 billion a year are saved, 1/2 trillion in 10 years. The target is 4 trillion. What do you cut?

The Republicans say it should all come from the social programs. Why? Why can't we close corporate loopholes? Why can't we cut the Defense budget? I'm sure we can squeeze tens of billions out of the 660 billion dollar Defense budget without causing a whole lot of pain.

Theh problem in all and I do mean ALL spending cut proposals is that they first and foremost protect and shield wealthy corporations and individuals from taxes, while in turn taking from the people who can least protect themselves. The Republicans historically going back over 150 years have given the goodies to the wealthy and fattened their own pockets, while grass roots movements aka Democrats have done their best to help the poor, protect the elderly, disabled, disadvantaged, veterans, children, education, and the environment. Every plan proposed by the Republican will hurt those in our society with the least, pound down the middle class some more, and benefit the rich. That's why the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan won't work. Oh, it'll work for the rich, but where does that leave the rest of us?

Let's cut the budget: keep the programs that help American people and axe the ones that cause harm to people:

-Immediately end empire-building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-End the War on Drugs

-Tie oil company tax breaks to meeting price goals. If people in New England have to starve to heat their homes, these corporations should get 0 tax breaks. If reasonable heating and gasoline prices can be met, only then should a tax break be granted.

-Repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts. These cuts were a bad idea when they were enacted. The ill-advised and unproductive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represent the first time in history that the US has been involved in an extended foreign war without an increase in taxes to pay for it.

The Republican plans are not what they claim to be: ending Social Security and Medicare will not help the budget, as those of us who paid into these programs will expect refunds - with interest - for the money that they paid in. The Republicans are using these negotiations as a way of blackmailing the country into fulfilling the long-standing Conservative goal of returning this country to a pre-depression economy. An economy with no minimum wage, no labor unions, and no hope for the working class.

Just raising the debt ceiling takes away any incentive the democaps have to agree with cutting spending. If the debt ceiling get raised without any written spending cuts it will be the same as default. The rating agencies have said this long ago. 3% interest rates now. No spending cuts = 12% interest tomorrow.

are you an economist?

What do you cut?

Liberal,

I believe it was more than 50 billion for the sake of argument here goes.

- Enact all savings opportunities from the GAO report.

- Cut all political office staffs by 25%, reduce all political office holders salaries by 25%, reduce the WH staff by 10% and get rid of all the czars.

- Suspend all non essential government buying and travel until a budget is passed.

- Require the heads of all agencies and departments to reduce their budgets by a minimum of 5% more if possible without impacting day to day operations. DOD should be able to reduce by 10% without impacting troops in war zones or veterans benefits.

- tear up the tax code. No more Personal or corporate income tax. It has been abused by both parties and is now just allows the top and bottom to be carried by the middle and upper middle class. A fair tax system needs to be developed with ZERO loop holes for anyone. Some people favor a flat, VAT or consumption of goods and services. I personally like the consumption tax/service tax it brings people into the game who had been avoiding taxes like the people who worked under the table and people who make money from illegal transactions.

- Overhaul campaign finance laws

- do away with the lobbyists system as it exists today and start over with some common sense rules.

I am not saying i have all the answers or these are perfect solutions but it seems as though under the present conditions we may be headed for financial disaster.

I believe 'Too Big To Care' should be the teapubliCON's label.

10% of DoD = 66 billion (the Republicans oppose this)

5% of discretionary spending = 33 billion

So we are up to 150 billion. Travel ban and political office cuts is good for another few billion...

You have to close tax loopholes and make cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrats won't do it without the tax cuts.

They have to compromise!

None of these tools would ever mention campaign finance reform. No this would keep Congress out of the hands of the Crotch Brothers and the other Corporate Masters. Term limits removes the lifetime jobs they seek so much. Cut their benefit's and salary, reduce their staff by 2/3 they have it to easy for so called public servant's.

You have to close tax loopholes and make cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrats won't do it without the tax cuts.

That is why the tax code needs to be shredded and re-done.

I agree with you that tax reform is needed. Unfortunately there is no time for that. And if they can't pass some budget cuts, how are they going to reform the tax code in a meaningful way? The tax code affect everyone - I can't even begin to imagine the amount of lobbying that will take place.

Liberal,

it is sad that we have 535 + 1 holding 311 million people hostage. It is our own fault that we have allowed the system to become this bloated and inefficient. Based on the actions of the 535 + 1 and the blind following of party and ideology amongst the voters it doesn't look good.

I am pretty sure the debt ceiling will be raised but I don't think the agreement reached will be in the best interest of the majority of Americans. It will be an agreement that allows all sides to save face and we will continue to burden our future generations because of our lack of vigilance in holding our elected officials accountable.

It should fail rick because the republicians themselves already voted against a version of this bill 2 months ago. They said it was too extreme. This bill mirros that one and is even more extreme and useless and will do nothing to help the economy and jobs. But of course now that we are closer to doom, they revised this plan which is worse than the ryan plan (I know I didn't think that was possible either). Did you read it Rick?? I suggest you do then comment.

It might seem reasonable to your standards, but it is draconian in the real world. The problem is two unfunded wars and tax cuts from Bush/Cheney that had to be put on the books instead of being paid for with emergency stop gap measures that the Republicans/Tea Partiers had no problem voting for when Bush/Cheney were in office.

Why do liberals never want to talk about the issues and how we address them, but always seem to revert back to Bush and Cheney? It's been over two freakin' years, dudes! Everything Obama has said would work has not only failed, but failed miserably.

the insanity of still trying to employ a system of government that has been distorted beyond recognition by decades of self servitude,greed,corporate lobbying and the mountain of legislation implemented in order to protect and enhance the system that only rewards the few who have access as well as control of overseeing operation of said government.
the fact that the system is outdated as to the current needs of our country has been proven with crystal clarity since the market tanked in september of '08. every attempt at restoring any semblance of order has failed with no sound ideas in sight.......a flat tax rate would not only level the playing field but loopholes and free lunches would no longer be problematic and if it was applied to all corporations and citizens at point of purchase be it goods,services or raw materials...... don't hold your breath waiting for political leadership as they are all too busy trying to salvage a lifestyle that has gone the way of the dinosaur........if they aren't stopped soon we will all be going into the dustbin of histort as well.

Guess again, Chip. This is a link to a budget endorsed by those crazy, radical, left wing propaganda rags: The Economist and Forbes. It is a bill that the Republican/TP Inc. congresspeople will not let out of committee to be voted on. I wonder why? Could it be because it does not cut and kill social programs? Because it requires the very rich and corporations to pay their fair share? Hmmm . . . anyway, here's the link:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Why do you right wing posters lie so much? Seriously, I'm really curious about that. Day after day, you guys (and ladies) come to these blogs and lie your collective a$$es off. When called out on these lies, you don't even try to defend them or even do the honorable thing by standing up to admit you made a mistake (to cover for a deliberate lie), you just deflect and spin to try and prove your lie was not a lie. Anthropologically speaking, this may be a phenomenon worth studying.

Bruce-308647 reference #2.24

It is their goal to lay all our problems on the republicans thereby gaining political capital to ensure they attain and keep power. They will use lies, deception, misdirection and anything else to attain that goal. A perfect example is none of them will admit that the sub prime meltdown is the cause of our present problems with the housing crisis, the credit crisis and a huge part of Obama's deficit. If they admitted that they would also have to admit that the sub prime scandal ground work was laid from '91 to '98 and not during the Bush administration meaning they would lose their mantra of "It's Bush's fault."

if such brilliant ideaology is so handy matt then why has the liberal camp been as equally silent on promoting this plan........might it be that they are as self serving as the right wingers you chastise......this problem goes far beyond a pissing match between liberals and conservatives.

echo82

"what's the alternative?"..... Let 'er hit the roof and crash to the floor. That's what needs to happen. I want to see bankers and executives flying off buildings like way back when. There's not but a handfull of people this would actually hurt. Some of us wouldn't know anything happened.

If Republicans really want to cap.....why did they get rid of pay go? Or do they just want to cap when a Dem is in the WH, trying to help American citizens, then get rid of the cap when an R is in office so they can pay Xe and Haliburton millions to help people in the Middle East who probably want to kill us anyway....

A new diversion?: Is Obama in bed with Iran? Has the Administration broken US Law again?

A Freedom of Information Act suit has produced documents demonstrating that the Obama Administration via the Treasury Department has 'officially designated' PJAK, northern Iraqi Kurds and our ally, as "terrorist", and have done so without consulting the Justice Department, clearly in contempt of the Justice Department and US Law. Under US Law the Justice Department must be consulted.

Consequently, Iranian Republican Guard troops, our enemy, are invading and attacking northern Iraq and PJAK our ally. Iranian fighters, our enemy, are equipped with fresh US arms including artillery, rocket launchers, tanks, and attack helicopters. It is believed the equipment is being delivered by Turkey to Iran. It is unclear whether or not the Obama Administration is providing funding.

All of this political theater has been very entertaining and largely irrelevant.

All we need to see from Washington right now is to raise the debt ceiling.

These debates about what to cut, how much to cut, whether to make tax law changes, etc. are all important, and they will go on for many months, as they should.

But all we need to do today is simply agree to pay our bills.

Matthew of TX,

I read the budget you provided a link for., It states that anybodybody making over 1 million a year will be taxed at 45%. There goes any motivation to become a millionaire and essentially strive to succeed. All this bill does is redistribute wealth, and bind the future of America to be dependent upon government, not exactly what this country was founded on.

Where were all these sh#%heads when Bush raised the debt limit 7 times while in office, spent Clinton's surplus and started deficient spending Texas style, two wars, his tax cuts, neo-cons power grabs, only his friends made money. And they made a lot of money, so much money that they don't care if the rest of our country now goes belly up!!!!!! They have these tea party idiots in congress that don't even know the caliber of disaster that awaits our country and maybe the world should we fail to lift the debt ceiling. It's kinda like during the Civil War how the few rich plantation owners got the whole rest of the South to fight to preserve slavery and their way of life . People better wake up before it's too late!!!!!

