greens fees.

It was in the story - spending in "such appropriated accounts as a percentage of overall spending". What does that even mean? More smoke and mirror economics although I have no idea what the point is. This debate was a waste. Ever last one of these people are tools and there need to be 537 vacancies in Washington in 11/2012 that need to be filled by people more interested in serving the American public that feeding their own reelection campaigns.

"Obama said such appropriated accounts would be left with the lowest levels of spending as a percentage of the overall economy in more than a half-century."

I find that statement to be extremely non-credible. The spending level, as a % of Gross Domestic Product, increased from a recent historic low of 17.78% in 1973 under Nixon to a projected 24.62% of GDP in 2011 under Obama.

Using Obama's projections of GDP growth over the next 10 years (2012 proposed Budget), it would require cuts of $11 Trillion over the next 10 years to get back to 17.77% of GDP. Obama is projecting only about $2.2 Trillion in cuts.

Of course, just like Bill Clinton said "It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is", so I'm sure that Obama will come out with his own definition of what 'appropriated accounts' is.

PS - Does anyone think that ANY real cuts would have been made if it had not been for the influence of the much-maligned 'Tea Party' influence?

In one post you decide the cuts are nowhere near enough and blame Obama.

Then praise the Teabaggers for getting real cuts.

Make up your mind.

2.4 Trillion in cuts over 10 years

1 trillion + in deficit spending every year = 10 trillion over the next ten years

2.4 Trillion - 10 Trillion = -7.6 Trillion

So we are still deficit spending and putting our selves in the hole by 7.6 trillion a year. How exactly would a bank look at my finances if that was my plan to get out of debt?

This is a no go. It is about as useful as toilet paper. You also know politicians will figure out a run around on the cuts.

Can not support this or those who vote to approve it.

At the end of the article they say that the statement is based on "... spending as a percentage of the overall economy ..." (GDP). I am not sure I believe it, but do not have the numbers to do the calculation.

What is staggering is that the government currently "... must borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends ..." This means that the government is currently spending 67% more money than it takes in (60 cents in income plus 40 cents in borrowing for every dollar). I would love to be able to spend like that, but I would be bankrupt in no time. The thing that is mot telling is that even with these supposed $2 trillion in cut over 10 years ($200 billion/year avg) the government will still be spending far more than it takes in, hence the need to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. The scary thing is that the $2.4 trillion in additional debt will only carry the government "... through the 2012 elections[.]" This means that their grand plan to save the country's economy still has the government spending at a rate of about $1.5 trillion a year more than it is taking in. This level of deficit spending is absurd. This means that in four years the US national debt will end up going from $10.6 trillion (amount on 1/20/09) to over $16.7 trillion (amount of the new cap said to take us through the 2012 election), or an increase of $6.1 trillion. This compares to an increase of $4.9 trillion for the previous 8 years (1/20/01 - 1/20/09).

Something must be done to get government spending under control. Our representatives continue to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors. Even after this torturous debate over raising the debt limit and all the talk about spending cuts, the actual yearly deficit is still increasing from where it was. Hidden in all the talks about cuts was the fact that these cuts were not based on current spending levels, but on the projected future spending levels, which projected huge growth over the current levels. These "cuts" are imaginary and in reality do not represent any meaningful cuts in spending from the current levels and may still represent actual spending increases (getting real hard numbers to make comparisons is difficult). It is nothing but a numbers game to these politicians and they all need to be thrown out of office at the next opportunity. It is time to get control of our government back in the hands of real people, not a bunch of millionaire politicians who do not seem to care what they do to this country so long as they get theirs.

I believe the President was talking about Domestic spending, so he's planning on spending more outside of the country than inside of the country I guess.

We're probably going to be downgraded as only cutting 2 trillion over ten years still adds 13 trillion to the deficit over the same time at current spending levels. Obama will have added over six trillion to the deficit just during his first term.

Again - Bush $400 billion in deficit spending per year - labelled worst President in history by the left.

Obama $1.4 trillion in deficit spending per year - worshipped as a god by the left.

We are missing probably one of the most opportune times to do something to keep this country from future default and insuring the future for our children. Instead we are giving their future away.

Domestic spending doesn't include payments to Haliburton for Dubya's wars.

dan,

i guess that after the last 3 weeks, you have not really looked at all the issues...your numbers are a bit skewed

hank,

i was going to say the same thing....my scooby-doo ears perked when i read that last statement by roy...

Roy,

if it wasnt for the tea party...we would of had a much bigger and better deal....remember...they walked out on a 4 trillion dollar deal!!??

This is OUTRAGEOUS.

An unprecedented, out of control, irresponsible 14% increase in the national DEBT simply so Obama doesn't have to be bothered to deal with this matter during his upcoming Presidential election.

Obama will have increased our National Debt by almost 30% in four years. What's WRONG with our Politicians? I'm stick and tired of hearing them form committee after committee simply so they can duck accountability. We already HAVE committees to deal with our Debt, it's called the House Budget Committee OR the House Ways and Means Committee. How will this lame 12 member committee have any sway when the President conveniently TOTALLY IGNORED his own Debt Commission Committee Report? The entire Administration LIED to the public, including the President.

There is NO WAY we would default on our debt unless they wanted to. We collect $203B a month and it costs $29B a month to service our debt. We borrow $5,000,000,000.00 A DAY to support our bloated Government.

How can ANYONE say this is responsible?

That $900 billion increase in the debt cap would be matched by savings produced over the coming decade by capping spending on day-to-day agency budgets passed by Congress each year.

So we borrow today, but then cut back later..(if it ever happens).....this is not a good deal, and does not go far enough. We needed at least $4 trillion to keep our bond rating. Have they figured in the additional interest we are going to be paying? Overall, this is a failure, and once again, votes are more important than fiscal responsibility. Well, my vote won't be coming in 2012 for those who support this.

But then, if they would have cut now, then they wouldn't need to cut the debt ceiling. So this is yet another way to waste taxpayer money.

The ONLY one who got what they wanted was Obama. He desperately didn't want to have to have due process on raising the ceiling again in HIS election year as it would again show what little experience and strength he has as a leader.

The is a joke - we have done nothing except look like they changed in Washington - they don't need to take any action and only promise to cut back over 10 years. borrow for 18 months and promise to do something over 10 years... Hmmm what a joke...

The problems began in 2000 - Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a government with a budget surplus and a SHRINKING national debt. Then Bush took office, deeply cut taxes, started two wars, and enacted Medicare part D. During this time, the economy hit the crapper because of 9/11 culminating in the Great Recession of 2008. How do you get out of a recession? In the 1930s, the answer was lots of government spending, so this was the play they went with this time. The result? A national debt that will double before it is all over.

The solution? Well, both Bush and Obama got us into this, and there really isn't any way to fix it now. This isn't a Democratic or Republican problem - it is a fundamental problem with how the US government runs, period.

In ten years, the new name of this country will be the Chinese Republic of America, and the USA will be a flash-in-the-pan footnote in history - an experiment that worked for a while and then fell apart because of greed and incompetence.

Me -

I wish the numbers weren't rounded down both for Bush and Obama. Only one real issue on the table - debt that we are passing on to future generations.

The President says immediate gratification over pay as you go is the way to go. He postponed the problem until after the election. This is not going to clear up or get better on it's own. Someone is going to have to deal with it and pay the piper.

That someone will be our children when the credit finally gets cut off. No one can survive for very long borrowing 30% of what they live on.

The nonsensical approach to growing the economy by taking money out of the economy to invest back into the economy is never going to cause the economy to grow. It's going to keep shrinking. Investors (and jobs with them ) are leaving this country in droves. There are better deals all around the world.

We are not chosing a brighter future for us or our children.

What is an outrage is the non news coverage of how the middle class and the poor have been taken advantage of again.

They made it seem like the middle class would be rewarded by allowing for the debt ceiling to be raised. but, this is what is supposed to be done anyway.

The Rich escapes their responsibility again by not having to pay taxes which they don't do anyway.

The only one taking a hit for the country being in a recession is the poor and middle class.

You Republicans talk so much sh!% about Obama not realizing that he has done more for the Republicans and Tea Party members than those who have supported him.

He farted on the Mexicans...
he's done nothing for blacks...
And he's left the white supporters holding their poop!!!

I'll never vote for his uncle tom ass again nor any of his democrat supporters in office.

Hell we all might as well act dumb and allow for these F's to destroy the world faster!!!

This way of thinking has destroyed the world in less than two hundred years more than any other society.

To put things in perspective, total government spending has doubled in the last ten years.

DOUBLED.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html

While this plan is a fair first step, they must do more. Borrowing 40 cents of every dollar .... unsustainable.

Does anyone know if any of the recommendations from the GAO report in March or the Debt Commssion report are included in this bill? I didn't see any reference in the article to any of those opportunities identified in either report. On the surface with out seeing the actual detail it looks as though our elected officials have sold out our kids and grand kids. Just so they don't have to deal with this issue in an election cycle. PATHETIC!!!

Simple arithmetic. But it's all being distorted by those who have an agenda, and who take advantage of the fact that too many Americans will not take the time to sort it out according to the time line.

Some facts from answer.com

"Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. "

Then we elected George W Bush. Enough said.

dan,

i agree that debt is a huge issue, and yes if not put in check it will be left for future generations which no one in there right mind would ever want to do.

now we can argue about where the debt and the situation that we are in right now came from til the cows come home, the one thing we can agree to is that it was here when Obama took office...

the debt ceiling needed to be raised - has been raised for years and will continue to be raised as needed- default would not help anybody at all

the trickle down effect has not created jobs...the money corps saved in the breaks they got, they invested overseas and we shed 2.8 million jobs and they created 2.4 million jobs overseas. some of these companys have more cash on hand the the counties they are investing in... Apple has more cash on hand then the US treasury... these companies are having record quarters while the rest of the county is struggling.... if you think that corps pay there fair share...truly look it up from real sources...Exxon, with its tax loops got a REFUND from the US government of 48 million dollars, now go look at there profits and where they are investing.

creating middle class jobs and getting corps to re-invest in America is the key to fixing this....and it wont be fixed by next week....this is a big hole and will take lots of time...and unfortunatly, lots of these types of debates

I am just one vote, but my vote counts. All I can say is Mr. President, you just lost my vote. I voted you in to further Democratic beliefs, not to cave into the same old tired Republican speak. You should have done what the majority of Americans wanted and increase taxes on the wealthy and cut their tax breaks. Thank you for dumping the debt on the backs of the dwindling middle and every increasing lower class. Thank you for making the rich richer, you make a great Republican.

He is only talking about domestic spending. The war doesn't factor in. Many things do not factor into the areas Republicans want cuts. They said themselves they want the entitlement programs cut, which means Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and the like.

All this is saying is that the cuts will puts those programs at the lowest levels, after you factor inflation and standard of living increases since then.

Are we still giving massive tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies? You betcha. Exxon only posted a few billion profit last quarter, after all.

PS, now its back to business as usual and no more changes until we run out of money again. The leverage we had to get the Republicans to drop tax cuts for the rich is gone. Mr. Obama, I know you never read these things, but you just lost one vote.

It is the Congress that sets the budget, not the President. The President can only make recommendation, and then sign or veto. His veto can be overriden.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Yaknow, you can't fix a debt problem by only half-a$$ing it. These cuts are a joke, basically sticking a bandaid on a torn jugular.

You need cuts in the biggest money-pits and a tax increase across the board (it doesn't have to be huge). Borrowing is essential as well, so long as that money is dedicated toward income generating projects.

Stop warring with everyone for no returns... go to war to get something tangible out of it, not ideals. Where's all that oil money from Iraq? It was supposed to help fund the war...

Get people to work and paying taxes. Get more taxpayers through boosted immigration and a campaign of documenting illegals (you want to live here? You willpay taxes).

To get out of debt this bad, you have to do everything possible to cut spending and increase income. Just cutting spending won't work if you want the country to prosper. Just raising taxes alone won't work either. And obviously, just borrowing more won't help. You have to do it all together.

So we are still deficit spending and putting our selves in the hole by 7.6 trillion a year.

Actually, that would 7.6 T in 10 years, or 760B per year.

Well, the only thing I have to add here is:

WHEW!!!! THANK GOD THEY FINALLY RAISED THE DEBT CEILING IN ORDER TO AVOID A DEFAULT SITUATION!!!!!!

Ahh ha ha ha......absolute f---ing theater..........pure political theater....

Hey, did anyone REALLY believe these contemptible buffoons would actually let August 2nd pass without raising the debt ceiling?? First, all Congress had to do was simply vote to raise the damned ceiling, like they have done numerous times throughout the decades, THEN they could have convened after the fact to hammer out a real budget (like the Dems OUGHT to have done by now!) and work on our debt problems! Second, many Americans do not realize that the debt ceiling issue had NOTHING to do with all this bickering lately over taxation and spending cuts!!! All of this drama, fomr Boehner's idiotic thumb-sucking obstinance to Obama's hand-wringing pleading for "bipartisanship" was all political theater, meant to fool investors and the domestic population into believing that they were actually handling a crisis of real proportions. The REAL crisis would have obviously been apparent if the debt ceiling had NOT been raised, but seriously, which one of the 535 or so legislators would have wanted their names attached to an unprecedented government default on our obligations?? Hmmm??

It's BS people, it's ALL BS!!!! I hope the Academy Awards have a new catagory for "Best Dramatic Representation of a Ficticious Political Situation"....I will freely nominate several members of Congress! I can't wait for the "acceptance speech".....(hmmm, I wonder just WHO they'll be thanking?).....

Well, I'm so glad that immediate global disruptions will not occur (yet)! Of course, it will be interesting to see how much more Medicare they'll rape in the process, since that was slated to be on the chopping block! As a doctor who accepts medicare patients, I'll be waiting to see if I'll continue to get at least the usual 40 cents on the dollar for my services, or if that will decrease further as the article stated. Such a great time to live in America, folks! Just think, we'll all be the first generation to witness the decline of American superpower projection!!! Soon, we'll know how the Brits felt right after WW2.

How in the world can the American people really understand things when the liberal media, like MSNBC lie or intentionally mislead the public?

Without legislation in place by Tuesday, the Treasury would not be able to pay all its bills, raising the threat of a default that administration officials say could inflict catastrophic damage on the economy.

This a LIE.

The Government collects $203B a month and has a debt payment of $29B each month. While it's true the Administration would not be able to fund the $300B in Government program (e.g., boondoggles like Essential Air Service, AMTRAK, the Woodrow Wilson Center, Federal Executive Boards, NPR), they would be able to pay their bills.

How can we solve our Nation's problems when politician's mislead us with the willing assistance of a lazy and sycophantic press?

Tim Russert is rolling over in his grave today at the demise of the "main stream media".

1992 -- The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Earth Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro this year, headed by Conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong. The main products of this summit are the Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21, which the U.S. hesitates to sign because of opposition at home due to the threat to sovereignty and economics. The summit says the first world's wealth must be transferred to the third world.

The DISEASE must be addressed not only the symptoms.

United States out of United Nations.

Then,

Ban the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ban Fiat currency.

Ban fractional Banking.

Then,

Close 90 percent of military bases.

Reduce Military budget by 80 percent.

Enforce our borders.

Allow alien entry by green card only.

Then,

Eliminate Homeland Security.

Eliminate criminal CIA activity.

Eliminate war on drugs.

Legalize marijuana.

Free non violent prisoners.

Stop all privatization of government functions.

Then,

Term limits for Politians.

Eliminate Electoral College.

Limit political campaign funds.

Ban all professional lobbyists.

Then,

Restore funding to Social Security.

Begin single payer universal health care.

Eliminate useless government agencies.

Line by line review of pork.

Review Politian’s benefits and salary.

Tariffs on all foreign manufactured items.

Then,

Prosecute governmental Traitors.

Eliminate CFR, IMF, Bilderburg, etc.

Enforce the Constitution.

I think that if EVERYONE paid at least some amount of income tax we be much better off. Someone making $16k a year could at least pay $500. Then when they start talking about increasing taxes we ALL would have some skin in the game. After all, these low incomers benefit from living in the USA so they should help too.

This 'deal' is just more smoke and mirrors. These spoiled brats (Obama, the dems, and the repubs) want their maxed out credit cards given a increase and in return the 'promise' to only increase our debt $10 trillion instead of $12 Trillion.

First of all, who believes any 'promise' that comes from Washington? Second, who thinks going $10 Trillion more in debt is a path to economic security and prosperity?

If you credit ratings groups are listening, PLEASE SAVE US AND DOWNGRADE THIS COUNTRY'S RATING NOW!!!!

BOO! — OUTRAGE!

This recent "agreement" is nothing but a cowardly CAPITULATION and a dangerus threat to the working People of America!

It must not pass!

"Republicans and Democrats in Congress reached agreement with President Barack Obama to raise the limit on U.S. borrowing and forestall an unprecedented American default, marking the start in the final chapter of one of the nastiest and most divisive episodes in recent American political history."

You know that we may be about to approve spending more, while cutting right? I heard a great analogy on the radio this weekend- "To Congress wanting to spend $100,000 on a Mercedes, then deciding instead to buy a $20,000 Ford would sound like an 80% spending cut while to the rest of us it's still deciding to spend $20,000." That's one of the great divides in our country, Congress gets to spend more and more, while the average person gets to pay more and more.

Please forgive me if I don't stand up and salute when DC holds a "mission accopmlished" parade if this thing passes. The object of cutting $2.5 trillion over 10 years is not impressive(while increasing the cap a few trillion and overspending every year by atleast $1.5 trillion), nor is it going to be a "touchy feely" moment when our bond rating goes down and the cost of money goes up. Face it, we will be downgraded.

The only ones whom actually are trying to right the boat are those whom are actually facing the need to: 1. Have a budget, 2. Balance that budget, 3. Cap the government's spending to a point in the GDP that is- eek- sustainable, and 4. Cut out all of the overspending to hit that percentage. Feel free to vilify the adults on Capital Hill(those whom will tell you that we can't afford desert after the big dinner), but they are the only ones whom will also try to protect you from the greater damage we will see when we default (still coming, maybe just a tiny bit slower).

For all those on the left who wish to protest this and what has happened. Especially those fiscally responsible and with means? STOP SPENDING. Protest with your cash flow. DONT spend. Just buy necessity. You should make sure this COUNTRY knows your distain distaste for this and your disagreement SHOULD be heard.

In the same meaningful way the tea bagging republicans did regardless of what it does to us. Why you may ask mowdy5000? I shall enlighten you. BECAUSE its that important. It must be met this debacle with true grit. It MUST be met with equal footing and hit head on. Tell your friends tell your neighbors those of you able to see and understand what I speak of. You want change? NO! We want meaningful smart change that will actually help this country create DOLLARS .People who are educated know of what I speak. Be well my friends. Be secure in your principals. ; ]

Cheers

Not enough cutting....go back and do some more congress.

1 Trillion over 10 years is a joke. The national debt will be $27 trillion by 2021. What do you think the interest is on that? How is that sustainable?

I hope it doesn't pass...not in this form. I would like to think that there are enough responsible congressmen to fail this thing and pass a short term resolution.

Obama should have to deal with this ridiculous spending once a month, not once every two years, until he learns what a balanced budget is.

How do you get out of a recession? In the 1930s, the answer was lots of government spending, so this was the play they went with this time.

No the solution was manufacturing spurred by WWII. It wasn't the road building, rail building, etc. It was manufacturing products and increased trade with Europe because of WWII that got us prosperous again. The only thing the road building did was to allow us to limp along, barely, much like we are doing now.

This solution is no solution. The big lie that a lot of people fell for was that granny wouldn't get her check. Guess what? The money is in the bank. Yes, my mother got her s/s payment on Saturday and a deal wasn't even struck then. She's not the only one either.

Did anyone catch the story about the Tea Party republicans? The story where they were trying desperately to be bribed with committee seats, pork for their districts, etc, and NOT ONE of them caved? They all stood their ground! These are the people that are being crucified? In case you weren't paying attention - THIS is the change that we want in Washington DC. Not a deal that will have us over 16 trillion in debt by Christmas time. Not a deal that "intends" on cutting, which we all know will never really happen.

The old addage applies "you got to spend money to make money"

Money does need to be spent.... in the right places. Places that generate value and income.

