Obama can't take the heat and he should get out of the kitchen. He can't lead. He can't develop a coalition even with his own party. This is the worst mistake America has ever done -- elect this man president. He is childish. He is a liar. He breaks deals and promises. He is a cry baby. This is awful.

http://floppingaces.net/2011/07/22/debt-ceiling-talks-break-down-again-obama-tax-hikes-not-some-wild-eyed-socialist-position/

You can't Lower corperate taxes and expect to pay off the debt. Sorry but even grade school kids know how to do simple math. 2+2=4, but in Republican math its corperate taxes 2-1=2 and add that to individual taxes 2-1=2 they still come up with 2+2=4 instead of what every other american would come up with 1+1=2 not 4. Simple equasion, (2-1)+(2-1)=2 not 4. Republicans, go back to the schools your cutting funding to and learn math again.

The Party of No really is the Party of No.

Mr. Obama is giving away the farm and the Party of No is still unhappy.

Ben, the proboem isn't the democrats, it is the republicans!!! The president has put medicaire and social security, on the table. The republicans in the house refuse to compromise, on any tax increases because they signed their 6th grade Grover Norquist tax pledge. It is the republicans who are continually walking away, and Boehner did it again last night; must have been getting into his cocktail hour.

Typical Democratic party behavior. Use fear of stopping S.S. checks, military, disability etc...BUT don't discuss the BILLIONS of foreign aid issued that apparently would still go out. Not outrage from AARP because they are in the lap of President Obama.

Cut spending & the debt doesn't need raised at all.

How many people want their kids, grand kids & great grand kids to pay for what we cannot do?''Live within our means is the answer.

I love how the Democrats are using the words "raise revenue" in place of raise taxes. The media will not question O'Bummer..why is that?

I love how they say "slow the rate of SS cost of living". Hell, there has been NO cost of living for at least two years now because of the formula used to determine that rate, yet our cost of living has gone up tremendously each of those years......food, fuel, medical, etc.

Ben, it was the end of the day and he was already ending the session before he got up and walked away, not like Cantor, who just plain got up in the middle of a meeting and walked out.

Ben, those revenue increases where the result of Democrats cutting back across the board which creates revenue, it was not because Republicans increased taxes on the rich. What part of Rich need to be taxed more that you don't get??????

The Shrimp off the Treadmill Plan

(U.S. economic recovery, deficit/debt reduction plan)

-Fully open up drilling of U.S. oil and natural gas, issuing leases and permits

-Rebuild all U.S. roads and bridges that are old and falling apart

-Legalize ... etc, etc., etc.

And, Santa ... I would also like ...

Sitting in that oval office isn't quite what one might think it should be. Aug. 2 will be the least of our worries should our bond rating drop. Most folks who aren't investors can't comprehend how catastrophic that would be. Trillions in added interest instantly, not 10 years down the line, right now today. It truly would be the end of it all. We could go to AA or maybe even A. It would not be good for anyone. We'll get it straightened out, but it has to be big enough to mean something.

-lower all government salaries by 10%

For those making over $100K annually is an idea I could support. Lots and lots of government employees work hard, yet aren't raking in big bucks.

Problem is massive overspending and not enough tax. Too much foreign wars and military. To many tax loopholes, To many coperate handouts,GE,Boeing, Oil etc. Medicade is a bad deal but Social Security must be left alone because we ALL pain for it so it isn't anymore entitlement than a 402-K. Renew Glass-seagal and Cancell NAFTA. Chew on those!

Bobl,

Have you ever heard of economic shock therapy? It is what is PROVEN to work when a government gets in over it's head like ours. Borrowing and printing more money to continue running the government has ALWAYS resulted in a CATASTROPHE throughout the history of the world. You definitely DO NOT raise taxes at a time like this.

If you go to the doctor for a problem, and he tells you what works ---- you do it, right? (if you are "sane") You don't go off and do what you know will worsen the problem. A fine example of this is Puerto Rico. Look at what they have been able to accomplish in the last few years, by making the CORRECT decisions.

And Obama said that "before we stop funding clean energy, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don't get. Before we cut medical research, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries."

And before we ask anyone for money, Congress should take a cut in pay and benefits!

What correct decisions? They are in just as bad financial straits today as the rest of the world. Talk to some of the people who live there and see if their government has improved life there. I think you would find that PR is NOT an example to offer. Businesses have left the territory because of some of those new policies.....Diagio Captain Morgan is just one example.

Absolutely, we need to cut spending AND to raise taxes. We've had too many expenses unpaid for, most recently the tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and the Medicare prescription plan. Let's start by introducing a new tax to pay for these expenses, then we can talk about balancing current budgets. To all of you deficit hawks: stop pretending that Obama started the deficit and before him everything was fine. Where were you when Bush "borrowed and spent", huh?

And don't tell me that you "don't raise taxes at the times like these" (i.e. with a troubled economy) because you gonna hear that "you don't cut spending at the times like these"! When neither the consumer nor the companies are spending, the government spending is the only thing that keeps the demand and prevents the economy from going down the drain. Our biggest problem right now is not the deficit, it's the economy.

You can't fix the economy by cutting taxes. Rich people do not "create jobs" when they have more money. They "create jobs" when there is the demand for products and right now the demand is withering because the middle class is squeezed. If we wand to revive the economy we need to support the middle class and the unemployed, not the rich. Just tell me, how is cutting college tuition grants or Medicare payments to the poor and elderly going to increase the demand? Do you realize that cutting government spending means cutting many government jobs and thus increasing unemployment and further depressing demand? How is that good for the economy?

You guys want to kill this economy! I'll give you one thing, though. Your "starve the beast" plan has worked. For years you've been reducing the revenues of the government (i.e. cutting taxes), without a visible benefit to the economy I might add, with the hope of creating a crisis like this. Now you have your goal in sights: get rid of all the safety nets that were put in place over the years. Fine, just admit that it is all politically and ideologically motivated and has nothing to do with the economy. You are willing to sacrifice our economical well-being for you ideological goals.

Barry-Moore,

I'm sure you've heard the story of the water pails vs. the water piping system. Two guys went to a distant land with their families. Once there, they went seperate ways and built their own cities. One guy decided to carry his families' water each day in pails from the nearby water supply. The other decided to start building a water piping system instead of carrying the pails each day.

For a while the guy carrying the pails each day would try to tell the other guy, "Hey, what are you doing? Why don't you carry the pails like me and stop suffering for a lack of water? You are wasting your time with that system."

After the other guy finished the water piping system, the water flowed easily from the water supply to the whole city, without any effort at all. After the guy who had been carrying the pails saw this, he realized what a great idea this had been all along and saw how much better this made the city. He saw how many more thousands of times over the amount of water that freely came into the other guy's city.

We as a nation already have our water piping system, it is just broken, and we have reverted back to carrying pails. Yes people are still getting their water now, but it will not work for much longer. We have become a big nation, and need our water piping system fixed. Then we can easily supply the water to our people and continue to grow as a nation.

The way you solve the problem is that you fix the water piping system, so that the water flows freely into the city again.

What astounds me in this debate is that the repubs are being labled as the radicals. How can they be so inept at getting the message across? David, you maintain we should just have raised taxes? If the Big 0 had rolled back the entire Bush "tax cuts" the deficit THIS YEAR would have only been 1,100,000,000,000. Only. This is a spending problem, and the real radical position is that we can contiue to spend at these levels. We couldn't raise taxes high enough to sustain this.

The problem I see with the "Grand Deal" idea is that it doesn't cut current spending enough. We have to cut now! Across the board cuts of 4% or 5%, not a freeze at current levels. No wonder 0 supports the "big" deal - the repubs cave on taxes now but get cuts later - like after 0 leaves office. He gets to claim he "cut" spending, when in actuality he gets to continue his radical spending. What idiots!

Our tax code does need to be reformed. No system that is what, 15,000 pages?, can be anything like fair. No loopholes for anyone, and extremely low rates - with, perhaps 4 brackets. But not until we've got real spending cuts.

EVERY person that has signed Grover's Pledge to not raise taxes should be thrown out of their office immediately!!!!

Since when do our elected officials show more support for a citizen than our president? They are showing more support for their party and chosen citizens than they do our great country.

Our Senators and Congress people should be pledging their loyalty to the voters and NOT to any individual party. WE ARE AMERICANS and if we divide into 2 parties that can never compromise we are all bound to fall.

Enough with the finger pointing and name calling. The Government needs to either do their jobs and keep paying the bills or be thrown out, every single one of them!

"Pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress & senate are ineligible for reelection.”

Sorry gordo, this is not about spending money, it is about paying for the money that has already been spent by past Congresses. It is about using Americas good will to force policy. It is about a small group of individuals holding the American economy hostage. If they believe their position is what the American public truly wants, then simply raise the debt limit so we can pay our bills and use the clout of the American people to get their way. There will be an election in 2012 where they will be able to vote enough people into office that believe as they do and they can have their way. Of course they, you, and me know that will never happen and holding these negotiations hostage is their last gasp. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

And away we go........The blame game all over again. The deal is folks this ain't the first time.

I do believe the word is "accountability," of which we can all take our fair share. We are the ones who voted these idiots into office. In too many cases, voted them in over and over again.

It is blatently clear that they are unable to do their job. They do not know how to solve the problems that they, in large part, created.

Has that ever happened to you? You get into doing something and realize that you are in it over your head. "Darn, I really should have called a plumber, I don't know how to repair this after all and it seems I do not have the right tools for the job." A mundane example? Perhaps, but you all get the drift. A potential solution is to call the plumber and pay for the job to be done or cut the water off and wait for it to fix itself; in short "quit." But wait. What was my original goal? To repair the pipe to where it is as good, if not better, than it was before it broke. So I seek out the knowledge. In days past a trip to the library and leafing through a mess of books on plumbing. Today, a visit to Google and read and look for diagrams on my situation. Several sites from my Google Search Engine quest show me that there is a part available that will join pipe A to pipe B. And sure nuff there is a tool, called a "faucet wrench," that will enable me to remove the broken piece and replace it. Off to the plumbing supply house for the supplies and perhaps a littler advise from a person who knows more about it than I.

Is it just possible that these people who were voted into office do not know how to fix the problem? Could it also be that they are unwilling to admit that they don't know how? In over their heads and unwilling to search out a solution?

As a citizen of my state I voted into office one senator and one congressman, or I voted for the person who lost. Either way, the people who represent me are not doing their job. If he is unable to do it he should say so and quit or he should study and learn a solution. The "pipe" is broken and the options are obvious. This time the water has been left on and a flood is pending; the water is already waist high. When the water level is over my head what options do I have then?

cele 2000:

You wrote: "David, you maintain we should just have raised taxes?"

If you are going to respond to my post - read ALL of it. All you had to do was read the first sentence, second paragraph: "Taxes must be raised and spending must be cut."

There is NO other way to balance the budget. None, nada, zip, zero. nolaj23 laid it out perfectly. The rich are not investing in the U.S. It doesn't matter why for purposes of this discussion - the indisputable fact is that they are not investing here.

There is a point at which one stops trying to fight the internal moral battle. As Americans, we generally find it distasteful to take money from someone simply because he has money to take. However, it is blindingly clear that there is so much wealth concentrated at the top that only the most blinded ideologue will conclude that raising rates on the wealthiest is going to hurt them. They have enough to survive and survive in incredible comfort and opulence.

Raise taxes, cut spending, tighten up on efficiency, and punish fraud severely. That's the recipe for success. It's the ONLY recipe.

Atlas, the simplest answer to your questions is the ones with the most to loose, should pay the most to keep it. Do you really believe someone that is trying to survive on minimum wage is going to need a government to protect their interest.

ir12, unfortunately you avoided every question and replied with a question of your own. Until each of us can answer these simple questions our country will remain at an impasse.

Atlas, you have decided in the person you sent to congress to make the decisions for you. Your implied consent is the fact you still live here. You are free to convince others to your way of thinking or to leave the country any time you wish. Too simple.

David, and don't forget that a lot of that fraud (and maybe MOST of it) is being committed by the wealthy....e.g. FL's current governor who should have been put in jail for the fraud rather than elected governor.

Atlaswillshrug,

Your rhetoric shows you lack any understanding of the services you receive from the government both federal and state and what those costs are.

Furthermore, it IS apparent you do not know where the funding of these programs and services come from other than to say "taxes".

Before spouting off again please do some research and dig a little deeper than your f#ckin fox news.

Wealthy is having more than yours, your children and your children children's lifetime worth.

Wealthy is wanting more and more but not paying those that earned you the money in the first place.

Wealthy has no honor to God, others or often, to themselves... only to the collection and appreciation of more money.

Wealthy as opposed to well off.

Well off recognizes their responsibility to others (society) because they were blessed.

Wealthy make 93% of the nation's TOTAL income

@JayCFO,

Your rhetoric shows that you lack any understanding of the liberties that you enjoy and the tension that always exists between liberty and government.

The wealthy did what was necessary to create their wealth. It was not handed to them. They risked their capital and in most cases worked extremely hard to create their wealth. It is not yours or the government's to redistribute.

We live in America, where free enterprise is a birthright and for that we are the envy of the world. You are free to participate and create your own wealth. Please do! The only people who will resent you for it are small, small people who didn't have the courage to pursue it for themselves.

Nothing will happen.

@nola,

People that receive 90% of the wealth generated in this country should pay 90% of the taxes. Now they pay only about 50%. That's not fair.

Where are you getting those stats? All the stats I see show that the top ten percent pay 90% of all income taxes. However, I agree with the premise. By taxing everyone at 10% with no deductions, the wealthy would pay more and the poor would pay some. That is fair share.

The government does not "confiscate" anything.

Do I voluntarily pay income taxes or do I do so under the threat of prison, fines, etc?

After all you are protected by the military,

Does the military protect us by being in 135 countries of the world? Wouldn't a defensive, non-aggressive policy be much less expensive and equally effective? But yes, the military is a proper function of the government and willingly would pay.

rely on the police and firefighters, drive on roads, visit national parks, want to drink clean water,

All state and local responsibilities, except for national parks, but state parks are fine.

and would hope someone find cure for cancer

This will be done by a private individual seeking financial reward.

The government pays for all that from your taxes. And of course you would hope not to spend you final years in poverty just because your health isn't what it used to be and medical expenses have eaten up your savings. Social Security and Medicare come in handy...

A safety net is fine, but an everyone qualifies program is not sustainable. If I were allowed to apply the 6.2% of mandatory SS deductions and that of my employer to my 401k, my return at even 3% earnings would be 25% higher than what I would receive under SS.

@Jay,

I asked simple questions; you replied with insults. Have a wonderful day. I hope your hate does not consume you.

It has been said that a house divided cannot stand, well folks you are all about to see it first hand. You can blame the GOP or you can blame the dems still doesnt make it go away. According to dems tax cuts for the wealthy have gotten us here and according to GOP spending. Now there is validity to both arguements but theu are just taken to extremes. The people who pay not tax or corporations that pay not tax should indeed shoulder some of the burden but economics are simple if you make a company pay more then they charge more not some of the time ALL of the time. Big gov is a major problem and overspending is completely out of control why would any reasonable adult want to give more money to an institution that has already shown a failure to maintain fiscal responsibility? You show me that you can spend within your means while attempting to pay off debt then I may be more understandable aboiut paying additional tax. Corporations will only increase our workforce when it is advantageous to do so. Now it is cheaper to hire it done in a foreign country. American workers have gotten to the point that they believe that they should be ENTITLED to more that someone else and should start at the top range in pay without having to work hard to get their. I have kids and see this mentality everyday from them. Someone mentioned stopping NAFTA I like that idea along with tarrifs designed to make it harder for American and foreign companies to profit off foreign labor. plus the tarrifs will help us reduce the deficit. But still spending HAS to be reduced foreign spending mitlitary spending and yes entitlement spending not for elderly people or people unable to work but for people to lazy to find work or simply taking advantage of the system. Unemployment benefits need to run out sooner which will make people more inclined to finding a job. They are out there but most people dont want to take them or are not qualified for them. I was laid off over a year ago and never filed for unemployment I took a lesser job and worked harder untill I found something better but I hear it all the time I would rather sit on unemployment than shovel dirt well therein lies your problem Americans have gotten lazy and think the govt owes them corporations owe them their parent owes them. My grandfather and my mother raised me under the understanding you dont work you dont eat PERIOD. try that for awhile and you will start working believe me. The rich got rich beacuse they worked for it some because their parents or grandparents worked for it but someone had to get it in the beginning. They are entitled to what they have for doing so. You dont take the risk a corporation takes so why do you think you should reap the rewards? A small business man works hard makes a big company then everyone thinks he owes them something because he made it big because they worked for him. Did you not agree to that salary? If you are not happy move along and find something better if you are indeed valubale to the business man he will reward you that is the way to make this country work

Bahahahaha..