Where were they? Well, Obama was voting against that vote- so that accounts for 1 person. Also, it is common knowledge that under Clinton, intragovernmental holdings went up every year. Loaning yourself money to create a surplus does not a real surplus make (although I will give it to you that he was really close). Lastly, it should be noted that Obama is requesting to spend nearly double what Clinton did in 1997. Still just a revenue problem?

Ignoring all of the fantasy posts, name calling, and hyper-partisan BS, the story itself seems inaccurate.

The story says that the plan by the gang of 6 would cut deficits $3.7 trillion.

Then it says it would gain $1 trillion by closing loopholes, etc.. so new revenue.

Then it claims that it would cut hundreds of billions annually from this and that, and $150 billion annually from homeland security and defense.

Doing the math, or what can be done with this vague nonsense, a $3.7 trillion reduction over 10 years equals $370 billion annually. If you are adding $1 trillion, this equates to $100 billion annually. So then we are cutting only $250 billion annually. If we include the $150 billion from defense and homeland security, that leaves $120 billion left to cut from all the other departments combined annually.

Exactly where is the kill the old people and children, and hurt the middle class in this? Why all the hystrionics from all these ridiculous liberals when most of the money is coming from the rich, and coming out of defense and homeland?

And how much do you want to bet that none of these cuts are from existing spending, but instead these cuts will be from future spending increases?

This entire deal will be smoke, mirrors, and our idiotic President continues to act like the sky is falling. All for absolutely nothing but more debt, and more irresponsible spending and borrowing.

Yeah, cut, cap and balance makes no sense....

Barlow,

Siting bad spending of the previous adminstration, doesn't make this administration's spending habits right. What about the disaster of continually raising the debt limit, that has implications for us as well, thyat will hurt our credit rating as well. Either we get our books together now, default or raise the debt limit. I vote we get our books together now.

Nice try at . . . actually, it wasn't a nice try, it was a bumbling try at deflection there, Ymerej. First off, since you couldn't deny that the Democrats actually have a plan that a right leaning publication that specializes in economics and one of the most conservative business magazines support, you try to pull out one little fact in the plan and attack that. Typical, but as I said, a bumbling, stupid attempt at deflection.

That being said, I'll answer your observation with one of my own. There seemed to be plenty of people who wanted to be, tried to be, and actually became millionaires when the top tax bracket was over 70%.

Now, about that lying, Ymerej, wanna take a stab at explaining why your side does so much of it? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty over here that lie, cheat and steal, but your side has taken it to extremes never previously seen. The most amazing part is the fact that there are people doing the lying in support of a group that want to implement policies that hurt their own self interest. Your side keeps accusing the left of being lemmings, what would you call those who lie for those who would only do that which would hurt the liars?

I mean, seriously, this really sounds like it would make a great subject for a Master's or Ph.D. dissertation for an Anthropologist or Sociologist.

Matthew, Houston,TX: Am in agreement with you, especially your last line. Why do people vehemently support and even participate in their own invalidation of self worth in favor of the enhancement of those who so wickedly abuse them? Other than few exceptions (French revolution) it has ever been thusly. I think it must be born of some primordial instinct that finds security in inclusive tribalism. It does not see, feel, or reason the self inflicted pain as anything more than reason to inflict hurt, pain and even death upon sensibilities contrary to the groups purpose and pleasure. Regards

After the Revolution was won. The colonist did not want to have their Whiskey TAXED George Washington said "they had to be taxed because the NEW NATION was BROKE"

It was to pay the NATIONAL DEBT that was incurred to fight the Revolution to Countries and People who had helped the USA Financiall­y

The Colonist rebelled G. Washington had to send the Militia on his on Citizens in Pennsylvan­ia to stop the WHISKEY Rebellion and low and behold the WHISKEY WAS TAXED.

...and hence it was written into the Constituti­on of the United States that ALL citizens RICH and NOT SO RICH, were to be taxed to pay for Americas DEBTS.

Therefore, the NATIONAL DEBT BEGAN. Started by The FIRST PRESIDENT OF THESES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Every Patriotic American knows this EXCEPT the TEA PARTY IDEOLOGUES­.

AMERICAN HISTORY EVEN A KINDERGART­ENER CAN UNDERSTAND­!

There's not but a handfull of people this would actually hurt. Some of us wouldn't know anything happened

mostly because they are too drunk and watching too much nascar.

really, really, amazingly ignorant post

the only people it wouldn't hurt are survivalist nuts living in their compounds in the hills

The gang of sick plan will hurt the middle class and poor the most. No more deduction for home mortgage interest - I guess this will help the housing market that just went bust because of the dems running of freddie and fannie. Also no qualified contributions allowed, so this will hurt the poor. Sorry new potential home buyers, you need to stay in that rental the rest of your life!

catlee the grape The revolution wasn't about taxes, it was about taxation without representation. Remember??? Right now most of the voters don't want taxes to increase. The people that do want it increased, only want it increased on other people!

Why is it that cathee the self-proclaimed "great" always posts with lots of CAPITAL letters....... and speaks in such a condescending manner? The arrogance of her tone is truly amazing !

Cut, Cap, and Balance--VS--Spend, Tax, and Bankruptcy

I also noticed the two GOP choices suck...

I prefer...CUT, TAX, and SOLVENCY...the democratic adult plan

Obama appointed a blue ribbon debt commission to study the problem and offer a solution. I think it is safe to say that Obama gave the solution consideration for at least a New York minute. To date, it is the best plan that has been presented, and no one in Washington even gave it consideration. So I guess you could say it was all for show. This is all about political gain, and nothing more.

I prefer the MAKE JOBS, MAKE JOBS, MAKE JOBS plan myself, but those who are holding the money refuse to do so. Meanwhile, those who have no jobs, cities with 20% unemployment, continue to "suck up" our tax dollars. Hmmmmm...... Wait a minute.... If those with all the money REFUSE to create jobs, and refuse to pay taxes, how the hell is this country going to get out of debt? By throwing more people into the street? Doesn't work that way.

Where is a DNC plan????? Any plan...

Remember this current year's budget was due by the Democratic controlled Congress LAST October.......and was never completed. Remember Steny Hoyer saying the Dems wanted to wait and get the Debt Commissions report before they pass a budget......like you said Rick.....they ignored it......not what they wanted to hear or do. DNC used the Commission as a excuse to kick the can down the road and not pass a budget for 2011.......

DNC doesn't have a plan. The Dems totally controlled since 2006 with NO budget. The spending started spiking in 2006 and never stopped. Then they pushed Obamacare down the American throats which is simply a spread-the-wealth-control the people mechanism.

The people holding all the money wont create jobs because everything is dependent on what Obama does. If Obamacare was thrown away, then they could afford hiring more people. Otherwise, it's not worth the hassle to expand.

Powers--that is so untrue! The people holding all the $$ are not creating jobs because they are holding the American people hostage for deregulation of all protections for us "small people". They do not want minimum wage, want free rein to pollute and destroy the environment, no taxes for them, plenty of corporate welfare from our tax money, risky investments with no responsibility (your tax dollars at work), etc. They want to wring as much as possible from the middle class so they have all the $$ and we have nothing--we become serfs to the uber wealthy. Unbridled capitalism does not work because there are no protections for the people, and the wealth will be concentrated at the top, as is happening now. And before you start in about the "free market"--there is no such thing--the market is being manipulated, and not in favor of the "small people". People better get a clue--"trickle-down" economics does NOT work--the evidence is clear! If it did, we should be knee-deep in jobs now, with taxes being lower than they have been in years!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Nurse,

How asinine is your comment? It's just another brain-dead, mindless sheep-following statement. Simplistic and false. Hey, I'm no Republican supporter, but I left the Democratic party a while because it cares only for buying votes with taxpayer dollars and their favorite motto is 'The Big Bad, Rich' in this country.

Corporations aren't hiring because the cost to hire a single, low-level employee is approximately $1,500. That's a low-level employee. Add to that the massive unknowns in taxes, health care costs, and consumer spending and you have reasonable businessmen and businesswomen waiting it out. If you owned a business, had an extra $50,000 a year to hire but didn't know if that new hire was going to cost you $50,000 or $70,000, would you hire? Of course not.

It's time to stop the charade. This isn't about 'the rich' against 'the poor.' It's about a government that is investing in its own interests, on both sides of the aisle. We have a trade agreement with other nations that is unfair to American companies. We have tax policies that allow nearly half the population to pay NO federal taxes. The top 2% of earners in this country pay 95% of all taxes. We are a socialist nation and that's why it's failing.

No one complained about corporate greed in the 1950's and 1960's, did they? Nope. Why? Because everyone worked, people worked hard, and earned a fair wage and paid their fair share. That stopped beginning in the 1970's and since then, it has been a game of buying votes with entitlements. No one is entitled to ANYTHING in this country except the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Yet today everyone demands the big house, big, gas-guzzling car, the flat screen TVs, vacations to exotic locations, and more, more, more. THAT'S the problem, the mentality.

It's time to set things right, but we can't do that because few people even have a clue about what's really going on. They either listen blindly to Fox News or MSNBC (both polar opposites, but the same) and regurgitate the sound bites.

Wake up America and begin to think for yourselves. When half the country's college graduates can't even find America on a map, you know you've got a serious problem.