The problem is that there are far too many money pits in government spending. Spending on things that produce nothing of value whatsoever. Most government programs are not designed to make money, indeed, but they should still have value and provide some return on the investment.

I told my good buddy B. You know what you just did to America in terms of historical record? He said to me, mowdy5gs tell me in terms I can tell the people. I said fine, many understand as we recently saw, movies analogy's. So what movies did we just watch. I said the truth.... Road to Perdition ; ] Only your Newman and the people are Tom Hanks. Tea baggers of course played by James Bond..

Guess who the little boy is?

You see why he refrained from re telling my analogy

Cheers

Probably this is the best Congress can do, considering that Democrats control 2/3 of the government, any intent to go further will be veto or will not pass in Senate. Tea party did the best considering the circumstances, because they push to the limit to get things done, if Democrats where in control of the House , won't be any discussion and most Americans will continue ignorant about the irresponsible spending of this administration. Republicans and Democrats had a big fight and now we know more who want to wreck the economy. I'm not happy about the deal it won't solve the spending problem but , we still have the 2012 budget to pass .When Republican conservatives and tea party supporters won more than 500 members representatives nationwide and took control of the House, it was a call to change direction a call that Democrats don't want to listen , a louder voice will come in 2012.

If this 'deal' passes, you all better exchange your gold for lead. It will be your only defense for you and your families against the riots and tyrrany that will follow when this country finally collapses under its own weight. America won't even survive the 10 yrs this 'deal' covers.

So over the last 10 years we've seen spending increase 336% faster than the GDP, 285% faster than inflation and 300% faster than revenues...

Can anyone for one second not think we have a spending problem?

After months of the Dems doing nothing except telling gigantic lies about the Repubs and their bills and refusing to do anything to help solve the debt ceiling problem, at the last possible moment the Dems took the spotlight and pretended they're saving the country by stepping in to give us a smoke and mirrors bill that will be overturned next congress.

Good work.

No, John; Tim Russert is simply laughing from his grave. At You...

Your absolutely correct getalifevirginia. The only thing this 'deal' accomplishes is that it gives Obama the only thing he was looking for: cover until after the next election. After the next election, the congress will forget this 'deal' like a bunch of alzheimers patients.

One question, why won't they put the deal out to the public(went to congress web site, not there); I guess they believe the American people should not be allowed to have any information until it is over; just like Obama care, 2000+ pages, no one noticed that there were 37 new taxes, people on social security starting 2013 will have deducted another 200 dollars from their retirement to pay for the extra costs of medicare, we are being governed by a oligarchy of public officials who owe their allegiance to the Banking system, both party's are corrupt.

Saxon, they are prob still writing it...

I'm tired of all of this Bull@!$%#!

Is this the Tea Bag Site or a Liberal Site?

Cutting government programs for the poor and needy will insure you don't go to a better place.

Instead of cuts to the poor " which by the way the rich got off scott free" how about eliminate all corporate and wealth handouts.

That alone would be 900 billion. But you know why they did not mention a thing about it, it's because the corporations and the rich fund there campaigns. They would ratter is a poor person die then eliminate funds to there campaign coffers.

In this out come the poor and needy lost and rich won again.

They will continue to win unless we wake up.

Taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires are at its lowest level since the 1950's and spending according to the current bill will be at levels since 1950's Does anyone, And I mean anyone see what's wrong with this picture?

I love reading the posts from the people here who say President Obama just lost their vote. So, you're going to vote for the GOP who got us into this mess in the first place and has no use at all for the middle class?????

PS - Does anyone think that ANY real cuts would have been made if it had not been for the influence of the much-maligned 'Tea Party' influence?

No I don't Roy Wilson. HOWEVER, I am SO ANGRY right now that the Republicans have to convince me to vote for them in 2012 because right now, I'm voting for Obama AND I NEVER WOULD HAVE SAID THAT BEFORE THIS PAST WEEK.

They need to figure out how to salvage social security because it is here to stay. Ryan and Boehner WILL NOT STEAL MY 34 YEARS OF SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT EQUITABLE REMUNERATION. I am NOT the only baby boomer who feels this way.

A lot of those handouts, like all the farm "handouts" goes to single family farms making under 80K a year...

Taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires are at its lowest level since the 1950's

Another ignorant lie... did you forget that the top rate during part of the 80's was 28%? But i'm sure you heard your comment from MSNBC or some liberal talking head and didn't take the time to read up on it did you?

ir12,

Then we elected George W Bush. Enough said.

You know somethingthere ir12, The Conservatives didn't like George's spending either. That's probably one of the biggest reasons there is even a Tea Party. They know the Democrats don't represent them and are getting ignored by the establishment Republicans. So they elected people to go to Washington and give them a voice. So you got part of it right. We are sick of the spending by BOTH parties.

Now riddle me this,

How have you forgotten the last last 2 1/2 years and who has been steering the boat? Did you bump your head or something? Or do you still have a thrill running up your leg?

KAREN,

You do know the current Dem plan is to do nothing and when it's time for you to retire you will only get 75% of what SS says you will get paid?

The GOP's idea of raising the age, WHICH SHOULD BE DONE, will ensure you get 100% of what SS tell you will get every year...

What were the REAL Deficits under Bush vs Obama?

Since people seem to get 'confused' about the Deficits run up under Bush and Obama, here are the actual figures from the Government's own official sources;

The figures for Bush are as follows;

Bush 2001 = $128.236 Billion SURPLUS
Bush 2002 = $157.758 Billion Deficit
Bush 2003 = $377.585 Billion Deficit
Bush 2004 = $412.727 Billion Deficit
Bush 2005 = $318.346 Billion Deficit
Bush 2006 = $248.181 Billion Deficit
Bush 2007 = $160.701 Billion Deficit
Bush 2008 = $458.553 Billion Deficit

Add them up, and you get a total 8 year net Deficit of $2.006 Trillion ($251 Billion per year).

For Obama, his figures show;

Obama 2009 = $1,412.688 Billion Deficit
Obama 2010 = $1,293.489 Billion Deficit
Obama 2011 Proj. = $1,645.119 Billion Deficit

Add them up, and you get $4.351 Trillion of net Deficits over only 3 years ($1,450 Billion per year).

I will give you the Obama White House link so you can verify;

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

PS – There is a difference between Deficits and changes in the National Debt, so let's not mix apples with oranges. Also, Deficits are set by Congress, not the President.

CHIP D

Thanks for the info. Since I have to work until I'm 75 anyway, I don't care if they raise the age. That is fine with me.

Where can I find out more about the Ryan plan?

All I know is that he wants to cut me out since I'm only 50 and that ticks me off since I've contributed social security taxes for 34 years.

Like Colonel Edward Mandell House said when he picked the first Federal Reserve Board in 1913.

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge-back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.

They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”

Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

Vaseline, anyone???

Hank-1921206 "In one post you decide the cuts are nowhere near enough and blame Obama. Then praise the Teabaggers for getting real cuts. Make up your mind."

You seem to have a problem with logic. I would consider even a cut of $2.2 Trillion over 10 years as 'real', but it's not nearly enough to make the statement about 'lowest level of spending since Eisenhower' accurate. A cut of $11 Trillion over 10 years would be required to accomplish that.

The media appears to be so willing to get its 'talking points' from Obama that they don't bother to check the facts. Shame on them.

My comment about the 'Tea Party' is also accurate. If it were not for them, a routine increase in the debt limit WITHOUT ANY SPENDING CUTS would have been made.

For all you people that think the cuts are too small -- You need to add in $1 trillion in reduced spending because the 'wars' are ending. Boehner and McConnell called it called a gimmick but ending the 'wars' will still reduce the deficit. If the GOP oppose ending the 'wars', then they favor deficit spending and this debate was a total lie on their part.

You should also add in the extra revenue beginning in 2013 when the tax cuts expire. It's not going to be possible to 'obstruct' an extension and the TEA Party activists will like be culled next election.

So the cuts add up to $1 trillion from this deal, $1 trillion from ending the 'wars', and $1.2-1.4 trillion in unspecified cuts to be negotiated later. Add to that about $1 trillion in revenue from the expiring tax cuts. Overall the government should see around $4 trillion in deficit reduction - the magic number.

The Ryan plan had NOTHING to do with SS, it was all about medicare which is growing at 4 times the rate of inflation.

Karen, you pay 3 federal taxes, Income, FICA and Medicare tax, look at your check. Your income tax depends on what you make, your FICA (SS) tax is 12.4%, YOU pay 6.2% your company pays 6.2%. The Medicare tax is 2.9%, 1.45% paid by you, 1.45% by your company.

Most companies split the FICA and Medicare tax on your paycheck, some do not.

The kicker is You will pay 4.27 times more in SS than Medicare but the SS budget is only twice the Medicare budget... and people wonder why Medicare is in the Red this year and will be running on fumes in 11-13 years.

Karen, you have faulty info from Chip .Either way you will lose because the Reps would privatize your account and it would be vulnerable to the ups and downs of the stock market. If the age is raised you will get a smaller percent of your benefits overtime.

Mr. Paul dispices the civil rights movement and his son wishes to repeal it. Enough said. PLUS parties and maids and what not? Really? Delusional. Helping the elderly poor middle class and former middle class and disabled in times of need and throughout life if the work of Jesus. What he would have us do. GREED and selfish insult is the work of the devil himself. Fitting I find a quoted page from a guy who hates civil rights because they CONFLICT with the right to make money and business. How fitting indeed. His apple fell right next to the tree indeed. ; ]

Are we a nation of Christians and Jews? Think about it..

Cheers

Nerm, the CBO even said that "1 trillion" was a BS number. The only way to get that 1 TRILLION, is to assume we'd be in all 6 Bush/Obama wars for 10 years and in order to "save" that 1 Trillion they'd have to have all troops out of 5 of the wars by year end and everyone out of Afghanistan by EY 2012...

Face it, it was another made up number.

Also, come 2013, something tells me we will have an all together tax code which will add more tax to the poor and rich...

Dreeves, my information is correct.

Anyone who averages 60K for 30+ years will get LESS out than what they pay in with SS... the extra goes to those who earn under 50K.

Dave, they're using the "Rainbows and Unicorns" model. It's the same model that's been in use since Jan. 20, 2009.

Every poster on here no matter what their stand point is, should be working within their states to make recall elections easier to have. Once all of these politicians understand that they can easily be recalled then and only then will they do the work they were elected to do.

As long as we allow them to make it difficult to be recalled or difficult to get disenfranchised voters to the polls things will not change. In addition, election day need to be a mandatory day off for everyone. As long as we allow corporations to make it hard to get the time off to go vote nothing will change.

Having to deal with long voting lines knowing you job or performance rating may be impacted people will not vote.

My suggestion is only about letting every voter have the opportunity to vote. As long as we have less than 50% of the voting population turning out nothing in Washington will change.

Chip D -- That is the rate the government is spending now. When the 'wars' end - the projected spending drops. That means the current projected deficits drop.

I realize people want to use any idiotic argurmnet to make the projected deficits look bigger BUT if the 'savings in war spending is a made up number' then you cannot use that 'war' spending to forecast deficits. If you do that - you are a liar.

Seems to me that this agreement involves quite a bit of pain all around, which suggests that maybe it is about as good as it's going to get right now.

JS in SD "At the end of the article they say that the statement is based on "... spending as a percentage of the overall economy ..." (GDP). I am not sure I believe it, but do not have the numbers to do the calculation."

In 1973, total federal spending was $246 Billion, and GDP was $1,382 Billion, for a spending level of 17.78% of GDP.

In 2011, Obama projects spending at $3,819 Billion, and GDP is expected to be $14,900 Billion, for a spending level of 25.6% of GDP.

It would take spending cuts of $11 Trillion over 10 years for the spending level to be reduced to 17.77% of GDP. $2.4 Trillion doesn't even come close.

PS - The spending level for 'Big spender' Bush averaged only 19.47% of GDP.

It meets one of his key demands, raising borrowing power sufficiently to keep the partisan poison pill from returning to the national agenda until after the 2012 election.

Obamas' only concern. America held hostage by the Obama campaign. But now with the deal almost done he can crow about being a true leader.

Nerm_L,

The CBO has used all the troop withdrawl plans set in motion by Bush/Obama to score it's deficits. Last year when they released Obama's "deficit reduction plan" they noted that over half his savings came from the draw down.

But we're talking about $120B a year of a 1650B a year deficit...

"Leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress were agreed to a plan that would initially cut about $1 trillion from U.S. spending, 'the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president' in the 1950s."

-- Barack Obama

___________________________________________________________________

Anybody need any more proof Obama is a pathological liar?

Karen in Los AngelesThey need to figure out how to salvage social security because it is here to stay. Ryan and Boehner WILL NOT STEAL MY 34 YEARS OF SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT EQUITABLE REMUNERATION. "

Ryan's plan, which was rejected by the Senate anyway, did not propose ANY changes in Social Security. It only addressed the huge Deficits in Medicare, which will become bankrupt before you retire if changes are not made. Personally, I think Medicare can be saved just by increasing the contributions by employers/employees, and then no changes in benefits would be needed.

The 'actuarial' problems with Social Security are fairly minor, and adding 2 years to the retirement age for those under 30 right now, plus removing the earnings cap on contributions would pretty much solve the problem.

Madison,

He's not lying... he's 100% misleading.

Roy,

Do you think people who will never get SS (uber rich) should pay for it?

I think the cap should be raised to 200K, but there should be means testing and it should be taxed as regular income if it's not your only source of income.

Ret_MSgt,

I'm not sure I follow you about making recall elections easier. What is wrong about getting it right the first time and electing quality people. Besides you get your chance for a recall every 2, 4 and 6 years. If you don't like how your representatives conducted themselves the vote for someone else.

But there is nothong wrong with making sure a canditate isn't a crook befor voting for them.

Karen in Los Angeles,

So you would take a buy out of the system today? Where would you invest it? Curious. Most liberals think the government does the best at taking care of their money for them.

Touchdownplay,

i will take the buyout in a heart beat. I will invest it where ever the market dictates. I would rather take a chance in private investment over seeing it totally evaporate under the governments watch.

Here is a prime example of the "Smoke and mirrors" by Harry Reid.

Harry said that he was going to 'cut $1 Trillion from the Budget over 10 years by ending the wars', and he used that to get to his proposed 'cuts' of $2.2 Trillion.

The only problem is that that $1 Trillion in 'cuts' was already built into Obama's proposed 2012 Budget, so it's not any additional cuts at all - it has always been planned. If you doubt what I'm saying is true, just look at the link below to Obama's 2012 Budget - Look at Table S-2 under "Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)" and you will see the proposed cuts of $1,090 Billion ($1.09 Trillion).

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

@Roy

PS – There is a difference between Deficits and changes in the National Debt, so let's not mix apples with oranges. Also, Deficits are set by Congress, not the President.

Sure, when you use creative accounting and not count the wars in your deficit it is easy to create those skewed numbers.

Tuesday is the deadline to avoid a U.S. default on payments to investors in Treasury bonds, recipients of Social Security pension checks, those relying on military veterans benefits

I kind of always knew that Obama and the media were using scare tactics on us like the one found in the statement above particulary about military veteran benefit payments.

My VA check was deposited at midnight Friday into my account and here it is Monday and the media is still using disinformation like that above. Pay back will be a bitch come 2012 for those in power with my vote.

Some Democrat should be willing to take on Obama in the primaries, if for no other reason but to show him he is also accountable for this whole mess.

BIO of one of the Noted Tea Party House Representatives......AMERICA IS SCREWED NOW & FUTURE GENERATIONS.

This person has a VOTE on the DEBT CEILING DEBACLE!

Michele Bachmann Alumni of ORU graduated the same year ORU "lost" it's Law Accreditat­ion.

Maybe Michele Bachmann's historical inaccuraci­es are insignific­ant to her because such minor facts pale in the shadow of her divine mission.

After all, Bachmann graduated from Oral Roberts Law School, which eventually closed and transferre­d its library to Pat Robertson'­s Regent Law School. The Regent Law School Review provides an insight into Bachmann's view on law - and history: "Regent University Law Review seeks to present academical­ly excellent scholarshi­p on relevant issues facing the legal community today from the perspectiv­e of a historic Christian worldview. It is committed to a jurisprude­nce based upon a Higher Law; that is, law based upon the Law of God."

That is why Bachmann, Palin, and others seem to make whatever they want of the Constituti­on, our legal system and legal precedent. The foundation for the US rule of law in their minds is secondary to whatever might be their interpreta­tion of a "higher law."

Of course, that puts Bachmann in pretty divinely inspired company. According to the Regent Law Review, "Past contributo­rs include United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Judge Edith H. Jones, Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Robert P. George, George Allen, Charles W. Colson, Charles E. Rice, Phillip E. Johnson, David Barton, Nancy R. Pearcey, and James Bopp."

According to Christian extremists such as Bachmann, the Good Lord can't be bothered with facts. "He's" too busy putting the final touches on Armageddon

@John2006106 - Irresponsible, maybe. Unprecedented, nope. Check Ronaldus Maximus' record...

jri37,

As would I. So going out on a limb I'm gussing your not a Dumbocrat.

As would I. So going out on a limb I'm gussing your not a Dumbocrat.

Nope, just a plain old independent.

Chip D-2844144 "Roy, Do you think people who will never get SS (uber rich) should pay for it? I think the cap should be raised to 200K, but there should be means testing and it should be taxed as regular income if it's not your only source of income."

There are many examples of people contributing taxes for things they will not benefit from (school taxes for childless adults), but there is no reason for the 'rich' to have a cap on earnings for tax purposes. As for 'means testing', it would defeat the basic premise of the Social Security system (provide retirement security), and since their benefits are capped anyway, 'means testing' would make almost no difference in overall expenditures.
Also, for the 'rich' that continue to earn money, they are already taxed on their Social Security payments if they make over $25,000 of regular income.

Whats ina Name "@Roy Sure, when you use creative accounting and not count the wars in your deficit it is easy to create those skewed numbers."

Sorry to disappoint you, but the cost of the wars WAS included in the Deficits for Bush (and Obama).

It gets pretty tiresome explaining the difference between a 'Budget' (which might have to be changed during a year) and actual expenditures (which reflect ALL costs, including the wars).

I always use ACTUAL EXPENDITURES (including the war costs) in my analysis of Deficits.

The reason that Deficits do not equal changes in the National Debt has nothing to do with the war costs. For example, Obama's projected Deficits for his first 3 years are $4.351 Trillion, but his projected increase in the National Debt for those same 3 years is $5.119 Trillion. The difference is 'funny accounting' used by every President since LB Johnson.

If Dick Durbin is calling the debt ceiling agreement reasonable you can be assured it is a train wreck waiting on a loose railroad spike.

Roy wilson, Chip; Medicare problem, is it has no funding, except for the money borrowed(stolen)from the medicare tax we all pay, The federal government uses medicare funding for their matching funding for the States medicaid programs ; all the States are going broke (except Texas), their medicaid cost are Thu the roof, even illegal aliens are treated under Medicaid.

Night Hawk......

First, the Left used "racist" to create anger.

Next, they used "class warfare" to create diversion.

Now, they continue to use "throw grandma over the cliff", "hurt seniors", or "it is all for the children".

So, what is left for them to do ? More "scare tactics" and "gloom and doom". Wait, they will always say that is what the Republicans stand for. Reverse psychology anyone ?

ldo
Can't be much more in agreement with you then I already stated above

Roy Wilson.......

Obama The Great Ghettonator's deficits are in the TRILLIONS not billions you dropped 3 zeros.....

Deficit Score Board, Obama vs Bush

Obama $5 Trillion in 2 years,*Obama's estimated final score $20 Trillion

Bush 2 Trillion in 8 years

Obama is the clear wienner, out spending Bush by 1000%. Obama wins in all catagories....

Obama's Unemployment 10%.... Bush 5%... Obama wins

Jobs created..... Bush 8 million..... Obama <15 million> Obama wins

Yeaaa... Obama your so dreamy.... Let's give this guy 4 more years. Please pass the CRACK pipe and Gubba'mint cHeEZe.

Night Hawk......

First, the Left used "racist" to create anger.

Next, they used "class warfare" to create diversion.

Now, they continue to use "throw grandma over the cliff", "hurt seniors", or "it is all for the children".