Barack Obama called Saturday for an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night.

This should read, Barack Obama called Saturday insulting everyone and demanding an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night

Atlas: such great ideas in your post. I'm tired of everyone's whining--especially politicians. And Mr. Obama's "Woe is Me" attitude is completely stupid. It accomplishes nothing, and it just sounds like a whiney 3 year old.

Politicians on all sides need to grow up and put on their big boy/girl underpants.

The government does not "confiscate" anything.

Do I voluntarily pay income taxes or do I do so under the threat of prison, fines, etc?

After all you are protected by the military,

Does the military protect us by being in 135 countries of the world? Wouldn't a defensive, non-aggressive policy be much less expensive and equally effective? But yes, the military is a proper function of the government and willingly would pay.

rely on the police and firefighters, drive on roads, visit national parks, want to drink clean water,

All state and local responsibilities, except for national parks, but state parks are fine.

and would hope someone find cure for cancer

This will be done by a private individual seeking financial reward.

The government pays for all that from your taxes. And of course you would hope not to spend you final years in poverty just because your health isn't what it used to be and medical expenses have eaten up your savings. Social Security and Medicare come in handy...

A safety net is fine, but an everyone qualifies program is not sustainable. If I were allowed to apply the 6.2% of mandatory SS deductions and that of my employer to my 401k, my return at even 3% earnings would be 25% higher than what I would receive under SS

100% AGREE WITH YOU ATLAS.

Just the Facts folks…..

National Debt

9/30/2001 $5.8 T Last year of Clinton’s signed budget, Repub House & Senate

9/30/2007 $9.0 T Last year of Repub House & Senate budget

9/30/2010 $13.7 T Dem House & Senate 2007 – 2010, No Budget passed for last couple of years

Debt increase 9/30/2001 – 9/30/2007 $3.2 T

Debt increase 9/30/2007 – 9/30/2010 $4.7 T

Rogue American - do you remember what happened in the Gulf not too long ago? THere's a reason for regulations. Or maybe you'd like to sign up for my version of Health Care - it's called MeagreCare - it allows everyone to be a doctor - charge everyone what the market will bear and absolutely no regulation. It not only solves the unemployment problem - in the long run it will do something for over population!

F-ing AWESOME Rogue, may I use that in the future?

(quoted of course).

Top 50% of people pay 96.03% of all taxes.

Top 5% of people pay 53.25% of all taxes.

Bottom 47% of people pay NO Federal Income tax. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA...Why do all these people complain all the time???

Also, the "rich" paid more taxes under Bush than under Clinton and the bottom 50% paid less under Bush. Attacking Bush for cutting taxes for rich is just plain LIES!

Single person making $30,000 - under Clinton $8,400; under Bush $4,500

Married filers making $60,000 - under Clinton $14,000, under Bush, $12,500

OH KUMAR! we were in the black with Clinton. Bush blew that budget and more. Then he cuts taxes on the rich and the pubes want to continue the pocket lining. The Trickle down effect/Reagan economics's don't work. GET IT? It's suppose to but the rich just get richer, the greedy sob's. That don't hire they don't spend they just keep the money. Comprende? They are crook's, thieve's and liar's and very unAmurican!

communism/socialism doesnt work...get it? if you dont, move away from capitalist america to a communist society.

i'm sure you'd be fine if we went the way of the ussr...socialism DOESNT WORK

Washington, Jefferson and our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw what the liberals have done to our Country!

RogueAmerican for President! I would vote for you.

ROGUE THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ENFORCE COPYRIGHTS.
You do, you protect and defend your own copyrights, trademarks, Patents etc. They are a civil matter.
Of course you, who are anti-government don't know that. Funny that an anti-government TeaRep would want more government.
Educate yourself

RogueAmerican...

We all lost at least 10 points off our IQ after reading your senseless GOP/TP drivel in 1.63. The amount of dead brain cells and un-fired synapse is evident in your clueless banter. Your just another Conservative pseudo-intellect that knows absolutely nothing about the true economic process of a Capitalist society. Don't embarass yourself any longer...go read a book man!

rouge and IQ of 4.

What you fail to realize is no one is whining. In fact we are trying to be true capitalist. By eliminating all subsidies for jets, cars, or oil/gas companies, we are forcing true business decisions based on demand. That way if some CEO making 10 million a year wants to buy a jet for their personal use, the stockholders of the company can decide if they want to pay for it instead of the American taxpayers. The price of oil is part of just about every business decision. Giving the industry subsidies skews the price of all products and give industries that use more than others an unfair advantage. I fail to see why any business person would be against this. It is just one way of leveling the playing field for all businesses so capital flows to its best use.

RougeAmerican, I believe you missed my point. I realize they can decide not to fund it now, I also understand few investors worry about a companies finances. My point is that once the subsidies are eliminated, regardless of what the stockholders do, I will not be paying for it (as I am now) unless I buy their product.

Rogue American - there were 33,800 something deaths on the highway last year (I happen to be an expert on it.) This is a ridiculous number of people to die - what needs to happen is an integrated approach to the problem like with cigarettes and DWI) where the culture rejects this sort of mortality as unacceptable. Government regulations and ENFORCEMENT of those regulations are part of the solution - you are, also - so drive carefully.

@djddrew - who in the world is gong to read all the garbage you post? You're obviuously an ideologue and a practitioner of Cheneythink - the system of thought whereby one starts with a conclusion and works backwards - assembling facts from whatever source to support the specious conclusion.

Our debt problem is NOT a revenue problem. In real constant 2010 dollars the federal government extracted $5610.68 per person in 1970. That grew nearly 50% to $8317.46 per person in 2007. For every $1 taken in per-person in 1970, it grew to nearly $1.50 per person in 2007...in inflation adjusted dollars. The problem is not revenue, it is that spending grew at a pace that dwarfed even that.

In real constant 2010 dollars the government spent $5693.35 per person in 1970. That grew nearly 100% to $11194.36 per person today. For every $1 per-person in 1970, it grew to nearly $2 per person today...in inflation adjusted dollars. To be clear, that doesn't mean that the government spent it on you. They just spent it somewhere.

So do you see now that the problem is not too little revenue? After all, we're paying in 50% more per person in real dollars to the government than we were just 40 years ago. However, the government is consuming twice as much per person over that same time period. It's not a revenue problem, it's an uncontrolled spending problem.

I think the problem with the budget is people like the ones posting right here on Newsvine

'XXX is a liar'

XXX = Bush or Obama.

The REAL liars are the radicals posting here and in Congress.

The lie is that they want to avoid a disaster. Not unlike psychologically damaged, foaming at the mouth, religious warriors, they would rather die foaming at the mouth than live sanely and actually consider opposing points of views. In other words, radicals would rather bury America than make it work. This entails a particular laziness in convincing others of their point of view. A laziness that shows up in an indignant righteousness and anger that is actually bogus, once you get over the red faced, clown-like bluster.

Which Political Party Do Voters Dislike More?

A new CNN/ORC International poll released just two days ago, reported that
55% of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, a 7-point increase since March. And only 37% feel the GOP's policies would move the country in the right direction, a 9-point drop since the start of the year.

www.chacha.com/topic/republican-party/news/which-political-party-do-voters-dislike-more

I have a better and much simplier plan, the tax payers will agree to let the government keep all the money that they have stolen from the social security trust fund over the past 50 years and in return the government will agree to stop stealing more money from the SS fund and will continue with current benefits and cost of living increases.

so, what sacrifices are the corporations willing to make?

Hungrymongoose, I like your plan. It's more in line to what the Tea party folks want. The tea party is working towards a lean federal government, there's too much dead weight there.. We need to stay vigilent and laser focused to accomplish these things. There are too many libs out there who are willing to abandon our principles and constitution. Go tea party!

AtlasWillShrug -- Response to your post 1.35.

The top third of wage earners receive more than two thirds of the wages. The bottom two thirds of wage earners only recieve one third of the wages. That breaks down to an average hourly wage rate for the bottom third of $16 per hour, the middle third of $32 per hour, and the top third of $96 per hour. Incomes from investments are skewed even more in favor of the top third. The top third does not work six times harder than the bottom third, yet their compensation is six times greater. In fact, the top third receives a significant portion of their compensation based on the labor of the bottom two thirds.

The 'wealthy', as you call them, have far greater opportunity to participate in the economy than the bottom third because they retain far more of their income after meeting expenses to work and after all taxes. To equalize the opportunity to participate in the economy, the 'wealthy' would need to be taxed at 75 to 90 per cent. At this point it is not possible to lower taxes on the bottom two thirds enough to equalize opportunity to participate in the economy.

At the current tax rate of 36 per cent, the 'wealthy' are not paying a fair share. The 'wealthy' retain more of their opportunity to participate in the economy than the bottom two thirds. That is what the saying 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' means. The 'wealthy' are not making a sacrifice because their priviledged position in the economy continues to strengthen.

Taxes for all people in America is the price for living in this country. While the income may be yours, you are still required to pay for goods and services (electricity, water, transporation, communication, health care, etc.) to fully participate in the American economy - that is the cost of modern life. Taxes are the cost to have access to that way of life.

One role of the Federal government is to secure and protect the right of all Americans to participate equally in the economy through their labor. That is what 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence is about. FDR termed this idea as the 'freedom from want'. The methods the Federal government uses to secure and protect that 'pursuit of happiness' is through taxes and social programs. Some level of wealth redistribution was mandated by the founders of the country. The founders built the mechanisms for taxation and social programs into the Constitution. That Constitution places the Federal government above the states in securing and protecting life, liberty, and opportunity for all American citizens.

Hard to imagine the framers foresaw an America as unilateral world cop, with 750 military bases and growing - someone DID foresee it, and his warnings were ignored. So while raising the debt limit for wars we could not win (Nixon), weapons we could never use (Raygun) defending oil profits (Bush) and expeditionary wars of convenience (Bush.2) was ACCEPTABLE and tolerated by Americans of every stripe, EVERY social program has had to cut and modify the entire time. While we defended Japan & Korea from [whatever] they slaughtered our steel & auto industries. While we spend trillions to "defend" ourselves from the zealots WE created, China decimates the last of our average-worker-base. Yet we STILL FUND the military as though we were chasing the Commie bugaboos from our closets...

My question is how much longer does this Country have to put up with the Republicans? The party for the Rich.

I propose we get rid of the entire military and just have a self defense force like japan. Protect the borders and do disaster relief. Then we can afford to make more drones and build a robot army. We will still be formidable and we will be the most high tec, and save money.

Secondly, don't give money away to countries anymore. The reason their people are starving to death is because THEY don't care about their own people, otherwise their people would have pulled together for them like America would if it was our people dying of thirst and hunger. Let people here give to charity themselves and the charities go over and help like they already do. You give a government money in the third world you will only end up seeing its president driving a RollsRoyce around and wearing fancy british suits every day, and throwing American tear gas at protestors who want democracy.

$2.5 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years for $2.431 trillion immediate debt ceiling increase which will get spent within 2 years?? What a crock!!!

Whoever votes for this needs to be voted out in 2012.

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released in a statement Sunday night.

And if you believe that, I have some prime swamp, er, 'Waterfront' property I'd like to sell you - but you have to pay for it before you see it, sort of like "We have to pass it so we can see what's in it" (Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill).

I see more 'smoke and mirrors'.

djdrew201
Obama said that each and every American should share the burden, percentage
wise according to what they can do, from individuals to corporations.

I appreciate the effort put forth in this plan--surely had to be time consuming. Just one glaring thing---the Defense Budget would be cut as much as the Defense Department says is fine? A department can have as much as they say is "necessary?" That's the problem with government now.

jw12 (#1.61)

Just the Facts folks…..

National Debt

Debt increase 9/30/1977 – 9/30/1981 $360 M (Carter)

Debt increase 9/30/1981 – 9/30/1989 $2.7 T (Reagan)

Debt increase 9/30/2001 – 9/30/2007 $3.2 T (Bush Jr)

Debt increase 9/30/2007 – 9/30/2010 $4.7 T (Bush Jr through 01/26/09/Obama after)

Dude, did you figure those numbers for inflation? Does that last figure include the bailouts of Fannie, Freddie, AIG and all of those foreign banks that got bailed-out under-the-table too? What do you bet the 2nd figure is by far the biggest one of them all in constant spending power??? Which figure hurt the economy the most? Remember when the unemployment rate in Detroit was 25% from 1981-1983? I do.

I mean, you know, in 1981, a gallon of gas was $1.19, a pound of hamburger was $1.19, a pound of chicken was 29 cents, and paying $119K for a house meant that you were really rich!!! Back in 1978 I bought a brand-new Dodge full-size van with A/C, a V-8, and a bunch of other options for $5695! Remember the Yugo for $1995, the Pinto too? In 1981 I rented a 3 BR/2 BA house with a full basement and a 2-car garage in an upscale suburb of one of the largest cities in America for $350/mo. Try that these days!!!

Kumar-889209 (#1.66)

Top 50% of people pay 96.03% of all taxes.

Top 5% of people pay 53.25% of all taxes.

Top 2% earn 40% of all income, leaving just 60% for the other 98%! The bottom 25% earn less than 2% of total income too, largely because they are either laid-off, retired, or are women collecting AFDC trying to support the children of deadbeat dads, of which some fair percentage are laid-off too.

Top tax rate during wartime: WWI: 77%. WWII: 94%. Korean War: 92%. Vietnam War: 70%. Top rate during the 1979-83 Recession: 70% over $108K from 1979-1981, then 50% on incomes of over $42K in 1982, and then 50% on incomes of over $55K in 1983, when Reagan was President, who somehow managed to bring us an economic recovery despite the high tax rates! Under Reagan and Bush I the top tax rate was greatly reduced in 1986 and again in 1988, and wouldn’t you know it, but between the two of them, their contribution to the national debt was more than 10 times as high in 12 years as was Jimmy Carter’s contribution in his 4 years in office!

It is interesting to note that anyone earning over $12K in 1967 had to pay a higher tax rate (36%) than does anyone today no matter how much that they earn!!! In fact, at an annual salary of just $22K in 1967, the Federal tax rate was 50%, 60% at $44K, and the bottom rate, at just $500 worth of income, was 14% too. Remember the Tet Offensive, which started two and one-half months before the 1967 tax filing deadline? High taxes were how war was paid for back in the good old days!!!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Bottom 47% of people pay NO Federal Income tax. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA...Why do all these people complain all the time???

I don’t know. Why do you complain so profusely when your tax rate is half as high as it has ever been during wartime previously going back to 1917???

Our poor and working classes pay fuel tax, they pay tax on cigarettes and on alcohol, through the rent that many pay they pay their landlord’s property taxes, they pay sales taxes, they even pay their own property taxes if they own. Of course, your 47% figure includes the U-6 unemployed, say about 15% of the workforce, only 1/2 of whom actually receive unemployment benefits, it includes disabled Americans, it includes women on AFDC, and it includes retired Americans too. In fact, I would gladly return to Carter-era tax rates if our rich had to also, in order to balance our budget and begin to pay down our national debt!!!

Frankly, even during the best economic parts of either the Clinton or Bush II Presidencies, the number that you seem so outraged about (47%) was only slightly different than it is now. When the U-3 unemployment rate was at 5%, the U-6 rate would have been about 7.5%, so figure about 8.5 million more people paying taxes, the vast majority of them in the lowest three tax brackets, or a difference of maybe 2.5 to 3% in that rate you are so fond of spouting-off about.