Whatever JThomas. But despite what you say, it is about the rich versus everyone else. I think that most would agree that we are entitled to what we work for, but why are the uber wealthy more entitled than the rest of us? They do create jobs, but NOT in this country! Many of us do not believe that CEO Wall Street "financial work" is more important or better for our country than that which us Main Street "small people" do. And why should Wall Street be entitled to perform questionable risky financial practices with our money that are only risk to us and results in their obscene profits and our losses? They get bailed out, while the 'small people" lose their retirements, savings and homes. Maybe no one spoke about corporate greed in the "old days" but that was a time when we were all working together for the good of the country, and the gap between the uber wealthy and everyone else was not as great. At that time 1-2% did not control 90% of the wealth. We had higher taxes, business was good, and everyone benefitted. At this point, the uber wealthy have gotten greedier and removed $$ from our economy, which only benefits them!

By the way--I agree with you about education! We will not solve our problems by dismantling public education and privatizing so only the wealthy can afford it!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Cut, cap and balance, see what happens when grandma and reitired veterans don't get a check next month because we have to let the non existant job creators pay no tax.

1Hiram ..Can we Middle Class taxpayers afford to pay 50% of the Exxon Valdez fine for Exxon when it recorded historic profits in the past 20 years and never paid a dime of the fine even though they openly admitted they built in the cost of the fine into prices of oil 20 years ago?

Can we afford to continue to subsidize states that refuse to use state funding before they take federal funding for their poor, indigent and healthcare needs?

Can we afford to continuously support R&D projects of corporations much less the military vendors who pad their bills?

There's plenty of things the US can't afford...we need to start with those tax credits. No one who lives on six figures needs so much as a 10% reduction in the taxes they pay. Sorry, if you have kids that's your choice. Why must my federal taxes help you pay for your kids?

not to alter the discussion but the reference to education brought to mind that the carter administration's creation of the department of education- which has not only decimated the intellect of american students-test scores have fallen consistently since 1980-but the utter dearth of resources for basic necessities has been shifted to parents and teachers........this is a stunningly evident example of governmental incompetence producing disastrous results with amazing consistency.......imagine how well they'll do with health care.

maddog...With all due respect, can you explain why only born and bred American students end up lacking achievement? Take a good inventory in your state of the number of foreign students who come to the US and end up valedictorians or salutatorians.

Sorry, you can't blame government for this "internet" generation who rebuke any form of hard labor as if it was the Bubonic plague and that includes their school work.

Obama has agreed to cuts not spending, take off your blinders and get your facts. We all have to compromise, and after 8 years of Bush spending money needs to come from somewhere including higher taxes.

There is no tax and spend plan... there never has been. but clearly most people don't understand what they are commenting on.

look up the facts for yourself ewent......the government itself documents the falling scores annually and the state of schools today has nothing to do with immigrants participation in regards to allocation or resources.....you know little things like paper,pencils and books........these situations are all resultant of governmemtal meddling.

maddog...You're assuming I haven't looked up the facts. When it comes to US education, I'm right on it. I know that most high schools, as an example, graduate barely 43% of students who actually pass the required courses with a grade average of a "C". I also know that of those ranked in the top 1% of high school graduates today, half of those are not born and bred Americans.

I also know that spending more money on education isn't the answer. Schools today have to compete with the internet. A huge...huge...huge distraction. In fact, kids today spend up to 62% of their time texting, on cell phones or playing video games on their computers. 62%...time that should be spent running, playing outdoors, studying and doing their chores.

ewent,

The problem with high school education is that each district or school is only concerned about funding. They are teaching kids on how to pass standardized tests instead of educating them on the fundamentals of the subject or how to apply critical thinking to a subject.

If a school or a district does not do well on these tests they don't get the funding needed to operate efficiently. My daughter spent 2 weeks this past year (sophomore) in each class concentrating solely on these tests and the best way to pass them.

Cut, Cap, and Balance--VS--Spend, Tax, and Bankruptcy

There's always that 3rd option; raise an artificial, meaningless barrier and get back to business. The Democrats have bungled the national budget process, but the Republicans and their comedy writers (TEA Party) have managed to turn it into a crisis. Get on with it already if you're not going to do anything of significance.... just my $0.02.

JThomas, great post. I really like your explanation. I was a hard-stream repub, but it has caused me to second guess their policies as much as I do the left!

I listened to Steve Wynn this morning ranting about Obama being a "wet blanket" for the business community. He apparently is making money regardless of the anti-business environment.

Wynn voted for Obama. He says he is a democrat. I know he voted for Reid and thus I must assume he is a democrat because NO republican would ever vote for Reid. For Wynn, a self made billionaire, it is Obamacare, and the expansion of the EPA, all the class warfare thrown around and the re-distribution of wealth rhetoric coming from this president.

I once knew the 40th richest person in the world. Another self made billionaire like Wynn. They are benevolent as long as the government doesn't pick their pockets. The moment government overreaches, they feel threatened and they get hostile. Wynn is on the warpath.

Obama made millions writing books about himself. Now he says he shouldn't be allowed to keep all that money because he doesn't really need it.

Think about that statement and the implications.

Those of you interested in Corporate taxes (to tax or not to tax) should check out President Bill Clinton's latest proposal (he created a few jobs in his administration). President Clinton suggests "lowering" the corporate tax rate in order to make American Corporations more competitive.

Below is a partial reprint of one of many articles on this (google Bill Clinton Corporate Tax Rates for other choices).

Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal

The Huffington Post Alexander Eichler First Posted: 07/ 5/11 10:30 AM ET Updated: 07/ 5/11 01:46 PM ET

As the deadline to strike a deal on the debt ceiling draws closer, former president Bill Clinton criticized the nation’s corporate tax rate over the weekend, saying it should be lowered as part of an agreement between the parties, according to Politico.

“We’ve got an uncompetitive rate,” Clinton told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday, Politico reports.

Here's exactly what Steve Wynn had to say and although I only employ 70 people, I agree totally.

I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

Why is it that any plan that Obama doesn't endorse is tabbed as "political" or "symbolic"? He acts like he is the only adult in any room he's in. (Our condescender-in-chief) At this point in his administration, I wonder if it's ever occurred to him that HE could be the one that is dead wrong. I mean, none of his policies have made things better, and in fact have made things worse.

ewent..........the premise of my comment apparently did not clearly illustrate the direct correlation between the fed running point on education and the ensuing decline in all areas of education.........resource allocation becoming the biggest difference in that prior to the dept. of education books,pencils,paper as well as ancillary resources needed to promote an actual education have been stripped from the equation and now parents,children as well as teachers have become fundraising experts in order to fund BASIC SCHOOL SUPPLIES that the schools provided prior to the boards inception.........there is and never was an immigrant component to the historical path the B.O.A. has taken these past 31 years.

Sounds like the new gang of 6 plan might be a realistic option...I haven't read the details yet, but the overview sounds like a good start.

better read the details Ron. OK with tax decrease for top tiers?

Details - we need details.

What is being cut, and who pays the added taxes? I hope this is not just another 'agreement to talk'.

JThomas2121, very few people complained about greedy corporations in the '50s and '60s, because it was common to pay a living wage, and provide a safety net (pensions, etc.) that guaranteed mutual loyalty between companies and individuals. Most important, I believe the average CEO was making 50 times what the average worker was making at the time.

Today, the average CEO makes 300+ times as much as the average worker. Pensions are disappearing. Companies have little loyalty to their workers, and many do not pay living wages, even for people in responsible positions. Plus, I think you have to admit that we have seen some pretty corrupt companies and some pretty corrupt CEOs in this day and age (Enron, Rick Scott at Columbia/HCA, etc., etc.). Add to all this that today you're seeing a rash of companies trying to prevent unionization, which was alive and well in the '50s and '60s and created precisely to balance corporate abuses.

Dropping the top tax rate to 23% is too low. If they close the loopholes and drop the tax rate to 23%, how long do you think it will take until the loopholes are put back in, and the fight will be on to keep the tax rate at 23% because the poor pitiful billionaires can't afford to pay more.

nurse-1006475:

BRAVISIMO, nurse! — What Great Posts!

And Obama just became a one term President because he now supports throwing Grandma out into the street.

Cutting Social Security, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid is not the way to go, obama, And you just lost my vote.

@Kenn the Dem

I would be all for reducing the tax on corporation. They are the life blood of the economy. It's the individuals that get loopholes to avoid paying their fair share that I have a problem with. Sports "heroes" making $20 million, vocalist raking in $15 million, and CEOs getting over $84 million getting tax breaks is ludicrous. Some corporations don't even make $20 million in a year and they have to hire accountants to keep their records straight. All the other prima donnas have to do is hire a lawyer to find loopholes that allow them to keep most of their money.

And anyone that believes that the super wealthy create jobs, all you have to do is read the article on gold prices. They are sticking their money in gold to hedge against inflation and the price of gold at $250 an ounce in 2001 when the first tax cut was passed has climbed to $1666 an ounce today. That's where the wealthy are putting their money. Not creating jobs.

The people holding all the money wont create jobs because everything is dependent on what Obama does.

WRONG

Businesses are not creating jobs because THEY DO NOT NEED TO.

New technology and systems make it easier to do the same job with less people. That is what happens when technology advances.

Newspapers laid off the thousands required to produce, transport and deliver actual newspapers . . . now the news can be delivered online with a fraction of the staff. We will NOT go back to the old style of newspapers, so all those jobs are gone FOREVER.

Music stores disappear as all music has gone online . . . iTunes anyone? You think those stores and jobs will ever come back? Nope, they are gone FOREVER.

Video rental stores have disappeared because you can get movies delivered or streamed directly to your home. All those video rental store jobs, gone FOREVER.

Bookstores that did not progress to ereaders are closing shop . . . goodbye Borders. More books are being sold through ereaders and tablets than on paper. Want to guess what will happen, look at the music industry . . . all online. Bookstore jobs will be gone FOREVER.

Companies update computer systems that automate routine work, reducing the need for the employees that previously did that. Are they going to downgrade their system so that they can pay more to hire those people back? Nope, those jobs are gone FOREVER.