So, what is left for them to do ? More "scare tactics" and "gloom and doom". Wait, they will always say that is what the Republicans stand for. Reverse psychology anyone ?

Actually it is reversed psychology the way you are using it. It is the Republicans who do that and anyone who has followed politics knows this. It was the Right who preached racism and even encouraged it in campaign ads(racism). It was the Republicans who preached higher taxes for the poor and lower for the wealthy(Class Warfare). CUT, CUT, CUT social security. It is over funded is what the Republicans say every time it comes up in congressional debates. Do you ever watch C-SPAN or only hear what you want?(throw grandma over the cliff). And lets not forget the health care reform bill. The Republicans argued the "Death Panel" issue into the ground. You would never have found the words "Death Panel" in the original draft or current bill. As for living will talks with doctors and the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) it is already legal. In faxct, if memory serves me correctly, it was Busch who pushed for the Living Will (scare tactics). Obama is a terrorism is Republican comments. Obama is not an American citizen is Republican comments. Obama is leading us into economic disaster is Republicans comments. History shows that the problems all occurred under a Republican President and got even worst after the GOP took back the House of Representatives(gloom and doom).

So, please remind me how it is the Liberals who are doing this and trying to blame the Fascist?

Wow! You guys sure go into a ton of detail, defending your terroristic representatives.

Where is your outrage over the hijacking these TEA party members committed? You are throwing out stats and data regarding the deficit, even when you told me deficits don't matter. Now, you are condoning hijackers, terrorists, extortionists, and telling me deficits does matter.

Patriotism left with Bush.

I will tell you who's fault it is ..........

It's our News programs... It's ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC...

All of them.

Obama's Budget for 2012 showed projections that the National Debt would increase to $26.346 Trillion (which already reflected the $1.1 Trillion in 'cuts' that Harry Reid tried to take credit for in the credit limit debate), so cutting another $1.3 Trillion in spending will still increase the National Debt to over $25 Trillion in 10 years - IF Obama's rosy projections for growth come true (LOL). The reality is that, if Obama is reelected, we can probably look forward to a National Debt figure of over $30 Trillion in 10 years, and the future of our children and grandchildren is bleak.

Whoopdedoo.

I'd be shocked if a single freshman Republican votes for the "Deal Bill". I think the phase 2 sticking point is the 2/3 vote requirement. I believe the freshman Republicans see this for what it is, it's the same as not having the phase 2 (both houses of Congress would need 2/3 concurrence, like that's going to ever happen).

Another sticking point is no cuts till 2013. Obama is consistent, I'll give him that. He puts all the pain onto the backs of future Presidents,he gets to spend, they get to pay. One freshman Republican goal is to get the cuts up front, then raise the Cap.

I have no idea how other groups will vote, especially in the House. By appearances Nancy Pelosi is not very happy, the Black Caucus is not very happy, the liberal fringe is not happy. Are they just playing the Republicans? We'll see.

Nighthawk, Who said the checks before August 3rd would not go out. It was after the deadline that it was possible. Again, read, listen, think and then make a statement.

Whether or not the default was real or not, the Republicans/TeaParty got their desire of "no new taxes for the rich". Shame on them. But, then, their master and lord, Grover Norquist is very happy.

What happens if they break that pledge? Do they turn into toads. Oh, wait, they already are.

saxon "Roy wilson, The federal government uses medicare funding for their matching funding for the States medicaid programs ; all the States are going broke (except Texas), their medicaid cost are Thu the roof, even illegal aliens are treated under Medicaid."

In looking at Obama's 2012 Budget projections for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years, it looks totally out of control;

Total 10 year projected Revenues (taxes) for Medicare = $2.730 Trillion.
Total 10 year projected Expenses for Medicare/Medicaid = $10.520 Trillion.
Total 10 year Deficit for Medicare/Medicaid = $7.790 Trillion.

This is AFTER the so-called 'savings' from Obamacare, which will actually cost $Trillions, not save money.

Ouch.

The link to Obama's 2012 White House Budget projections is below (See Table S-3);

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

scott-579755

So?

I don't want the leader of my country negotiating with terrorists. They shouldn't get their way on anything, period.

If the TEA party members walk away with anything, it is more than they deserve.

.....CUTS.....You gotta be joking, there are not cuts. Only Gubba'mint could lie and our News actually report it as...CUTS

example.....

Today my house is worth $250,000 and it will be worth $250,000,000,000,000 ... Trillion in 2 years at which time I will give it to the Gubba'mint to pay off the National Debt and create a surplus $200,000,000,000,000 Trillion fully fund and of our obiligations for the next 70 years.

Yeaaaa ..... Obama and I fixed everything. Go back to sleep there is nothing to be worried about here.... La La La. Crack is Whack....

Hey, here's a simple, equitable solution: Stop all government spending. From Medicare to military salaries. Just shut it all down.

I expect the military will end up solving their own fiscal problems; they've got guns.

As for everybody else, you shoulda thought of that before you became peasants. It's time for the survival of the fittest. Or the people with the most weapons.

Why shopuld we spend money on things like Social Security and Medicare. After all, they aren't my parents. Let somebody else take care of 'em.

Seriously, I see a helluva lot of complaining, but not too many proposed solutions here.

Ok Roy, I'll give you that, I am trusting that the data in those tables are inclusive of the wars in the Off-Budget column; although that is not specified anywhere that I can easily find.

Given that debt is pretty much just the accumulated Deficit. So if the Deficits under Bush where 2 Trillion. Why did the national debt go from $5.73 trillion when he took office to $10.7 trillion when he left? That's a $5 Trillion difference. Where did the extra $3 Trillion that were borrowed go?

Also, you say "Also, Deficits are set by Congress, not the President." So then why are you blaming the president?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Obama. Both parties are to blame here.

What a sad day in America.

What has been proven, is that political terrorism works.

The Tea Party, clearly a minority and out of the mainstream, has blackmailed us into an "agreement"

Watch, several of them will say the "agreement" is not radical enough.

How did we come to this? How come these religious zealots and bigots are allowed to drive the national agenda?

And, how do we get them out of the driver's seat?

Corporate Taxes should be based on a ratio of profit to number of employees + pay.

Our economy would boom!
Don't take it to some extreme I am a communist BS!

Both the Democrat and Republic Status Quo would be shaken at their roots. Who are the biggest Lobbyists Republicans and Democrats!

Create an environment where entitlements are not necessary.

Personally I think the number one important thing in an economy is FLOW!

You call it capitalism but I think it is more of a consumerism economy.

Unions would no longer be appealing. Employees would be more likely to invest in the company they work for raising internal capital and better work ethics.

Think about what I am saying. Walstreet uses money to make money let consumers do the same. Put the money back in play before it is collected.

I am not a Dem or Rep. I am not antibusiness or antigovernment. My point above is to get the consumer spending benefiting everyone.

I am not interested in punishing anyone. Companies could essentially walk away paying no taxes at all. They could consider stock options as pay, top notch insurance as pay, 401k, pay as pay.

Incentives a flowing economy instead of subsidizing it.

don't let them down grade the working class in order to compete with india and china's slavery

Can a real economist tell me what they think? Please don't give me some lame "standard model" BS.

Look the law of large numbers says we are done. China and India each have a Billion + low paid workers.

I am not an economist, but I refuse to sit here and do sensless bickering, sometimes the greatest ideas spur from another. One thing is clear to me is that we must climb out of the old box.

Whats ina Name "So if the Deficits under Bush where 2 Trillion. Why did the national debt go from $5.73 trillion when he took office to $10.7 trillion when he left? That's a $5 Trillion difference. Where did the extra $3 Trillion that were borrowed go? Also, you say "Also, Deficits are set by Congress, not the President." So then why are you blaming the president?"

I'm glad you asked, because it exposes the 'funny accounting' that the government uses. Here's how it works;

I did an analysis of the Deficits over the 30 years from 1979 - 2008 and found that the reported Deficits were $4.772 Trillion, and then I compared the National Debt increase for the same 30 years, and it increased by $9.253 Trillion, leaving a 'mystery' difference of $4.481 Trillion. What makes up the difference?

When the government 'borrows' money from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, they claim that it was used to 'reduce the Deficit', but the reality is that it simultaneously INCREASES the National Debt, so taking $1 from these Trust Funds and claiming it 'reduced the Deficit by $1' actually resulted in a $1 increase in the National Debt - a 'swing' of $2. Effectively, about $2.24 Trillion was 'borrowed' from Social Security/Medicare over those 30 years and used to phony up the Deficit figure, resulting in an increase in the National Debt of about $4.48 Trillion. This continues under Obama, where his first 3 years are projected to show $4.351 Trillion in Deficits, but at the same time Obama projects that the National Debt will increase by $5.119 Trillion over the same 3 years.

If a private company tried reporting like this, they would be thrown in jail for fraud, but it seems to be OK for the government. "Do as I say, not as I do".

By the way – I don't 'blame the President'. I usually say “under so & so President”, because that's how most people (improperly) view things. Only Congress can pass a Budget, which sets the spending/Deficit amounts. The President can only sign it, or veto it (shutting down the government), which almost never happens. In 2009, Bush was never given a Budget to sign – After the Democratic Congress dramatically increased authorized spending in 2009 (stimulus), it was signed by Obama about 6 weeks after he took office – over 5 months late.

Thanks Roy Wilson. I BELIEVE YOU all the time. I just needed to know what to lobby.

My mother and I were discussing Medicare this morning. She does not need it. She's 76 and is on ZERO meds but meanwhile SS takes out a hefty payment for it every month from her SS payment.

We were thinking that if the government has to pay Medicare, we should have a say in how people take care of themselves so we are not paying up the wazoo for people who like to drink, smoke and GET FAT.

Nonetheless, I will do a tad more research and will start lobbying.

Thanks for the info!

Roy Wilson; you are correct, however if you noticed the GAO, lumps medicare and medicaid payments together, medicaid has no funding except from medicare taxes !

I still find it disturbing that so many still think it's a Dem/Rep/Left/Right/Lib/Con thing. ALL parties are GUILTY of contributing to this fiasco. They ALL have their "pork barrel"/pet projects they purpose/create/support in order to bring "taxable" FIAT currency to their State to enslave the people. When it boils down to it, it's US vs Them... And they are winning. Go back to #1.57 and read it again... Then find out what we can do to help fix the problem our grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents helped create.

"We the People" are suffering from a severe case of "scattered feces syndrome" and we desperately need to "coordinate our defecation into a centralized location". Otherwise, the "Colonel" was right, and we're boinked...

Karen in Los Angeles

Thanks Roy Wilson. I BELIEVE YOU all the time. I just needed to know what to lobby.

Yikes that is creepy. Roy is a propagandist.

You remeber connect the dots? Some people only use some of the dots to paint the picture but it isn't the full picture.

Conspiracy theorists.

Like Prescott Bush if you look from their point of view he is evil but if you look at the outcome he's almost genius.

I say our problems are we let others solve the problems for us. Instead of enabling us to grow intellectually and prospour. Invest in the people. If knowledge wasn't shared how would you gain it?

Tea Party has made their point, Now I think it would be in every ones best interest for them to embrace their counter and come up with a new plan. Grow with them. Or you can create enemies?!

Stop the tug of war and turn that mud pit into gold (Middle Class). If our worker is worth a thousand of theirs how could they compete? Same principal we use within the military. Open doors stop closing them they will walk through. Everybody wants to have a better life.

So you would take a buy out of the system today? Where would you invest it? Curious. Most liberals think the government does the best at taking care of their money for them.

Where did you get the idea I was a liberal? I am a moderate - right smack dab in the middle.

That said, I possibly would take a buy out if my Certified Financial Planner agreed with the amount. I am fortunate that a close family relative is a CFP. She more than tripled my pension payout that I received in 1994 from one company.

Unfortunately, not all CFPs are reputable and not everyone has access to reputable CFPs.

Whoever called Roy Wilson a propagandist HAS TO BE THE PROPANGANDIST THEMSELF. It takes one to know one or as shrinks would say, "you're projecting." Roy has proven his credibility time and again.

Spiddas - I agree that both parties are ticking me off right now. I just do not understand your post. Could you explain it a bit more?

"Where did the extra $3 Trillion that were borrowed go?" - Whats ina Name

The same place that the $400 Billion went in the 4 years of the Clinton/Republican surpluses between 1998 and 2001. National debt at beginning 1998: $5369.21B...end 2001: $5769.89 all while running surpluses each year.

Roy Wilson is a Newvine post whore........lol. Maybe he can get a job in accounting so his wife gets a break.

"takes one to know one" implies you are admitting that Roy is a propagandist. I am not sure that's what you meant to say.

Using Roy's numbers, which are true by the way, one could make a different statement. The differential in deficit vs debt increases (unaccounted spending) during 8 years of Bush was 4.48 trillion. The calculated differential for Obama is ($4.351 Trillion - $5.119 Trillion =) 0.768 Trillion over 3 years. Or in average 0.56 Trillion per year of the Bush presidency, and 0.256 Trillion per year of the Obama presidency.

That paints a different picture, doesn't it. Hiding less, but still hiding.

Mark-302117

I will tell you who's fault it is ..........

It's our News programs... It's ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC...

All of them.

We can blame whom ever we wish. We can pass the buck to whomever we want. The libs can blame the GOP and visa versa. But it comes comes down to one simple fact. The AMERICAN PEOPLE are the only ones to blame. Americans are so wrapped up with themselves and their own personal gains that they do several things:

1. They forget in a short time what life was like under prior leaders.
2. They tend to be gullible and listen to the first person who says what they want to hear.
3. They are impatient. No one can fix the American economy in 4 short years. In the economic market on a scale as large as ours it we can only set the wheels into motion and wait several years, probably around 8 - 16 years.
4. Americans don't want to accept that it will take the time length of 4-6 presidential terms to fix the economy. All we can do is get the ball rolling.
5. Americans want more and more because they are never satisfied with the blessings they have.
6. No political party in this country, not even the wanna be's called Tea Partiers, can do it alone. It takes bipartisan efforts and a lot a give as well as take.
7. Americans will not accept that these congressional lifers will never change. Only by voting them out will we get change.
8. Americans are afraid of change and the unknown. They are unwilling to take chances on new ideas.
9. Most people do not research candidates before they vote.
10. Americans tend to make self declarations of what is true or false about candidates based on personal bias. If a candidate is proven to have voted one way on a bill and the voter chooses to not believe that statement they call it a lie even when proof is right there in black and white on their voting record.

This is just to name a few problems. So no one, No news media, No one politician is to blame. It all falls back on the People. Vote wisely. Don't settle for what we have so you don't have to think.

I believe Obama should have used the 14th amendment except for the fact that the Repubs/Teapartiers would have sued him and even though the wording in the 14th amendment basically says no one can hold up paying our debts, that filthy Republican majority supreme stinking court we have would have sided with the Republicans. They all know damn well that reducing spending during a recession will cause a long and worse recession. Economist after economist talks about this. The Republicans know it and it's their wicked plan to make sure the economy tanks even worse so Obama won't get elected.

We should all be horrified and disgusted by the fact that all of us in this country will really suffer by allowing them to use the debt ceiling to hurt the economy. We need to make the Republicans and Teapartiers suffer at the polls and we need not forget this debaucle and get rid of all of them. That horse's a$$ Mitch McConnel is one of the worst of the bunch. Arrogant jerk who is used to bullying and threatening people to get what he wants.

Actually if you read the 14th amendment closely, it only applies to civil war debts if you go according to the exact wording.

marklepew

You're just jealous that Roy is a retired Chief Financial Officer who just returned from Costa Rica.

I appreciate how he is educating us on REALITY.

Maybe you can go to school and achieve like Roy. And by the way, there is a big difference between accounting and finance.

Roy is a finance guy. Accountants just count all day.

Whats ina Name "The differential in deficit vs debt increases (unaccounted spending) during 8 years of Bush was 4.48"

You either misunderstood my comment or deliberately misapplied it. The $4.48 Trillion was the difference between the cumulative Deficits and the change in the National Debt over 30 YEARS under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, not just the 8 years under Bush.

Also, keep in mind that it's Congress, not the President, that sets the spending/Deficit amounts each year.

Whoever said the 14th Amendment JUST pertains to the Civil War debt - WRONG!

Below is Section 4 to the 14th Amendment. I bolded the text that is applicable. Including clarifies that the debt the US incurred for supressing the rebellion is applicable, BUT ALL US DEBTS ARE ALSO APPLICABLE.

While it is clear that the US debt, including US debt for suppressing the rebels, shall not be questioned, the next sentence(s) makes it clear that the debt for the STATES who waged war against our COUNTRY IS NOT UNITED STATES DEBT.

Understand?

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Karen this is for you.

accountant [əˈkaʊntənt]

n
(Business / Professions) a person concerned with the maintenance and audit of business accounts and the preparation of consultant reports in tax and finance

Glad I could help you out with your failed attempt at defining "finance guy" versus accountant.

No surprsie that their going after Healthcare now that we have Obamacare. Twist and turn. Isn't this what the far right wants? Access to Healthcare money. Twist and turn. The far left (a minority), the far right (a minority) both with the finances and pull to influence/demand our "elected" politicians to do their bidding. While the (good, hardworking) people in the middle (majority) squabble over the scraps of bills that we have no idea what they intail. Full disclosure? Transparency? I see both extremes as a problem to our society. While the "true voice" of the people is suppressed. Enough with the ideology and enough with the backscratching. Americas form is based on many seperate belief systems. This is why we fight? Can't we just say that you live your life and I'll live mine as long as we can co-exist through mutual respect for the individual and honor it within reason and discourse to the worth of life? Not in a world this cold. "You have to be asleep to believe it." The American Dream is indeed that. Continue down this path and we may all be living a nightmare.

Gah! Sorry, make that $3 Trillion difference during his tenure. That still comes to $0.375 Trillion per year. Point still stands.

We are spending too much money on defense, farm subsidies, and foreign aid, tax breaks for millions and billionaires, and corporations who ship our jobs overseas. The solutions are simple,
1. Only give tax breaks for companies who keep jobs in this country if you ship jobs overseas you get a tax increase.
2. Defense, instead of having troops in Iraq bring them home. Close some of our bases around the world
3. Farmer subsides need to be lowered and or discontinued
4. Foreign aid needs to be cut also.
5. Raise taxes on those making 250,000yr 1%, 500,000yr 2% 1million yr. 3%, 5million yr. 4%
6. Government projects such as roads and bridges, Levy's need to take effect immediately but all materials need to be produced here not purchased overseas
7. Build solar power plants in the southwestern desert, all materials need to be producer 100% in the US, Wind turbines in the Midwest again 100% of the materials and engines need to be produced in the US. no more buying the engines from Germany or the UK
8. Immigration, Build a fence on both boarders again all materials need to be 100% produced in the US.
9. Immigration reform, once the fence is built a moratorium on all new citizenship applications. All of the 4 million plus illegal immigrants must file with the INS. They need to be finger printed, DNA samples taken, Documentation from country of origin, Must show income and resident address, Must file taxes and pay a 1500.00 dollar fine. After back ground checks are done to make sure they are not criminals in the country they came from then after 7 yrs. If no laws are broken and taxes are paid then can become permanent citizens. Use the 1500.00 fines to pay for the fence and the processing of the back round checks.
All of these ideas are not perfect but they will increase revenue lower spending and increase jobs. I think people of both parties are represented in these plans. Also it's common sense approach

Karen in Los Angeles "My mother and I were discussing Medicare this morning. She does not need it. She's 76 and is on ZERO meds but meanwhile SS takes out a hefty payment for it every month from her SS payment. We were thinking that if the government has to pay Medicare, we should have a say in how people take care of themselves so we are not paying up the wazoo for people who like to drink, smoke and GET FAT."

I agree with you. In the U.S., people who have made bad health decisions all of their lives end up costing the vast majority of the Medicare/Medicaid expenditures, while the health conscious people are the ones that 'subsidize' them. I think that people who have poor health as a result of poor health choices (smoking, obesity, etc.) should be required to pay a 'surcharge' commensurate with their extra health costs. This should NOT apply, however, to people who have health problems that are not their fault. Studies have already identified the estimated extra cost of health care for smoking and obesity - all it would require is making a link between payments and benefits. I think we would be amazed at how quickly people start living healthier lives. For example, if an obese person was charged an extra $100 per month, I suspect they would quickly find a way to lose weight, and I suspect a smoker who pays a lot more would also have a strong incentive to quit smoking.