What are you so enraged about, we are in a huge recession, and quite a bit of the problem has been all of the off-shored middle-class jobs, which we can easily blame on the wealthiest among us, because as a general rule, neither the working or middle classes send jobs offshore.

From IRS Form 1040 EZ:

Line 5 (part of)

If no one can claim you (or your spouse if a joint return), enter $9,350 if single; $18,700 if married filing jointly. See back for explanation.

Line 6

Subtract line 5 from line 4. If line 5 is larger than line 4, enter -0-. This is your taxable income.

Which clearly means that if you are single and earn less than $9350, you don’t owe any Federal taxes, nor does a married couple below $18,700 in income either.

Don’t ask me dude, I don’t make the rules, (Bush Jr and your Republican friends did)!!! Is your Schedule A deduction more than these numbers depending on your filing status? Mine is. How much is an income of $18,700 on a weekly basis? ($359 per week) Could you and your wife make ends meet on that? Figure that your rent for a 1-BR apartment is $600/mo and you are making $359 per week: How much does that leave to buy food, utilities, gas, health insurance, and to save some for car repairs with? Does that leave anything for taxes???

Also, the "rich" paid more taxes under Bush than under Clinton and the bottom 50% paid less under Bush.

Attacking Bush for cutting taxes for rich is just plain LIES!

If you are talking about Bush I you are correct. The top tax rate under Bush II was less than it was under Clinton, and the figures don’t lie, so I don’t know where you think that you are coming from with that nonsense.

Single person making $30,000 - under Clinton $8,400; under Bush $4,500

Married filers making $60,000 - under Clinton $14,000, under Bush, $12,500

Under Clinton, during FY 2000 the US had a budgetary surplus. Except for FY 2001, when the figure was a $133 Billion deficit, every year of the Bush II Presidency had a deficit exceeding $421 Billion, and the last year was very close to a $1 Trillion deficit, if you count all of the $2.2 Trillion that Bush Jr and Cheney “borrowed” from the Social Security Trust Fund to pull Cheney’s company Haliburton out of near-bankruptcy,and make a few defense contractors really rich, which is quite likely where a lot of Republican campaign funding comes from these days!!!

(According to the US Treasury/CBO FY 2009 Revision).

I still do not see why all sides here think that they should be able to get away form this mess without paying their fair share. We obviously need to cut spending until such a time that our economy rebounds, and those cuts need to come from every program and department, not just from social spending. We could save a huge amount of money placing 2 or 3 entire aircraft carrier battle groups in ready-reserve, and we would still have a greater naval air capability than the entire rest of the world combined. It would be pathetically easy to trim $150-$200 billion annually from the defense budget without compromising our security at home in the least. Add to that maybe $100 billion in annual social program cuts, since many social programs were already cut heavily during the Bush II era, and return across-the-board income tax and capital gains tax rates to the Clinton-era, perhaps while retaining our current level of personal exemptions, which would give us another $125 Billion annually in increased revenue.

Add all of this up, and it translates into between $250 and $300 Billion in cuts to go along with a $125 Billion increase in revenue, which over 10 years would reduce our deficit by $3.375 and $4.425 Trillion, which is a figure still just 1/4 of our current problem, but a figure large enough to certainly tell what the effect on our economy would be. I still think that the income ceiling subject to SS taxation must be raised to keep pace with inflation. If the gross inflation rate was applied to our SS taxation ceiling, then the ceiling should immediately rise to between $140K and $150K, which would resolve the SS depletion issue for another 25-40 years, even if there is no more inflation.

If we can just agree that everyone needs to help-out, then we can make progress on our deficits and greatly enhance our chance for a long-lasting economic recovery, but if everyone does not pay their fair share, it will create even more class distrust than we are seeing today too. If we really wanted to resolve our deficit and debt issues, then we need to bring our off-shored jobs home, put America back to work in middle-income jobs, and then a larger percentage of us will be paying higher amounts of income tax than is the case now. If we keep allowing our companies to export our jobs, and we continue to allow cheap foreign-made products to flood our shores and undercut our workers, I see much less of a chance of eventually slaying this beast, and I am not alone either.

Either we share in the pain of what is required equally, or we end-up flying our golden goose into the ground, and if that happens, almost all of us are going to suffer severely for our inaction and unwillingness to compromise.

Oooh, look, more radical slappy fighting posts....

House Speaker Boehner said he would stop working with the POTUS and go to work with his colleages across the isle in the Senate to get a bill passed in Congress.

Isn't that the way the process works? The CONGRESS passes a bill and it goes to the President for signature or veto. The Republican House can't seem to get a bill passed by Congress (days of Nancy Pelosi and a Republican fillibustering Senate), but the Republicans blame the President?

Why can't the Republicans get any legislation passed? The Republicans are useless. Did the Republican/Teabaggers every think about the Senate? The Republicans are looking more inept each day this goes on. Had the perfect opportunity to lead the way and now they look like chickens with their heads cut off. It is amazing to see.

Hey Atlas. like all good Heritage Foundation hacks, you conveniently neglect to include payroll taxes when you talk about who pays "taxes".

Payroll taxes are 36% of federal revenues.

Corporate taxes are 12%.

(See What are the federal government's sources of revenue?)

The top 1% pays 28% of the taxes, but holds 34.6% of the wealth.

The top 10% hold 75.5% of all wealth in this country.

The bottom 50% has 2.5%.

Who is not paying their fair share?

By the way, you do realize the top tax rates in the 1950's were 91% (except 1952 and 1953, when they were 92%), right? And we know how bad that made the economy back then....

is it true the the Dem in the Senate have not passed a budget in 2yrs and promise to do so AFTER the 2012 presidential election?

Here's a great chart showing how the distribution of income in America has changed since 1979:
% Change Per Person Since 1979

And lots more interesting charts from Business Insider:

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

And tax rates haven't nearly kept pace:

Associated Press
April 17, 2011

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Fix it, and then we'll talk about how much we need to take from the bottom 50%.

The latest trend with the wealthy is to buy up old debt. When a person defaults for six months on their payments the bank must sell their debt for approximately 7% on the dollar. The rich are buying up this debt as fast as they can. The more people default the more debt there is available to buy. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The rich don't want to fix the economy or pay taxes. They prefer to gut the middle class and and become Ebeneezer Scrooge. The rich will be collecting on this debt for decades to come.
The Government is the agent of the rich. Set up to protect the propertied; it distracts us with apocalyptic fears so we will equate the cuts to our safety nets as necessary for America's survival rather than a money grab by the wealthy.

Atlas shrugging:
is it true the the Dem in the Senate have not passed a budget in 2yrs and promise to do so AFTER the 2012 presidential election?

So, what's your point?

The Administrative branch needs to get consensus of the legislative branches of government, or fail. Ignoring the House of Representatives will not fly. Getting the House of Representatives to sway will not happen.

House members are elected officials, many newly elected about 8 months ago. It's the way it is.

scott-579755
The Administrative branch needs to get consensus of the legislative branches of government, or fail. Ignoring the House of Representatives will not fly. Getting the House of Representatives to sway will not happen.

House members are elected officials, many newly elected about 8 months ago. It's the way it is.

Yes, and that has lead us where??????

Could it be that the Republican House needs to get consensus of the Senate and the Administration? Seems it's 2 against 1.

I will say it again and again. Everyone in congress and the White House is to blame. Our congress men and women can not remember the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. It says promote the general welfare of the people of the United States, not corporate America or some foreign government. President Obama is not a leader and congress for the lack of leadership from the White House is left to wander around like a herd of steers, with only one testicle and one horn. All they can do is crap and bellow. The difference between congress and the herd of steers is you can slaughter the herd of steers and put steaks on peoples tables. The United States government is defunct and needs to be totally replaced. President and congress completely.

Harry Reid of the party of "I don't know" and have no plan, written or in place, needs to explain his view of the definition of co-operation!

Campaigning silliness at its best. Plans have been put forth by both sides and rejected. You have to ask the perpetual WHY?

Definition Of HCR..is as follows

The term "Boondoggle" may also be used to refer to protracted government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure, where at some point, the key operators, having realized that the project will never work, are still reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions" – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs. While cost overruns are a common factor in declaring a project a BOONDOGGLE!

The Boehner plan sounds like the best option at this point. I don't see any way they can create and pass a detailed bill in the 4+ Trillion range in the next week, so we are basically forced into a short-term option until we can get something larger.

I really dislike the idea of doing another "must pass it now before anyone can read it" bill.

It's simple people, the US is like a irresponsible professional athlete. The income is phenomenal, they just can't help buying every fancy toy in front of their face and end up broke! The US doesn't have a revenue problem, it's true, the US has a spending problem and they openly admit it. Just look at Obamacare, Congress openly admitted they could easily save $500 billion from waste in Medicare! That's $500 billion in wasted revenue, not a shortage of revenue! Every government contract uses what amounts to the greatest common denominator, not the lowest. Why would you ask a contractor to give you a quote based on what amounts to double their labor rate and force them to pay their employees that rate? That's right, because you don't have a revenue problem, you have a spending problem!

Now that our spending, not revenue, problem has been cleared up, how could you not support cuts greater than spending increases and a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to have a balanced budget? Why shouldn't Congress be required to have a balanced budget? The credit card is maxed out, all the credit cards are maxed out, spend within your considerable means, it's not that difficult!

Boehner like the other plan until Friday. Then he met with his little out of control TP'ers. Nope he want to split it now, that's bs, the GOP HAS NO PLAN.

Except to protect the rich.

If we default it will be on the GOP

What is being missed is tgat our elected...all 550 of them in congress were elected to do this job..come up with a deal on the budget..but not one has done so...for all the back stabing and name calling from both parties..they are both at fault. Now of course....the republicans blame Obama for not doing their job for them....amazing....and you can see just on this thread how many agree..I wonder just what these politicans in washington are getting paid to do ...after all... 175K to play politics is not my idea of working for us voters..the junk they have passed should not have even been considered until they had a budget..with NO politics involved. They are all suppose to be using their brains for something..just have not figured out what as yet. I do not believe we have in washington a congress person worthy of their position.

-eliminate and let the States and private industry run each of the following:

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Transportation

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Education

Department of Energy

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

National Science Foundation

Corporation for National and Community Service

General Services Administration

Great idea, let's just give all of the important social pillars like health care and education to the almighty free market and the glorious profit motive.

Some things just should not be given to the private sector. When you give the country's educational system to a corporation who only sees dollar signs, children suffer. When you give things like health care to people who only care about the bottom line, EVERYONE suffers. You see this happening right at this very moment!

It's easy to talk about the free market like it's some miracle, some cure-all, but when you realize that it is fueled primarily by greed and the pursuit of massive amounts of wealth, you realize that you cannot trust them to have the best intentions for anyone but themselves.

@Kerry L, to be fair, what you've just quoted does say "...let the States and private industry run..." Additionally, in respect to education, the private sector is miles ahead of public education from pre-K all the way through post-secondary and advanced degrees. I don't know on what basis your claims against private sector education are coming. The biggest problem with private healthcare, is the public sector! The government essentially mandates losses to private healthcare by way of Medicare and Medicaid as well as via the ER and private medical care is forced to make up for that with their actual paying customers. Innovation is fueled by motivation, even if that motivation is the almighty dollar, it's better than the disincentive to excel that the government "provides" us everyday!

Dear Mr. Boehner...Now? Now it's time to get serious? Now that there's a Democrat in the White House? Where were you cowards when it was time to stand up to Cheney the Chief Bully in Charge for 8 years?

And you if think that you and your Gang of Henchmen are going to just hand it all over to private corporations, think again oh Genius Of Republican Thuggery.

Why don't you and your Tea Party Twerps admit that you know that corporations are too damn big and unmanageable without more and more taxpayer funding?

Why don't you cowards admit that the only way to save your precious cronies of wealth and Corporate America is to hand over all we've paid into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to private, legalized Madoffers who'll use it to spend on more high risk investments so you can then blame THIS president on the Greatest Depression you know is coming.

Grow you up two face twerps. Privatization for 8 Bush years decimated this economy. How stupid do you think Americans are to allow you to dump more of Corporate America's bills on us so they can be tax and debt free while we drown in bills they made?

How about you stop handing the rich tax credits the rest of us get stuck paying for? How about you tell your rich ass corporate cronies to go to hell. We don't need them anymore. We never did.

So now they can take their fat ass debts and pay them with those obscene salaries the Republican muttonheads made possible?

Republicans reek of wealth protection. If they keep this up, we'll challenge them to stop the revolt that's coming at their and their rich ass cronies' doorsteps.

What a bunch of BS!! President Obama...you need to tell all the Imperialist TP jerks to go to Hell! There are 3 options here in order of precedence:

1. A clean debt ceiling increase of 2.4 trillion dollars (nothing attached). The debt ceiling is not and should not be used as a device for extortion by the TP just to satisfy their misguided whims!

2. An increase of the debt ceiling of 2.4 trillion dollars with 1.5 Trillion dollars in cuts (absolutely no SS or Medicare) and 1.5 Trillion dollars of increased revenue (lots of places to get this!)

3. No debt ceiling increase...blame the fallout squarely on the TP. If this happens...I hope that every corporate CEO feels the pain of loss, financial ruin, and destitution that so many middle class Americans, elderly, and impaired are already feeling.

Attaching cuts without a revenue increase is NOT an option Mr. President!!

Typical -

No matter what the issue - the GOP/TP still tries to turn it into an anti-Obama event. They don't care about this country, just their own power. greed, payoffs and re-elections.

Jim DeMInt, Rep Miller, Bachmann, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Cantor, Boehner, and all the rest who said from day one that they were getting rid of Obama..... Didn't matter what he proposed, why, or who it would benefit. They flip-flipped on all deals if they thought he would support them,

The people in this country forgot that this ecoomy was healthy just 18 years ago - on the way to a balanced budget, growth and little debt. The elderly did not feel threatened, and Congress did not march back and forth ranting and disrespecting and putting their own hate in front of the good of the country. We paid taxes, and were never better off.

Boehner is a total hack, bought and paid for by hs golf buddies, and totally intimidated by his side-kick - Cantor. They are like adolescent boys on the playground, thinking only about how much they hate the smart kid who won all the prizes. When they saw Obama might get re-elected, they went into full destroy the economy mode. It's disgraceful.

To balance the budget, just reset all things back to 1999. Tax rates, spending, no wars, etc. Not hard, and no big social agenda that needs attacking. But then, what would the GOP/TP and their crazies have to do if they weren't spouting bitter and economically devastating policies and society destroying tactics.

Welcome to their world - fascism. Massive spending on wars, police, prisons, secret agents, and wealthy corporation owners buying off politicians. Cuts and lowering lifestyles of the other 90% of the population. Just like Germany in the 1930's, the poor ignorant masses disenchanted with rising poverty resorted to supporting a major fascist - with some horrifying results. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

ewwwwwwwwwwwent,

You speak of obscene salaries shortly after we hear of huge salary increases for Obama's staff.

Your comments are probably inflammatory, as is frequently the case for you as are the comments by mucker above.

WAKE UP ! Our country is addicted to spending.

ewent...great post!...We are all sick of this divergent economy and the rich getting richer due to right wing policy...the separation of classes is taking place right in front of us. The revolution IS coming!!!

To all those people talking about how large and awful the government is and how we need to cut it down to almost nothing, as Mr. Hungry Mongoose suggested, you need to consider the alternative of a large, regulative government. Pure capitalism, unchecked by the government, does not work. You only need a basic knowledge of history do realize what happens when Washington does not command a large presence. It was called the Gilded Age, a time period not known for its humanity and happiness.

Interesting Mark Bradley. My best friend inherited his wealth. He didn't earn it and freely admits he didn't work a day in his life for it. So, when you say the "rich" earned it. What's your formula? Furthermore, why would you pay for something if you saw no results? That's what corporate welfare does. Its gives money for a return on that money i.e. jobs. Do you know where those jobs are? Have you seen those jobs? Passed on wealth is not earned wealth. Therein lies the problem.