Small business has moved online, where a single person can run his online store, stay open 24/7, and have no need to hire any help. Is the online blogger making 6-figures going to hire help he does not need? Is the online retailer selling the products he makes in his garage going to hire someone he does not need? NOPE. Why hire when you can easily do it yourself?

Do you honestly think that tax cuts will bring back traditional newspapers, music and bookstores . . . and all the associated jobs? Do you honestly think tax cuts will inspire companies and small businesses to hire people they don't need . . . just for sh**s and giggles? Wake up and realize that the world has changed.

None of this will amount to a hill of beans unless:

1. A balanced budget amendment is committed to
2. The tax code is replaced with a flat tax that starts at the local level, not the national level. The local needs must be met first, then the state, then the national. What is the point of having 3 or 4 different tax systems.
3. The federal government should not be able to tax individuals.
4. The federal government should only be allowed to tax the states, based on population and land area: 60 % population & 40% land area.
5. Also, all government services not considered a necessity should be offered at a fee and not supported by taxes.
6. Term limits for Senators and Representatives, and restricted lobbying.

The group which devised the proposal is comprised of three Republicans, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, plus three Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia, and — perhaps most importantly — Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Is it a good mix. Get it going... My 3 years old Grand daughter is going to ask for political asylum in to Germany. She thinks they have a balanced budget.

The gang of 6 didn't even come up with a real plan. All they came up with was a framework. That sounds like more taxes and more spending. We need, Cut, Cap & Balance and we will throw you bums out in 2012 who vote the wrong way on this! I am sick & tired of the current Congressmen and women and we threw a bunch of you out in 2010 - get ready for some more swamp cleaning in 2012 - starting with 0bama.

ROY WILSON-336103

"Details - we need details.

What is being cut, and who pays the added taxes? I hope this is not just another 'agreement to talk'."

"Let's just pass it and see what's in it later." Pelosi

That worked out so well the last time.

-"Call for the elimination of some tax deductions and preferences and the reduction of others, raising $1 trillion in new revenue, while also reducing marginal income tax rates to as low as 23 percent for high earners"

the loss/reduction of deductions could affect anyone who itemizes

why did obama say that all american's agreed to what he proposed ? i did not, nor will i !!!

i realize that everyone think's that it would cause an economic armeggedon to allow Our Coutry's loan's to go sour, but just maybe it would for the best.

then when all of the dust settled we as a Country would no longer( GOD FORBID ) be living beyond our meen's.

if we as citisen's, of this trully great and wonderful country, were to try and get loan's above and beyond our meen's we can be prosicuted for doing so.

so our politition's should treat it the same way.

i realize it's a trully frightening thought to ponder, but it would be nice to say that America the Buetiful is free from foriegn debt!!!!!!

The President and the GOP leaders of the congress have a workable plan that would stabilize the US debt, and could raise the debt limit in a responsible way, today.

This is the same plan the GOP put forth only a few months ago.

The only exception is that the President is asking the wealthy top two to three percent of the population's tax credit installed by the Bush administration be nullified.

The wealthy paid it before and could very easily pay it again.

The fact is not one single wealthy tax payer in this tax bracket is saying anything to the contrary.

Not one.

The only ones saying anything are people who could only whish they made 250 thousand dollars or more a year.

So if the wealthy who can pay are not crying about it, why is it that this is a issue at all?

Stop dreaming you make 250k or more a year, and get out of the way so the Politian's can wrap this up and get on with creating more jobs.

[Are all the threads collapsing from the weight of these discussions?]

echo82,

"ok with the tax decrease to the top tier?"

Uh, yeah I'm good with it. The folks that seem to be against that are the ones like Obama and the redistributors or the bottom 50% of people who pay no federal taxes anyway.

thoughts from cali,

If Obama and the Dems would ease back on the regulations and bureacratic BS, there are jobs that would come back here. For starters, things like customer service call centers. It isn't simply that labor is cheaper overseas it is also lower costs of regulations and extraneous BS. The reductions in costs due to extraneous BS are what offset the cost of data lines and phone lines from here to there in order to see the savings from the lower cost of labor.

You could also bring back little things like the steel industry which ships huge amounts of raw and reclaimed materials overseas for processing due to lower costs. Those cost reductions are not simply in the area of labor. If they were, then they would not nearly offset the cost of shipping the materials in both directions.

main thing I want to know is when the spending cuts start. If The Big-0 is on board, I bet the spending cuts don't really start for at least 5 years. This is smoke and mirrors, people. No future congress has ever allowed a previous congress to dictate it's spending.

Cuts now, across the board, of 3% per year - real cuts - every year until the budget is balanced. We can also look at tax reform. But cuts first.

ObaMao only endorsed it because he has no plan of his own

I've endorsed cuts from the start, the trouble is neither party's cuts deal with the problems at hand. The Federal Government is too large and spends too much money. Every department and program within the Federal Government needs spending and staffing level cuts, duplication needs to be eliminated (which may result in some departments being larger after mergers, but that would still be smaller overall and with fewer managers) and there needs to be an emphasis out of extracting the maximum value out of assets (i.e. no new equipment or buildings when old equipment/buildings can be repaired/overhauled).

That can't all be done overnight, but the sooner we start, the sooner our budget deficits end. Huge budget deficits may be necessary to deal with extreme situations, but they shouldn't be business as usual, and in our case, they have been for far too long.The trouble is, neither party is willing to accept the reality of the situation or accept the fact that THEY BOTH CAUSED THIS DEFICIT problem.

Let me add to that no new equipment or buildings(#3.43), NO NEW MASSIVE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS or PROGRAMS when the existing departments or programs can be repaired/overhauled to deal with whatever actual need/problem there is for Govco. to deal with.

ewent,

you're so right, Why should we have to pay for someone elses kids and what about their homes, they get a write off on that too, and their loan interest and the list goes on and on, the point is that was their choice and I'm sick of paying for it ......... NO DEDUCTIONS PERIOD ! PAY your share.

I'm a bit concerned with the wording "Aim to reduce". It doesn't say they will reduce the deficit. Another one is "Hundreds of billions in cuts to other Federal Departments". But no word on what they may be. Also, "New measure of inflation". Everytime they mess with the way to calculate inflation, we pay the price! Basically they're saying we will not cut SS, but we will cut the COLA's and drain it over time to something worth much less than it is today. Reading this made me feel violated! Again!!

Sparky -

First, call centers and every other outsourcing company started WAY before Obama took over. It is completely retarded to think that simple deregulation will bring those jobs back . . . unless you deregulate the minimum wage laws and put us back to the days of child labor. Besides, call centers are a horrible example because they are slowly being replaced with online technology.

Second, the steel industry? Really? America is no longer a manufacturing country, we are now a service oriented country. I understand that this level of economics is beyond your comprehension, but we will not go back to a manufacturing focused country. It doesn't matter how much you deregulate or reduce taxes, it will not happen. Either you accept change, or you get left behind and live in poverty (blaming the government for your own personal failure).

CUT: everything necessary for a functioning US, but not social security or medicare, the biggest drains on our budget.

CAP: everything necessary for a functioning US, but not the pork or the unnecessary pet projects.

BALANCE: because cutting everything necessary for a functioning US, while leaving the biggest, least necessary, wasteful institutions in place will balance the budget.

That constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the stupidest attempt at PR I have ever seen. I cannot believe the Grand Old Party has become this Tea Party crap.

@Larry post #3.32: I agree this may be worth looking into, Bill Clinton thinks so. I also saw someone (on CNBC) who suggested reducing Corp. Tax Rates to zero. The idea behind this is, it eliminates taxes as a reason to locate outside the U.S., it would cause for a repatriation of foreign profits (that helps to boost the US economy) and the individual income tax rate on corporate dividends would probably exceed the rate the corporations were paying (offsetting the loss of the corp. tax revenue).

Of course not one can guarantee that the taxes that the corporations would save would all flow out to shareholders in dividends, but certainly a substantial amount would.

We need something to help stem the outflow of jobs...maybe this is worth a look!

tunanut, steve wynn's company is also classified as a "small business" because his billion dollar gambling empire is run as a LLC. which is counted as a "small business"

utterly ridiculous

Nurse, Small business owners and corporations aren't there to create jobs, but to make money for their investors. They aren't expanding because the dems and odumbo have created such an anti business agenda, that new investments or even resuming to past levels would be a stupid business decision. This is the result of putting an inexperienced, non producer, community organizer in the White House!

From what I can tell, the Gang of Six plan is like some of the others in that it doesn't deliver real cuts, but only the promise of cuts in the future, which as we all know never materialize. It's like laying out a fitness plan for yourself that never starts TODAY, but always promises to start at some point in the future. This allows you to talk about the plan and feel good about it, all the while realizing that you don't have to start making any changes immediately.

Every plan I've seen that has the support of democrats puts off making any real cuts until AFTER the 2012 election. It's clear they don't want to risk ticking off those who are used to welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. But these are among the most expensive programs that will HAVE to be cut in order to get our financial house in order.

nurse

FYI---You say Capitalism does not work and also Trickle Down does not work.....go read up on Keynesian Economics.....it also uses a type of Trickle Down policies to stimulate GNP and thew economy....ie. Government makes huge investment and effects are spend across the masses.

CUT, CAP and BALANCE. Yes, lets do this! Even though the Republicans got rid of 'Pay Go' which was basically the same thing as the CAP part, and even though Bush Jr had record deficits that caused him and Congress to raise the debt limit 7 TIMES, lets do this. I mean, its not like the hypocritical Republicans will just wait until they have a Republican in the WH, start a random war somewhere, then say they have to repeal CUT, CAP and BALANCE to start deficit spending to 'support our troops'.

"record deficits" until Obama gained office.