Calcula7ed

While Finance and Accounting are somewhat related, there is a HUGE difference in their activities. Accountants typically 'crunch the numbers' in accordance with specified procedures, usually after the fact, while a 'finance guy' typically looks more to the future with regard to 'investments', but neither is better than the other - just a different perspective.

Whats ina Name "Gah! Sorry, make that $3 Trillion difference during his tenure. That still comes to $0.375 Trillion per year. Point still stands."

That's a 'quirky' way of looking at things, but all you are really saying is that there was a bigger 'surplus' in the Social Security/Medicare trust funds under Bush than under Obama. Whoopdedoo. Maybe if there were more people working since Obama became President, both would have about the same amount per year, since payroll deductions would be larger.

End the Fed!! Arrest Bernanke, Geithner, and Impeach Obama Now!! We've all been robbed by the corporate oligarchy elite. When glass steagall was repealed it allowed banks to create wealth out of thin air while devaluing real wealth created by the working people of this country. When their debt bubble burst we bailed them out paying for the greatest swindle in world history. Now the fundamentals of this problem are staring us down once again and nothing has been fixed. Time to have a million man march on washington and remove all those officials complicit in these crimes. The law is on our side. Time to utilize it and invoke the constitution or lose it completely..

ROY WILSON

I understand that I shouldn't respond in such a manner as I did but sometimes I just get tired of how people OVERGENERALIZE everything. Typically you may be correct but in my current position the thought that all accountants are just "bean counters" is atypical. I'm well aware of the intricacies of practice within both "somewhat related" professions. To think this whole time I've been a Financial accountant.

fi·nance

(f-nns, f-, fnns)

n.
1. The science of the management of money and other assets.
2. The management of money, banking, investments, and credit.
3. finances Monetary resources; funds, especially those of a government or corporate body.
4. The supplying of funds or capital.

Iamduguy, Lincoln was a republican. I don't recall reading of him ever being racist...........

Great, now Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, is accusing us of being a “parasite” on the world economy by living in debt.

And he is right! We are not living within our means because we don’t know how to! To satisfy our enormous egos we continue to accumulate massive debt and effectively threaten the world economy and our own well being for decades to come. The current debt agreement announced by President Obama will solve very little, because it simply ignores and delays important economic reforms required to reverse the trend.

Why do you think it is called ACCOUNTING? I am scared of finance accountants. Those are usually the types that cut operations without any idea of what they are doing. I did not read your definitions. I already know the definitions.

Roy - I agree that people who are BORN with an illness should not pay the surcharge.

I have some letters to write tonight. This deal is ONLY the beginning.

If they don't pay taxes, they why do they get to vote. Name one organization which allows members to have a say in what they do if they do not contribute to that group. Except of course America, the land of the freeloader.

Tax corporations!!!! As long as the wealthy can afford to pay $144,000 for a bottle of wine, or $30,000 for a purse they can afford to pay some taxes. If they leave the country put tariffs on the traitors.

A government by the people and for the people, not the super wealthy or the welfare reciepients.

How can we create jobs if the government steals all the available capital for investing in businesses??

And why are we always in a vietnam type of war? Just so the president's friends can sell guns? Lyndon Johnston was a major stock holder in guess what company? Huey Hellicopters, used exclusively in Vietnam. Amazing that he put us right back in there within days of becoming president. I wonder why the press didn't pick up on this??? Maybe because they are just flunkies of the political machine?? Ever wonder who owns controling interest in AP and Rueters? Rothchild, through front companies.

Roy is a propagandist.

No. Roy displays verifiable facts.

Gabriela Kaplan

Guess you've been very busy the past few years when Madoff was tried and sent to prison- he didn't steal tax money from taxes like the banks did though- he stole money from dumbass Americans who still think there's an Easter Bunny.

Who cares about Bachmann's no vote on the hill, she is a total loser.

We need some non politicians running for office this time. The media crucifies anyone they don't like so they keep good people from running. They gave Trump a hard time, they said he was dumb. I say, let all the multi billionaires call him what ever they want (I doubt that any of them call him dumb). He is not dumb in anyway. I would like to see him clean out Washington DC, Trump and another 40 like him. This country would turn around in one year. I am really tired of the Plastic politicians in DC. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the color of their ties.

i rarely agree with Roy.but i can appreciate a honest dissenting opinion

I don't know why Madoff is in this thread he had nothing to do with this. He stole from greedy people who thought there was a magic man not the Gov..

Want to help the US stop buying Chinese crap. We could add 200,000 jobs in the first year if Americans would buy American. It was figured out that it would cost the average person $64 for the year. This would help stop the toxic toys and all they send us. If we did this for a year it would reduce the deficit with them by over $2 billion. This includes buying from Hong Kong. THINK!

johnQcitizen "i rarely agree with Roy.but i can appreciate a honest dissenting opinion"

I agree completely. It may sound counter-intuitive, but here are some of my belief's that might surprise many people;

I think we should let the Bush tax cuts expire for the 'Rich' and close most of the loopholes they use to avoid taxes. This could raise well over $1 Trillion in revenues over 10 years.

I have consistently favored Universal Health Care (but not Obamacare), and think it's unconscionable that we don't provide decent health care for everyone, regardless of income levels. We spend far too much for such poor health outcomes.

Beyond that, I am a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate.

@ Karen in LA - Sorry so long to reply.

I'll let two videos do the explaining as the two individuals doing the explaining sum it up very well, just never mind who's doing the talking and listen to what is said before doing any judging. (Strong medicine.)

Also, please keep in mind that both "parties" have been touting "change" since the late 1800s! With that, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsDuL4jTkz0

"He who lives on hope will die fasting" -- Benjamin Franklin

OK. LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, I HAVE A QUESTION.

You keep blathering your talking points about Bush's wars and Bush's Medicare Part-D.

When you had a filibuster proof majority in the Congress AND control of the White House why didn't you end the wars and eliminate Medicare Part-D? It would have saved you all the repeated nonnsensical repetition of this useless argument.

Also, there was no Clinton "surplus". IF there were a true surplus the National Debt would have decreased. It never did during Clintons presidency. It was just more of the usual manipulation of funds between the intragovernmental holdings and public debt that every administration does to make the National Debt look better. This is usually more "borrowing" from the Social Security lock box, which by the way doesn't exist. It's just a nice reassurance to the uninformed that their contributions are somewhere. The only place they are is in the $115 TRILLION Dollars of Unfunded Liabilities we have accumulated for decades.

slightlyold

For your information Obama said it all in the same interview when he said

," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

July 12, 2011 12:30 PM http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

slightlyold

To you I say using your own statement : "Again, read, listen, think and then make a statement".

Even has a link for you so you can HEAR it if you must

saphiremite

Iamduguy, Lincoln was a republican. I don't recall reading of him ever being racist...........

He is only one of thousands and he also ruled over 100 years ago. I am referring to modern politicians(1950 - 2011) and I did not say ALL GOP's. However; Lincoln did run up the national debt on a war between brothers and relatives. I'm not saying he did not have a good purpose but he did start a war that resulted in a national debt that in comparison would be close to modern war debts.

I never said that ALL republicans fell into that group. As with any topic it basically refers to generalization of members. I personally think the 2 major parties(RNC and DNC) and the "Independence Party of America"(IPA) have good ideas and wish they could unite all their best ideas together as one party, or at least in a tri-partisan effort of unity. The dems have a good social plan for the middle class, the republicans have a great social plan for wealthy and businesses, and Independents have an awesome platform for the average person in general. No one party has all the answers but if you combine them all together it would create a very good master plan to get us started on the right path. As for the teaibaggers, I class them a republicans. They are not a real party.

You keep blathering your talking points about Bush's wars and Bush's Medicare Part-D. When you had a filibuster proof majority in the Congress AND control of the White House why didn't you end the wars and eliminate Medicare Part-D? It would have saved you all the repeated nonnsensical repetition of this useless argument.

Ha! Repeated repitition??? Is there UNREPEATED repitition?

Only from a simplistic viewpoint would one believe it's possible to suddenly end two wars inside of the 2-month timeframe the democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

Also, there was no Clinton "surplus". IF there were a true surplus the National Debt would have decreased. It never did during Clintons presidency. It was just more of the usual manipulation of funds between the intragovernmental holdings and public debt that every administration does to make the National Debt look better. This is usually more "borrowing" from the Social Security lock box, which by the way doesn't exist. It's just a nice reassurance to the uninformed that their contributions are somewhere. The only place they are is in the $115 TRILLION Dollars of Unfunded Liabilities we have accumulated for decades.

WRONG!

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

you are assuming the judicial systems works for the people...

Indeed, John, and as to this pending agreement which, according to Boehner, took the repeal of the Bush era tax cuts off the table all together and "promises" future spending reductions that, clearly, will further burden the elderly, middle class and the poor in such dire times in America, the only winners today are world markets who seem to be salivating and buying big.

The vast majority of Americans are only promised to be left on the cutting room floor. . .again. Indeed, I am left to wonder as to the proverbial totem pole, if the Average Americans have been lopped off altogether OR was that done long ago and we're just waking up to our permanent new reality?

Gabriela I too saw that video and was stunned to find out that ALL of our "leaders" are in on the deal. As a staunch Democrat who still believes in justice and believed that President Obama was someone who was for the people rather than running just to line his pockets I was equally stunned to see that he brought many of the people who caused the meltdown into his cabinet.

President Obama achieved his goal in not having to debate this situation during election time (which I can understand) but sold us out to get there. I can see him with his hands out weighing the two possibilities...do I shaft the people or make my second term possible? Sadly we know which hand won.

While we the people sit here looking at a government who takes from the elderly and the ill rather than reinstate the tax rate on the wealthy I see a corrupt government that rivals Mexico. Would Hillary have been better or would she have continued her husband's part in the "deal"?

If the Tea Party, who wants to curtail spending and seem big on cuts, were to bring a salary reduction, a new benefit package that didn't include a salary for life and included a medical package that was the same as we the people have to the people for US to vote on regarding our politicians even I would switch parties. Until then I will continue to view them as a pack of 30-40somethings who don't believe they will ever see a penny of social security so they don't want those of us who have paid into it for a lifetime to have it either.

Deeply, deeply disappointed...not only in Obama but the entire political system.

This whole sordid affair is pathetic!

We're increasing our DEBT by almost 30% in four years, simply so Obama doesn't have to "eat his peas" as he so infamously stated.

When you collect $203B each month but spend $300B, it has to stop. What we need is a BRAC type process in the House to cut spending. It seems very few politicians have a spine.

Gabriella, It is Glass Siegel, not Spiegel which used to operate department stores inn Chicago and is now just a catalog company and shell of its former self.

The entire debt ceiling debate was both unnecessary, and illegal. Congress can not impose a debt ceiling, and refuse to pay the government's obligations because of section 4 of the 14th Amendment. Everything in the budget has been approved by Congress and the President. Therefore, it must be paid, per the Amendment. Read section 4 of the 14th Amendment. Obama's threat that Social Security checks would not go out is bogus. The Amendment specifically names pensions. Not to pay them would make him subject to impeachment. If Congress wants to cut spending, they must do so during the legitimate budget process, not by some unconstitutional "debt ceiling" process.

Dear Riff Raff,

Enjoy the cake.

Love, The Queen

I am left to wonder as to the proverbial totem pole, if the Average Americans have been lopped off altogether OR was that done long ago and we're just waking up to our permanent new reality?

No, this "reality" does not have to be permanent. If our Founders thought that way, we'd still be British citizens.

ren, you would be wrong as well it's Glass-Stegall not Siegel. Check yourself before attempting to correct others. FYI Siegel's is a chain of liquor stores.

After 1930's depression, the Glass Spiegel act was enacted to prevent a similar problem down the road. The Republicans, ( Phil Graham) after 14 tries, got the REPEAL of this act passed through congress

It was the banks that pressured clinton & congress to repeal Glass Stegall...

Not Spiegal....... geeeees usssss

Actually, it was the Glass–Steagall Act. But good try.

Gabriella Kaplan MD - reference #2

Clinton was not strong armed to sign the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act but was influenced by his friend and campaign contributor Sandy Weill to get the act passed so he could merge Citibank and the Travelers group to form Citigroup. Further, to get the support of democrats in congress the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was amended to Gramm-Leach-Bliley which required the lending institutions to prove they were not redlining before mergers were approved. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac further exacerbated the problem by requiring certain high risk loans to low income families be made before they would buy the mortgage backed securities and/or credit default swaps from the lending institutions. Bill Clinton killed any attempts to regulate the derivatives market by his chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Brooksley Born) in the late 90s and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer and the Congressional Black Caucus shot down attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2001 and 2003.

One relationship I would like to see investigated would be that of Barney Frank's relationship with Herb Moses director of new product initiatives. Shortly after Moses moved in with Frank in 1991 Frank used his influence to get Moses that job. Moses and Frank broke up a few months after Moses left Fannie Mae in 1998.

Rick:

Great post... You seem to know your stuff!

The federal reserve had been attempting to do away with Glass Act since it was passed in 1935; Greenspain(the shill for the international banking industry, convinced Clinton to sign the Graham act; 1999 it was repealed, 2007 they collapsed the economy just as they had done in 1907 and 1929; 7 years is all it took to bring not only America to it's knees but the entire western banking system; however the federal reserve was untouched, it was able to then get all U.S. banks under it's control; it was done on purpose, it brought in the new world order.

Kaplan M.D., had a good friend named same and was a M.D., he is dead now but his son carry's on .

Gabriela Kaplan, M.D., still with the typical and expected liberal drivel of "Republican's forced deregulation on the Dems", eh?

To attempt to solely blame the Republicans for the deregulation surrounding the meltdown is completely ridiculous. Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin was pushing Congress to repeal of Glass-Steagall as early as 1995, testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. http://www.allbusiness.com/government/business-regulations/500983-1.html.

"Among Rubin's recommendations for financial modernization were

* Permitting a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to affiliate with a securities firm, insurance company or other financial company.

* Repealing section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Section 20 prohibits a bank that is a federal reserve system member from affiliating with a company principally engaged in underwriting or dealing in securities that a national bank cannot underwrite or deal in directly.

* Allowing insured depository institutions to affiliate only with firms that were well capitalized and well managed and had internal controls that adequately managed financial and operational risk, and only if the institutions' safety and soundness were unimpaired.

* Maintaining the Federal Reserve Board's authority to impose consolidated capital standards as a safeguard on bank holding companies whose subsidiary insured depository institutions constitute their principal business."

The Clinton administration's push for deregulation didn't stop there either. In fact in late 1997 and early 1998, Clinton's administration approved the 3 headed merger of Travelers (insurance), Salomon-Smith-Barney (investments), and Citicorp (banking) a full 2 years before it was even legal. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/citicorp-and-travelers-in-155bn-merger-1155012.html That's right, they signed off on the merger over a year and a half before the legislation making it legal even hit the floor for debate! Also are your seriously trying to tell me that the Republicans held 90 Senate seats and 360 House seats when this was passed??? Or was that possibly a bi-partisan repeal?

I'm sure your NEXT act will be blaming Republicans for deregulating the derivatives market and absolving your beloved Clinton. So let's go ahead and address that lie to.

Even if you want to blame the derivatives market, again the lack of derivative regulation can be traced back to Clinton's administration. In fact just in April 2010 Clinton was lamenting this decision, accusingly pointing the finger at Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (both served as his Secretary of Treasury) and saying he was misinformed by them. The following is a great read from Lawrence H. Summers (Clinton Treasury Secretary), Alan Greenspan (Clinton Fed Appointee), Arthur Levitt (Clinton Chairman SEC), and William J. Rainer (Clinton Chairman CFTC):

"Specifically, with respect to OTC derivatives, the Working Group is unanimously
recommending:
· An exclusion from the CEA for bilateral transactions between sophisticated
counterparties (other than transactions that involve non-financial commodities
with finite supplies);
· An exclusion from the CEA for electronic trading systems for derivatives,
provided that the systems limit participation to sophisticated counterparties
trading for their own accounts and are not used to trade contracts that involve
non-financial commodities with finite supplies;
· The elimination of impediments in current law to the clearing of OTC derivatives,
together with a requirement that any clearing system for OTC derivatives be
regulated by the CFTC, another federal regulator, or a foreign financial regulator
that satisfies appropriate standards;
· A clarification of the Treasury Amendment that clears the way for the CFTC to
address the problems associated with foreign currency “bucket shops” and
excludes all other transactions in Treasury Amendment products from the CEA,
unless they are conducted on an organized exchange;
· A modification of the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the CEA to provide greater
legal certainty to hybrid instruments; and
· A statutory clarification of the inapplicability of the Shad-Johnson Accord to
hybrid instruments that reference securities."

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/otcact.pdf

These Clinton adminstration parameters were integrated into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CMFA). Please note the "Signed by President" date of Dec. 21st, 2000 and the name William Clinton. You should also note that Republicans at least put up token opposition to it (~25%). Democrats meanwhile only mustered a whole 9 votes in opposition (4.5%) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-457

You can stop with that disingenuous liberal blame throwing too.

"One relationship I would like to see investigated would be that of Barney Frank's relationship with Herb Moses director of new product initiatives."

Rick, those couldn't be the "new product initiatives" that were a veritable laundry list of the grossly inadequate underwriting standards that caused the housing market collapse and that were championed and promoted by Fannie/Freddie, could that???

See the page 3 introduction and the bottom of page 5 which explains how Fannie and Freddie went about meeting the affordable housing mandates Clinton's HUD placed on Fannie/Freddie. Note phrases like "enhanced their product offerings" and "featured underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks". This goes back to 1995-1996. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2006-1005.pdf

"In addition, Listokin and Wyly (2000) and Temkin, et al.
(2001) show that the GSEs enhanced their product offerings so as to facilitate more
purchases of loans from targeted communities. These new products often featured
underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks."

Table 8 of this next Fannie Mae report (Listokin and Wyly) from 2000 -- the report noted in the research above -- shows what kind of underwriting Fannie and Freddie were promoting. It is virtually a point by point list of the most egregious underwriting "standards" that have been documented and they were in full use and actively advanced by Fannie/Freddie by - at latest - 1998. http://foundingbloggers.com/img/grabs/rep_newmortmkts_background.pdf

Old Sarge, apparently you never made it to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states that only Congress has the power to enforce the statutes in the rest of that amendment. You also seem to be redefining the budgetary term allotted to somehow mean mandated. Money allotted in a budget is not debt until money is borrowed to spend it. If you delay spending that allotted money, you don't borrow for it, and that never turns into debt.

This Frontline interview with Brooksley Born will give some of you something to think about:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html

This fighting over party preference is silly and gets us NO WHERE. Deregulation began with Reagan and continued through the next 3 decades. Not one of them is lily white. Until we see that none of them have our best interests in mind we will continue business as usual. Either of you want that? I don't know if it's even possible to have a candidate go to Washington and serve our best interests without getting assasinated. I know that sounds extreme but I think the corruption runs so deep that until we the people somehow rein in the politicians and strongly remind them who they work for we are only going to get more of the same. I think their salaries and benefits need to go before the general public to be voted on. Of course that's just the start...we need to think lobbyist next and on and on.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was passed in the Senate 90-8 and in the house 362-57. Clinton didn't need a strong arm to force his signature. It was a bad idea endorsed by both parties.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

Skup - That is sort of what I have been trying to say for the past few months. But until today I have been unable to get a liberal to even admit that the sub-prime meltdown is the primary cause of the recession. What has made this one so intense is that world wide markets bought into the mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

Mike:

Good post... I'm glad folks like Old Sarge aren't running our Government.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Bush tax cuts caused a substantial part of the deficit. TRUE on fact-checking website Politifact.com.

"Back in 2001, CRS said, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising federal budget surpluses for the next decade. The tax cuts helped alter the outlook "dramatically," and the budget in 2002 recorded a deficit for the first time since 1997.

"The Bush tax cuts, with a $1 trillion 10-year price tag, contributed to this shift from budget surpluses to deficits," CRS said. Other contributors included the 2001 recession, the increase in defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

But the tax cuts "generated the largest 10-year increases in budget deficits," CRS said.