Typical republican ploy and totally corrupt approach waiting till the last minute to embarass the other side into submission as if everyone out there is a fool ? Mark my words these repugnants are going to be booted out of office enmasse next round. Merely a repeat of Gingrich calling the Presidents bluff but on a bigger scale here. We have no patience left with this type of crass approach to government. After starting numerous unnecesary and expensive wars, and many other unfunded programs as well as giving generous breaks to cronies we the middle class have to clean up their crap? Heck no! Out with the turncoats. I say deport them to Australia - if they accept them or to New Zealand where they can roam with the sheep.

Simple ?

Who in their right mind want's to pay more taxes I sure as hell don't I am surviving barely from paycheck to paycheck keeping my family from starving and they WANT MORE OF MY MONEY

F YOU

leave the middle class alone

How many of us Americans are struggling to make ends meet (millions) especially here in California.

LOWER THE DAMN TAXES ALREADY.

No retreat, no surrender. Raise the debt limit with no strings attached. Call their bluff if they do not. Once we have that problem solved then Congress can go about their business and solve the rest of the problems. I seem to remember something about a Republican Congress being able to create millions of jobs. How is that working out?

A business in the same circumstances as our federal government...

Would downsize.

An individual or a household...

Would stop using credit and cut costs and luxuries.

Obama's approach is akin to being diagnosed with cancer...

And taking up smoking.

How this guy ever even got in the first place elected is impossible to comprehend.

Its laughable. Everyone points the fingers at the president and yet he has only been in office 2 years. What about those senators and house members that have been in office for decades. Would it be safe to say that they are a part of the problem. Here is an idea. Everyone that wants to see real change in washington call your senator/house member and tell them to do some work or GTF out.

How about this as well. Everyone that is spouting facts, post links. Taking information out of context is a bad thing. The people in the government are not doing thier jobs. I say clear it completely and put someone willing to fix the problems instead of sitting up there and arguing about it. The only part of that bill I agree with is the 10% tax cut for government employees. I however agree that the people on the low end of the totem pole is going to get shafted. How about limiting the people voted into office to their salaries from office while in there to get by on. See how those people like having no money to do anything with.

bobbyg, do you really believe the Federal Budget is like a small business or household. They says volumes about why the American public can not get a handle on this.

I agree with Mucker 87

Obama tell the GOP to FO

Time to cut back... large scale reduction of the federal government is the only solution in the end...

The analogy is perfectly valid.

Obama can't take the heat and he should get out of the kitchen. He can't lead. He can't develop a coalition even with his own party. This is the worst mistake America has ever done -- elect this man president. He is childish. He is a liar. He breaks deals and promises. He is a cry baby. This is awful.

Ben, you are aware that the T-Partiers are the ones refusing to compromise at all, demanding they have everything they want, in spite of a democratically controlled White House and Senate?

It would seem to me that THEY are the crybabies, and Boehner is the one that can't develop a coalition/lead.

Either a pipe or a wet dream!!

Subject: Obituary-Very Interesting
THIS IS WELL WORTH THE TIME TO READ
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of
Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some
2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes
for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal
policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of
history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

It is the President who's responsible for this latest breakdown! The deal was set between the Republicans and Democrats then in the eleventh hour, Obama (no doubt with encouragement from dirty Harry Reid) re- submitted his caveat of $1 trillion in taxes! This after both sides took it off the table! What was he thinking? No one would notice?

The truth COLLAPSED by the Liberal community that just wants to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND with NO regard for the consequences!

@Bill C - There was a deal on the table and OBAMA added an increase at the least minute. That is a FACT. And you still blame the Tea Party? LOL Man, you people just can't stop blaming others can you?

He got in simply because he is black. Young people from 18-25 who normally don't vote at all, voted for him simply because he is black.

Well, those same people are now the highest segment of the unemployed and I seriously doubt they will be voting for anyone this time simply because of the color of their skin.

ir12 - you are right. People who know nothing about trust accounting try to discuss the financial approach taken by the Social Security Fund - and it is tital jibberish. Every pension fund in America and most of the edeveloped world uses this same accounting and reenue approach. I guess they are all wrong and our buddy Cletis McHayseed is the expert?

Neither Social Security or the original Medicare program (not the Bush add-on) have added to the debt. There is NO reason to cut these programs. NONE. Pull them OUT of the main budget - treating them as enterprise entities for accounting purposes.

What remains is defense and discretionary spending. Our spending in creased hugely in defense - $400 billion MORE than in 2000. You could cut defense by that much, return our taxes to Clinton levels, cut all other functions by 5%, change government work week to 4 10 hour days and we would have it - better balance of trade, better traffic, shared sacrifice, and we would just about balance.

So many people with so little knowledge pretending to to be so well informed...really sad.

I hope people are finally starting to reallize that niether party has your best interest in mind when they go to Washington. Our country is made up of a lot of different kinds of people, we have to be able to compromise or we will never survive. Trying to push ones ideology on others just makes people hate each other.

The Shrimp off the Treadmill Plan

Hell, let's just sell off the entire United States Government to the highest bidder? Or, better yet, break it down by Department. This country is already an Oligarchy, let's just make it official. Wall Street, Multinationals, China, EU...what's the difference? We're not calling the shots anyway. WTF...let's just sell it off!

My responses will be in bold and italic

The Shrimp off the Treadmill Plan

(U.S. economic recovery, deficit/debt reduction plan)

-Fully open up drilling of U.S. oil and natural gas, issuing leases and permits - not totally against it, so long as taxes are appropriately applied and regulation is STRICTLY enforced.

-Rebuild all U.S. roads and bridges that are old and falling apart - Generating jobs, sounds good, but where is the money going to come from? When Obama put forth the economic stimulus plan that involved rebuilding roads and bridges to create jobs, it was criticized like hell. Rebuilding the roads sounds great, but are you willing to pay for it?

-Legalize (and tax) marijuana - Go for it.

-appoint a new department to go after and eliminate waste and fraud in all government spending - Isn't this proposed department going to increase government spending?

-cut all government program spending by 10% (across the board) - the previous few suggestions actually called for INCREASING government spending. You want to create new programs and cut their spending at the same time???

-pass and strictly enforce a balanced budget amendment - AMENDMENT??? Something like this doesn't belong in The Constitution.

-lower all corporate income tax rates by 10% (for business growth and job creation) - I'm against this. Not against business growth, but I am against the idea that cutting spending and CUTTING REVENUE is the solution to our problems.

-lower all individual income tax rates by 10% - see above

-raise the Federal Reserve interest rate to 5% (to reverse inflation) - I've forgotten my economics class, so I'll research this and decide if I agree or disagree later.

-stop Quantitative Easing (the printing of extra money which causes inflation)

-lower all government salaries by 10% - Sounds good actually.

-stop funding all current and do not allow any more earmarks from congress

-stop all foreign borrowing to finance the yearly federal budget, only use tax revenue - But you just said you wanted to cut tax revenue. How do you expect the government to keep functioning with a reduced revenue AND denying it the ability to borrow??

-eliminate and let the States and private industry run each of the following:

Department of Health and Human Services - Really? so no more medicare or medicaid??

Department of Transportation - What happened to rebuilding the roads? Get rid of the DoT and how will the interstate highways be rebuilt or maintained? You also suggested increasing US Oil and Natural Gas drilling. The DoT regulates the pipelines that transport those materials between states. Getting rid of the DoT will slow the process down immensely with each state having to regulate their pipelines.

Department of Housing and Urban Development - No more incentives or regulations for the housing market?

Department of Education

Department of Energy

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

National Science Foundation - We're already falling behind other nations in terms of advancing science, and now you want to get rid of the head of our research funding and organizing?? We'll have nothing to show for ourselves.

Corporation for National and Community Service

General Services Administration

I left a lot of those blank as my time is short, but these are my responses.

"Rep. Tom Reed, a New York freshman, said many of his constituents are telling him to stand firm in his drive to cut spending. "But I will admit there's some anxiety in the district" about Social Security and other programs, he added."

It would appear that Obama's "Scare Grandma" tactics may have some short term effects, but I doubt it is a wise long term strategy.

why would anyone even WANT to try to get rich... just to have the federal government rape your estate with a 55% tax when you die? they taxed your "business" at 39% , taking money you could have used to pay yourself and employees, then they took your actual payroll taxes , then they taxed you when you spent your income , etc. etc.

Strange - I don't remember ever hearing anyone say they wanted to earn less money so they could drop down into a lower tax bracket. That just never happened, not even when the top tax rate was far far higher (at times exceeding 70%). No, the rich complained but they just kept earning lots of money, no matter how much tax they were paying.

BTW, the first 3 million in estates are exempt from inheritance tax. Not exactly leaving "Junior" impoverished, now, is it.

First as a Republican we need to get the Teaparty away from us and out of office. You can't vote them out but you can make sure you don't vote them back in.

To the GOP-you are letting the Teaparty turn people into Democrats. Boehner is gone the next election.

Next is the Gov's big secret. Due to increased Gov revenue the real deadline is the 10th not the 2nd. They have the money to cover expenses until then. Look at the numbers.

Additionally, raise the damn taxes we have already spent the money.

Kill NAFTA and even out the import duties with other Countries, especially China.

End the wars and keep that money at home. And Obama, don't worry about people's comments rebuild the infrastructure.

Let the other Countries fight for themselves. As stated above we are heading back to a Dictatorship. And to the religious the Bible said the beginning of the end would be Israel becoming an independent State again. So from all sides, logical and others, we are nearing the end. Even scientist say we have maybe 400 years left. This Planet cannot support this population.

well put, bklynj

"The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government," the president said in a hastily arranged prime-time televised speech.

You are correct, Mr. Obama. Your Liberal voters voted for HOPE AND CHANGE, and look at what EVERYONE received....a government which is not in the best interests of ALL American people. Spend, tax, spend, tax, spend and you are continuing your rhetoric on including more spending in the back room deals for the problems with our National Debt Limit and National deficit.

Just look in the mirror and repeat, I AM RESPONSIBLE......since my domestic agenda has been directed at SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS and my International agenda is completely reverse of common sense.

2012 cannot come soon enough:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

For MSNBC: it would be nice if you did not continue OLD THREADS on new articles. Thank you.

Four Points Shy Of Genius

Bahahahaha..

Barack Obama called Saturday for an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night.

This should read, Barack Obama called Saturday insulting everyone and demanding an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night

Did you even watch the video's? The only person insulting everyone was Boner. Obama actually tried to explain the history and how we got here and what needs to be done and why the Republican plan is doomed to fail. God I hate it when people watch something and come out with totally opposite of what was said.

Barry-Moore, the problem is -- like most liberals -- your equation is wrong.

Empirical studies, many done by noted Keynesians like Christina Romer, show that contrary to Keynesian theory -- long term -- tax cuts actually have a multiplier effect of over 3 and the tax cut multiplier is especially strong when tied to fiscal consolidation (debt reduction).

This makes the real equation ((2-1) + (2-1)) X 3 = 6 instead of 2+2 = 4. I'm hoping that even you know 6 > 4.

@George Washington Says,

If they are both tossing options back and forth, how could there have been a deal. Given both their pasts, I would tend to believe Obama. He never gave out kickbacks from the tobacco industry in exhange for votes and subsidies, etc. as Boehner did.

Regardless, Obama has given in to every demand the crybabies had to have except the one to go through all of this BS again in 6 months, which they obviously want for political purposes, and what have they compromised on?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G

But you can also bet that Sen. Obama would have voted AGAINST the debt ceiling being raised -- or like a coward not show up for the vote. Oh, here's proof.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

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.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote.

I also agree that the tax cuts need to be ended -- all of them.

You lose. The debt issue has been brewing for over a decade with nothing done. As to some type of revenue is needed - isn't $2.1 trillion revenue enough? Where does the spend, spend, spend stop?

Obama is trying to make some money for America. just google "Operation fast and furious".

America will go bankrupt if we don't stop this out of control spending NOW!

CKSM - I agree, stop the spending but increase revenue to pay off national debt. When that is done, then we can lower the revenue again, but all republicans want to do is reduce taxes and keep status quot and not pay off the national debt. The rich are rich for one reason, they don't spend unless they have to. The trickle down theory you guys are so proud of spouting doesn't work because its built on the premise that the rich will spend and trickle down to us.

Vegas,

Yes, but W wasn't eligible for re-election. You may recall that the Republicans started voting their own out of office in 2006 because they were so disgusted with Bush's and many of their congressmen's tax-and-spend ways.

In 2010, the Republican party ran on a "cut spending, no new taxes" platform and won the biggest change in modern history. They have a mandate.

oskar-1391552 Vegas"I bet if Bush Jr. was still in office the debt ceiling would have been raised 3 times already with no issues"

Thats because he would not have to deal with the Republicans saying no to every freaking thing the President tries to do even if it helps the Republicans. The Democrats tried to work with Bush Jr. even though the guy was a blithering idiot. Republicans would rather see the nation default on its debt then give a little and make a plan that will work with both sides giving not just the Democrats.

onedinkydow Vegas, if Bush was in office the country would already be back on its feet.

OMG, it's because of Bush that we are in the mess we are in right now. Your statement is almost to the point of being idiotic.

Republicans started voting their own out of office in 2006 because they were so disgusted with Bush's and many of their congressmen's tax-and-spend ways.

That's a load of crap. In 2006 Bush won reelection and the Republicans increasing their numbers in the House and Senate. We heard almost NOTHING from Republicans about spending until 2009 -- after Bush was gone. You clowns worshiped the ground George Bush walked on. Conservatives were telling us the was the best president of all times. No matter hos hard you republicans try to spin it, no matter how much you try to rewrite history, 99% of the problems this nation faces today with with the national debt and the economy stems back to Bush and his Republican Congress.

onedinkydow-

What planet are you living on? Where were you from 2000-2008? Bush got us into this mess and then walked out laughing.

Barry-Moore-

Your comment is priceless!

Economan-

The GOP also pledged JOBS JOBS JOBS. Still no job bill has come out of the House of Representatives.

Barry-Moore please don't attack fellow posters just because you disagree with them. It goes against Newsvine code.

Barry do you remember 9/11? Do you remember Katrina? Two of the worst disasters that ever hit America? That is why he had to spend what he spent.

Bush did spend a lot of money in 8 years but no where near as much as Obama did in just 2 years to buy UAW votes. How many more TRILLIONS will it take for America to wake up?

Rockyroad -531554 3/4's of the posts on here are attacking anothers position. I reply to specific statements by other posters. As far as I know I have not posted vulger language or the like. I mean read vegas's comments. So not sure how I am the only one you seem to be pointing out of a crowd.

Vegas-1759617 onedinkydow-What planet are you living on? Where were you from 2000-2008? Bush got us into this mess and then walked out laughing.

Barry-Moore-Your comment is priceless!

Economan-The GOP also pledged JOBS JOBS JOBS. Still no job bill has come out of the House of Representatives.

Rockyroad, Bush only responded to the Katrina incident after such an outcry of the people that he had no choice. Everyone at the time commented on where is the president? why doesnt he do something? etc etc.

As far as his spending, he kept the bubble up just long enough telling everyone if you can recall on the tv that the "economy is doing great" over and over again until he left office. Then Bam the bubble broke all over Obama's lap and he has been the one to weather the storm and turn thing around. Yes he spent allot of money we didn't have doing it, but it worked despite the Republicans saying no at every turn. Something he should not have had to do because of Bush.

Here are some stats to chew over. One thing I would like to say is regardless of how the over spending got out of control, or who is more to blame, only one party is the slightest bit interested in cutting spending. So even if republicans are more to blame for the spending years, they are trying to correct those errors now. The democrats are hunkering down even more insisting on blaming republicans, and refusing to touch entitlements for fear of a backlash from voters. Even the president said a few months ago that SS only needed a slight tweaking. However it seems that without raising the debt ceiling, Obama will be unable to cut SS checks. I thought dems said that SS was sound until 2030. So in reality there really is no surplus in that fund is there?

Stats according to the Treasury site.

Direct Revenue for 2011 - est. to be 4.5 T

Direct Revenue for 2000 - was 3.7 T

Total spending for 2011 - 6. 2 T

Total spending for 2000 - 3.24 T

Gross federal debt for 2011 - est at 15.476 T

Gross federal debt for 2000 - was 5.629 T

You can see that in 2000 before 9/11 and the subsequent wars, that there was balance. True the gross pubic debt was not being addressed but at least the deficits were not racking up.