Obama has added more to the deficit in just over 2 years than Bush added in 8 years. Bush $4Trillion in 8 years.....Obama $4 Trillion in 2 years

nico-383340

"the loss/reduction of deductions could affect anyone who itemizes"

So what? Everyone has a stake in it so everyone should feel some pain. Use a standard deduction for everyone and eliminate the rest. If you have dependents, that is on you. No more credits for anyone or anything. Adjust the tax rates accordingly and leave them alone. Just doing that would eliminate most of the IRS because no one will be able to fake deductions while knowing there is little chance of being audited.

ChiCity

""record deficits" until Obama gained office."

Actually, the record deficits happened as soon as the dems got control of congress. Presidents don't make the budget and the dems went on a spending spree without making a budget before the republicans took control of the House. The dems refused to do there job and now they are blaming the republicans and still refusing to do their job in the Senate.

Here is the proof that the wrong refuses to see.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

The only time the budget had a surplus in recent history was during the Clinton administration when republicans controlled congress.

Bob no arguments here.

anyone who thinks capitalism doesn't work should ask themselves why the commies and dictators of the world try to mimic US capitalism?

bob, no argument here either....my comments were strictly for those who thought the dems were going to let them off the hook.

Bob I know. I was saying that the deficits under Bush were record deficits, until Obama came and shattered those deficits. Even though congress writes the budget, the Pres still signs off. Consequently, Bush doesn't get a free pass either.

Or the 21% bagger rating. By the way the president's rating is 48%.

Do you think cut, cap and balance pretty much accounts for the Republican's 21% approval rating? I love it when each side says "the people are behind us" or "the people won't stand for this".

The American "people" are diverse, with different interests, needs and values. Which is why compromise is an important word and a more important action. Even if I grant you your slanted terminology here, there is a point between the two extremes of "cut, cap and balance" on the one side and "tax and spend" on the other. We need to do some cutting of expenditures, some closing of loopholes, some revamping of programs and some raising of taxes. Everyone will have something they dislike about such a plan, but in the end it will be the quickest route to the mutual goal of solvency.

We NEED a new tax system.

Lets do away with Grover Norquist. Who is he to be making decisions that we can NEVER raise or change the tax system ????

bankerboy...roflmao...Norquist like all rich men love the status quo. Just for a moment think about how life in the US would be if all Americans were as prosperous as Norquist. He'd be the first to squeal like a stuck pig.

Rich men need cheap labor. They always have and always will....as cheap as it can get. The reality is that too many Americans now have college degrees and specialized hi tech skills that cost employers far more than they want to pay in salaries.

So, you get them whining they need federal revenues to hire and create jobs (2001), they need tax credits to reduce the taxes they pay (2004, 2008, 2010), they need tax reductions or exemptions for unemployment taxes, for non-compliance fines, for their upper incomes and their perks, for their employees pension benefits and healthcare...the list is endless.

I totally agree ewent, but how do we knock Norquist out?

Actually it is closer to 45% and dropping. And the tea party approval is closer to 32%

bankerboy...Norquist puts him pants on like we all do ...one leg at a time. I am never ever impressed with rich men because the ones I've met were about as grossly insecure as they come. There's something else to remember...money always runs out even when it's passed down from one generation to the next. All it will take for Norquist is one tiny weak thread. All human beings have them. Look at Murdoch.

The other thing is that we, the people, still possess constitutional rights that are every bit as equal as Norquist's or any other Billionaire Commando. The people elected President Obama and the people, not Norquist will re-elect him.

Norquist is protecting Big Business but the reality is that Big Business grew too big too fast and is now unmanageable. They spent over a decade buying up small companies without consideration for the fact that their buying spree had a price. They weren't in business to produce goods or services. Buying and selling small companies and each other is their version of "Business". And you see how that's worked out.

Corporate America is running scared. It knows it's too big to fail and is and too rich to change and will. Changes are coming that have nothing to do with President Obama and everything to do with greed already charred into submission.

Rick...Let me assure you that educated people over the age of 55 will never vote for a Tea Party member. Now...take this into consideration. Which age group are the largest voting bloc? Senior citizens. They are also the most loyal when it comes to jury duty and other civic obligations. So...no...the Tea Party that wants to bankrupt seniors will never give them much more than a blink of an eye.

No educated person over 55 will vote for a Tea Party member? In other words, anyone over 55 that votes for a Tea Party member isn't educated, in your opinion. The arrogance is astounding. Why does Obama need 2x the amount of money in his budget than Clinton did? How do you account for the fact that Obama has left the tax cuts off the table for anyone other than the top 2%, despite the fact that the cuts for everyone else costs more than 4x as much? If he were actually serious about deficit reduction, wouldn't all Bush tax cuts have to be eliminated?

Should fail summer? The republican house proposal will die on the presidents desk if it doesn't die in the senate.

ChiCity...You said it. I didn't. Educated people generally view extremisms as destructive ...self or otherwise.

Why? Because President Clinton didn't have 2 simultaneous wars going at the time of his inauguration into office did he? Clinton didn't have to spend trillions on paying the war reparations in Iraq, did he? Clinton didn't get stuck with Big Daddy Bush's bills, did he?

President Obama isn't about to savage the people who are already savaged by Bush's policies. What is it about that you people don't get? Many seniors are having to forego their retirements because of Bush's policies....Many lost tons in their retirement funds in just the last 5 years of Bush's adminstration. At a time when they were all about to retire on those funds.

The reason you cut the top 2% is simple. These are the top income earners who took full advantage of the best and highest dollar value of those tax cuts. The upper Middle Class averaged about $250 for tax cuts while billionaires averaged in the millions. Get it now?

Those tax cuts resulted in the same mess as with Reagan. Reagan also tried to lower income taxes with his tax reform legislation. But, it only created a larger budget deficit by 1986. That's why tax cuts don't work. They increase the deficit. Check Reagan's reforms on this if you need proof.

@banker-boy and ewent: glad to see some people calling Grover Norquist out for the fool that he is. If the government shuts down, do they take all those surplus George Bush "Mission Accomplished" action figures (dolls) and slap Grover's face on them to hand out at TP rallies? Norquist should get a real job and see how the other half lives for a change.

Balancing the budget is how it should be, but how can we do that when the other half of the equation is not allowed to be touched by the Republicans? They will NOT ALLOW there rich bretheren to pay any taxes!!! MORE LOOPHOLES, LESS TAXES, damn the lowlifes that work for us!!

So what do we cut next when the richest 2% want ANOTHER break on their taxes?

Lets take away Veterens benefits next! After all all they did is win the rich people the freedom to be rich!

How about Social security? They only built the country to the current prosperity level, lets starve them out so we have fewer deadbeats getting a handout!!

How about Medicare? The poor children should have chose RICH people to be born to! Might as well cut off food stamps and education and get them off the handout bandwagon before they start!

It is time the AMERICAN PEOPLE start looking out for those that gave us our freedom, on those whose backs built this nation, and those unfortunate enough not to have a choice yet. STOP LETTING 2% of this nation destroy what is the greatest country in the world!

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me. "

Ewent, you still avoid the fact that the tax cuts for everyone besides the top 2% cost more than 4x more. I am in the top 2%, and I am in favor of letting them expire to help cure the deficit. However, if that is really the objective, then they must expire for all. One thing you say is definitely out of line with the party rhetoric. "You can't allow the cuts to expire for the middle class, because they really need that money and spend it". Well, if they average $250 and that is it, are you honestly telling me that they can't afford to give up $20 a month? Lastly, I can tell you that my taxes were not reduced "by millions". Fun to say though, even if it isn't true.

The tax cuts need to not only expire for EVERY class, but they need to go UP.

1 deduction of 10K per person or dependent, then a strait 40-50% tax on ALL gains. Capital gains, wages, inheritance, ANY gains!!

Ewent you also avoid the fact that Clinton took us into Somalia and Serbia. Ring a bell?

ChiCity,

The problem is so many people do not vote. The republicans and it seems the Tea Party are fighting only for 2-4% of the population while they fight to hurt the middle and lower class, the retirees, the children not yet voting, children yet to be born, anyone that is not rich.

If the people would vote, the Republican party would be abolished. Then we are stuck with the Democrats... no win situation, but I would rather the country goes bankrupt than we defile it and revolt against so few that rule it now.

One day the people will wake up and remember that the US is not owned by the 2-3% that are making the decisions now. That will be a sad day and the end of this nation.

ewent

Rick...Let me assure you that educated people over the age of 55 will never vote for a Tea Party member

I can show you highly educated people, who are over 55 and vote for Tea Party Memebers.

HAHA two wars.. Obama ran on ending said wars... What has he done, kept both going, increased troop levels in one, and started a third..

EVERY Policy that Bush started, Obama continued. The left was insane about the Patroit Act when Bush did it, but you didnt hear anything when Obama extended every provision of the bill..

The upper Middle Class averaged about $250 for tax cuts while billionaires averaged in the millions. Get it now?

OF COURSE they got more back.. THEY HAVE MORE thats how percentages work. Really... and you are trying to call tea party members uneducated. Lets face facts, as long as they increase the taxs someone else you ( like most Americans ) are fine with tax increases Sorry the Rich already pay their fair share.

The Corporate Taxes in this country are some of the highest in the developed world. We are sitting close to 25 percent tax rate for corporations. Canada is at 16 percent, and scheduled to go down to 15 next year.

Tax cuts do not create a larger Deficit.. NOT reducing spending to match said tax decrease creates the deficit. You sound like my Ex wife and Mother.. Ohh look, I saved over 500.00 at the store today.. No you didnt save 500.00 you spent 900.00..... Backasswords.

Ewent, you are nothing more then a democratic apologist, a political hack. You think that because someone disagrees with the democratic party they are some uneducated redneck hillbilly.

i do not know where obama got that all american's agreed to it , as i do not agree nor will i , he need's to say reduce spending period across the board , other than social security and veteran's as they have earned thier share of the American Dream.