And just look how they helped our jobs, economy, and the general benefits and standards of living for us average Americans!! I know my benefits and wages have been going steadily up since the first supply-siders started handing out power and wealth in the 80's!! (not)

Barney Frank and I came up with a solution to the whole mess.

Today my house is worth $250,000 and it will be worth $250,000,000,000,000 ... Trillion in 2 years at which time I will give it to the Gubba'mint to pay off the National Debt and create a surplus $200,000,000,000,000 Trillion to fully fund our obiligations for the next 70 years.

Yeaaaa ..... Obama, Barney Frank and I fixed everything. Go back to sleep there is nothing to be worried about here.... La La La. Crack is Whack....

I like to type in bold font, it makes me feel smart and powerful~Mark-302117

This is very scarey but seems to be happening!!!!!

________________________________________________________

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

marklepew

Some of us have eyesite problems and bold type is easier to follow. Sorry but it really does not make me feel more important just more comfortable not having to strain to read what I am typing. Sorry to disappoint you.

I agree they should be tried but they will never bet the money back. Best bet is to do like China; try them for treason against the people and execute them.

HAHA, RICH WON!

Every one of you has the power to do something about it. The "debt" is largely a scam -- money borrowed at substantial interest rates to pay for wars, that are in-your-faces, profiteered to the upteenth degree by elitist cronies who made for the wars..., and profited dearly from them.

Not only do the cronies in the Military industrial Complex make a killing, the folks who push for the "Imperialistc" under-pinning of all the modern-day wars, make a killing again because WE STEAL THE OIL AND LITHIUM AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR THEM TO EXPLOIT FOR ABSURD PROFITS!

In other words a huge part of the debt is a FRAUD, a SCHEME, with the final insult being we, the Middel Class get to pay for it all, not only in taxes, but BLOOD.

You see, you will almost NEVER see the elitists going off to actually fight and risk their lives in these wars, nor will you see the politicians who vote for the wars in uniform or their children (very rarely, if ever).

What is your power? Well, we've watched the t-baggers do their thing, but, in actuality they've been Judas Goated -- for, all they are doing is supporting the elitist war-makers and tax- evaders. They have no clue.

We, the Middle Class need to learn to also say "no"... no to when they fabricate another bogus "noble cause" and another war to "fight for freedom", or, to fight for "democracy".

I like that last one, particularly, especially given that, the USA is supposedly a REPUBLIC and certainly NOT a democracy!

You can also say no by leaving to go live and work overseas (there actually are far better and SANER places to live these days).

Or, you can organize as a large group, and utterly refuse to pay ANY taxes, totally.

My choice was made along ago when I caught on to the thieving scum that controls the USA, and how they manipulate EVERYONE. The USA is not a democracy and in truth, not even a Republic anymore.

The USA, is a Plutocracy -- and that is NOT a good thing....

Keep it going as it is now, and you'll have segregated bathrooms for the rich and middle and poor -- same for food stores, movie houses, vacation resorts, air travel, and as we already damn well know and understand.... healthcare for the rich alone to afford....

Higher education? The Middle Class now almost exclusively swarms Community Colleges... not good.

That is your life, my friends. Live with it and enjoy it, because you did it to yourselves.

C'est votre vie, mes amis. Vivre avec elle, et profiter, parce que vous l'avez fait à vous-mêmes.

big deal giffords showed up to lend her support to the tea party and big business ..she sure showed eveyone that she can be bought ..I wonder if she signed a pledge to Norquest while she was in town

Gabriela Kaplan, M D
I think you're forgetting about how much of our money was used in Obama's Bailouts! If you Google (GAO-11-696 Federal Reserve System Audit) you will be looking at the only audit ever done on the Federal Reserve in the 200+ years of the United States. On page 131 and 132 you will see whom and how much money was given to the financial Institutions to bail them out. The number is shows are in the billions and on the right of the tables you will see interest rates of 6-1%. Example: Citigroup Inc. got $2,041 Billion in bailouts. This number is read like this: Two Trillion 41 Billion and 0 cents at 5% interest. Where can you get a loan like that? Now ask yourself where we got all that money and at what cost did we get it. Also why are we borrowing money to loan to other countries? Yes, we bailed out banks in other countries. They are also on the list, 10 institutions out of 20 where in foreign countries! A total of 16 trillion one hundred, fifteen dollars was loaned out! That is more than our National Debt.

Why don't the American People know what exactly is in this Bill that was passed---are there parts they do not want us to see---? Are there surprises? It sure was a fast compromise.

The House of Representatives, Congress seem much more like a Secret Society now---more than ever.

It is YOU that will be affected by the results of this completed Bill--- it will give President Obama a real chance to be re elected; he thinks--Campaigning under the guise of mediating.

I knew all along a Bill would be passed just in the nick of time---Congress plays the American Public for fools.

It was a game, it was for re election of all the Politicians, and the President, coming out like the Champ in this.

I despise Politics; Do our Politicians care about the real welfare of the people who voted for them?

Everyone will be affected, and future generations of whatever was signed. A very smart person does not sign a Contract without reading the "small print".

Golly Gee.

Dr. Kaplan....you must be joking. The people that got us into this mess are the same people voting on the debt bill. Congress has been buying votes by offering ridiculous programs to the people for a long time and this BS about taxing the rich is a joke. The rich pay taxes along with many others and it has not worked.Try cutting spending or wasting money on stupid programs and if you want to raise revenue go to a flat sales tax. You buy a million dollar yacht then you pay 20% ($200,000) or whatever the number should be. If you buy a used moped for 500.00 then you pay your 20% or 100.00. This way the rich, poor and middle class all pay the same rate and those with the most cash can buy the most expensive toys they wish and put 20% in the kitty. No more class warfare.

Amen!!!

Why do people 'collapse' perfectly reasonable comments?

Why are they afraid of the free exchange of ideas and opinions?

Those that do this are COWARDS.

This supposed deficit reduction bill actually leaves us with higher average annual deficits than we have ever seen. The reduction was from the projected massive deficits in the out years, not from current deficit levels. It is all nothing more than a numbers game where it is almost impossible to figure out what the truth is.

What is staggering is that the government currently must borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends. This means that the government is currently spending 67% more money than it takes in (60 cents in income plus 40 cents in borrowing for every dollar). I would love to be able to spend like that, but I would be bankrupt in no time. The thing that is most telling is that even with these supposed $2 trillion in cut over 10 years ($200 billion/year avg) the government will still be spending far more than it takes in, hence the need to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. The scary thing is that the $2.4 trillion in additional debt will only carry the government through the 2012 elections. This means that their grand plan to save the country's economy still has the government spending at a rate of about $1.5 trillion a year more than it is taking in. This level of deficit spending is absurd. This means that in four years the US national debt will end up going from $10.6 trillion (amount on 1/20/09) to over $16.7 trillion (amount of the new cap said to take us through the 2012 election), or an increase of $6.1 trillion. This compares to an increase of $4.9 trillion for the previous 8 years (1/20/01 - 1/20/09).

Something must be done to get government spending under control. Our representatives continue to spend like a bunch of drunken sailors. Even after this torturous debate over raising the debt limit and all the talk about spending cuts, the actual yearly deficit is still increasing from where it was. Hidden in all the talks about cuts was the fact that these cuts were not based on current spending levels, but on the projected future spending levels, which projected huge growth over the current levels. These "cuts" are imaginary and in reality do not represent any meaningful cuts in spending from the current levels and may still represent actual spending increases (getting real hard numbers to make comparisons is difficult). It is nothing but a numbers game to these politicians and they all need to be thrown out of office at the next opportunity. It is time to get control of our government back in the hands of real people, not a bunch of millionaire politicians who do not seem to care what they do to this country so long as they get theirs.

Roy Wilson:

The comment is a good "point"!

I don't get it either, unless it is pornographic language, death wishes, or personal insults to a writer--that is childish.

It is adult to listen to both sides, whether one agrees or disagrees, or agrees to disagree--that is HOW we learn!

Thank you for mentioning this "odd" way of sifting out those who mean well and are sincere about their thoughts..

If you think Obama was forced into this rotten deal I've got some sub-prime mortgage backed securities I'd like to sell you:

August 1, 2011

Obama's Big Payback to Wall Street

The Worst Deal in American History?

By MIKE WHITNEY

Is Obama's debt ceiling agreement the worst deal in US history?

Probably. But not for the reasons that are presently being discussed in the media. What makes the deal such an unmitigated disaster is that it strips congress of its Constitutional authority to control the nation's purse-strings. That authority will be handed over to a bipartisan committee that will decide how to slash $1.5 trillion from the budget in order to reduce the deficits. But, since the committee will be evenly comprised of Republicans and Democrats, there's bound to be disagreement about what programs should be cut. This is all by design, because if the committee is unable to decide where the cutbacks should be, then the decision will be made for them via an "enforcement mechanism" that will require across-the-board spending cuts.

Pretty sinister, eh? It's is a backdoor way of repealing Congress's primary authority while making austerity the default position of the US Government. Whenever in doubt, "Cut spending". Naturally, the GOP refused any agreement that would involve new taxes.

This is from the White House website:

"The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year....

To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.....The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013."

Not surprisingly, liberal pundits everywhere are moaning that Obama was "mugged" or worse, that he was "blackmailed".

What nonsense. This is the plan that Obama wanted from the very beginning, liberals were just unwilling to listen until now. They were too caught up with his lofty oratory and his personal history as if that was surefire proof of a kind heart and a progressive outlook.

Well, guess what? It's not. The man is not who he pretends to be. Here's a clip from a speech Obama gave in November 2008, before he even took office, and long before the budget deficits had become a problem:

"Our economy is trapped in a vicious cycle: the turmoil on Wall Street means a new round of belt-tightening for families and businesses on Main Street ....we'll have to scour our federal budget, line-by-line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices as well."

Huh? You mean Obama was prattling the right-wing mantra before he ever set foot in the Oval Office?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08012011.html

While the "debt ceiling crisis" was largely manufactured by both parties to stampede officials and the public into accepting huge cuts to federal spending with no tax increases on the rich, the human cost and effect on millions of americans health, safety and standard of living of this devastating bill will be felt for years and get worse as it goes on:

" The media coverage of the debt ceiling crisis can no longer conceal the dramatic shift to the right in the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. The New York Times carried on the front page of its Sunday edition an account headlining the "rightward tilt" of the Obama White House and writing that Obama "has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies…"

The US debt ceiling deal

by Patrick Martin

...There is virtually no discussion in the media or from any of the representatives of big business, Democratic or Republican, of the actual human cost of the cuts that are being discussed. Three trillion dollars in domestic spending over ten years is a gargantuan sum—at $300 billion a year, it would cover the annual deficits of all 50 states, twice over. It is more than the combined annual budgets of the departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs.

The initial impact of the cuts will be on the social infrastructure of education, public housing, mass transportation and environmental protection, as well as the Medicaid program for the poor, disabled and blind. In the longer term—in other words, as soon as the 2012 elections are safely past—the cuts will begin to be felt by the more than 50 million elderly covered by Medicare.

And it must be clear: these cuts are only the beginning. Spokesmen for the financial elite, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board, are pressing for trillions in additional cuts, including the outright destruction of Medicare and Social Security, which are to be privatized and effectively abolished. Obama and the Democrats differ only on the tactical means for carrying out this historic assault on the working class....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/pers-a01.shtml

OK. LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, I HAVE A QUESTION.

You keep blathering your talking points about Bush's wars and Bush's Medicare Part-D.

When you had a filibuster proof majority in the Congress AND control of the White House why didn't you end the wars and eliminate Medicare Part-D? It would have saved you all the repeated nonnsensical repetition of this useless argument.

Also, there was no Clinton "surplus". IF there were a true surplus the National Debt would have decreased. It never did during Clintons presidency. It was just more of the usual manipulation of funds between the intragovernmental holdings and public debt that every administration does to make the National Debt look better. This is usually more "borrowing" from the Social Security lock box, which by the way doesn't exist. It's just a nice reassurance to the uninformed that their contributions are somewhere. The only place they are is in the $115 TRILLION Dollars of Unfunded Liabilities we have accumulated for decades

I think there are a lot of people who do not understand what Glass-Steagall did. First of all there were two provisions. The part that was repealed in 1999 was the part that kept Finance, Banking, Insurance, and Investing from being under one roof. Pretty much everything else was left in tact.

Although having all three under the roof was suspected to be one of the problems of the great depression, it was believed to be contributory and not the main cause which was simply excessive lending to purchase securities. The law proved within months to cause finance an banking to function at a snails pace exceedingly limiting the rate of growth during the depression years. Senator Glass himself sponsored and co-sponsored several bills in the following years to repeal that particular portion as to egregious for business.

Worse yet, our problem in the mortgage collapse stemmed from making home loans to people, per federal specs, which were to people who could not/would not repay them. These "toxic assets" were sold from one institution to a separate institution. I.E. the people who made the loans sold them to buyers of a different company - meaning all four functions under the same roof wasn't the problem.

The part of the bill that was the problem was the Democrat addition of "strengthening" the CRA provisions. The strengthening meant that if a bank was alleged to have discriminated - all federal agencies, whether related to the case on not could investigate and prosecute the alleged offender. The CRA was already a big enough problem as written - Obama's community organizers basically rolled Citibank for a big settlement by alleging discrimination just a few years before the 1999 reform was signed.

This is actually a popular thing to do with any organization whether public or private. Accuse an entity of wrong doing - sue them - and get a big settlement out of court to make any negative publicity simply "go away".

Please be truly informed instead of falling to the right or left allegations.

MoonRiverExpress

They don't clean up their dog poop in Paris and it stinks to high heaven in the summer. Why would I want to move there?

big deal giffords showed up to lend her support to the tea party and big business

You are so off base. This comment is totally nasty and you should wash your mouth out with soap.

1. Giffords is a DEMOCRAT.

2. It is apparent that MANY Democrats voted in favor of this bill.

markmich

You need to learn one thing about POLITICS - You don't always get what you want.

And I will say that your confrontational attitude will not bring anyone over the fence.

In fact, it serves to the detriment of your ideals because people who may be teetering toward your point of view will instead be turned off by the condescending attitude.

I WAS going to vote Republican for next President UNTIL this fiasco. The Reps showed me their true colors - that they don't give a F about me or my family.

I am an independent voter who votes for people and ideas. That will be in CA only until the Reps PROVE they are worthy of my vote.

Why do people 'collapse' perfectly reasonable comments?

Why are they afraid of the free exchange of ideas and opinions?

Those that do this are COWARDS.

They are just jealous of your brain power Roy.

Look at it this way - they are so ticked that you pointed out their errors that they have to try and hide it from other people's view.

The comments are still there so they did not do a thing.

Jim -Giffords is a democrat.

Andy--what part of our country is BANKRUPT do you not understand? Obama enacted 5000 pages of regulations so nobody is hiring. The situation will only get worse.

You know what MOST people will never understand until Mr. Matthews and I tell them? What is that mowdy5000 you may ask? I shall tell you. By holding hostage our nations economy and EXTORTING our president tea bagging republicans have proven it CAN be done. How is that important mowdy5000 you may ask? I will brighten the room. With the overturning of the 63 year old campaigning finance law it allows corporations and incorporated companies to poor cash into the process. [Led by republican tea bagger Alito I might add.]

Buying favors beholding candidates unto them and NOT having to tell where it all came from. Anyone REMEMBER what just happened with the guy from Pakistan and his contributions? This is why I always say theses pledges tea baggers and republicans make to Norquist and other private groups and citizens they hold in higher esteem then the oaths of office are illegal and tea bagging republicans should be brought up on charges.

Because what that then does is make way for FOREIGN governments to pose as corporations and buy there way in to congress. Quite like Ol' Rupert Murdoch had done. Check it out. LAWS HAVE been broken and tea bagging republicans should all be brought up on conspiracy and treason charges, Because NOW foreign government KNOW that you can do and how to extort our nations sitting presidents.. Plural.

How to wreck our countries economy. Think it wont happen? It just did.. Wake up people. Wake up. This is a dangerous time and a dangerous persident set and the fact it is able to be done should send SHIVERS up the back of Americans spine. I'm not kidding
I'm not joking and its dead serious. This is how the group that doesn't exist always buys there way into public office..

Think about it people. Think about it. ;]

Cheers

MoonRiverExpress

Je suis tout a fait d' accord avec vous. L'amerique n'est plus une democracy, mais une plurocracy. Domage que les americains ne le realise pas !

So the cons think that Clinton's secretary strong armed the republican controlled congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall act. Please. I can't believe you wasted carbohydrates on making such a desperate lie.

I also saw some comment asking why in the two years that the dems controlled congress under bush they didn't use the filibuster. They didn't filibuster because the bills on the table were about funding the wars not ending them. The implication here is that if the dems gambled with peoples lives like the republicans do then they would have filibustered spending bills that provided for troops. Then George W. Bush would have had to choose between continuing to send underfunded troops out to die or withdrawing. George W. Bush would have continued to send underfunded troops out to die as he was already doing so. Any bill to straight out end the war he would veto and there were not enough dems to override the veto. 49 dems, 48 cons, 2 ind. A bill to end the war did pass in the house but that was because there was a small majority of dems in the house.

Karen in Los Angeles

As much as I have my doubts about your Independent status I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, it serves to the detriment of your ideals because people who may be teetering toward your point of view will instead be turned off by the condescending attitude.

You must be confused to think I'm trying to bring anyone over the fence. I'm a Reagan Conservative and a Fiscal Libertarian. I don't give a rat's a$$ about the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Republicans, GOP or RINO's. They're all corrupt. How else can you explain $14.6 TRILLION Dollars in National Debt, $55 TRILLION in Total US Debt and $115 TRILLION Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities? If you think any of this is acceptable from EITHER party, being an Independent isn't going to help. It's a constant battle of voting for the "lesser of two evils".

As a Conservative I lean Right and as a Fiscal Libertarian I lean Center-Right. This is because for nearly 100 years we have been assaulted by Progressivism and their nonsensical Keynesian economic incompetence. The reason our economy will collapse is because for decades we have been preoccupied with entitlements and social programs that have been failing and have finally brought us to the precipice everyone is so concerned with.

This Debt Ceiling debate was just another Washington two-step to further confuse and deceive the uninformed populace and grandstand each parties agenda's. Fortunately the TEA Party has at least tried to awaken many Americans from their unconscious delusion that we can keep spending money until Nirvana sets in.

I asked my question simply because the Liberal progressives have no answer to it. Yet they keep regurgitating the same ridiculous talking points. The same with the alleged Clinton "surplus". It is just more Washingtonian deception. If anyone in the last 30 years had an opportunity to stabilize the economy it was Clinton. For 8 years he sat back as one of the greatest free-market economies exploded. The Dot-Com bubble. This had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's economic or fiscal policies. You or I could have managed that incredible era of "irrational exuberance". The only one that should get any credit for that economy should be Al Gore as he claims to have invented the Internet.

My apparent condescension, as you put it, is irrelevant to me. I am simply concerned with ridding our economy of the incompetent Keynesian economic model that has failed when it was attempted during the Great Depression and is failing now. Our once great and envied economy has been reduced to a consumption/service sector model that has never succeeded anywhere. Monetization of our debt has been occurring for decades and all we have to show for it is an unescapable downgrading of our bond ratings. This is further accelerated by the rising consumption of our economy of government growth and its attendant waste, fraud and abuse.

If the fact that the Progressive ideologies that have created this economic Armageddon aren't enough to convince you and you think the Republicans don't give an F about your family I'm afraid your choices for 2012 have been severely reduced.

But as an Independent I'm sure you'll just vote for the lesser of two evils,,,,again.

dogs and cats

You can stay in France for all we AMERICANS care.

And since you love the French so much, you should realize that our Bill of Rights is based on the French's Rights of Man.

And which country is socialist? Mon dieu.

They did cut off the monarch's heads at one point. Louis the 16th was it and his lovey wife Marie Antoinette?

M-M

You mistake me for someone who cares. There are certain opinions I seek on this forum. Roy Wilson is one.

All my friends are others.

Gmainco - Right on about democracies and length of rule. Happens to dictatorships, too. Usually in a shorter time period. Anytime the rulers (whether that be the people or a small group or one person) learn they can vote themselves benefits, things go downhill in a hurry. They can't pay for them and the result is unstoppable without benefit removal.