However spending is way out of line compared to revenues now. True a recession starting in 2000 did not help. 9/11 did not help. And more and more Americans not having a tax burden due to a permanent change in the tax structure, and now this prolonged recession has greatly hurt revenues. We can't have 47 percent of working Americans not paying federal taxes. That drain is too much even if marginal rates were upped. Originally it was forcasted that taxing the rich more by sunseting the Bush tax cuts would bring in 800 billion over 10 years. However we are running deficits well over a trillion and thus 80 billion is peanuts.

Clearly the spending side is the most egregious. Government needs to shrink which will be tough to do. It is always easy to expand nearly impossible to shrink and certainly not without a lot of pain.

If you are going to blame Bush for the wars and the fact that they aren't funded, why then didn't Obama when he took office insist the wars get immediately funded with a war tax. The reason being is that the voters would never agree to such a tax and thus our current war obligations are not funded now.

He did try that in his budget proposals by putting all war costs INTO the budget, unlike the previous administration and Congress. Putting such costs directly into the budget does require that Congress include how that budget item is going to be paid for.

Vegas,

Still no job bill has come out of the House of Representatives.

You seem to think that government programs create jobs. Au contraire.

The Republicans passed the repeal of ObamaCare - that probably would have created a million jobs right there had the Senate passed it and the President signed it. They've killed Cap and Tax. There's a few more million jobs "created or saved". Not bad for six months work, I'd say.

President: 'We know the right thing to do'.

You don't know jack, or you would have done it a long time ago. I am sick and tired of lying, conniving, thieving, politicians--from BOTH parties!

We the People have to live within our means. Why shouldn't the government?

RockyRoad, please get your facts straight. It was George Bush that approved the bailout of GM and Chrysler.

Time for ALL members of BOTH parties to stop putting thier political party's interests ABOVE the interests of the American people..........all that is said or pontificated by them,including the campaigner in chief, is directed at the never-ending election cycle......nothing more............every word by ALL members of this fiasco is carefully spoken with a big eye on how it will look or sound when it comes back as a sound bite at election time........Oby-1,and Boner need to get thier the party crap out of the way,and all need to get thier heads out of thier ass.........U.S.Army Disabled Veteran

Cut, Cap and Trade! Really, is that the best these Baggers can come up with? Ok, drunk kids lets think back to our Saturday morning school house rock songs shall we?! A bill may originate in the house but it must also pass the Senate and be signed by that pesky dually elected POTUS otherwise it will never become a law. Otherwise it is just a Bill, a Dead BILL! What don't you guy pass a jobs bill and see if it gets through to law.

Barry,

Most of what you say is ok. We have to end the tax cuts on all, including the middle class. $70B per year is not nearly enough. Neither is the $210B if we end the rich and middle class tax breaks, but it's a start.

I can agree to reduce taxes across the board, if you cut all loopholes, simplify the tax code, and nearly eliminate the auditing part of the IRS.

However, you missed it on trickle down. It works perfectly.... In manufacturing. When it was proposed Free Trade and NAFTA were not in place. The idea is that you buy jeans. Levi's pays their people and out of the costs, pays the denim company, etc.

The problem is that trickle down is working perfectly.....in China. They have to raise interest rates to cool their growth, nearly 10% last quarter.

Enjoy your weekend, peace out.

The government is allowed to borrow money. The government is allowed to have an unbalanced budget. The government is allowed to have secret meetings where they plot and plan our future. Those people keep getting re-elected by the dumb voters, so clearly they do not have a reason to respect the voters. Does that answer your question?

This is more like Cuba or North Korea; 'We've had a secret meeting. Here's what we're going to do to you'.

Charlie, Bush was re-elected in 2006? Wow I didn't know that, so you mean he was the President until 2010, and Obama wasn't put into office until a few months ago? Wow, I could of sworn Bush was re-elected in 2004 and was president until 2008. Since the Democrats took over the House and Senate in Bush's second midterm election I think, and I guess I could be wrong, that was in 2006. That would mean Obama was put into office at the start of 2009, two and a half years ago. But you know what, I guess I am the one who is wrong, and economan was trying to rewrite history.

Downright the truth. Repulicans would not know honor if it were staring them straight in the face. Complete phonies. The shame I feel for their actions, the shame they must feel, and the shame the rest of the world must see in all of us is not bearable for me. Republicans are staining our countries ideals. At this point, they have become polarized to the point of stupidity. We truly need rid of them entirely.

Beyond all the petty bickering about where the money will come from, has any one actually considered what will happen if we default? Every large loan I have ever had required some form of collateral. Something tangible, not just an IOU. Something worth more than the loan the bank can take if I don't pay the money back. What has Obama given China for these trillions of dollars? And whats going to happen if they try to take it?

Please don't get stupid in the replies, its an actual question. Because I don't know.

Cele2000-- the democrats might be scaring grandma, but the republicans are killing her.

dinkydow' not correct spell but yes you are. Taxes need to be raised and those against are just fooling themselves. Cutting spending must be done and those who don't like it are delusional. /Finally Bushie was an idiot.

"Obama: Stop insults and compromise over debt"

As he continues to demonize the Republicans and refuses to offer a detailed plan of his own.

"Do as I say, not as I do".

Obama's plan is to cut three dollars in spending for every dollar in raised revenue. The revenue comes from closing unfair loopholes and ending tax cuts, not from raising taxes. This sounds extremely reasonable and fair to me.

I still see a lot of 'Bush Bashing' by Obama's supporters, so let's see what Bush's OVERALL record shows;

In the 8 years under Bush, we had;

The economy (GDP) grew by 48.13%, or 6.02% per year, even with 9/11 and the 'housing bubble collapse' recession, which was NOT his fault (Congress constantly ignored Bush's attempts to regulate the loose lending standards by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac).

A net total of 8,471,000 new jobs were added, or 1,058,875 net new jobs per year.

The total Deficits were only $2.006 Trillion, or only $251 Billion per year.

In the Last 2 years under a Democratic Congress and Obama, we had;

The economy (GDP) grew by only 1.25%, or 0.63% per year.

A net total of 6,521,000 new jobs were LOST, or 3,260,500 net new jobs LOST per year.

The total Deficits were $2.706 Trillion, or $1,353 Billion per year.

A few months ago, there was a billboard of a smiling G W Bush asking "Miss me yet?" I think the answer for most Americans is a definite YES.

The figures for the GDP and Deficits are readily available online. The figures for Jobs are at the following official government link;

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Roy W.,

You hit the nail on the head.

Brandon,

You're correct also.

The Dems are saying "no" to cutting spending.

They're saying "no" we won't put forth a plan.

And they're saying "no" we won't debate or consider any plan that the Repubs have put in place.

It's time for the Demnocrats to step up and put something in writing on the table rather than grandiose pie in the sky "this is what we might do" BS. Of course we're asking the party that hasn't had a budget for more than two years, even with a majority in the House and Senate and control of the White House, to come up with a plan.

gendolkari,

Would you care to show me the plan Obama came up with. As I noted a moment ago; Demnocrats have a lot of pie in the sky, but they have no actual plan.

400 billion at the end that was the deal breaker for the Republicans, causing them to "walk away", had to have been repealing the Bush tax cuts.

That's the only answer. Republicans are sealing their fate for the 2012 elections, having walked away twice.

Charlie, better go take another look at the history books! LOL! Bush was re-elected in 2004, dude. The Dems took control of congress in 2006,

That's another our tight lie. The surplus was long gone before the first Bush term ended. Bush and his Republican congress passed tow tax cuts with out paying for them. they passed a prescription drug bill and didn't pay for that. They didn't pay for most of the costs of the two wars they started. The explosion in the deficits began in 2002 -- the first year of the Bush?Republican budget. One of the reason the Bush spending doesn't look quiet as bad is because he choose not to include most of the cost of the wars in his calculations. Obama counts those costs in his.

Scott-1352085 "Obama's plan is to cut three dollars in spending for every dollar in raised revenue. The revenue comes from closing unfair loopholes and ending tax cuts, not from raising taxes. This sounds extremely reasonable and fair to me."

If he had stuck with that position, but then the Democrats objected and in Obama's press conference yesterday, Obama admitted that he had 'changed' it to only $1.65 Trillion in spending cuts in return for $1.2 Trillion in new taxes, a ratio of only $1.38 in spending cuts in return for every $1 in new taxes.

Obama 'changed the rules' in the middle of the negotiations, and effectively killed a promising 'deal'.

Scott, Obama's plan is to cut future spending - long after he is gone from office, even if he wins next year. What good is that? So, instead of 24,000,000,000,000 in debt in 2022, we'd have 20,000,000,000,000? At what point do we get spending under control? Under 0 it will only happen when the world begins to refuse to buy our debt.

Susie, what happens when the house of cards collapses? Then there will be no soc sec, nor medicaid nor medicare, or, it they will be drastically cut, way beyond what we could do now to fix it. Gov spending at current levels is not sustainable. The longer we wait to make it sustainable, the more drastic the solutions. The real radicals are those who want to spend us into bankruptcy.

"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 US Government can not 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."

Senator Barack H. Obama's Floor Speech, March 20, 2006

Did the Bush tax cuts 'stimulate' the economy?

Let's look at the record.

The total increase in the economy (GDP) under Clinton (2000 vs 1992) was $3.609 Trillion.

The total increase in the economy (GDP) under Bush (2008 vs 2000) was $4.418 Trillion.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Really Celle? I never heard that. Gotta' sound byte?

Brandon #2.22

Th House passed a bill and the Senate Democrats said NO, without sending back a marked up bill for compromise talks, because the Senate Democrats do not have a plan for the debt ceiling.

They did the same thing with the budget passed by the House, because they do not have any ides for the budget

The Senate Democrats are the new Party of No.

Susie

#2.33

Rhetoric much?

Gendolkari

#2.37

The race card, no argument so it must be race.

Good job

Scott

#2.39

If it is that simple why won't the president write down all of those details and let it be published for the people to read.

Cut Cap and Balance gave the details (whether one likes it or not)

Roy,

Open your eyes. Stop quoting numbers that are meaningless and points that can't possibly be justified...

Where was the budget when Bush took office? It was near balanced.

Why didn't we fund the wars? Bush (and "deficits-don't-matter" Cheney justified it because of the flat economy after 9/11. Might be justified, but the point was that it was expensive and purely deficit spending... BIG TIME spending.... that will continue for years.

So why couldn't we fund the Bush Medicaid? Didn't want to.

So why did we continue the Bush tax cuts after it's effectiveness wore off? You DO know that tax cuts are less real financials and mostly just "feel good" and are only good for a one-time bump to the economy, right?

So you want us to believe that Bush "did everything he could" to INCREASE regulations to prevent the housing bubble? Wow, really? But regulations on Wall Street and Big Business and Big Oil was justifiably ignored and minimized? Something smells bad with that whole story... like it wasn't true. Bush never met a regulation he liked.

Your numbers on the Bush deficits are factual but unimportant. What's important is what he started in motion that NOBODY could have stopped... not Obama, not McCain... NOBODY. Wars still going, Medicaid still going, unnecessary tax cuts STILL GOING... and I still place them firmly on Bush shoulders as they should be.

And regarding Obama's poor growth numbers compared to Bush? Seriously? And what would McCain have done had he been handed this pile of crap economy? No better, maybe worse. Truth is that this economy is something NOBODY knows how to recover... even you have admitted that in other posts.

No, Bush is not missed yet. Never will be. He'll definitely never be forgotten, but he'll not be missed.

Thanks for the link to the data. It IS interesting, but we need to look at it in the proper light. :)

Dinkydow, if you actually believe that Bush Jr was the greatest president ever, then how about yo volunteer to serve your country and fight over in Iraq to support that blackhole war that he started? When idiots like yourself get on the vine and start spouting such moronic comments that defy both logic and reality, it makes me start to doubt whether we have enough intelligence in this country to truly giude it from the quagmire that we find ourselves in.

I am fine with raising everyone's taxes......everyone's. It seems to me that too many in this country don't sacrifice enough or contribute enough to enjoy the many freedoms and benefits that we all enjoy as American citizens. And while we are at it, institute a draft so that even the dirty politicians kids have to fight abroad since they enjoy sending everyone elses children to fight and die in $hithole countries across the globe.

Vegas-1759617

I bet if Bush Jr. was still in office the debt ceiling would have been raised 3 times already with no issues.

when will the bugger eating nose pickers get it thru their thick heads? it doesnt matter at this point who is president, this issue is long over due. there is a difference between those who are entitled, and those who feel they are entitled, thats one place to start. maybe an increased luxury tax?

i will agree this is something where both sides should immediatly start to consider issue solving vs vote saving. i already know that the job i was hired for buiding items for the military is going to be on limited time. the rest of the ships ordered by the looks are going to be cancelled. those who got a job building transports of any kind for the miltary are done once the quota already paid for is met putting tens of thousands out of a job. the government needs to scale back, even tho its going to put another tens of thousands out of a job. that will be another means to balance the budget, at the same time force a showdown in if the numbnuts in charge can actually do anything to fix the economy, as of this time showing he cant. Biggest issue here is not just the budget, but the economy, getting the REAL jobs back to bring in that lost revenue like i have been saying for the past 3 years.

meantime, layoffs have already started, with not enough openings to do squat as far as easing an even bigger burden of the number of jobless out there. instead of picking a party to jerk off to the beat of others misgivings, people need to set that aside and come together to demand real changes in government and its policies, rather being at eachothers throats for the empty pot of gold that no longer exsists.

Amazing how blindly people will agree with anything that supports their point of view. See Charlie's post about Bush being supposedly re-elected in 2006 and its almost 30 votes!

Charlie,
Lets look at the facts of the deficit (not debt), yes Bush had some of his own, but the explosion started in 2006 when the Dems' took over.

(Numbers in Millions)

2001-2002 $420,772
2002-2003 $554,995 (31% increase)
2003-2004 $595,821 (7.4% increase)
2004-2005 $553,656 (7% decrease)
2005-2006 $574,264 (3.7% increase)
2006-2007 $500,679 (12.8% decrease)
Then the Democrat's have the first full year of their budgets:
2007-2008 $1,017,071 (103% increase)
2008-2009 $1,885,104 (85% increase)
2009-2010 $1,651,794 (14% decrease)
2010-2011 projected to be at least $1,500,000

So, how is it an "ouright lie" that the democrats had a spending explosion?

Bahahahaha..

Barack Obama called Saturday for an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night.

This should read, Barack Obama called Saturday insulting everyone and demanding an end to insults and demands in the negotiations over the debt ceiling, after they broke down Friday night

Sparky1028, you wanted to see what B.O. gave to congress???

Congress voted down his budget proposal long time ago...

here's a link to the file

The libs just can't stop with the Bush excuse; but that's because they have no basis for defending Obama's incompetence. Folks, Obama has been in charge for almost three years now, and he has accomplished absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G! It's his baby now; you know, the buck stops here......except that under Obama, the buck has a big negative sign in front of the dollar sign. Stop spending, and eliminate some of the bulls**t programs, like the "untouchable" high speed rail.

sammy,

YOu mean the budget that added 1.x trillion to the debt each year and sent the the debt to more than 20 trillion by 2016 or 2018... Wow, imagine that load of garbage getting voted down. Even the Demoncrats coudn't stomach it since they voted against it as well.

Spoons and Go Fish.....

Wow! Daunting! I'm not even a 1/3 down the page, of this page 1! I thought I'd try and pay a little tribute to page 1 instead of just going to the last page to begin. Last time I looked at a story from last night that I would liked to have been able to get into....there were 111 pages!!! Yikes...I played repeated hands of "Go Fish" with my grandaughter instead, until she got bored and excitedly asked me if I wanted to play "Spoons" (with the cards?). I told her that "I can't, I'm too tired to learn a new game. I really can't take on learning a new game besides "Go Fish' right now"....please, please, please....then "Okay". I gave it my best attempt,(I really did) followed by my almost immediate "okay, this has got to STOP" as she finished telling and showing me how she thought the game is played. We went back to a few more hands of "Go Fish!" before her mother came to pick her up and take her back home.