Chris Gilliard "Or the 21% bagger rating. By the way the president's rating is 48%."

As I recall, the Congressional rating got to about 9% under Pelosi and a Democratic Congress. Here's the link;

http://uselessjunk.net/showthread.php?242785-No-Typo-Pelosi-amp-Reid-s-Congress-approval-is-9

very nice. once again balancing the economy by taking from the poor and middle class to hand to the rich and big business. I don't see ANYTHING about business entitlements and they are entitlements. Business pays nothing to get them as opposed to social security which is paid into.

The republicans have gotten their way. They've finally managed to destroy social security. They drive the world economy off a cliff and tell us the only way to get back up are cuts and give-a-ways for the rich and big business and oh by the way, no more social security.

I've paid into that stupid fund my entire life and so has my employer and now I get nothing because heaven forbid we should ask the rich to give back some of the money they stole from the people struggling along on the front lines. It isn't enough they screw us in the workplace now they are screwing us in taxes. Nice very nice.

Democracy sucks. I'll take socialism any time. At least I'll know I can quit working one day and stop feeding the machine.

Looks like Michelle is going to be working overtime again sewing more patches on the knees of Uncle Obama's britches!

GOP Plan

Koch, Norguist and ALEC

That is THEIR PLAN

Tax cuts do not create a larger Deficit.. NOT reducing spending to match said tax decrease creates the deficit.

cuting taxes and cutting spending do not increase the deficit, so, using that logic:

increasing taxes and increasing spending do not increase the deficit,

and doing nothing about taxes and doing nothing about spending do not increase the deficit.

sorry jeremy, but your argument is useless and meaningless. of course, what does one expect from someone that claims that a default won't hurt anyone?

So funny when people like MJ say the rich steal from the poor and middle class. It is like a spoiled child, whose allowence is reduced, saying their dad is stealing from them. As for SS, you think the Republicans ruined SS? You know that every administration has taken from SS, right? It is hard to take any extremists seriously, on either side of the aisle. Anyone pinning all the blame to one side is fanatical, and should not be taken seriously.

Danwill, you are right when you say that cutting taxes and spending, or increasing taxes and spending, do not increase the debt. However, doing nothing obviously does increase the debt, because currently we spend more than we take in. So the question becomes, are you in favor of a larger government that spends like crazy, or a smaller government that has restraint? I think those that work hard, earn a good living, would prefer to not pay for those who do not.

chicity,

I think those that work hard, earn a good living, would prefer to not pay for those who do not.

you mean like CEOs that used to earn 40 times what their average employee made, and now earns 400 times what their average employee makes? are those CEOs really working 10 times harder laying off the rest and putting Americans that want to work out on the street?

look at what these "tax cut for the rich" plans are doing, dropping the top tax brackets, while eliminating the "tax loopholes" needed by the middle-class and the upper poor. they are eliminating the home interest deduction! the final assault on the American middle class has begun, and it is being waged by the richest people in the country that want to kill off the middle class, and pay minimum wage to everyone. or better yet, send the jobs overseas to pay a dollar a day

Nothing but rhetoric. Are there bad CEO's? Yes. Are there overpaid CEO's? Yes. I worked for an executie head hunting firm for years, and I can tell you how overly generalized and underinformed you are about C-level job holders. But I know I won't convince you of that, so I won't try.

These "tax cuts for the rich" Bush put in place, were actually tax cuts for everyone, and the cuts for those outside the top 2% reduced revenue by more than 4x what the cuts for the top 2% did. To suggest anything other, is simply intellectually dishonest.

hey, I'm all for eliminating ALL of the Bush tax cuts, along with all deductions outside of house and charity, with a cap on the home interest deduction for loan values over 1 million. does the middle clas have to make some sarifice too? yes, but look at what ryan, the six plan, and all of the others LOWER the top tax rate, and don't touch the rest

danwill

I see no reason that charity shouldn't be eliminated as a deduction, people should give to charity because they want to not because it is good business or tax practice.

ALso on the mortgage deduction, if it is to be capped I would rather see it capped at a loan value of $250,000 o r eliminated for incomes over $150,000

The lower tax rates will still yield more tax revenue with the deductions and loopholes eliminated

Also, lowering the top tax rate is coupled with closing loopholes and deductions that will actually create more tax revenue.

ALso on the mortgage deduction, if it is to be capped I would rather see it capped at a loan value of $250,000 o r eliminated for incomes over $150,000

robert, I'm good there

Yeah, why would they want to mandate responsibility. It would take away their ability to buy more votes.

It would also make it impossible to respond to emergencies down the road.

Toasty, or give aid to towns when there are billions of damage from wildfires, floods and earthquakes. According to Tea Party members, this is supposed to come from "somewhere" "anywhere" but federal funding. Until it's one of their states in dire straits.

Gods forbid it comes from, bum bum BUMM, taxes.

Toasty...I so agree. Just imagine the scenario if Tea Party members got their way and no corporations were taxed. Our roads would be a free for all with their commercial vehicles tearing up the streets. Who is suppose to pay for that? Just imagine how a tax free country would really be if no one had to pay for schools, libraries, museums, the treasure of wonderful historic sites, clean up of our rivers, lakes and oceans.

This is where the hideous idea of autonomous states rights comes in. Each state with its own military, it's own little fifedom and own little monarchy. Yeesh...I can hear the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves at the thought of another monarchy taking over...rofl.

My thoughts exactly! No one is talking about this, but can you imagine a society where the federal government doesn't care for our infrastructure, pay for schools, guard the air we breathe and the food we eat, etc. If everyone doesn't pay their fair share of taxes, where will the money come from to maintain all this? Tea Party candidates will see to it that we can have guns, will ban abortions and eliminate any gay rights. Then what? Is this what it takes to make American a great place for everyone? Not by a long shot. When roads and bridges crumble and the majority of our citizens suffer from asthma and salmonella, maybe we'll take pause and reconsider our choices.

Ewent,

Still buying the myth that corporations pay taxes huh? I guess it is too hard for you to realize that all so called cooperate taxes get passed on to the consumer in the price of the goods or services they provide.

Riddle me this if you can. Who in reality ends up paying every dime of taxes collected?

A: Corporations

B: The Tooth Fairy

C: You and every other American who buys something corporations make.

Lowering the marginal rate to as low as 23% on high earners = rich get richer

Lowering the COLA allowance for Social Security Beneficiaries = poor get poorer

Yep----I still live in the United States of America...but I'm just wondering how in the world this translates into "fiscal responsibility"?

Touchdownplay,

Are you suggesting then that taxes should not be paid? I've seen comments like yours but I've never seen anyone suggest what to do otherwise. What is your answer?

Is it any wonder why Obama wants the debt ceiling raised until after the 2012 elections? Think, people. We need to cut spend, put caps on it, and finally balance our budget. What's the Dem and the gang of six plan? it just kicks it down the road some more.

Obama says we have to be "serious" about spending...he's been saying that how long, now?

From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006:

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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I couldn't agree more!! And yet he has been overseeing the greatest expansion of government and debt spending ever! STOP THE SPENDING AND LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS LIKE YOU LECTURE US TO DO!!

1,500,000,000,000. Our YEARLY deficit under the Big 0.

If we rolled back the Obama tax rates - yes, they are now his - on the "rich" that YEARLY deficit becomes 1,420,000,000,000.

If we roll back all the Obama tax rates, that number becomes 1,100,000,000,000.

Who in their right mind sees this as a sustainable practice? Not even Ewent can claim we can sustain this kind of deficit.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

vwterry,

Oh lets see. The Fair Tax. Yes you would be paying alot of Federal Sales Tax. But those taxes are hidden in the price of thins already. Prices for the things would drop because there would not be taxes hidden in the price.

I'm afraid that most Americans won't embrace it because then they will actually see how much of their money actually is confiscated to support our bloated Government.

Did you ever wonder how tax is hidden in the price you pay now for something like television? I bet it would give you a rash if you knew. Taxed from the beginning raw material producers to the assembly plant, to the stores and at the stores when they make a profit. I'm guessing Best Buy is a evil corporation.

What would you suggest?

By the way Obama can not and will not ever make any meaningful cuts to social programs. It would ruin the Democrats vote buying scheme if they stopped paying for votes with government handouts.

Great idea, except it won't work. How would these taxes be collected, how would you keep from having massive tax evasion by way of cash sales and bartering? The cost of enforcement would be astronomical. Additionally, as with most flat tax and fair tax ideas, the wealthy would pay less as a percentage of there wealth than, say, the middle class.

Have you really looked into it? I mean just go to fairtax.org and read about it. They are not hiding anything unlike the tax system we have now. But if you don't like that how about no taxes on business at all? You seem smart enough to question the system we have now. If there was no tax on businesses you at least know how much of YOUR money they take from you. I seem to get that you understand the price you pay at the store or the gas pump is inflated because of how we tax business. All I'm saying is we are paying all of the so called corporate taxes alread when we buy stuff. Are you against letting the people know how bad we are getting screwed as consumers?I can say it all day long but over half of Americans don't even know how much Uncle Sam takes because it is hidden in the price of goods and services. But if you like to be oblivious to how much they take then I can't really change any minds can I?

Peace.

By the way. Do you really believe that most Americans will barter? can they rally get what they want or need from their neighbor or Sam down the street? I havent seen anyone bartering toilet paper for berr yet. I guess it could happen but not on the scale you suggest. At least not musch more than is happening now with garage sales. By the way I don't thing garage sales or used cars or anything that was taxed once should be takes again. Something about double and triple taxation bothers me.