And I will say that your confrontational attitude will not bring anyone over the fence.

If ever a pot called a kettle black...

That just shows how stupid Hannity is. He been asleep in the last 3 bargains the dems and obama did? health care, FAIL. Re upping Bush tax cuts, FAIL. And this debit deal, FAIL. Coming to a bargaining table with this president is like taking candie from a baby. Just wish for the whole solar system and this idiot will give into the Universe. Then go on TV and say it isn't a great deal butit is thebest for the American people.

Most of the folks that supported Obama's free spending for the last 3 years and his desire to raise taxes by $1 trillion are in the group of taxpayers (50%) that pay NO TAXES at all! Clearly biased thinking and follows the liberal/progressive mission statement that it is better to have someone else pay your obligations!

It is not a coincidence that it is these same people that are arguing the loudest that Obama gave up too much to the Republicans! LOL, what hypocrisy!

Andy:

At this point does anyone really believe that they have anyone but their own interests at heart? What nerve!

Nice one... We are spending $100,000,000,000 a MONTH that we don't have or 1,200,000,000,000 a year. We collect $203B a month and spend $300B. It's time the Government "eat it's peas" as President Obama said earlier.

Oh, and yes, the default issue. When service on the debt is $29B a month and we collect $203B a month in revenue, the only way we'll default is if the President directs the Treasury to do so...

Far from the Tea Party being the problem, it's the career politicians who are the problem. Many in the Tea Party actually have had to work in the past and ran for Congress to change things. The status quo for the past 40-50 years is what's gotten us into the problems we're in.

The liberals got what the wanted - the debt limit raised, merely a bandaid!

We must continue to cut current spending and cap future spending if we don't want to go through this crap again in 2012! Replacing the current free spending President with a fiscal conservative would be a step in the right direction.

Andy, reverse your post. As in, would you want a Republican president endrunning Congress - which Obama has already said he will not do the 14th amendment strongarm - to do whatever they want?

I wouldn't.

Remember, whatever the President or Congress decides they can do, and are allowed to get away with, opens the door for every succeeding President and Congress to do the same thing. When the party you support isn't in power, you may not want what you wish for when it is.

Additionally, while I happen to think the tea party might be a bit too intractable on the issue of taxation, this article points out - we would not even be having this discussion but for them.

Do you think it is sustainable to borrow 40 cents of every dollar the government spends? If so, how?

Most of the folks that supported Obama's free spending for the last 3 years and his desire to raise taxes by $1 trillion are in the group of taxpayers (50%) that pay NO TAXES at all!

Could people PLEASE get it through their heads that EVERYONE PAYS TAXES! Unless you purchase absolutely NO goods or services EVER, you pay sales tax, property tax, and a whole host of other taxes. There ARE people who pay little to no income tax. They are the people in the lowest and highest income tax brackets. But this ludicrous insistence that there are people who pay NO TAXES WHATSOEVER needs to stop.

Mark from Wealthy Lake Tahoe- You would like a "fiscal conservative"? Yeah, so wouldn't I.....

Hmmm, let's see though........who was the last real fiscal conservative.........hmmm..........was it Bush Jr? Umm, nope. Was it Daddy Bush? Umm, nope. How about Reagan? Ooo, no, not him either......

Geez.......any thoughts? I'm already getting thin on ideas here......

Flbiker Chick:

You're right, everyone pays taxes or fees, local, state and federal. There are many Federal taxes in commodities, like gas or cigarettes. However, it's also true that about 50% of Americans pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX, according to the latest data from the IRS (2008). Here's the link to this information:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

When you have 50% of our population paying no Federal Income Tax and 25% paying almost 90%, we have a problem.

The American Revolution's battle cry was "No Taxation Without Represenation". Now we have "Representation Without Taxation."

More and more of the American People expecting or demanding benefits from fewer and fewer taxpayers is a recipe for disaster, or revolt.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Tea Party in 2012.

When you have 50% of our population paying no Federal Income Tax and 25% paying almost 90%, we have a problem.

Those tables are intentionally misleading by leaving out a key piece of information. What is important to note is the total wealth held by the top 25%.... This link might be a little better, although it only shows the Adjusted Gross Income [AGI] and not all wealth.

The top 25% holds about 67% of AGI share and pays about 86% of income taxes.

When you factor in other wealth and assets held by the top 25% - their share is much closer to their total wealth held.

It only makes sense that the group which holds 90% of American wealth pay 90% of taxes, does it not?

Shuklack, the isn't the USSR, we don't tax wealth, we tax income... your jealousy is blinding!

Everyone talks about cap. How are you going to cap an aging population that needs more medial care down the road. Basically you are telling them to die and stop asking for help. Although you paid into a system for 50 years.

Most Americans don't have a savings plan due to the fact of high cost of living.

while making $10.50 an hour.

It only makes sense that the group which holds 90% of American wealth pay 90% of taxes, does it not?

So according to your line of thought Whenever I put a dollar in my saving account and this is a dollar that I have already paid income taxes on that I should be taxed again on that same dollar because you can not figure out how to save your own dollars.

Sorry Shuklack, Income is taxed, Wealth is not, Wealth was already taxed as it was earned as income, Some of us just seem to be able to manage our money a little bit better so we should not be penalized because others can not.

When you have 50% of our population paying no Federal Income Tax and 25% paying almost 90%, we have a problem.

Can't argue about the bottom 50%, but the problem with the bit about the top 25% is that, while the amount collected may be almost 90% of the total amount of income taxes, they are actually taxed at a lower percentage than the remaining 25%. For example, the ones at the very top are taxed at a RATE, after loopholes and exceptions, of about 17%. The middle class pays closer to 30% of their income in taxes. The ultra-rich use the same government services, use the same public roads, etc. as the rest of us, but they do not pay the same percent of their income to do so. And that's as individuals. Corporate taxes, exemptions, incentives and loopholes are an absolute joke in this country. They hurt small and midsize businesses while benefiting the giant multinationals.

I favor one of two things: either everyone, private citizens and corporations, top to bottom, pays the same percentage of their income (i.e., a flat tax rate, no loopholes, no exceptions), or we eliminate income tax and everyone pays a use tax on goods, services and infrastructure maintenance.

Shuklack

It only makes sense that the group which holds 90% of American wealth pay 90% of taxes, does it not?

No it does not, period.

We do not tax wealth in this country, even though lately that seems to be a liberal's wet dream, we tax income.

I will go the opposite direction as you in terms of total equality. Tax ALL wage earners a flat tax of 17% on all monies made over $15,000 and call it a day. Twenty other countries have gone to this system of taxation and all have seen an increase in tax revenues to their federal government. It also has a second benefit if reducing the size and cost of government by reducing the IRS.

The sooner we as a people reject this whole manufactured "class warefare" BS the faster we will recover as a nation.

Hannity is a shill for Rupert Murdoch. That whole station needs to lose its license for interferring with governing the country and for undue influence on those tea party folks. Propaganda is a terrible thing, but subversion is treasonous.

By the way all you Ron Paul folks, all you have to do is look at the son he produced to see where his thinking truly is. Their thinking is from the pre-civil rights era, which I think would take us backwards. If you don't believe this go back through their archive to see their feelings about business and civil rights. All that states rights jargon is a dog whistle for the militia and secessionist crowd.

Ya know, if there weren't so many people below the poverty level there would be more paying taxes. Create jobs, create tax payers.... There is a huge inequity in this country.

Dreeves, I'm glad you believe in the Constitution.... How American of you!

Most Americans don't have a savings plan due to the fact of high cost of living.

while making $10.50 an hour.

Actually most of us do, And in 1967 I was working as a laborer making $1.75 per hour, I was paying room and board and still managed to save money, Currently my hourly rate is probably less than $10.00 per hour when you figure the amount of hours I work divided by my average daily income(I am self employed) And again I am still able to keep putting money aside for my retirement. I live within my means and if I have a bad stretch I cut back as much as I can, I know one thing for certain and that is I will grow older and at some point in my life I will be unable to work so I need to make sure I put away money to take care of myself and my family.

Dreeves

Hannity is a shill for Rupert Murdoch. That whole station needs to lose its license for interferring with governing the country and for undue influence on those tea party folks. Propaganda is a terrible thing, but subversion is treasonous.

It is called the 1st Amendment, deal with it and it is what makes this country great.

All that states rights jargon is a dog whistle for the militia and secessionist crowd.

You do understand that the power that the Federal Govenment has via the Constitution was given to it by the States and what was not strictly given in the Constitution was powers that were to REMAIN with the States?

Shuklack, the isn't the USSR, we don't tax wealth, we tax income... your jealousy is blinding!

Why would I be jealous of a group that is supposedly taxed so heavily? What I want to know is why middle-income and low-income rightwingers feel the need to go to bat for the ultra-wealthy, what do they do for you? Seems like a bunch of suckers cowed into thinking that giving more breaks to the rich will be good for them somehow. It's incomprehensible.

Regardless, taxes should be proportionate to the share that they make. If someone has 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. It only makes sense. Flat, simple, to the point. "No loopholes, no exceptions." as said above. If everyone was taxed the exact same proportion to their personal income - it would reflect this directly.

flbikerchick - sales tax and property tax are local and state taxes and have nothing to do with the Federal government. If you are talking about national issues then you have to look at Federal taxes.

Shuklack

Regardless, taxes should be proportionate to the share that they make. If someone has 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes.

Ok, taxes should be at an equal rate for all people, not proportionate. Even with a Flat Tax not all wage earners would pay taxes, that is why I always include a $15,000 exemption for the truely poor in this country. We would probably still have 15-20% of wage earners still paying no taxes, (true poverty has floated around 15% since records have been kept). That is also the ONLY exemption that there should be, nor any credits or subsidies.

This is not meant as a slam against you, but you need to seperate the concepts of wealth and income, they are not the same nor are they interchangeable.

Regardless, taxes should be proportionate to the share that they make.

If someone has 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. It only makes sense. Flat, simple, to the point. "No loopholes, no exceptions." as said above. If everyone was taxed the exact same proportion to their personal income - it would reflect this directly.

Well you got the first part right but you seem to have a real comprehension problem when it comes to the difference between income and wealth.

I have money in the bank for my future and my retirement, I also have investments in my small business that someday I may want to sell to add to my retirement savings, I do not mind paying taxes on capital gains I make on my investments but I certainly do not want to be taxed on money(investments equals money) that I have already paid taxes on. My wealth is my savings and my business and I have already paid taxes on it. Many taxes considering I have paid income taxes on the income used to create it, Local and state income and property taxes and a whole host of other taxes that the local,state and federal government imposes upon me.

I will save for my future, You save for yours

Ok, taxes should be at an equal rate for all people, not proportionate.

An equal rate would result in proportional taxation, would it not (well except for those below poverty like you mentioned).

Well you got the first part right but you seem to have a real comprehension problem when it comes to the difference between income and wealth.

I know I confused it there, but what I was getting at was basically what you mentioned in your post above. That alongside income tax, their 'wealth' is taxed in a way through property, capital gains, etc. That's what I meant. I don't know the proper usage of certain terms so forgive me.

Shuklack, it's very simple. Rich during the 50's was an income of $5MM 2011 dollars, in the 70's it was 2.5MM 2011 dollar, under Clinton it was $1MM 2011 US dollars... Under Obama it's $200K 2011 Dollars...

What happens in 2025 under a Dem POTUS, is rich then $50K of income?

I don't defend the rich's actions or the income equality, I think the Uber Rich (10MM+) should have another tax bracket. But I dont' think it's their job to pay for the poor to live!

Your 90% paying 90% idea would end any form of svaing this nation has!

My grandparents were 1st generation Americans, they paid their way to get engineering degrees, got good jobs, never made a huge amount of money, lived within there means, saved and invested and when my grandparents died 6 years ago they had over 3 Million in assets...

Again, we don't tax wealth we tax INCOME... even a high school grad would understand why!

Shuklack, the rich's property is taxed... you have property tax, sales tax (which John Kerry tried to skip out on), lux. taxes, etc,

Greed and Demand for Immediate Gratification is what got America in to this financial mess - this Congressional so called "deal" shows nothing has changed!

The US Citizens elected government. This is called Freedom and Democracy!

This elected Government can not balance a budget nor operate within revenue, continually growing US debt, so these crooks in government can get continually elected, by making and keeping promises that can not be paid for and borrowing from future revene, to pay for those promises.

In order to get elected, the government enabled/allowed/encouraged citizens to purchase houses who were fiscally irresponsible, the government started "police engagements" around the world in the name of protection, with no plan of winning those engagements, just perpetual fighting (great for all the industries tied in to supplying the US military, the US Military is the #1 oil user in the world), the government grew itself with phoney programs just to create more government jobs (government waste), the government bailed out the loaners of the funds to government encouraged home owners who defaulted, the government enabled those whose jobs they cost, by the government not having fair trade agreements and allowing US Corporations a "New World Order" developing third world nations with cheap labor, costing the US Citizens their jobs, the government gets to print money, the government does not have to abide by the same laws they demand the citizens abide by, the government is the reason the US is in the mess they are in.

And now, the government is ignoring the US debt, Fiscal Responsibility putting off to future US Citizens, to pay for all the greed and immediate gratification demanded by today's citizens.

Who elected government, the US people,

Stupid is as Stupid does - the US reaped what they sowed!

The collapse of America continues!

Shuklack, it's very simple. Rich during the 50's was an income of $5MM 2011 dollars, in the 70's it was 2.5MM 2011 dollar, under Clinton it was $1MM 2011 US dollars... Under Obama it's $200K 2011 Dollars...

What's strange about that the gap between rich and poor has widened. Something like 20% of all income is earned by the top 1% - those would be the ultra wealthy, something like 1.4 million taxpayers. Half of all income is earned by only 14 million of 140 million taxpayers, the top 10%.

I don't defend the rich's actions or the income equality, I think the Uber Rich (10MM+) should have another tax bracket. But I dont' think it's their job to pay for the poor to live!

Who's job is it? Just curious.

Again, we don't tax wealth we tax INCOME... even a high school grad would understand why!

We do tax wealth by other means, that's what I was getting at... it's not direct taxation, obviously.

Shuklack, the rich's property is taxed... you have property tax, sales tax (which John Kerry tried to skip out on), lux. taxes, etc,

That's everyone, not just the rich.

Shuklack, it's very simple. Rich during the 50's was an income of $5MM 2011 dollars, in the 70's it was 2.5MM 2011 dollar, under Clinton it was $1MM 2011 US dollars... Under Obama it's $200K 2011 Dollars...

Also, i'd like to point out that the average tax rate for all classes has went down since 1980.

Hell, for the top 1% it went from 34% down to 23%, a low for the last 30 years. But that tax bracket has also went from 80K to 380K...

Also, i'd like to point out that the average tax rate for all classes has went down since 1980.

Hell, for the top 1% it went from 34% down to 23%, a low for the last 30 years. But that tax bracket has also went from 80K to 380K...

While the tax rate may have gone down the deductions have been reduced and in many case eliminated, That resulted in an actual increase in the amount of taxes paid by many Americans

ChipD....We don't tax wealth...we tax incomes? Would that ALL incomes were taxed according to income brackets. The IRS sets up specifics about how much taxpayers are supposed to pay from their incomes. Then, politicians get out their scissors and start cutting the taxes of the highest incomes...we tax incomes? BS. BS. BS.

Not when Icahn is laughing up his sleeve at the billions those 3 tax credits earn him on a near daily basis. We tax income...yes...the incomes of anyone not in the 6 figure range...Anything over that gets a helping hand from their politicians who see to it their income taxes are whittled down to half of what anyone earning $50,000 a year is paying...need proof?

Call Buffet and ask him to verify this.

Ornoimportance...I'd suggest you check the IRS on the increase in deductions in the last decade. This was the era of gentlemen farmers who sold 10 bales of hay and got tax reductions as "farmers" when they never hefted a hoe in their lives. This was also the era of handing over tax reductions for childcare, super-sized Hummers (35% tax credit, by the way, and gee how nice to encourage the sale of more gas guzzlers - right up Big Oil's profit alley). This doesn't begin to include 3 tax credits in 2004, 2008 and 2010, the tax breaks for shipping American jobs to foreign cheap labor countries, the 2001 tax break to hire and create jobs that never happened.

If you break the backs of the working poor and Middle Class what you'll get is a revolt. The rich do not need a single dime more of reductions in their taxes. Sorry, they can tighten their belts too before ours choke us to death.

Most of you people make me sick when it comes to the low income people paying taxes. My wife and I make 25k a year together and because of Bush Tax cuts we are not supposed to pay any tax but we do. At the end of the year because of Bush's Tax cuts and credits, we will get everything we pay in all year plus credit for earned income. We pay taxes because America needs a income revenue increase. Why can't all of you pay your share and stop these Bush Tax Cuts and Deduction write offs? Stop crying and do what needs to be done to lower this debt so your kids won't be paying for your mistakes. Also look up the audit that was just done on the Federal Reserve and see where your money went, over 16 Trillion Dollars!

"we don't tax wealth, we tax income"

Not quite!

Estate / inheritance taxes is about taxing wealth that was already taxed as income - granted some of that "wealth" is a growth in value.

Property tax is also about taxing at a assessed value wealth of property and not income.

I think people have no idea of what these kind of cuts in federal spending are going to do to the country and our society.

For one thing it will probably bring on another recession even if we are going into another one right now.

I think we are descending into corporate Feudalism.

There will be a relatively few people with incredible wealth and every one else will be at a much lower standard of living than now.

Americans will wait outside the rich man's mansion and beg for a job with low wages and no benefits like today you see people from Mexico, etc. waiting outside Home Depot or Lumber yards for a pick up job.

Americans know nothing of their own history or economics except the idealized picture the corporate media (movies, etc) have shown them so smooth talking con men like Obama can pose as champions of the middle class and poor and then screw them like he and the Republicans did with the "debt deal".

The once prosperous and large middle class that the U.S. used to be well known for was largely a legacy of New Deal and Great Society social programs and legislation like: Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Federal jobs programs, the right to form Unions, minimum wage laws, labor and health and safety laws.

Obama and the Republicans are attacking all of that and want to destroy it. One of the things the Super Commission that the deal sets up will look at is regulation and taxation of business and Obama has already spoken of "fixing" health and safety laws and labor regulations (just like the right wing Republican he really is).

Better get off your ass and raise a fuss if you want to preserve anything of what was once called The American Dream.

They might be up for the chopping block with the debt comity, since everything is on the table at that point, but I do not think we will see them in this round of cuts.

They can cut foreign aid but it's not as much as many make it out to be. We give $50B in aid, around $8B to the UN and we also have a quota in the IMF. We don't give to the IMF every year and the amount varies - sometimes as low as $6B and sometimes up to $100B. You really have to be careful on exactly what you cut because yanking the carpet out from under some programs can lead directly to instability, power vacuums and wars. The trick is to weed out the funding without hurting global stability. Either way, you won't see huge recoupments from stopping foreign aid.

I also see "aid" in things like having military bases in Japan, Germany and other countries we have bases in that should have their own military. Also getting out of Afghan/Iraq/Libya would also save a bundle. And in the future stop getting into wars unless it's one we have to fight for our very survival, like WWII was.

Dave...and you don't see instability, power vacuums and the start of a civil war here? Yes Earl we need to keep out of wars that don't directly effect us. But if we had done that how would have Cheney lined his pockets and poor ol George W would have defaulted on his friendships with the oil czars. 50B is a HUGE chunk of change in my book.