Pacosperson, from post #2.28, Excellent! "We've had a secret meeting. Here's what we're going to do to you." Reminds me, also, of these sudden little ambushing "sneak attack" insistent and inflicted ads directly into these posts from MSNBC!

Anonymus User, from post #2.49, Excellent! Thanks for the showing of more of the true context of Obama"s 2006 Floor Speech.

LMarcT, from post #2.53, Excellent! Just Excellent! Thank you.

Chriscade, from post #2.54, Excellent! Something's going on with taxes even down on the lower tiers. I know, firsthand, of a property owner (landlord of 4 multi-unit buildings) with also a full time "just for the hell of it" side job repeatedly getting an income "tax refund", while at the same time, one year, a very "close to me" struggling part time waitress, going full time to Cosmetology School, ended up owing $1200 in taxes! How does that happen?

Political Clean Slate: If you were there in 2000- "GET OUT!!!" (Reps & Dems)

Roy W, hiap, cele2000: appreciate the facts you are posting. Keep it up!!!

President Obama and the DEms are going to cave again, to these immoral right wing criminals, amazing!

Show some spine Mr. President!!!!

Stand up to these scumbags! If they really want to push us over the edge, Declare an emergency and use your emergency powers and the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.

LMarcT "Roy, Open your eyes. Stop quoting numbers that are meaningless and points that can't possibly be justified...Where was the budget when Bush took office? It was near balanced."

Yes, and then a little thing like 9/11 and the 'dot.com' bubble bursting happened to turn the economy upside down.

Of course, while we're quoting Clinton's "projected" surpluses, we might as well point out that Bush "projected" surpluses too - starting in 2012, but another 'little thing' happened at the end of 2008 - the housing bubble popped.

Bush led us quite successfully through the aftermath of 9/11 and the 'dot.com disasters, but Obama doesn't seem to be able to repeat Bush's success. In fact, 3 years after 9/11, the economy (GDP) under Bush was 15.4% higher, but after 3 years of Obama, the economy (GDP) is about 3% higher.

I wonder if it has anything to do with all of those anti-business/jobs policies of Obama?

Tax and spend dems. the party of wrong. must be on the same drugs that killed Amy Whitehous. They want to kill America the same way, with an overdose of stupidity.

Kill it so we don't have to care about you anymore.

chriscade you say "It seems to me that too many in this country don't sacrifice enough or contribute enough to enjoy the many freedoms and benefits that we all enjoy as American citizens."

All I have to say to that is what freedoms??? Sadly the government and health nuts are trying to control every little detail of our lives from pissing to what we eat and drink. The government is waging a war on drugs, waging a war on cigarettes, waging a war on what kids eat at home and school. Pretty soon we won't even be allowed to breathe without approval from the government...

So why should we the average citizen sacrifice anything? Haven't we already sacrificed enough by sacrificing our freedom, our rights? Hell we've even mindlessly like sheep sacrificed our dignity and pride in the name of a false sense of security at the airports by allowing ourselves to be treated like the terrorists the government is supposed to be protecting us from. Our constitution doesn't mean jack anymore sadly. So no I won't sacrifice anything

leave us

Does it ever strike any of you no matter what you say in these comments it doesn't help and it only makes the other person mad so what do you gain from it???????

Republicans always work toward and succeed in decreasing the national debt. ;-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calmar/2235223387/

I looked at Obama's Budget projections for the next 10 years (a), and here are the results;

Obama projects spending $47.315 Trillion over the next 10 years (2012 – 2021), an increase of $17.485 Trillion above the level of spending by 'Big spender' Bush in his last fiscal year in office (2008). That's an increase of 59% in spending.

Obama projects the National Debt increasing to $26.346 Trillion (vs $10.025 Trillion for Bush's last fiscal year in office - 2008), an increase of $16.321 Trillion.

Does it not seem strange that Obama, while saying 'We must be more fiscally responsible”, can't seem to find even 5% of that huge level of spending, and demonizes anyone that tries?

(a) - See the White House Budget for 2012 – Tables S-1 and S-14. The link is below;

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

We also go after the the loopholes for the POOR and tax those who have more then 2 children. The poor need to pay their fare share in taxes, not just the RICH as all of you on the blog claim. To many poor are also scamming the Government. This country needs to FLAT TAX so everyone pays their fare share. So to all you Liberals/Demo the poor are also the problem in corruption & fraud of the welfare system including foodstamps, ect.....which is costing us tax payers and this Government $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roy Wilson,

Good points, but we're not seriously going to directly compare the dot.com bubble with the current mess, are we? They lack comparison just on depth alone. The dot.com was a great deal of money but was not fundamentally part of virtually every American like the housing market was.

I guess we need to be consistent when we hand out passes on poor performance to some and not others (both of us). Thx.

This situation didn't happen overnight or in just the last couple of years. It's not being partisan or left or right to say that it all started going downhill with Bush Jr and his wars, etc., total lack of any sense in some policies/regards, and I think taxing the RICH is a must but Congress wont do that lest they offend their voters.

Regardless of the HOW, the problem NOW is the juvenille mindset of ALL in Congress, Dems and Reps. They are like a bunch of petulent children, fighting over crap, and personally I am sick of it all. They still get a full paycheck, and millions are starving. We are the ones caught in the middle... yet again. In a perfect world, I'd love to see an average citizen hold a news concerence on the steps of the Capitol, blasting every single one of the morons now in office. Sadly, there is little we can do. We can scream about not electing them again, calling on the phone to complain in their Washington offices, but I think short of some way to make them hear ALL of us, we're pretty much screwed..

The sick mad teanuts are destroying middle class America, wake up.

What I think is interesting is that so many place all blame on the president, whoever he is..yet folks, we elect every few years the same politicans to the house and senate..and guess what..it is their responsibleity to come up with the budget, they are the ones that place numbers where they should..and guess what..for years not a one has done that..both parties blame whoever the president is for everything,,except the pet projects thay all pass through with no problems at all. Both parties lay claim that lobbyist are a problem..but neither party weill cut that off...too much money involved. It would be nice if these politicans cared enough about this country to do what they were elected to do.

"Cut, Cap and Balance" versus "Spend, Spin and Bow". Which one will they chose?

Neither side will be able to read the others legislation before voting on it. How pathetic.

Hey, if you don't cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, our credit rating will be affected. The House presented and passed legislation to only be blocked by Harry Reid and the Senate. Is that surprising when the Senate hasn't even passed a budget for 2011 yet? In fact, exactly what legislation has Harry and his Democratically controlled Senate passed this year? NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Now who's the party of "NO"?

Vegas-1759617 At least Bush and the Republican controlled congress passed a budget each year. It wasn't till the Democrats took control over congress there has has been no budget. Obama also voted NO for any debt increase under Bush. Democrats have increased the dept with no budget and no shovel ready jobs. Only ones that they bailed out was the companies that got us into this mess in the first place. The Democrats just sold their shares of Chrysler stocks at a $1.5 BILLION DOLLAR loss and they think it was great. I think that taxpayers and all Americans lost big.

House Speaker Boehner said he would stop working with the POTUS and go to work with his colleages across the isle in the Senate to get a bill passed in Congress.

Isn't that the way the process works? The CONGRESS passes a bill and it goes to the President for signature or veto. The Republican House can't seem to get a bill passed by Congress (days of Nancy Pelosi and a Republican fillibustering Senate), but the Republicans blame the President?

Why can't the Republicans get any legislation passed? The Republicans are useless. Did the Republican/Teabaggers every think about the Senate? The Republicans are looking more inept each day this goes on. Had the perfect opportunity to lead the way and now they look like chickens with their heads cut off. It is amazing to see.

US=Greece=Account Overdrawn

The funny thing about this, most Americans will spend time posting on web-pages blaming others and NEVER sovle the issue.

I have no issue with raising taxes, but do it for everybody, or will personal greed (ALL classes, not just the rich) get in the way. How can Americans say this is an American issue but not all Americans should chip in.

Greed, Greed, Greed is at the heart of the issue- by everybody. Everyone is saying "keep your hand off my stash of money, I am entitled to it".

How long will it take to see Americans becoming violent about loss entitlements or do we tax the rich until they realize that the US is not worth living or doing business in. Will we pass a law that prevent the rich from leaving America???

I see left and right wing-nuts, and they do not even know they are nuts.

Have a great day.

What burden it must be that Obama had to cancel a fund raising campaign trip so he can assist with getting this resolved. This whole processes is a joke. The democrats are the party of 'spend other people's money' and they are too stupid to recognize it. We have serious issues in this country and spending money we don't have, in all the wrong places, will not solve them. It's time for some serious leadership in the white house and Obama is not it!

Vegas-1759617 "I bet if Bush Jr. was still in office the debt ceiling would have been raised 3 times already with no issues."

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Bush's total Deficits for all of his 8 years (2001 - 2008) amounted to only $2.006 Trillion, while Obama's Deficits for just his first 3 years (2009 - 2011) will be approximately $4.3 Trillion, so it's the huge increase in SPENDING that requires big increases in the debt limit. Bush's required increases in the debt limit were quite modest in comparison.

For those who doubt the accuracy of this information, here is the link to the official Obama White House link;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.1

LMarcT "Roy Wilson, Good points, but we're not seriously going to directly compare the dot.com bubble with the current mess, are we?"

You overlooked the major economic impact of 9/11 that I also noted. That cause a spike in the unemployment rate of about 1.5%, which took years to overcome.

WinkWink wrote:

What burden it must be that Obama had to cancel a fund raising campaign trip so he can assist with getting this resolved. This whole processes is a joke. The democrats are the party of 'spend other people's money' and they are too stupid to recognize it. We have serious issues in this country and spending money we don't have, in all the wrong places, will not solve them. It's time for some serious leadership in the white house and Obama is not it!

If I were Obama, I would go fishing until I got a Bill on my desk to sign or veto. And, if it's not on my desk by August 2nd, I would start cutting checks.

StoptheCannibals-2908428 "If I were Obama, I would go fishing until I got a Bill on my desk to sign or veto. And, if it's not on my desk by August 2nd, I would start cutting checks."

Maybe that would help, since Obama's 'help' seems to make matters worse.
Unfortunately, it takes both the Republican House AND the Democratic Senate to 'pass' a bill, and while the Republicans have actually PASSED two bills to increase the debt limit, Harry Reid has done nothing in the Senate to even suggest a bill, and has blocked both bills passed by the House.

It's time for Harry Reid to stop 'sitting on his hands'.

Roy, it's time for republicans to stop acting like children.

There isn't a dimes difference between a democrat and a republican. Both are ignorant war mongers that fear blowback from all the terror they've inflicted upon the middle east. Endless war and debt. Paid for by the sweat and blood of the masses. Pathetic losers so ethnocentric they will never see their own culpability in destroying America's economy or freedoms. The only thing worse than a middle eastern terrorist is an American Patriot.

I personally like the Grand Plan.

I don't think the plans introduced by the Repubican House were realistic and were more grandstanding as the parties are quick to do.

Yeah... we need to cut trillions in spending and raise taxes from the lowest rate in 50 years.

And we need to realize the strain that the aging (and longer lived) baby boomers are having on entitlements.

I don't have answers, but this blog won't solve the problem. Any answer would be swallowed by the so-childish name calling and other toxic spew.

One thing I am concerned about is the use of false or mis-leading information.

One Republican talking point is that Obama's budget was rejected 97-0.

While technically true, the numbers in the budget were no longer valid because Obama had already announced a much more aggressive package.

It was a technicality, not a failure of any kind on Obama's part, so it's very misleading.

Just my 2 cents.

ROY WILSON-336103
StoptheCannibals-2908428 "If I were Obama, I would go fishing until I got a Bill on my desk to sign or veto. And, if it's not on my desk by August 2nd, I would start cutting checks."

Maybe that would help, since Obama's 'help' seems to make matters worse.
Unfortunately, it takes both the Republican House AND the Democratic Senate to 'pass' a bill, and while the Republicans have actually PASSED two bills to increase the debt limit, Harry Reid has done nothing in the Senate to even suggest a bill, and has blocked both bills passed by the House. It's time for Harry Reid to stop 'sitting on his hands'.

Roy, It seems to me, if you can't get a Bill to pass the Senate, you'd better go back and make one that WILL pass both Houses......

InsertEyeRollHere: One thing I am concerned about is the use of false or mis-leading information.

One Republican talking point is that Obama's budget was rejected 97-0.

While technically true, the numbers in the budget were no longer valid because Obama had already announced a much more aggressive package.

It was a technicality, not a failure of any kind on Obama's part, so it's very misleading.

You're right.....That's why they say, "tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth....."

theboys: In an earlier post, you said President Obama should have applied a war tax; however, NO Republican would have voted for it because they have "vowed" not to raise taxes no way no how.....and they even signed an unlawful (IMO) declaration from Grover Norquist that clearly states that they will raise NO taxes.

Additionally, people fail to realize that Bush II's budget did NOT include the costs of the Iraqi war...he wonderfully "hid" this amount because he knew the American public would see him for what he (and his cronies) were -- big spenders!

Didi,

I'm not in any way defending Bush - I thought he was a horrible president for a number of reasons. But, that doesn't mean it's ok for Obama to do the same kind of things. Bush overspent, and Obama continued the tradition and more than doubled it (even after assigning the war cost to Bush).

We just cannot continue these "borrow and spend" levels. American can and will go broke if we don't make significant changes. When that happens, everyone and every program will take huge hits. Defense will have to be slashed as will SS, Medicare and Medicaid. It's not going to be pretty in 10 years if we don't get a handle on the deficit.

I agree with hungrymongoose 99.9% except that I think the Current and former Presidents as well as all current and retired representatives in D.C. should have their pay cut to $0.00 and give up their benefits for themselves and their families as long as we have a deficit. Only when we once again become a creditor nation should they receive a salary (at a big pay cut) and their benefits should be the same as all other citizens. One more thing, there should be no automatic pay raises for any of the above.

Yes, it was no problem during the six years the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, plus the Supreme Court.
Borrow and spend.
Not even Tax and spend, which at least would pay the bills.
But now that the huge ballooning deficit created by Party Boy comes knocking, it is all Mr. Socialist Obama's fault.
These teabagger idiots are so stupid, they don't even realize they are the ones that created this problem.

Folks, how could you be financally responsible when those around you are pouring money into their own pockets or funds without care. Do not blame the president for that. Look at the earmarks. passed with a wave of the hand, no one even tried to read them. That make me wonder what exactly was in those pages.

Think of yourself as a corporate leader. The people below you are not even trying to do their jobs (one even says he is just there to make sure that another is going to loose his job). Are you going to keep them as workers. Honestly time to reset and start with an entirely new house and senate, at the moment, I also say the president as well. Too many little boys not wanting to fix the problems with the sand box that is the US.

StoptheCannibals-2908428 "Roy, It seems to me, if you can't get a Bill to pass the Senate, you'd better go back and make one that WILL pass both Houses......"

How do you know unless you try? If you just did what the Democrats wanted, it would not pass the House.

The way it's supposed to work is as follows;

1 - The House passes a bill to raise the debt limit (They've passed 2 already).
2 - The Senate considers the House bill and makes 'amendments' to it and then passes their own version.
3 - A Joint Conference Committee meets to reconcile the differences, and a 'revised' bill is approved by both houses, which is then sent to the President.
4 - The President either signs it or vetoes it, starting the process over.

So far, the Republicans have passed 2 bills, but the Senate has not even considered them, much less 'amended' either of them so we can go to step 3.

The 'hangup' is in the Senate, which refuses to do their part, thanks to Harry Reid. All they do is say "We don't like the House version", without considering any alternatives.

Subject: Obituary-Very Interesting
THIS IS WELL WORTH THE TIME TO READ
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of
Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some
2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes
for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal
policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of
history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

Gotta love these Liberals! LOL The whole BLAME BUSH crowd.. too funny!

Yeah, we got into a couple of expensive wars under Bush. But if you think that's where today's economic hardship started, you really need to study global economics a little more. Or just go to your local Walmart and see where 90% of the products are made.