Sorry about the fat fingers. I never took a typing class but I do ok. I know how freaked out folks get on the Vine about proper spelling and punctuation. LOL

Pushing the Trojan horse version of the Ryan bill that is DOA is not passing the ball. The republicans were asked to also include revenue increase, which they will not add so the ball is still in their court. Talks from the top say they do agree on many of the caps and cuts but where is the revenue? Where is the solvency?

Deebo...That's what makes no sense on the part of Republicans. How can anyone pay bills if there's not enough money coming in to the Treasury? So, if Republicans won't increase revenues by closing corporate loopholes and end tax credits for the highest income earners from whence the highest taxes come, how do they expect to reduce the deficit?

Their way is to cut programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid thinking that will infuse the treasury with revenues. It won't. If they do this unemployment will increase and the result will be no payroll deductions for SS or other programs coming in that they have been using as a bandaid to pay off military and other debts.

ewent

the result will be no payroll deductions for SS or other programs coming in that they have been using as a bandaid to pay off military and other debts.

Or to claim a budget surplus like in the Clinton years.

Rick...Check the GAO figures....Clinton left a $3 trillion surplus for government operations. Now...explain please...why didn't Bush? After all, Bush was a Harvard MBA wasn't he? Shouldn't a highly educated Harvard Master of Business Administration see all of the red flags by 2004? He must have. Why else did he hand businesses millions to hire and create jobs. According to all government records only 1% who took that funding actually hired or created jobs. So...shouldn't we send those companies a bill for the money they didn't use for that purpose?

Bush saw a chance to reduce taxes and create more loopholes so he took it! Now the Republicans are fighting tooth and toenail to keep those cuts even though this nation cannot afford them anymore!!

Lets CUT from what was always there instead of taking back what was given when we had excess cash due to prosperity!!! The poor and middle class will not mind!!

That is pure BS ewent. If Clinton had a 3 trillion surplus he could have paid down the national debt to something like 1 trillion dollars. Statements like that is why no one believes you.

Clinton had a BUDGET surplus. That meant NO DEFICIT. If the budget had stayed at Clinton levels then the DEBT would have been reduced and we would not have needed to borrow more money. Instead GW and his boys gave huge tax breaks to millionaires, huge tax subsidies to corporations, started two wars, and passed a huge giveaway to Big Pharma. The surplus was gone within two years, and they started borrowing more money to pay for all the spending. Then they deregulated the finance industry and the big banks crashed the economy. In the meantime, the billionaires and big corporations grabbed all the money, and the middle class lost their 401k's and pensions. Now the country needs some of that money it handed over to the billionaires and corporations, and they don't want to give any of it back.

hat's not really trueHeartlight3 "Clinton had a BUDGET surplus. That meant NO DEFICIT. If the budget had stayed at Clinton levels then the DEBT would have been reduced"

Actually, that's not true. There was not a single year of Clinton's 'Surpluses' that we actually reduced the debt - even by one penny. In every year of Clinton's Presidency, including the 'surplus' years, the debt went up by $10s of Billions during those years.

hat's not really trueHeartlight3 "Clinton had a BUDGET surplus. That meant NO DEFICIT. If the budget had stayed at Clinton levels then the DEBT would have been reduced"

There was not a single year of Clinton's 'Surpluses' that we actually reduced the debt - even by one penny. In every year of Clinton's Presidency, including the 'surplus' years, the debt went up by $10s of Billions or more during each of those years.

During the 8 years of Clinton the debt went up $1.6 trillion dollars. The last 2 Clinton years there was a balanced budget for just those 2 years. He left office with $250 billion in the coffers. Get over the myth that Clinton paid down the Natl debt - it didn't happen. Those last 2 Clinton years where we had a balanced budget were forced on him by a Republican House & Senate. Look it up - Google is not that hard to use.

Clinton left a $3 trillion surplus for government operations.

That is pure fantasy. But during Clinton'as tenure the debt increased at a relatively low level. Notice I said during his tenure, not "under". Clinton was forced to keep spending in check by the republicans. There was also the technology boom. All the philandering hero of the left did was sign the budgets and stay the hell out of the way. He tried to spend but was rebuffed after '94 and quickly moved to the center. Obama's doing the same but it won't work for him. No technology boom.

Spending must be cut with a great big ax.

black belt, thanks for that explanation. Ewent's post would mislead people to think the debt was paid off by Clinton. The difference between surplus and national debt is important to understand.

The national deficit has increased every single year since 1969. So it doesn't matter what "Surplus" some creative accounting showed during the Clinton administration, the fact still remains the national debt increased every year Clinton was in office, just like it has since 1969. Since 1940 the national debt has only decreased during 6 different years. 1969, 1957, 1956, 1951, 1948, 1947.

Pushing the Trojan horse version of the Ryan bill that is DOA is not passing the ball.

Yes it is. Becuase almost every peice of new legislation the house and senate send to each other is voted down and then after that, the senate and house can take the bill to committee add their wish list to it remove the stuff they don't want and pass it on the floor, then both the house and senate get together in committee hash out an acceptable bill and send to the house and senate for passage. That's exactly how legislation is passed -- the Republicans will make the first step... now if the democrats wanted to they could pass something in the senate and send it to congress but they are too busy with golfing and TV interviews it seems to get anything done.

Now please don't consider my comment a support of the Republican plan, because it isn't, but at this point they seem to be the only people willing to WALK the WALK, Reed and President Obama have lots to say but neither have drafted legislation concerning the debt and until they do, they are just talking the talk.

No, it isn't what will happen if the GOP vote this down, then they will submitt their, that will not pass or it will get vetoed.

Then the GOP will be the ones holding the ball just like in 2010 and the "Jobs"

It will backfire on them, The majority of the people are really getting fed up with the GOP BS.

To those who think the republicans were responsible for President's balanced budgets:

Clinton balanced the budget by firmly and surely holding the republicans faces to the ground until they sent him a budget he approved of by using the veto power he controlled. As soon as Clinton left office and bush moved in the republicans were free to irresponsibly borrow, spend and don't pay back like only they can do so well.

President Clinton balanced the budget through veto power, not the republicans.

This link is to a PDF file:

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rconley/Clintonvetoespaper.pdf

Emphasis (bolding) is mine:

President William Jefferson Clinton did not set out to master Congress by the explicit or implicit use of the veto power. He cast not a single veto in the 103rd Congress (1993-94). However, the dramatic return of divided government following the elections of 1994, and Republicans' continued control of both chambers of Congress through the end of his second term, forced the president to adapt his legislative presidency to a radically altered political context. Clinton vetoed thirty-five bills (excluding pocket vetoes and line-item vetoes) from 1995-2000. Republican leaders challenged eleven of the thirty-five vetoes in one or the other chamber but managed to override the president only once. Further, Clinton relied on the implied use of the veto— veto threats— on over 140 bills, and he was generally successful in halting the Republicans' agenda or wresting policy concessions from the majority leadership.

So Clinton through the use of the veto was able to halt the republican agenda of spending like drunken sailors and produce a balanced budget in spite of, not because of a republican majority in Congress.

And for those who fly in the face of reality and continue to deny there was a surplus, here is President George Bush himself admitting there was a surplus:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010224.html

Emphasis (bolding) is mine:

Finally, along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one out of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place. A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back.

President Clinton left the nation on the path of fiscal responsibilty and on the road to paying off our debt and the republicans failed and reckless policies policies destroyed all that we as a nation had going for us.

ugh, I hate the little amount of time you are allowed to edit your post.

The first line of my post @6.15 should read:

To those who think the republicans were responsible for President Clinton's balanced budgets:

And the last line should only have the policies in it once.

The GOP's real agenda here is to bring the economy and the country to it's knees and then it will look bad for dems and the GOP will be able to pick up some seats (because of ignorant voters) then they can dismantle the government as we know it.

Problem is Democrats are raising a ton more money than the GOP. Seems maybe the American voters are waking up to find they don't want to do away with SS, medicare and medicaid...........

So far all the ignorant voters have been voting democrat and the democrats intend to keep the ignorant by keeping them on welfare which does more than anything to keep them from getting a decent education. Lyndon Johnson said the Great Society was an investment in our country's future. The dems after him have screwed up that vision big time.

Any budget can be balanced purely with spending cuts, IF those responsible for planning and passing the budget are willing to make the tough choices and decision on prioritizing what is needed and what is not! But our elected leaders have proven many times over, that they don't WANT to make those tough decisions! Federal spending has risen from 21% to 25% of GDP in the last 3 years. Part of that is due to the recession, but is mostly due to large increases in federal spending (much faster than inflation).

Only if they take this selfish bunch of young snot nosed twerps with them. This is a generation that is so badly overindulged they can't an ass from their elbows on their best day of the week.

I don't quite know what you were trying to say ewent, but I agree with your first sentiment and I am in that group. I have worked hard my entire life and look at those getting ready to enter the job hunt. They are so lazy and "entitled" it makes me sick! I am not against basic rights, but I am against assuming that basic includes a free education, computer, apartment, food, and a cell phone to go with it!.

ewent,

I have read your rants for a long time ...... and mostly what I see is unleashed anger with references to "bully boys" or some such nonsense. If you want to take a position on a political article ......... then please try to stay focused. You appear to have some personal issues that are totally inappropriate.

You are, however, quite adept at playing "class warfare" ........ perhaps you should be on Obama's payroll.