Sorry Dave but $50B in aid is not even close to the amount we spend each year in aid; Iraq gets $23.7B a year since 2003, Bilateral development assistance $6.3B, Economic aid supporting U.S. political and security objectives $5.4B, SEED program $442.4M, NIS Program $583.5M, Humanitarian Assistance $2,55B, Multilateral Assistance $1.7B, Military Assistance $4.8B, $10B to Egypt to keep peace with Israel, $5B to Jordan to keep peace with Israel, $80B for pakistan to help in the war on terror, $250M a year for Russia to sign the Non-Proliferation Act, $6.4B to China because it is still labeled as a developing country not including the undisclosed amount to Israel a year but estimated to be around $100B+ a year and there are a lot more monetary aids we give out so we're looking at $250B+ a year, and earlinelexington is right about counting the military bases across the globe as aid for the USA has to pay those countries to have bases there. But you say we must be careful about pulling that money out because it could cause instability, power vacuums and wars? Well I say if it isn't going to harm the USA and have no major global impact except inside that country then it is none of our concern, it is not the USA and her citizens duty to help countries stay on their feet when they can't do it themselves, not our job to forge peace between nations that their fight has nothing to do with our own nation, and most of this aid being cut would not hurt global stability, most of the nations that receive it would not have a major impact on that a scratch maybe but nothing serious, but then you have countries like China and Israel, that are fine economy wise but yet still get money that has to stop as well there is no need. We as a nation need to worry about ourselves not other nations, we do not need to seek out monsters to destroy so others can have our freedom, if they can not get it themselves at this moment then get up and try again.

We're likely to never see cuts.

We still have the Federal Executive Boards, a $128M annual waste of money, established by President Kennedy in 1961. Who knows what they do?

What we really need is TERM LIMITS for Congressmen. Four terms for the House, two for the Senate. If it's OK for the President, it should be OK for Congress.

Instead of passing out Pork and doing what's best for their continued political survival, we need Term Limits to prevent the the type of irresponsible pandering. A professional political class is dooming our country.

Add term limits to the Senate and Supreme Court, as well. Overturn "corporate citizenship" and end lobbying.

Earlinlexington- In regard to your comment I can agree that some of our bases around the world need to be closed especially in Italy which we have 3 bases there. Theres no reason for it. I do agree that if any country wants our help in military that we should charge these countries a fee for our help. I also think if the LEFT want the loopholes for the rich to be dealt with the their should also be cuts in the loopholes for the poor like going after welfare fraud and foodstamps and also start taxing those who have more then 2 children who avoid paying taxes. All that needs end. American needs to stop expecting free handouts and start getting up off their fat butts and do for themselves. The elderly also need to wake up and realize the money is running out and things need to be cut back. I am sick and tired of the scare tactic rhetoric from the LEFT. The people in this country a pathetic in being so gullable. Obama call out share sacrafices well lets start with these politicians who need a pay cut for this mess that they created. THAT'S A SHARED SACRAFICE TO.

@TRH86

I guess we should end the Cheeny war handout then.

piegan, loopholes for the poor? Yeah, let's git er done! $450. welfare check? That'll be $67.00 income tax up front. $250. food stamps? $37.00 income tax up front. Tax the orphanages and all charities. Those crippled birth defected kids getting benefits from March of Dimes? Pay up, you little brats. You need skin in the game too. 15% up front or we're taking the wheel chair.

This Tea Party mentality has been stretched far beyond original intent. Sounds like a broken record repeating the same nonsensical lyric over and over again. A lyric that had no place (to begin with) in a tired old song.

A career politician is nothing more than a welfare recipient in an expensive suit. They create nothing, they produce nothing, and get their living from the government. Just like multi- generation welfare recipients we also have multi- generation career politicians. They are the same.

FYI - I'm not bashing welfare recipients who are getting a helping hand through some tough times, however I am bashing the multi- generation welfare recipients. Welfare was intended to be a temporary help, not a lifetime commitment for the poor or career politicians.

Soldier's Dad: GREAT POST...

Our professional political class have foisted the world's largest PonziScheme on us, in regards to Social Security. If you want to know who's to blame for this mess, you have to look at folks like Dan Rosetnkowski, Tip O'Neil and Barny Frank. None of them will end up in jail like like Bernnie Madoff for defrauding the American People. Yes, I know Rostenkowski served 17 months for mail fraud, but not for the decisions he and others have made regarding the budget.

We need Representatives for the People, not just pandering for votes to kick this can down the road, while they enjoy the Gravy Train of being a Congressman.

We certainly DON'T need another 12 member commission to address out debt problem. We have the Ryan Budget. That's what the House Budget and Ways & Means Committee is paid to do.

True John, these clowns could have come up with this compromise months ago without all the political drama and scare tactics, and don't forget the political maneuvering. This serves to show the American people just exactly what is wrong with Washington.

Don't forget the others such as Ted Kennedy and others who back in the late 60's saw the huge surplus in the SS trust fund and raided it. More proof that career politicians can't keep their hands off other people's money. SS and Medicare would have been just fine and still have a huge surplus if the politicians had simply looked at it and said it's doing good, don't mess with it. But no, they just couldn't leave something working well alone.

The House Ways and Means commitee needs to be finding WAYS for the country to live within it's MEANS as some would think it's name implies.

The amount of money slipping through 'rich' loopholes vs 'poor' loopholes is hardly comparable.

I'm not saying 'don't fix em' what I am saying is that people seek to blame those below the poverty line like their piddly contributions would be worth a damn anyway.

Shuklack...The only people who do this are those with overstuffed bank accounts that want more stuffing. This is the attitudes of the overindulged who have excessed themselves into a realm of ego that insists that just because McMommy and McDaddy overloaded these trophy McBrats with all manner of luxury, now that they are adults, well...how dare anyone not live UP to their level?

Take a long hard look at how their spoiled, selfish narciscists got that wealth...price gouging healthcare premiums, jacking commissions on real estate and let's not forget Big Oil's Big, Big, Big contribution to piggery - regular price increases and the cost of the fines for their spills.

How a man gets rich isn't nearly as important as why.

Yup, let's keep screwing the future owners (our kids) of this country...isn't this the American way? Here's the reality, it doesn't matter what party one votes for, because in the end they are really just in it for themselves, oh and those big corporations that are paying their way. Why is it that the government can't look ahead of right now, they are like a bunch of addicts, all about instant gratification never mind the long-term consequences! One last thing, reminds me of the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

Commonsense 101 is why sentient people say, "Hire the leftists, they're fun to watch."

James-375688, Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious. Conning ignorant people by using racial, religious and other controversial social issues to vote against their own interests is not sentient. It is deliberate deception and evil by using another's weakness to gain unfair power over them. It is certainly not "leftist".

It is a constant practice for many decades by many of those on the right. Prohibiting choice for our mothers, sisters and daughters regarding their own bodies rallies many anti-abortion fanatics. Promoting prayers in school by our preferred religion only, brings out the religious fanatics. Promoting hatred for "Welfare Queen" blacks and those "Illegal Mexicans" brings out the racists. Promoting the ridiculous idea that equal rights for gays to marry somehow threatens "traditional" marriage brings out the homophobes and those that are insecure about their own sexuality.

That is why perceptive, feeling and conscious people say," Keep a close eye on those on the extreme right. Their greed and deception will destroy the once proud American Dream. They are a horror to watch."

Foreign aid makes up 1.64% of our budget (in 2008).

... Medicare, Social Security and Defense make up 70% (including interest).

I dont think you really understand. In the 30% that is remaining we have ALL THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS:

Education, Infrastructure, Research and Development, Foreign Aid, all Federal Employees, Energy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, IRS, FAA, FDA, FBI, NASA, FCC, Peace Corps, National Endowment for the Arts, EPA, FEMA, the Center for Disease Control, Disaster Relief, Federal Assistance to States, National Parks association, Smithsonian, the SEC, etc...

Completely agree. It's scary how much we allow other people to dictate our lives without us even realizing it!

What we really need is MORE Tea Party people... We're Taxed Enough Already!

Our professional politicians are dooming our Country. It's "nice" that poor 'ole President Obama won't have to "eat his peas" and actually do his job next year, instead of campaigning for reelection and having to worry with something as boring as a $14-$16 TRILLION dollar debt, a 30% increase under his watch.

It's "nice" only for Obama, not our Country.

It seems the only person with a spine in Congress, willing to address the tough issues they were elected to solve are Paul Ryan and the Tea Party Republicans.

BTW, if we DON'T increase the Debt Limit, all the President has to do is ensure the $29B monthly debt service is paid out of the $203B monthly collection of revenue.

Of course the problem is... we have a $100B monthly shortfall to pay for things like NPR, Woodrow Wilson Center, Federal Executive Boards, and the study of Chinese Prostitutes.

CHECK IT OUT!

.

Nice quote, too bad there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote those words. The usage of the word "deflation" is one indicator that this quote is not from Jefferson. The word "deflation" in relation to currency was not used until 1920. I've never seen chain email with quotes attributed to Jefferson or Obama that were true, yet they show up in these discussions all of the time.

John: We are short because the BUSH administration wasted trillions of dollars on unpaid and wars under false pretenses; because the banks defrauded the national not once but ongoing and it is the greed that brings this nation down. It is not the corporations that are the largest taxpayers, it is the people who by their work are taxes and have a right to funding of things like NPR. If we did not the criminal Murdoch network would control the media by bullying and lies.

We need to get rid of Tbagers, they are dangerous to the nation and reckless. And we need to tax Executives and Corporations who produce overseas and trying to sell this staff here in this country. Every item coming from China need to have levies and taxes on to fund development of small business in this country because they are the ones creating jobs.

If you make statements ensure that you are correct with the facts. A loan taken out by Bush is not Obama's, but it is the mess of 8 years reckless Bush and Republican administration that has to be cleared (again) by Democrats.

Nice quote, too bad there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote those words. The usage of the word "deflation" is one indicator that this quote is not from Jefferson. The word "deflation" in relation to currency was not used until 1920. I've never seen chain email with quotes attributed to Jefferson or Obama that were true, yet they show up in these discussions all of the time.

True, it's a well known 'retroquote' - a quote erroneously attributed to a famous dead person. It's known that Jefferson had mistrust for banks and paper currency, but there is no evidence that ties anything resembling this quote to Jefferson other than the first line.

Here is an actual quote from one of his letters to John Taylor, May 28, 1816.

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Joachim:

We need to get rid of Tbagers, they are dangerous to the nation and reckless.

Our nation's debt problem isn't the result of the last 7 months of Republican Control of the House of Representatives, or of the "Tea Party."

Since 1931, the Democrats have controled the House, where spending is appropriated, for 64 years, or 768 months. The failure of our Representatives to control the growth of our Government is the problem. Also, regarding those two wars "under false pretense", it was the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress that passed joint resolutions approving the use of Armed Forces and consequently approved the funding for their operations. So don't blame Bush for that. Congress approved the action and had oversight over the Administration and could have defunded the operation of Nancy Pelosi saw fit.

Yes, American taxpayers can vote to have services like NPR, or they can vote not to. In 2010 we voted for smaller Government.

John, We do not need more Tea "Partiers"--a small minority of ill-informed, anti-fact, pretend "old-timey", "small-government" people who hide behind a fantasy version of what they misportray as "our Founding Fathers' dream for America." The actual Founding Fathers would have had most members of the Bush government imprisoned for treason. Do the Teabaggers really believe that their loud and obnoxious lobbying (for that's all it is--what they most pretend to hate) and scare tactics represent the right path for the country--a country which is much larger and more inclusive--and better informed, I hope, and more humane, I know--than they are, to follow? Though hardly unified even among themselves, on the whole they stand out as bigoted and bullying--even against the background of their Republican "base". WE--all of us living in America right now--ARE THE FOUNDING FATHERS of this country, and every day it is our duty to do what is best for ALL Americans, even--especially--the poor ones, the disenfranchised, the so-called handicapped, the ignorant, those who have had less opportunity, those who need help, those who don't see things the way we do, those who haven't inherited money or made huge amounts of money (if recent history has taught us anything to our infinite shame, it is "how to make money in America"). GOVERNMENT IS FOR ALL, not just the comfortable. It's for your neighbor, too. Go Obama. And go FDR.

Yes, American taxpayers can vote to have services like NPR, or they can vote not to. In 2010 we voted for smaller Government.

What's wrong with NPR? I kind of like it... the news is straight and to the point in the morning - without a commercial break every 2 minutes. They also have some nice cultural programs and information of fine-arts festivals, shows, concerts etc in the evenings.

I listen to right wing radio as well, usually on the drive home because then it's not so much about getting the day's news - but about getting opinion and entertainment.

If I had to compare the bias on the two, right wing radio is twice as bad as NPR. NPR may be a little fruity and on the rare occasions that they have a political opinion discussion, they do tend to be left biased, but right wing radio is far worse in that regard because 95% of their programming is dedicated to political opinion... unlike NPR.

Dahveeday:

FDR has been dead since 1945, so I really don't think he'll be going anywhere.

Omaba is the most incompetent President ever elected, and he'll be going to Chicago in January 2013 after he's defeated.

You see.. WE THE PEOPLE will make it happen, at least 51% of us.

Dear John,

No, Obama is a very good president, who, having inherited the worst economic crisis in modern times, continues, slowly and courageously, to fulfill his promises to the best of his ability, amid the shouting and threats (one thing which both parties clearly believe in) of an increasingly fear-bound people. You are right, the election will determine his future and the future of the rest of us--not just the 51% who will re-elect him, but all 100% of Americans, about whom he cares more deeply than any recent president, and for whom he is a better representative of American ideas and ideals than anybody presented as an alternative in a looong time.

According to the Jefferson Encyclopedia, the earliest printed reference to this quotation found so far appeared in a 1937 Congressional subcommittee report, which means there is no known record of these words having been attached to Jefferson's name until well more than a century after his death (1826). And even though this quotation has bedeviled historians for several decades now, no one has yet turned up any Jeffersonian speeches or writings or other documentation demonstrating that Thomas Jefferson ever uttered or wrote these words.

Only, I'll bet that Thomas Jefferson used better spelling and punctuation, thereby making a stronger statement...

Did Jefferson say anything about the government going bankrupt due to incompetence?

Did Jefferson say anything about the government going bankrupt due to incompetence?

He did:

"Thems silly bitches in the House and Senate, bunch of motherf*ckin knuckleheads gonna lose all their money."

- Thomas Jefferson, from an Address to the Children of America first published in Patriot Juggs Monthly, March 1813.

The Tea Party will reveal just how closely they are aligned to the anti-government John Birch. The Tea Party is doing the dirty work of the 2 Koch billionaires who fund everything the TP does.

The Tea Party given their way would end all Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and send all of those payroll deductions to Wall Street privateers...just the way another Republican, Hoover, did and when people ended up living in Hoovervilles and the rich cowards jumped out of skyscrapers...that's when Americans realized you can't trust any rich man. He'll rob you blind and leave you in the gutter with nary a soul or conscience.

The joke is that every card-carrying neocon calls these programs "entitlements". Send 'em all to help out their Wall Street investments and watch how fast their two-faced creeps stop referring to your payroll deductions as "entitlements'.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them".

-Thomas Jefferson

I cannot believe people continue to cite Thomas Jefferson when responding to financial issues. Here is a man who knew no personal spending limits and died in extreme debt himself! If memory serves after recently reading a biography on him, Jefferson died with something like $100,000 - $200,000 of personal debt...in those days dollars!

Sadly, however, we have chosen as a nation to follow not only his words (eg: declaration of independence) but also his own personal deeds! If only we could have just stuck to the former and not fallen into the trap of the latter!

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with
the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thoms Jefferson

That's the one I care about. Before you tea baggers try to take my VA check for getting f%$#@@ up in Iraq, remeber what the government trained me to do. You keep stepping on us poor and disabled and we will rise up to our oppressors. Over 50% of our nations wealth is controlled by 5% of the population, they can afford to pay more, instead of cutting benefits to the poor, disabled, and the veterans of this country who fought for thos mother f#$%$$## to keep their wealth.

Comments: This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or "later published inThe Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809)."

The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.^[3]

The second part of the quotation ("I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...") may well be a paraphrase of a statement Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."^[4]

The third part of this quotation ("The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs") may be a misquotation of Jefferson's comment to John Wayles Eppes, "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." ^[5]

Lastly, we have not found a record of any publication called The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill. There was certainly debate over the recharter of the National Bank leading up to its expiration in 1811, but a search of Congressional documents of that period yields none of the verbiage discussed above.

See this article's Discussion page for further insight into the formation and use of the latter portion of this quotation.

Footnotes

1. ↑ United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, General Farm Legislation: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Seventy-fifth Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to S. Res. 158, a Resolution to Provide for an Investigation of Agricultural Commodity Prices, of an Ever-normal Granary...(Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1937), 3607.
2. ↑ To establish the earliest appearance of this phrase in print, the following sources were searched for the phrase, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency": Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon.com, Internet Archive, America's Historical Newspapers, American Broadsides and Ephemera Series I, Early American Imprints Series I and II, Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, 19th Century U.S. Newspapers, American Periodicals Series Online, JSTOR.
3. ↑ Suzy Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 1989; Bartleby.com, 2003),
4. ↑ Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816.Ford 11:533.
5. ↑ Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, Monticello, 24 June 1813. Ford 11:303.

Wow, Boomer. That was impressive! ;) Do you have anything on Abe Lincoln's quotations? We all know that these people were dangerous and subversive advocates of the most socialistic and anti-capitalistic ideas of their time. But, of course, anyone who wishes to effect democratic change in the United States has to be prepared to be titled a Socialist, a tyrant, a democrat! Let us now embrace all those sons of our republic who have strived to keep America safe from democracy. Long Live the Tea Party!

Thank you Boomer for the correct information. I believe that the main issue here is that our forefathers in their great wisdom, saw the exact type of scenario that we have playing out today with our country. When bankers and tax dollars are not separated justly, we as the American people will/are going to be robbed. Under our current policy path, there is no reason for things to change. The top 5% purchased the government, and want the rest of the tax coffers.

Actually, Jefferson did say that:

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

He also wanted the Rothschilds and their ilk out of the commerce of the United States....but 1914, they were back. Until, for a short period when JFK past a law, that threw them out again. LBJ rescended that law in the flight back to DC the very day JFK died.

Ya'll can not believe that the Rothschild dynasty and their compatriots are not behind this?

For those who like to quote Thomas Jefferson remember that he owned hundreds of slaves, was given huge land grants to produce tobacco and timber for the Crown and was made a wealthy man at the hand of those who toiled for no pay. The landscape of America, now, is physically different but Jeffersonian Republicans would like to return America to the era of his quotes.

The Republicans now are the party of big business, Wall Street and the military-industrial complex (i.e.-let's have a war!!). So there's no comparison in the context of Jefferson's quotes and how today's conservatives are trying to make those words fit their logic.

Joachin - cool the jets abit, Okay? - $1.2 Trillion is not trillions - yet . . . no need to make a problem bigger than it really is - Okay?

I know how there are so many people here who are a big fan of youtube. Here is yet again, a great example of where our tax dollars are going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7XA2UUpXRk

I'll repeat it again, the problem with this country is that the people that work for a living are now outnumbered by those that vote for a living.

We should also hope the Progressive and Black Caucuses can do the same, right?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174601-house-liberals-urge-14th-amendment-fix-in-lieu-of-bipartisan-debt-deal

A growing number of House Democrats is urging President Obama to abandon his dealings with Republicans and hike the debt ceiling unilaterally.

Wichita...Now ask her why Big Oil and the real estate industries had protestors in DC demanding an end to spending. All last week Big Oil was protecting all those taxpayer dollars she'll never admit to you comes from you and I. To people like this, it's okay to stiff anyone not earning 6 figures...But once these piggies reach that magic number for their income, it's "Hands Off!". Yet, they have an uncanny knack of spending everyone else's money but their own.

Selfish people try desperately to hide that narcissism but it flows through their veins and turns them into pathetic whiners.

Pragmatic,

Anyone that votes against this bill, Dem, Rep, or Tea, should be unceremoniously thrown out of Washington because we do not have any time left for party bull crap; they have to pass something and this is the only choice or default.

Exactly my point, Geowil. Unfortunately, there are those who invent nonsense and rely on name calling because simple linear logic escapes them - and so does the actual point.

Ewent, where exactly in ANY post of mine have I defended subsidy of ANY kind for ANY energy company? In fact, I've clearly stated my opposition to subsidy for any business, beyond normal expense of doing business deductions - and those should be as uniform as is possible no mattter what the industry.

You're barking up the wrong tree, pal.

The only way simple cost of doing business deductions are defined as a subsidy is if your presumption is that whatever money a business makes is the governments, who then gets to decide how much the business keeps. Additionally, deductions for the cost of doing business, ie capital improvements, labor expense, etc, are conceptually similar to mortgage interest deductions, deductions for childcare, medical expenses and etc. enjoyed by individuals.