You people can hate and tear each other apart all you want and it won't solve anything in the long run. The simple fact is that America is a free market economy. The simple fact is that India's middle class is 500 million people.. 200 million more than our entire population... try to wrap your brain around that.

It's okay to disagree... but please try to show some common courtesy. After all, this is a democracy and people will disagree. We are in for a long bumpy ride downhill as the quality of life we have enjoyed for so long begins to level out with 3 billion people in China and India.

Whether you're Republican, Democrat, Liberal, etc. Every time you go to the store and buy something that is Made in China or Made in India, you are doing far more damage to our country's economics than Bush ever did.

YOU'RE ALL GUILTY!

Hell, we are even having our bridges built in China now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?pagewanted=all

How is this allowed? How is this NOT being built with American hands?

What is REALLY destroying this country is that every week, American's make deposits at the Bank of Saudi Arabia (the gas station) the Banks of China and India (Walmart)

Roy Wilson - You keep offering sane logical arguments and offer legitimate sources to back up your statements. It really shows just how pliable and subject to propaganda some folks are when they are arguing with you without any contrasting facts.

dave-735909 - Not only did the Auto bailout occur under Obama; but he joked how just like Oprah, if you - the American Public - looked under your seat you would find a car company. The bailout that occurred just before the 2008 election was of the financial institutions. The Auto bailouts were lumped together with the shovel ready jobs to stimulate our economy. Most of which have not happened yet either. Heck they even managed to funnel 50 million to AlGore to start an Automobile company in Finland in the 800 Billion Stimulus package that the Democrats passed in 2009.

Barry Moore says - stop using bold, hard to read and anoying. Post like everyone else plz.

Well Gee George Washington says

Where were you when we started giving tax breaks to the corporations who sent our jobs to China and India? What do you want to bet the some of what you buy with out of country labels is manufactured by US corporations doing business off shore.

Roy, when the Republicans held the HealthReform Bill in hostage, the same way the Dems. are now doing in the Senate, it was right in your eyes, and most Republicans, as most Americans did not want it passed, you assumed. The filibuster kept the bill from going to a final vote in the Senate after it had passed the House.

The current bill will not pass the Senate as written so their is no reason for it to come up for a vote on the Senate floor. Filibustering the HealthBill with a minority of the vote in the Senate was just as wrong than what Dems. are doing today. It is legislative maneuvering and has been going on for century's. So don't play it as if it is new to you.

This failed prez treats the American public like they are in Romper Room and they are getting tired of it.

And then the liberal media and pols manage to lable the tea party as the radicals! The people who really are responsible, who understand you can't sustain gov at current insane spending levels are the radicals. We've got to hope most Americans are at least smart enough to know we have to get rid of the Big 0, before he grinds us into paste under the weight of gov debt.

"Starving the Beast" the Republican platform since Reagan went on steroids in the Bush administration. You don't cut taxes and go to war twice.

Republicans could care less about the default, their aim is to end entitlements.

Obama inherited interest on the debt that is forty cents on the dollar. You have to pay the interest as you go, that is part of why Obama's spending looks over the top. The stimulus was needed and worked.

Republicans love their lies.

Did the Bush tax cuts 'stimulate' the economy?

Let's look at the record.

The total increase in the economy (GDP) under Clinton (2000 vs 1992) was $3.609 Trillion.

The total increase in the economy (GDP) under Bush (2008 vs 2000) was $4.418 Trillion.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

And remember, Bush had to contend with the devastating effects of 9/11.

Obama is a weak President... he should be leading right now but he's sounding more and more like a petualant 2 year old who can't get his way! The democrats and republicans had reached a compromise and were working out the details when BO again dropped the tax bomb! What was he thinking? Or was he thinking at all and only did that at the urging of Harry Reid, every socialist's mentor?

You don't raise taxes in a recession! You create jobs, which in turn creates tax revenue and takes people off the government dole!

Get a backbone Obama and get this deal done!

What recession? you dont want him to tax the rich , you dont want him to tax the corporations, and every item you buy says Made in China. Dont you know the president dont create the jobs, ask the corporations what are they doing. you need to be fair. fair is what you would want for you so, give it also.

onedinkydow

What people dont understands is that it only took obama two years to spend more than ALL presidents combined....... Its too bad they are too dumb to see this,

Do you include the Bush unfunded Afghan war in your Obama "spending" number?

Do you include the unnecessary and unfunded Iraq war in your Obama "spending" number?

Do you include Bush's unfunded Medicaid in your Obama "spending" number?

Do you include the continuing unfunded Bush tax cuts? Oh yea... forgot... they're self funding (called voodoo economics by Bush Sr.)

Do you include the Bank/Wall Street bailouts? The Stimulus? The Auto bailouts? Those are all related to saving our butts from the economy Bush left us, so they should probably not be counted, huh? McCain might have done the same?

The point is that if you take Obama's "Bush legacy" spending out of the picture, you might get a truer comparison.

Take out spending required to save the economy and jobs and you would get even closer.

Minus monies spent to help the unemployed and down-trodden caused by this economy and we might see what he truly "spent".

What you would find is that the only true "spending" that went on was to shore up our poorly performing government regulators and to try to fix the all-too-broken health care system. There you go. We can argue these if you want. These initiatives represent new Obama "spending"... certainly not the most in history, is it?

Thanks for your point. Guess some of us are just "too dumb" to realize what's going on. Now we know.

miked,

You don't raise taxes in a recession! You create jobs, which in turn creates tax revenue and takes people off the government dole!

You don't raise taxes in a recession just like you don't slash cut budgets and lay off people during a recession. Both cause job loss. Both cause negative consumer confidence. Neither should be done during a recession.

But the point is that our debt became a factor when revenues died and we hit the magic "trillion" number. It became a factor when the debt itself started killing confidence and became so huge relative to our GDP.

We must address the debt. And we must address it doing both things that we shouldn't normally do... taxes and cuts. The "hope" (not science) is that addressing the debt will give "confidence" a higher bump than the negatives caused by cuts and taxes... we can only hope, because nobody truly knows what will happen with such deep cuts.

In the meeting at the White House today, Boehner should just say "Mr. President, we negotiated a deal that was mutually acceptable several days ago, but then you changed it at the last minute. We wasted several days on nothing, and you have demonstrated that you are an unreliable negotiating partner, so we will switch the 'negotiations' to the floor of the House and Senate so the people can see who's telling the truth."

They should then just sit there until the meeting is adjourned by Obama walking out.

Who's responsible for the Budget Deficits and the Debt?

While it's tempting to blame the President for Budget Deficits, it's actually the responsibility of Congress to pass a spending budget, which establishes the amount of the Deficit each year and any required borrowings on the Debt. So what does the record show based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years;

DEFICITS

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NEW DEBT

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.859 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

Spin it all you want, but these are the FACTS

(a) – Contrary to popular belief, the National Debt increases far more than the Deficits for each year.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify National Debt increases is;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np You have to select dates.

The White House government site to verify Deficits is;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.1

I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is more fiscally responsible.

MRZ. I apologize if wrong but your tone seems to mock the idea of working together. It isn't difficult to overlook but both - or is it three - groups are posturing and recoiling in fear at alienating their base. Cheap Insults have gone both ways.

Have you considered the possibility that this problem grows worse with Internet discussion forums where people are protected by anonymity? Yes, we have a growing population of people who spend hours studying the litany of insults and seeking opportunities to use them. Listening, if practiced at all, is used only to spot the key phrases that identify the person writing so we can decide whether to let them pass in peace or attack without mercy. This is less productive than trying to reason with telemarketers.

What if John Boehner or Obama actually altered their position and made a worthwhile proposal? Have we become so rehearsed in our familiar ways that we would block improvement to retain the familiar insults? Would we expect that our elected representatives fail to notice this? Should they put aside their familiar and by now noxious regurgitation of position we would certainly brand them as quisling traders and turn our anger toward them.

I have no link, this is just my opinion.

Roy Wilson...Who is responsible matters because we know that for 8 years Republicans had every chance in the world to control this now out of control deficit. What was stopping them?

This Tea Party nonsense is another Republican invention to distract from their real agenda. If you know anything about all Republicans and use their policy history as a guide to this agenda, you see it has nothing to do with the American people and only to do with protecting wealth. That's how they remain in control. They fool no one.

All of their attempts at sidelining this administration is the exact same tactic they used when Clinton balanced his budget all with their chagrined bitching and whining.

The handout to states that don't need it, the corporations that earn obscene profits and don't need them and the wealthiest 1% who whine like big babies that they are "overtaxed" has gone as far as it can go.

Republicans know this and are fighting the battle of their lives to keep this in place. Not not not not going to happen. They will never take away the payroll deductions Americans pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...and what is their answer to replacing that funding?

Funnel it all to private corporations. Gee...now there's real Republican agenda for you. Put Middle Class and working poor at the mercy of Corporate America...as if we aren't already paying their Big Business debts with our federal taxes.

How about the Republicans man up for a change? How about they stop trying to create the image of them caring about the Middle Class? The only care about the Middle Class wanting an end to being the cash cows for their hotcha corporations and 1%.

Look at all the comments collapsed..lmao must have been telling te truth about the debt ceiling. Truths like "Why is Obama using fear about SS check, military, etc being cut off BUT still going to send Billions in foreign aid?"

Obama=EPIC FAIL

Acting like a 3 year old child in the White House.

Maybe she should be our leader...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

ROFLOL.

There's always been a flow back and forth between rich and poor. In the last 20-30 years - the rich have been ascendant. Usually it takes something extreme to turn the tide back in favor of the poor (e.g Th Great Depression) Should the Righties get their way and screw those on the bottom even worse this will have the unintended consequence of triggering an economic situation which will work against their goal of allowing the rich to live on the labors of those on the bottom.

I just figured out how to 'cut' $4.6 Trillion from the National Debt with just the stroke of a pen.

According to the government's Treasury web site below, the government owes the American taxpayers $4.595 Trillion that they 'borrowed' from the Social Security and Medicare 'Trust Funds' (giving IOUs in return).

Since everybody knows that the government will never repay those loans, but will merely fund Social Security and Medicare with new tax collections, all they have to do is admit that the 'Trust Fund borrowings' are a farce, write off the 'loans', and 'voila', we have reduced our National Debt by $4.595 Trillion.

If anyone objects, the government can just say "Don't worry, it won't affect your 'entitlements' to Social Security and Medicare".

Here is the site;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

PS - The beauty of this is that it merely reflects reality. Just think - Obama could 'make history' by recognizing an undisputed fact.

Roy, the bulk of the difference in debt load for the period you cover is due to the recession that begain in 2008 as the irresponsible policies of the previous 6 years of republican control came home to roost. The housing bubble, hedge fund and financial market excesses, 2 wars, unfunded medicare expansion were all products of republican policies (with help from plenty of democrats), and were all financed by borrowing. Your distorted, one sided interpretation of history is absurd because you cherry pick numbers according to your political belief system. The truth is more complicated than the simplistic partisan hogwash you peddle.

I like this one Roy:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Roy Wilson...Is your 401K an entitlement? It's a payroll deduction that produces funding for your retirement in the same, although riskier way that Social Security does. The only difference is that Social Security is spread out and shared by those contributing. Your 401K isn't. That means when Wall Street crashes, your 401K crashes with it and then what will you complain about? That you didn't get the 401K entitlement you paid for?

It is obvious, BILLTHOMAS you have not read my post. IGNORANCE is our worst enemy. NO MATTER WHO WAS GOING TO BE ELECTED, THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS ISSUE.

ROy WIlson is a proponent of "Cheneythink" the thought process by where you start out with a conclusion and then, like a shopper in a supermarket filling a shopping cart, work backwards and assemble the ingredients you need to justify it.

I am struck by the utter failure of the Republican leadership to expose Obama's threat as a total fraud. Not a single Republican member of the House or Senate has stood before the chamber or the media and detailed the evidence that, even at our current debt limit, the US government has over $200B in monthly income and can pay all of its core obligations without further debt. It is true that the government would have to stop paying for many things, such as foreign aid, but that should be the issue--not that the government has to shut down or default on its interest payments. The failure to expose the threat of default as a political fraud sets the Republicans up for the blame if it does come. One wonders who our leaders are really working for....

Robert Walker details the government's balance sheet: "Everyone has heard them say.... 'Social Security check won't go out!; Medicare will go broke!; Schools will close!, the military and veterans won't be paid!; we will default on our debt!' "But here are the facts! Federal revenue: exceeds $200 billion per month.

"Interest on the national debt: $29 billion/month

Social Security: $49.2 billion/month

Medicare and Medicaid: $50 billion/month

Active duty military pay: $2.9 billion/month

Veterans affairs programs: $2.9 billion/month

Education funding [which I would not include]:$11 billion/month

"All of this core spending adds up to $145 billion, which means that in the event of a debt limit, the government can pay it all and still have $55+ billion a month left over. THE WORLD WILL NOT END."

Corporations are creating jobs. The jobs just don't happen to be in America. The GOP are not trying to create jobs. They are trying to protect their campaign contributions and perks. No public servants in our govt. today. All are looking at what is best for them and ignoring the needs of our country and our citizens. Not one dime to anyone in Congress or the President if SS checks are cut. They can lose their income just as easily as we can. Not one dime in foreign aid until we can take care of our elderly, disabled, and veterans.

Before anyone calls SS an entitlement, remember that we have been paying into it INVOLUNTARILY for 40 years with the promise of a payback at retirement. They made that choice for us then stole the money to support these no win conflicts that we are embroiled in against our will.

SteveH...It's not the liberals who don't pay their taxes. You don't want the tax burden most of us have. How about you and your ilk manup and admit that Big Oil doesn't need the US taxpayers' help with subsidizing the cleanup of their oil spills?

How about your ilk admit that you want it both ways...funneling taxpayer revenues to businesses that make obscene profits and the rich who think they can live solely on their ROI from Wall Street...until it crashes...and crash it will if the Republicans don't get a clue.

They pulled this BS when Gingrich and his gang of GOP thugs shut the government down. Only now, thanks to the mess Bush left, this shutdown has far more serious implications than just about Republicans demanding an end to healthcare, campaign reforms, finance reforms and any other reforms that hurt their rich ass cronies.

ewent "Roy Wilson...Who is responsible matters because we know that for 8 years Republicans had every chance in the world to control this now out of control deficit. What was stopping them?"

Actually, Bush had only 4 years where the Republicans had control of Congress (2003 - 2006), and believe it or not, the average Deficit under Bush, as a % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) averaged only 2.04%, versus the current 10% under Obama. A Deficit ratio of about 3% is generally considered 'manageable', because it reflects the portion of national income required to pay for debt servicing.

And the National Debt, as a % of GDP (the Debt Ratio) averaged 62.92% under Clinton, but it was actually slightly lower under Bush, at 62.41% of GDP. Under Obama, it will exceed 100% of GDP by the end of this year.

Unfortunately for you, some people actually 'crunch the numbers'.

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. " Churchill

RoyWilson...So inflicting more pain on the Middle Class while glossing over the huge exemptions of the rich is the answer?

Unfortunately for you those who crunched numbers never crunched the numbers of handouts to the rich or corporations did they? Oh no...these nut jobs can only crunch numbers of individual Middle Class Americans because if they didn't, the only other numbers remaining to be crunched would be theirs.

Who do you people think you are fooling? Bush increased the deficit ceiling 5 times in 8 years...Now you are concerned? Sorry, a whole lot a whole lot too late.

If there is anything more defensive than a rich ass who thinks he knows it all, I'd sure love to know what that is. I may only know kitchen economics but I know you don't get involved in a war you can't afford and send people to die and be maimed and then bitch. Sorry, no brainer that one.

You've been posting a long time and the song remains the same: Only Republicans know what'd right and correct...Sure that's why that Harvard MBS number cruncher in the White House from 2000 to 2008 ended crunching the numbers into a Global Financial Meltdown...nothing like big heads so swollen and overeducated they reduce themselves to stupid for all to see.

ewent "Roy Wilson...Is your 401K an entitlement? It's a payroll deduction that produces funding for your retirement in the same, although riskier way that Social Security does."