The young republicans in congress do not have a clue what a depression is like. They apparently are also out of touch with ordinary Americans and how hard it is to make ends meet since we dont get wage increases anymore. That stopped years ago with the election of Ronald Reagan and has gotten further out of hand by all the subsidies (tax cuts) that businesses have gotten since. We have young selfish people elected...who now what to take away medicare (which is run CHEAPER than ANY private could do it...EVEN with the waste of government). WE paid for medicare. WE paid for social security. So MANY people lost their pensions through mismanaged businesess and NOW have to depend on social security and medicare. None of them care...NONE of them. And I cant believe the democrats brought up cuts to those programs. They may FEEL pressured into those decisions but I can tell you it is not a SMART one to make. I will NOT give any more money to democrats. I would NEVER vote republican. So now, I am looking for a TRUE independent to run with NO party affiliations. Its time for a revolution in THIS country. As a member of the middle class, I am sick and tired of BOTH parties stealing every dime we have and shoving us into poverty. And rupert murdoch should be arrested for murder. I am SO disappointed that the democrats are caving into the mad dog teabaggers

This is a GOP plan. Every one knows the GOP also went on a spending spree, hence the 2006 mid terms. Did they learn a lesson? Maybe, but the dems just don't care about the country, just what can we spend to get your vote.

Nick while most of us agree that Jr wasnt the sharpest tool in the box..... Mr Obama Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid have double down on spending. It has the look of little children who know they are doing wrong, but they are going to do it until they get told not too!

what do you think the GOP was doing for 8 years?

It's different when they do it. Notice how they all suddenly became Peace Chickenhawks and put the brakes on spending AFTER Bush left office?

coach quirky,

Do you want to face the reality of NOW, look ahead to FUTURE problems ....... or merely keep talking about the PAST ....... and keep your head in the sand ?

Fiscal reality is not political. Our country is up to its proverbial ass in debt !!!

Seriously, we've seen what happens when the Teapublicans get to control the economy. They spend money like a pimp with a week to live.

I haven't seen that from the Tea Party. I have seen it from some republicans after the democrats tear down the gains the republicans made.

Jim...The future? don't make me laugh. These Jr. GOP geniuses want to plunk a few keys on a keyboard and be done with their work for the day. The future is now. You worry first about the present and then the future. Typical assbackward thinking of the junior generation.

Sorry. I never worry about the future because I expect the young dungheads to step up to the plate like the Boomers had to do.

Funny how when it's their turn their answer is to exterminate anything or anyone that costs them a dime.

Well kinda hard to spend when the debt ceiling is hit. Hmm but what were they spending that money on? Social Security, Medicare, millions of employee's paychecks, the National Park system, the military...the list goes on and on. Try thinking next time before you post.

Yeah but Roscoe, didn't you read that article written today about what it means to be poor in the US? Air conditioning, 2 flat screens, Xbox... I can't wait for Libs to tell me that isn't true. I volunteer with a charity in Chicago that works with inner city kids. They all have ipods, Xbox, new Nike shoes... Guess what? In order to qualify for the charity I work with, you have to be on free and reduced lunch. I don't blame the kids, they don't know better. I am sick and tired of subsidizing "poor" people's lifestyles. It's almost like AC, Xbox, etc. are now inalienable rights.

Fiscal reality is political when the GOP calls the shots. Having the GOP involved in any budget is like the fox guarding the hen house. Haven't they done enough damage to the United States?

Dem spending spree? The effects on the deficit for stimulus and bailouts only affects the deficit for the near term, while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and tax cuts enacted under Bush and economic downturn are responsible for the lions share. Bush's final budget had more than 1 trillion deficit and that was before the financial meltdown. It's not that spending has increased so much over the past 2 years, the issue is that REVENUE has decreased dramatically and spending levels haven't adjusted (Rep fight tax cut repeal and Dems fight entitlement cuts)

Let's not split hairs here, Rick. The "Tea Parties" are just a re-branding of the republican party's conservative base. They aren't new, and thus are the same republicans you spoke of.

I wonder why the Republicans fight so hard to extend the bush era tax cuts? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire — or extending some portions while fully offsetting their cost — would reduce deficits by $3.8 trillion over the next decade. That consists of $2.5 trillion from not extending the tax cuts themselves, about $650 billion from an interaction with continued AMT relief, and another $650 billion in debt-service savings. Those cuts contribute more to the 2019 projected deficit than the wars, economic downturn effect, and stimulus / bailout COMBINED

Toone, you believe that revenues have fallen dramatically? Funny, I bet you are now going to say, "as a percent of GDP they have fallen". In gross terms, they have not fallen, they have increased.

I am all for letting the Bush cuts expire, for everyone. The Democratic party claims to be serious about debt reduction, but then takes all cuts other than the top 2% off the table. It is pure politics. It should also be noted that the Republicans are fighting to keep all the tax cuts in place, not just the top 2%. It just so happens that the Dems agree on the other 98%.

Also, how do you account for the fact that immediately following the Bush tax cuts, revenues actually increased?

@ ewent #9.8,

As usual, your rant makes little sense. I was simply pointing out the reality that the ongoing, tired, laborious excuse of blaming Bush is really about exhausted ..... and falling back to this libbie talking point does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help our country solve its CURRENT fiscal problems.

By the way, thanks for referring to me as a junior GOP genius, but my age pretty well proves you don't know what you are talking about .......... yet again !

Psst !!!!!! I never had an allowance ......... I learned to work at an early age !!!

The largest deficit that Bush had was $450 billion and that included the wars that you liberals try to claim were off the books the entire time. 0bama in 1 year quadruples the deficit that Bush had and we have 3 years of 0bama spending to prove it. Cut, Cap and balance is the only way we are going to get those in DC to stop the spending madness. 1 Term 0bama will be gone on Jan 20 1013 and we have to deal with his built in recession that already kicks in due to all the tax increases that are already passed. You think this year is tough - wait until we have to undo the spending and taxes that 1 Term 0bama has kicked down the road till 2013.

We're in a fiscal mess? Wow! Thanks DIM, I mean Jim since we're busting on screen names too. Who do you think started that ball of turd rolling? Oh let me guess Bill Clinton right? There I go bringing up history again. I know its painful but reality should be embraced not revised.

PS: There isn't anything in Washington that ISN'T political. There is the way things are and the way things ought to be. You tell me what's been taking precedence?

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire. I say let them. Reform the IRS to make taxes more simple and easy to understand, and you'll also make it harder to hide money or skip out on paying your fair share. Also, lower corporate taxes to bring more jobs back here from overseas, but at the same time close tax loopholes for oil companies and the like or for those people hiding their money in off-shore accounts. How about capping corporate CEO bonuses? Surely a bonus of 1 million dollars is sufficient as opposed the obscene amounts that they make now. How many freakin' houses and cars and vacation homes to you need Daddy Warbucks? Oh yeah, what about the money that banks are sitting on that WE loaned them to keep their asses from default after playing fast and loose on Wall Street? If they were actually lending that money out instead of hoarding it, then more small businesses could get the loans that they need and get back into the driving seat of this economy, which would lead to more jobs and allow people to buy homes or build them, which in turn would lead to more construction and more services, which leads right back to more jobs. This economy was tanking when Obama took over and it has shown slow, but steady progress despite Tea-publicans working diligently at every turn to block Obama, even at the exspense of the recovery of the American dream. If a politician puts his party ideology over the well-being of his constituants, then he is showing that he doesn't care about doing the people's work in Washington...only about money and staying in power. Politics is the art of compromise. No one can please all of the people all of the time. We have to discuss our problems, identify what needs to be done for the good of all, and accept that somethings we want have to be put on hold to for the benefit of all.

American politics is like a family. The Mom and the Dad are like the two dominant political parties and the children are like the American people. Sure, sometimes we tell our kids what to do because it's for their own good (take out the trash, feed the dog, do your homework, be home by 7:00, etc). But sometimes, the Mom wants a new kitchen and the Dad wants a new car, but the kids really need braces or sports equipment or a tutor or private piano lessons...whatever. The Mom and the Dad have to sit down at the dining room table and look at their finances and see what can be done. All to often, there isn't enough money for everything. (That's the reality of the AVERAGE American, not the Corporate CEOs who get $10's Millions of dollars at the stroke of a pen. ) The real nuts and bolts of this nation are the everyday people who have to make tough choices for the benefit of the whole family and the promise of a better future for their children, even if it's at their own expense. Mom doesn't get that new kitchen (single-payer health care, increased student loans, etc.) and Dad doesn't get that new car (billion dollar weapons system, lower taxes for wealthy, etc.), but little Johnny and Jenny can get braces or new sports gear or football camp or private piano lessons and maybe even some money for college and it can only benefit the whole family (new home construction, small business loans, middle class tax cuts, a strong economy, soaring DOW average, etc). This way when little Johnny and Jenny grow up and go to college they can have a better life for themselves and make their parents proud.

C'mon Mom and Dad. Do what's best for the Family!

ADMIN:The Dems are against this becuase it will STOP the spending spree.

I assume you mean the republican spending spree? They are the last ones to go on a spending spree, and they are the ones that won't cut the oil industry subsidies.

The largest deficit that Bush had was $450 billion and that included the wars that you liberals try to claim were off the books the entire time.

Bull@!$%# - Bush's last budget was $1.3 trillion, which was HIGHER than Obama's first one.

quirkster,

There is a certain "reality" to true and proper ACCOUNTING. Our country is in a fiscal mess and we must make serious spending cuts to ADJUST and LIVE within our income. Obama may desire to continue playing the political game, but fiscal reality is there .......... we are up to our proverbial butts in debt ........ and it keeps rising. Republicans have at least recognized that a REAL PROBLEM EXISTS and are trying to do something to fix it.

Obama wants to kick the can down the road, put another band aid on, keep spending, and hope real hard that the economy turns around so HE CAN BE RE-ELECTED !!! That is the real goal important to him !!!!!

Long-term solutions must start now with serious spending cuts. Obama will commit NOTHING to writing.

Bill C-645784

The largest deficit that Bush had was $450 billion and that included the wars that you liberals try to claim were off the books the entire time.

Bull@!$%# - Bush's last budget was $1.3 trillion, which was HIGHER than Obama's first one

Also don't forget GW left us with a 11 trillion dollar deficit, ya don't hear the gop talking about that thou do we?