If you are beligerently advocating for a flat tax on corporate profite at signficantly reduced rate to clear all the hubris of deductions entirely, that is probably the best way to go - for both personal and corporate taxation. It's simply unfortunate you cannot state that without being arrogant, condescending and insulting.

That would, however, likely result in some rather unpleasant unitended consequences. The tens of thousands of working people who are employed in the accounting departments of those corporatations, who are tax preparers at H&R Block and the like, and who work for the IRS, could find themselves out of a job.

Is it really necessary to be so obnoxious? Really?

There is a significant difference between a deduction, or subsidy if you insist, that only one industry or only one group of participants in an industry gets and a deduction that is available to ANY business, no matter what industry they're in. Any business can deduct the cost of the purchase of a machine, for instance, but very few industries get "direct payments", ie agriculture. Barring the transition to a flat tax on personal and corporate income, yes, I do draw a distinction between standard deductions available to everyone that qualifies and direct payment subsidies - including those to agriculture. Because there IS a distinction.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704587004576245093010870216.html

Any person or couple that owns a home can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes, and it would be foolish not to take those deductions if they are available. Obama himself took deductions on his tax return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/barack-obama-tax-returns_n_850672.html

No, the end result is NOT the same.

A large corporate farmer can deduct the cost of the purchase of new combine, as can a manufacturer of widgets deduct a new metal press for a widget part.

The farmer then ALSO gets a direct payment subsidy from the government.

The widget manufacturer does not.

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding that, perhaps you should take the time to read the links I provided.

And again, I would suggest you consider who the money belongs to that a corporation - or a person, for that matter - earns. If you presume the government is entitled to confiscate as much as they see fit, then I suppose deductions are a subsidy. Again, I would point out what I said previously which is that a flat tax would probably be preferable.

If you wish to carry on pulling sentences out of context and not reading my posts in their entirety before responding, this is going to get very tedious.

Geowil and Pragmatic,

You see, this is the ideal evidence of how broken the American political system is -- not how broken it has become, but how broken and undemocratic it has always been!: One group of out-of-the-mainstream pols, having gotten themselves elected by an antidemocratic but well-funded political campaign have held the nation hostage -- akin to a man with a gun telling the victim of his assault, "Now be a good liberal, and I won't shoot you in the head -- only in the leg." And the victim thanks the gunman and says, "Oh thank heavens we could reach a compromise that leaves the body intact."

Someone explain to me why in God's name there are no police around to keep these criminals out of circulation? Because our political system exists to ensure that those with the power, financial AND political are not stopped from getting their way, regardless of the lack of style or humanity. Brazen no longer matters. Only results matter, which is to say that we can't afford no stinkin' "American Exceptionalism", America's millionaires and billionaires can barely afford the lobbyists they currently keep on the payroll.

You don't like that? Well, there's always 2012. But you know how the system works.

Gabby! I SEE GABBY! They need to start a new thread for her appearance. I shriek with glee when ever I see new photos of her! She is an amazing woman and an inspiration. May the God and the Goddess watch over her recovery. The American People love you Gabby! Blessed Be!

What you're arguing are semantics, while I'm arguing specific differentiation between a "deduction" and a "subsidy".

Let's say we have WidgetMakerBillInc, with gross profits of $100k. Bill buys a metal press for $20k, which he deducts, putting his net profit at $80k. He then pays the full 35% corporate tax rate, $28k, leaving him with a after-tax profits of $52k.

Now, let's say we have FarmerBobInc, with gross profits of $100k. Bob buys a combine for $20k, which he deducts, putting his net profit at $80k. He then pays the full 35% corporate tax rate, $28k, leaving him with a after-tax profits of $52k.

BUT THEN, FarmerBobInc gets a check from the Federal government - a direct SUBSIDY - in the amount of $5k, because he farms corn.

On the same gross profit, with the same expenses, Bill ends the year with $52k and Bob with $57k.

The outcome is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be so. The deductions treat both companies equally - they both buy equipment, they both deduct the cost. The SUBSIDY puts the farmer ahead of the widget maker, simply because he is a farmer and not a widget maker.

I have no issue with a consistently applied business deduction, which is different than a subsidy, and is consistent with what I said in the post you keep harping about. Subsidies, especially for businesses, that choose winners and loosers I do not support and never have.

In the case of the home mortgage interest deduction opinion piece/blog (which isn't actually "proof", just by the way, but one person's opinion based on a study that supports their opinion) you linked to, that is one way to view home mortgage interest, sure. A viewpoint from someone who clearly thinks that everyone should pay MORE taxes. And did you read this part of the piece? Here's a quote:

For fiscal year 2010, Pew says the total subsidy is $304 billion. That is, the government could have collected that much more tax revenue (roughly) if these special tax rules did not exist.

This is the cancerous viewpoint I mentioned a couple of posts ago - that ALL money belongs to the government, who then gets to decide how much to let you keep. Why is the government entitled to that $304 billion, and the people who earned it aren't? Of the 84% of homeowners that the article says benefited from the home mortgage deduction, do you assume that all of them are wealthy enough that the potential loss of this deduction wouldn't negatively impact their finances?

If you read further down in the article:

As a deduction, the benefit is skewed to those in higher tax brackets. For example, if two individuals each have $5,000 of mortgage interest. The tax savings (subsidy) to the person in the 15% bracket is $750 which the subsidy to the person in the 30% bracket is $1,500. One way to equalize the benefit would be to convert the deduction to a credit worth the same amount to each person.**

This is more "tax the rich" nonsense, and I don't buy it no matter how it's disguised. Clearly, if someone is in the 30% tax bracket, their baseline tax responsbility is also double that of the person in the 15% tax bracket - not just their deduction.

Again with a simplistic math example: Person A makes $160k, and deducts $5k for mortgage interest, then pays 30% tax on the remainder, $46.5k. Person B makes $40k (which would make it very difficult to carry a mortgage with $5k in interest charges, but nevermind that), deducts $5k then pays taxes of just over $5k on the remainder. Person A is making 4x the salary of person B, but is paying over 9x the taxes.

Roughly how much more would you like Person A to pay?

That deduction was implemented SPECIFICALLY to encourage home ownership, and is available to EVERY person that owns a home with a mortgage. By the government's own definition, it's a deduction. If your position is that it is a "subsidy" and therefore a negative, why?

All of that aside, did I or did I not say that a flat tax with NO deductions was probably the best way to go?

You're arguing with yourself, over semantics.

Demlefty, I simply cannot agree with that tirade against the tea party.

In fact, I've pretty much had it with all of this ranting and raving against the tea party - and I have absolutely nothing to do with the group. I live in suburban NYC, they're invisible if they're even present.

There is at least half the country - based on polls and the elections of '10 - that feel like THEY'VE been held hostage by the Democrats and Obama for the past two and half years - watching the government grow like a tumor, producing nothing but toxic waste in the economy. Watching the government double, then triple, the already horrible deficits under Bush. Watching Mr. PeacePrize ramp up the Afg war, then enter ANOTHER conflict. Watching the Congress pass legislation that screws millions of people to give handouts to a few - Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, credit card deform, nearly everything the Dems have done for the past two years has resulted in higher costs and prices for the "average" American.

The tea party is trying to force some fiscal responsibility into the way the government spends money - what exactly is wrong with that?

But for them, the debt ceiling - in other words, the bill to MY children and yours, assuming you have any - would have been raised as business as usual.

We are borrowing 40 cents of EVERY dollar the government spends. How can you possibly defend that?

Allegedly Pragmatic,

You are wrong with regard to your diatribe regarding your false distinction between a deduction and a subsidy. They are interchangeable terms. The article cited is not just a "blog" it quotes extensively and directly from a Pew report. Even a cursory review shows, plainly, that a deduction is a subsidy. The only difference is that a deduction is money kept by the taxpayer in the form of (duh) a deduction from income tax, while a subsidy is directly paid by the government. Sorry, but you are the one arguing semantics.

Furthermore, if I read your post above correctly, you believe that because the Farmer gets a subsidy, while the manufacturer does not, that there is a difference between the two. That's a false example, and is designed by you to prove your point. That's not really an honest way to present an argument.

Also, you seem to be arguing against yourself. The poster you are fighting with is correct in pointing out that you yourself (correctly) failed to make a distinction between a subsidy and a deduction, but you let him get your goat, and he seemed to bait you into contradicting yourself in writing. He tied you up in circles, with your assistance. Be careful.

With regard to your Tea Party defense, you are pretty much alone. Even the mainstream Republicans are distancing themselves from the Tea Party. Aligning yourself with the lunatic fringe is no way to give yourself credibility.

Pragmatic,

I can't help but kind of chuckle over the example you set forth with the farmer and the manufacturer. You offer the idea that because the farmer gets a subsidy of $5k that, somehow, this proves your point that there is a difference between the two.

I'd suggest that you take a close look at that, and then carefully analyze it. Your argument is structured in a way that is inherently false and will lead you to a wrong conclusion. To put it in very basic terms, you are trying to argue that a Toyota is not a car. Again, I would not claim that others are engaging in semantics when you trot out content like that.

Pragmatic,

Another thing. You adopt the Tea Party line about borrowing 40 cents of every dollar to fund government. You also mention you have kids, so I'll assume you are over 50 years old, as many of the Tea Party is. Well, where were you when we were racking up these huge deficits prior to now? Did you just suddenly start thinking about your children getting saddled with that debt?

The sad irony of the Tea Party is that they are upset about a problem (the deficit) that they and their failure of a generation had a great part in creating.

Pride and Joy

Well I guess 50% of americans do not pay taxes because they just do not make enough money, already.

Do you also mean that america is becoming a poor country ?

Well if 50% of americans do not pay taxes, which means many are not living the american delusion, then thanks goodness, I don't live here.

Pragmatic,

In the quote you cite, the mortgage deduction is referred to multiple times as a subsidy. I don't see how that helps your cause.

Also, with regard to your example, both homeowner's are paying 5% of their income in tax. What's unfair about that? In your example you imply that is a bad thing but you later adamantly argue that you are in favor of a flat tax. In your example, the scenario you used IS a flat tax as both homeowner's are paying the identical 5% in tax. Your argument is self-defeating. Epic fail.

Pragmatic,

If you do a Google search of "subsidy deduction" you'll find nearly 2,000,000 articles. A review of the first few pages of articles shows that professors of accounting (21stcenturytaxation.blogspot.com/2011/07/mortgage-interest-deduction-is-subsidy.html), accounting/HR firms (for one of many examples www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/cf01898e-7d77-4627-999d-5d912eab92be.cfm), various think tanks (one example, www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27093.html) and on and on and on.

There is no distinction between the two.

If you tax the rich more they in turn receive more pay and find more loop holes to hide their money in. If you tax corporations more they pass the increase on with what ever they sell. Tax the rich all you want it won't fix a thing and only separate the poor even further.

Tax all you want but when the thieves in DC get that bankroll they all compete for ways to spend it all. You have to cap spending too.

The (richest) already pay a grossly unproportionate amount of the taxes.

• The top-earning 50 percent of taxpayers reported 87.7 percent of all adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 97.1 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 10 percent of taxpayers reported 48 percent of all AGI and paid 71.2 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers reported 37.4 percent of all AGI and paid 60.6 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 1 percent of taxpayers reported 22.8 percent of all AGI and paid 40.4 percent of total income taxes.

How is that fair?

Apparently SKy thinks Reagan was a idiot.

LovelessUchiha, please provide links to the numbers you're providing. You can't just throw out numbers like that and expect people to believe you. What is your agenda? I'll provide links to IRS data. Everyone knows who they are ...

The richest Americans pay an average effective federal income tax rate of 16.5%, and it's been declining for years. (They paid an effective rate of 30% as recently as 1995.)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090

Don't forget to include taxes for Social Security and Medicaid, which the IRS data does not include. The Social Security tax, in particular, has a significant impact on low- and middle-income people.

The effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 Americans would have been 16.72 percent in 2007; the tax rate for a worker earning $29,000 a year would have been 16.79 percent.

How is THAT fair???

It's fair because the rich can afford it..and I don't know where you get those numbers. Are you rich? Because if so..maybe you can buy me a pizza later for lunch..or better yet..give it to someone on the streets.

thanks Jeff

I've seen lovless's numbers before and i cant find where they came from as well...easy to debunk though....just find the real numbers like you have done..

Jeff: Loveless has it just about right accept that she hasn't updated her info for 2010, so she's off by a point or two, but the gist of her argument is correct. Check out the link below.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

The bottom 50% of income filers pay only 2.7% of all income taxes. It is very possible that a family of 4, depending on age of children, earning an AGI of $50K can pay no income taxes. The FICA taxes you speak of is a canard....it has been shown that both Medicare and SS recipients pay far less into the system, on average, than what they eventually draw.

If someone holds 90% of the wealth, they should pay 90% of the taxes... should they not? Only makes sense.

The bottom 50% of income filers pay only 2.7% of all income taxes

How much of the total wealth do the bottom 50% have?

ceo,

so are you suggesting that SS recipients who are living off 900 - 1200 dollars a month should be paying MORE takes....under your guise what we should do is raise the amount of the SS disbursements so we can tax it more..... great idea!

the problem ceo is that the trickle down effect hasnt trickled down....the corps kept that money and destroyed the middle class by lay-offs and investing over seas in cheap labor

The (richest) already pay a grossly unproportionate amount of the taxes.

The richest pay an annual income tax RATE of roughly 17%, when you take into account all the capital gains benefits and loopholes. I (and presumably you and the majority of the rest of us) pay closer to 30%. Explain how THAT is fair.

Since global trade has not worked to our advantage but has transferred wealth from the US to China and India and others it is perhaps fair to say that this requires some change in politics.

I read the argument if you tax the corporations and the richt they transfer their money. Well perhaps its time to take counter measures. Tax goods coming into the US and with the money from those taxes help small businesses in this country to produce and manufacture. A nation cannot only live from consumption, that has brought us here and caused our money to flow through the Walmarts overseas.

Stop corporations to put expenses on the US Business and tax the profits in Dublin and the Cayman Islands. If BP does business in the US, tax them here at the source not in the UK because they claim to be a UK company. (Same applies to all other).

And for the criminal banks that get low cost loans to bolster their balance sheet: If they not grant loans as intended to small businesses call these loans back and charge them interest. They have defrauded the american taxpayer multiple times and it need to change.

@LovelessUchiha: it's fair when rich got there by taking a too large cut off the wealth created by the people below them. It's called greed and it's wrong.

For those of you not on Social Security, we already pay taxes on 85%. I think we shouldn't pay any. Moreover, I think all the interest from T-bills should be paid back into Social Security and not into the General Fund. The T-bills replace funds raided by Congress to pay for all sorts of things including the Viet Nam war. If just the interest alone were paid back to Social Security there wouldn't be a problem. Social Security has 2.6 Trillion dollars. Now, why do you suppose they want to take it away? Could it possibly be that they don't want to repay the funds?

Remember the Obama/Bush tax cuts expire somewhere near the end of the year (probably the end of 2012). The Grover Norquist bunch say that would not be a tax increase and I think I would like to see them expire if not outright repealed.

The Dems were the only ones in the game who really gave a heck about the hurt the tea party would have inflicted on everyone except the very rich. Get a clue will you. The President pulled the veil off of the tea party for all to see. they would never accept anything he recommended and were perfectly willing to sink the world economy. Voters gave them this power over them even though they knew they were organized and financed by Dick Armey and the Koch brothers. Blame yourself if you didn't vote in 2010.Thank God we have a President who is not an ideologue and puts the welfare of the country first.

Anytime I see the DNC inspired "Koch Brothers" in a post, it's a sure sign of total B.S. Another Obumbler apologist. One and done.

Chas...How very wrong you are. The only one and doners are Republicans. They pushed and pushed and all to protect their wealthy and corporate cronies.

Prediction: By the end of 2011, the Tea Party Twerps will realize they can't have their way 100% of the time, pull a few more public tantrums and bullying and then stalk off to a safer haven...maybe a bat's nest would be best for them.

Sorry, I thought the links were added. But if you look for yourself, you will find this information easily.
If you want the rich to pay 'their fair share', then shouldn't everyone pay their fair share? I know plenty of people that get every penny they put in back come tax time, plus make a killing in credit$/rebate$(sometimes 10-20times what they ever put in). They are paying NOTHING in taxes, plus getting paid extra money they didn't earn.

http:// blog. pappastax. com/index.php/2010/09/05/the-richest-10-pay-71-of-federal-income-taxes/

http:// www. american. com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

And no kalli, I am not rich. I am well into the bottom 50%. Yeah, I would have to pay more, but I think if you want to play the fair game, then why doesn't everybody just pay the same percentage.

(my links keep disappearing...)

And just to clarify, I am not saying the rich are victims. I have a problem with the people that pay nothing in taxes, get even more money back, and still complain about the rich. If someone has to pay 'their fair share', then why doesn't everybody have to?

Loveless...The rich don't ever pay their fair share and I'll prove it. Do you own a fleet of business trucks or rails that tear up infrastructure? You bet you don't. Do you prey upon government services to help your business grow? I'd bet you don't.

When a CEO earns an obscene salary, he gets it only with help from employees he chooses to refuse to pay living wages to. How do people like you not see that corporations stack the cards against employees, consumers and taxpayers?

First, these pigs help themselves to a hundred times the infrastructure and government services, then, they dump the cost of oil spills on taxpayers up to 50%. We didn't cause those spills...why the hell should WE pay for them?

Then, they go to the next level of card stacking...their employees they pay 500 times less in unlivable 17 year stagnated wages and then dump the cost of healthcare and pensions on employees that were hired with "benefits" packages. This decreases their employees stagnated salaries even lower and now you want these people to pay more than some high ass billionaire? Where do you people live? In 5th Avenue Penthouses? And who provided your incomes if not your employees and consumers...which brings up the matter of card stacker No. 3.. Price gouging consumers.

No corporation in the US needs 6 price increases a year. This is greed no matter how you slather it in Chanel No. 5. Sorry but you choose a high salary? You choose high taxes. Your choice...not ours.

A half dozen US corporations last year paid zero taxes and earned profits in the hundred billions.

Lovelessl...I know 2 states that feed at the federal revenue trough better and fatter than any of the other 48 states: Alaska gets $1.72 for every federal tax dollar it pays to the federal government. Texas gets $1.47...meanwhile...NY, NJ, VT, CT, and other states are getting back 61, 64 and 65 cents for every dollar they pay. May I ask why the hell I have to pay the same dollar and then my state gets back half of what Alaska and Texas do?

I'm fed up with red states sucking off the federal teat. Enough is enough. If these states are sooooooo oil rich, they can make out on their own with the same 61 cents as my state.

The voices about this issue grows ever louder as each tax dollar is lost to 2 states that get more than they deserve.

Shuklack - "How much of the total wealth do the bottom 50% have?" To answer your question....the top 20% of income earners control (own) 93% of the wealth in this country, with the top 1% controlling about 42% of that amount. The bottom 80% of earners only control approx 7%.

Me - "so are you suggesting that SS recipients who are living off 900 - 1200 dollars a month should be paying MORE takes.." I'm suggesting no such action...my only point is that entitlement consumers who are paying into the system, at the end of the day, on average end up taking out more benefits than they pay in. In many cases, a lot more. Like working 4 hours and being paid for 8. Now would you call that fair or unfair?

flbikerchick - "The richest pay an annual income tax RATE of roughly 17%, when you take into account all the capital gains benefits and loopholes. I (and presumably you and the majority of the rest of us) pay closer to 30%. Explain how THAT is fair."

If you are talking about effective rates, you're just plain wrong...according to Tim "tax cheat" Geithner, the top 1% have effective rates in the low 20's. As far as everybody else paying 30%....please, how do I get there? That would mean that I am pulling in close to 400k. You're stuck on the Buffet secretary story...which was a farce.

Ewent - "May I ask why the hell I have to pay the same dollar and then my state gets back half of what Alaska and Texas do?"

So if I understand you correctly, you do not like paying an unfair percent of your taxes to the federal government and getting less back. Well, how about that...your nothing more than a right wing, racist, bigoted, homophobic Teabagger. You do not deserve to live, much less be apart of this country.

Ewent - you don't suppose the Federal Interstate highways are longer in Texas and Alaska than they are in Connecticut do you?