A 401K belongs to a real person. When they die, it belongs to their heirs. Not so with your Social Security Trust Funds. When you die, the government confiscates any remaining balance. Let's get real - the Social Security Trust Fund is just a huge 'Ponzi Scheme' - everybody knows it - why not just recognize the truth.

By the way - In case nobody recognizes it - I AM being a bit facetious.

PS - I am in favor of raising the tax rates on the 'rich' and closing the 'loopholes' that the rich use to avoid taxes - Go figure.

you dont want to raise taxes on the rich... sounds like a jedi mind control trick for the weak minded.you believe fox news and will let rush limbaugh think for you....you will become a dittohead and worship the rich and their money

johnQcitizen "you don't want to raise taxes on the rich... sounds like a jedi mind control trick for the weak minded"

The 'rich' can afford it (and I think it's fair, because they get too many loopholes under the current tax code), but thanks for the 'Jedi' reference - I just watched Star Wars last night with my grandsons and my 5 year old daughter. As I recall, the Jedi were a 'force' for good in the universe.

Roy Wilson...Now stand by....this will hurt. When my father died....all of his Social Security payroll deductions covered my mother and the remaining children under 18 years of age. Enough with the contorted BS. Your 401K could fail tomorrow. Social Security can't unless every dime is raided from our paychecks before it gets to SS.

But, here's one I hope you live to experience: Another massive Wall Street crash that wipes out your 401K, all of the mutual funds and every dime you had in savings...Think that can't happen? Then you are obviously too young to know that's exactly what happened in 1929.

Such is the greed of the rich that stupidity reigns supreme.

Roy Wilson...You bet the rich can afford it. They own 40% of the nations wealth. And how how how how how...did they get it? Without help from employees they paid 500 times less than their own salaries? Without paying for employee healthcare or 401Ks? Using cheap labor supplied by illegals or offshore cheap labor because these jerks were too stupid to realize those cheap labor contracts wouldn't be sustainable for another decade? Not to mention their traitorship in helping to increase the economies of every country but their own.

As for 2003 to 2006 being so economically sound. That's BS. In 2004, 10,000 Americans lost their jobs in a single day. By the end of 2008, the number of unemployed as recorded by the Labor Dept. reached a 17 year spike of 8 million. How about stop trying to evade the truth for a change?

ewent

I don't have a 401K. I invest in REAL assets, not pieces of paper. I can see the inflation looming on the horizon, and will try yo protect myself and my heirs.

ewent "Roy Wilson..As for 2003 to 2006 being so economically sound. That's BS."

Here are some stats for 2003 - 2006;

The Gross Domestic Product increased by 25.9% (6.45% per year).
A total of 7,942,000 net new jobs were added (1,985,500 per year).
The unemployment rate dropped from 5.7% to 4.5%.

Oh, for the 'good old days'.

As for corporations being 'disloyal' to the country - they owe a fiduciary duty to their 'Stockholders', not the country. Just like the unions have a duty to their workers, not the corporation or their country.

Roy Wilson...The only "real" assets today are gold, silver or US Treasury bonds. Inflation isn't looming on the horizon for one reason: Corporations grew too big, too fast and now it's back to the drawing board.

The idea that corporations could merely buy and sell small and medium companies as their only mechanism of business operation failed. Venture capitalism depleted so many American small businesses for all the wrong reasons: capital. And so...if that worked so well, explain the immense failure of banking, housing and manufacturing in the US. Selling companies isn't business...it's a recipe for national disaster.

What remains now are Americans who no longer place trust in US Corporations and as a result will inevitably return to smaller businesses they can more easily control.

Corporate America played it too close to the vest. Even the foreign countries are holding their breath waiting for the other shoe to drop. Until this insane mentality that up is the only way to go ends, corporations will begin to fall one after the other like a domino effect. But it won't matter because by that time, as always, Small Business America will have become far more self-supporting.

Obama said his only requirement for an agreement was legislation that provides the Treasury enough borrowing authority to tide the government over through the 2012 election. Boehner said he had little interest in a short-term extension either.

Mr. Obama earlier: "I will not consider ANY "SHORT TERM" DEAL."

Flip flop.....flip flop.....flip flop.

ewent "Roy Wilson...The only "real" assets today are gold, silver or US Treasury bonds."

Thanks for the laugh. Anybody that thinks about 'investing' in US Treasury Bonds needs to have their heads examined. Here is why;

A Treasury Bond is a long term (typically 20 - 30 years) investment where you give money to the government in return for a fixed rate bond (about 4% now) over the next 20-30 years.

If inflation similar to Jimmy Carter returns - as high as 14% per year (most experts think it could), you will lose roughly half of the REAL value (purchasing power) of your bond in just 5 years. You'd have to be pretty dumb to fall for that.

There are plenty of REAL investments that do not include Gold and Silver.

Great picture - Obama is talking about raising the debt ceiling, Boehner is asleep.

Roy Wilson...Not so smart to adopt that "fash cash now" mentality in investing. It's created a huge glut of investment addicts with mentalities closer to gamblers than ever before. You can't live on ROI as a form of employment income.

The problem with today's youth is that anything that takes longer than 30 seconds to enjoy ROI is too long. That's neither stable nor is it anything more than gambler mentality.

I am not into investments. Real estate isn't an investment because the vultures of big banking and the legal loan sharks of mortgaging destroyed it. Foreign investments are also "iffy". I saw that when people started investing in those South American copper mines...bwahhahahahah...what happened? The governments went down and with it the banking systems.

Hate to burst that security and stability dream bubble...but money always runs out. No matter how smart you are, no matter how rich, no matter how many high risks you take. Money always runs out. I've seen this too many times in 64 years and know too many Great Depression people who did nothing more than put their faith and trust in local banks where their lifetime savings were supposed to be secure...So..the only real asset is me and I'm the only investment these days that I know I can trust.

OneDinkyDow

Obama has presented a budget, every year.
Here is the most recent

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/

But the facts don't serve your need to attack him do they

onedinkydow...Truth may be in the eye of your beholder. That's not good enough for me. Ideology isn't government nor will it ever be.

As for the rich being bad...So Madoff, Ebbers, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Milken and Kozlowski were good, decent, honest, forthright men? Come off the long horn dung.

The only thing I ever question is HOW ...got that? HOW a man got rich. If he did it honestly, God Bless. If not, God Help.

Oh and now that you are into truth...time to remind you how stupid Republicans didn't see all the red flags of unemployment looming from 2004 or that 2008 Financial Meltdown...truth really hurts doesn't it?

So now you think that the mess of 8 years can magically disappear with the wave of President Obama's magic wand without nailing the thieves who did all that ripping off, stealing of public funds and destroying the American economy?

If I were President Obama, I'd lay it out there on the line. Republicans think holding the Middle Class hostage, yet again will protect wealth? Think again. It will only create a revolt and Republican ass will be feasted upon by the rest of us.

I just wrote the following to all the leaders of congress and to my Representatives:

DEBT CEILING CAP:

Do whatever President Obama wants now! Republicans have not compromised one bit on tax revenues. They seem to only want to balance the debt on the backs of the middle-class and poor. It's time to stop protecting the rich. They have not supplied any jobs in the last 2 years (and never will until consumers have some money of their own). Stop the loopholes and let the Bush Tax cuts EXPIRE for the rich. I will not vote for any Republican, or Democrat that does not do what President Obama wants relative to the debt-ceilng and tax reform.
Get it done NOW!!!!!!!

The GOP/Teabaggers are taking the USA down to ruin and we all know it.

What I can't fathom is how people making way less than $250k a year have been brainwashed into shilling for more money for those who are stealing it from them every day.

Corporate tax revenues are down to 12% of all federal revenue, their lowest percentage in American history.

The top tax personal income tax rate is at its lowest level since the 1931.

But payroll taxes are now up to 36% of federal revenue.

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Sources of federal revenue, Fiscal 1950-2008

Corporations are recording record profits and are sitting on over $1.9 TRILLION in cash. But NONE of it's going to workers:

Change in corporate profits and number of jobs in the U.S. since the start of the recession

Who is getting welfare in America?

Release Date:
Monday, May 16, 2011

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges Congress to approve legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a government default.

While the Congress, in February 2010, voted to increase the debt limit to $14.29 trillion, further action is needed to allow for the continued funding of government expenditures. The Department of the Treasury has indicated that the current limit will be reached in the coming weeks and certainly no later than August 2. Failure to raise the debt by that time would create uncertainty and fear, and threaten the credit rating of the United States.

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2011/lette...

RealAmericansFirst...Actually, the wealthy and corporate thieves have about $3.2 trillion sitting in foreign banks in offshore tax free havens. They like to think of that as "insurance". This has to be the most disgustingly greedy period in American History ever. If I thought the early 1900's Robber Barons were bad, these freaks of greed have them beat by trillions.

Roy: Your statement that "the recession started after dems took over congress" doesn't in any way show that they caused it.

Let me frame it in a layman's analogy:

You buy a home that was remodeled by the last owners(new roof/plumbing/wiring). After 6 months to a year of living in it, the roof starts to leak, the plumbing does so as well, and your wiring shorts out. You take the last owners to court, and the judge tells you that it somehow must be YOUR fault that everything is now falling apart.

That's what you are trying to say? That all of a sudden the economy turned for the worse, because Dems had a slight majority in Congress?

You sound like you must be an excellent salesperson(BS'er).

Bottom line is:

1. Trickle down has never worked, and many of our problems started with the policies and deregulating started by the Reagan Admin(I'm not solely blaming Reagan for it).

2.Yes, the economy "grew" during the Bush Admin.,as newer technologies/products were being manufactured and sold(and manufacturers moving the jobs out of the US with no tariffs being laid on them). The housing bubble is also counted as a "growing economy" during this time, but it was a false idea, that later burst.

3. During that period of "growth", the average/median wage of most of us in the middle(and lower end) stayed the same, while the cost of living went up. At the same time, the earnings of the wealthiest went up, while they got better tax breaks and the loopholes stayed open for them.

4. The times we've had the most economic growth and expansion, we've also had higher income and corporate tax rates. This can't be argued(successfully) to the contrary(look it up).

5.The Bush Admin should have given no tax breaks to the wealthy but instead, should have charged a war time tax, while we were occupying foreign countries and fighting expensive battles there. After the "wars" and occupations were over, THEN the tax rates could have been lowered back to normal.

I don't personally blame Bush Jr. for most of the failings of his Admin. Bush was a chronic underachiever and had a poor resume of running ANY business he "managed". Those who put him in the WH knew he was very malleable and relied on others 99% of the time for his "managing" duties.

I would probably get along with Bush at a BBQ or such. He seems like a likeable guy. However, I wouldn't have put him in charge of anything bigger than a lemonade stand(based on his pre-POTUS resume).

I blame Cheney and his corporate cronies more than I blame Bush. Bush seems like he really thought he was doing the right thing(by listening to the fat cats that guided him).

I believe Obama is trying to help ALL Americans. The problem is, Obama was very naive and too much an idealist coming into the WH. He has learned that 1 man(no matter how powerful), can't get things accomplished if corporate interests, those afraid of change, and power hungry politicians(on both sides) do everthing they can to counter you.

The Dems never had a filibuster proof majority(no supermajority, as some are falsely claiming).

Obama went to the center after he was elected, as he learned that it was wiser to do, which angered many of Demss in his party(and voters).

You can't effectively govern a nation as large as ours from either the right or the left. You have to stay centered and compromise.

I didn't vote for Obama(nor McCain), yet I support him as our POTUS. I think he has learned a great deal about WH politics.

I see no problem with Obama changing his views or stance, now that he has a different perspective of the workings of our nations politics.

onedinkydow...Thank you for proving how childish neoconservatives can be at a time when gravity of intelligence and common sense for the common good should be the only priority.

I am 100% behind President Obama. I wouldn't accept the GOP plan either. Because it will only make things worse. Isn't that the job of any president (except the duality presidency under Bush/Cheney and memememememes)?

If protecting individual Americans from another onslaught of rip offs by Big Business and the wealthy is wrong, I'd love to know what the hell neoconservatives think is right? Making life miserable for all the elderly that cost too much?

If I were President Obama, I wouldn't accept that GOP BS either. It's loaded with wealth protections and the same kind of Swiss Cheese holes that Middle Class Americans and not the rich will get stuck with.

Sorry, but its time big baby rich asses learned that when you earn more you owe more in taxes. If they don't like that, they are free to earn far less than those obscene salaries. Who's stopping them?

realamerican evidence that propaganda does work.fox news has convinced some people that are middle class and poor that they have something in common with billionaires.when the only thing they have in common are necessay body functions.they live in a completely different world of gated communities,servants and unbridaled oppulance.when one of them picks up a phone to get his bribe repaid via a bill he wants hes put right through.you try that.youll die of old age

onedinkydow...There is in fact tons of proof of that $3.2 trillion in offshore tax free havens. Check out the early 2010 reports in the media on it. And by that I mean....unbiased media, not those with right wing "everything the rich do is dandy" slant.

Oh and while you are researching this, check out the report in fall of last year about the $13 trillion in outstanding derivatives that has yet to hit that proverbial fan.

Stoops,

If you're writing that the debt-ceiling should not be raised and a stand should be made, you're just out of reality. If you don't know what the consequences would be (similar to the 2008 collapse) your opinion counts ZERO.

We can have the debate about spending when the budget is done (and you have about 47% agreement, with 53% who think you're completely out of touch on everything you wrote in #3.64), but the current debt-ceiling is a result of PAST spending ONLY (which Congress appropriated). It has nothing to do with the future spending.

You are a Drone, repeating Republican talking points, and have proved, thru your comments above, that you are just out of touch with respect of what would happen if the US doesn't pay EVERY bill, no matter if its interest, social security, govt vendors, govt employees and every US Department. Not paying ANY of those will turn this country upside down with rating agencies, States, investors, retirees and everyone else on earth.

ewent "Roy Wilson...Not so smart to adopt that "fash cash now" mentality in investing."

I stopped looking for 'fast cash now' investing over 45 years ago - only my 'broker' was making money, and it was just too difficult on the psyche with all of the ups and downs.

RoyWilson...Nice to hear you managed the disconnect from that broker. I always admire people who understand the intracacies of investing. For me, money has never been a priority. You see, I come from very humble farm stock. I learned how to manage my debts and obligations to my family from birth.

Everything in this life has a price. I just felt the price of making money the central focus of my life was too high. I'm a huge nature lover, lover of the arts and good friends but my family comes first. I don't worry about their future. That's really their job. The younger generation has opportunities if they are smart enough to see them. And, I truly believe they are. That's why I voted for President Obama. I wanted a president the younger generation understood as one of their own.

My generation is worn out trying to stay "Forever Young". I sincerely respect your opinions as a fellow American should. It's impressive to me to know that some Americans can be so together with their investments. That's why I so admire and respect Buffet...from humble beginnings comes greatness.

American Lobo "Roy: Your statement that "the recession started after dems took over congress" doesn't in any way show that they caused it."

While providing 'proof' is difficult (even 'experts' disagree), the evidence in my Post #3.18 (30 years of results) is certainly suggestive.

Remember the old argument of the tobacco companies (Science cannot 'prove' that cigarettes cause cancer). In the social sciences, the best you can expect is strong evidence, and 30 years of remarkably consistent 'coincidences' is telling.

As to your contention that Bush was not qualified to run businesses, much less the government, tell me what 'experience' Obama had at running ANYTHING.
Being one of 100 Senators voting on bills (or voting 'Present' on tough issues, or voting AGAINST raising the debt limit) is hardly valid experience for running the country, and it shows in his results to date.

The Tea Party seems to actually be the “Jchosen Ones” party. The Jchosen Ones population in the U.S. is about 1.7 percent, the same percentage of the population as the so-called Tea Party; coincidence doubtful.

The Jchosen Ones set the U.S. into a depression a couple three years ago, through their greed, corruption and fraud. They now, through controlling the federal and state puppet politicians, are setting up all economically weaker Americans citizens to pay for their greed, corruption and fraud, being the pure filth that they are.