I'll say this again- the Preamble to said Constitution implores the government to "promote the general welfare". It's people like the Tea Party folks, who think the government should do nothing, who are the ones misinterpreting the document....or, as I said yesterday....cherry picking it for their own purposes, just like they do the Bible.

DB - It says to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense.

Promote - Support or actively encourage. Give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.

Provide - Make available for use; supply. Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".

Words have meaning. It does not say provide for the general welfare.

If the tea party acheived it's vision, of less government, with no social safety network, we would be a third world country. Economically, we would be a disaster. We are in a "global" economy, and to maintain or retain our place as the leader, of the global economy, a strong central government, is mandatory. Our government has to have the power to act strategicaly, in the best interests, of it's citizens. As a republic, what those "best intersts" are can be debated and agreed to, but the need for a strong government cannot be debated. In this global economy the tea party vision is the worst possible vision at the worst possible time.

Support means "assist or help". The government is there to SUPPLY the military and ASSIST in the general welfare.

And as for you, Rob...conservatives like you are people who misinterpret things on purpose to fit their agenda....then act as if facts are unimportant when they are presented...and their only argument is to call other people "idiots", and tell them "f*** you", because it's easier than acknowledging those facts

Dave, yours is an argument worth debating, but both government and society must adjust to the realities of the present in order to save their nation. The USA is no longer the agricultural and fairly isolated country of two centuries ago. We are now the dominant economic and military superpower in the world, our economy depends largely on our global interests, our currency serves as the standard for global trade, demographic problems are exerting tremendous pressure on our government and on our way of life, and we have fiscal and economic problems need to be addressed in a pragmatic and effective manner. We can't hide behind the Constitution when it is convenient and ignore it when it is inconvenient. Our aspirations are legitimate, our differences are not insurmountable, and our fiscal and economic problems are very real.

Dominick - Nice post. It's refreshing when ideas are laid out in a logical manner for thought and discussion.

The supposed deficit cutting in this bill is a joke. The "cutting" was from the projected ridiculous deficit levels that were in the administrations proposed out year budgets, not from the current deficit levels. This bill still leaves the government spending substantially more than it takes in. Just take a look at the graph accompanying the article and you can see the continued huge deficits.

It is staggering 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.

The legislation pairs an increase in the government's borrowing cap with promises of more than $2 trillion of budget cuts over the upcoming decade.

"Promises" are the cheapest commodity where Washington is concerned. We still kicked the can down the road, just not as hard as they could have kicked it. It has done has not eased the uncertainty of business.

Nothing has changed.

To the original posters on this thread, there is a big different to encourage and to take over the role of providing for all the basic needs of Americans. Example: Low interest loans to poor college students is encouragement. In the end, hopefully that education will allow the student to improve their own income level, providing for themselves in a better fashion than before and they will pay back the govt. what's they borrowed. Providing welfare (money, food, housing) for decades, and not making any effort to get these people off the roles, is becoming that person's responsible party. Do all these folks need to govt. to assume this role? Probably not. But when NOTHING is done to encourage them to provide for themselves, that is exactly what the govt. has become. The govt. should not be an orphanage for lazy adults, or a source of free income for Illegals, both, who most likely have never paid a dime INTO the system. I'm sure the Liberals will have many excuses why this is OK. But this mentality has grown govt., not increased jobs for these folks, or encouraged them to take responsibility for their lives.

JS, I agree with your points, but you come across sounding like a politician - telling everyone what the problems are, but offering no solution other than "something must be done to get government spending under control." That's the easy part, but standing pat and doing nothing, which is what the Tea Bagger want, accomplishes nothing and leaves us where we started. Their goal is simple: hold the country hostage until they get their way in Congress, or else send the country into default, blame Obama for it all in 2012, and put a Republican back in the White House. There's your patriotism.

Many of the measures that I hoped for did not take place either. I am for a balanced budget amendment, and I am also for not renewing the Bush tax cuts of 2001. We can cut, cap, and balance until we're blue in the face, but we also need revenues, and the only way to really increase government income is to eliminate these ridiculous tax loopholes that kept 45% of Americans from paying any income tax last year.

The tax rates pre-Bush in the late '90s were fair to all, and I don't remember us being in a recession during that time. People have to understand that living in America is NOT free - you have to pay your share. Too many want their cake and want to eat it too.

America - A country whose citizens are overcome by greed and demands for immediate gratification, a country that now thinks that the government can borrow and not have a proper fiscal plan to pay back.

This "bill" is one more nail in the coffin of America.

The Decline of America continues

We have found our enemy. it is us!

Dave: You have to consider the ones writing the constitution, was forming a government for the people by the people; they were not tearing down a government.

The general welfare says a lot about the direction they wanted the country to take contrary to what some may think a social net for people to be able to rely on when they get older is one of the greatest things the people did, it is a good thing to have , not only does it protect the people but it helps to stabilises the economy when we have a recession!!!

There are other ways to fix this economy without attacking seniors!!!

Props to Dave for his comment. For once, it's nice to see a highest-rated comment that isn't insulting or fueled by anger, but balanced and logical.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of putting the two main ideological out there for a national vote. Straight up, more government or less government! I know it sounds simplistic, but what better way is there to get a real feel for the national temperature. But I dont think the liberals could handle it if they lost, the elite educated ones would scream they were cheated at every turn.

Why not just tell those retireing in the near future to just die off once you retire..the government nor the wealthy have no further use for you? It will be most interesting in the future,,which I will most likely not see, just how you that are all for throwing the old under the truck bear up to not having anything when your time comes. If for a minute, you think the wealthy will protect you then..you had all better get your thinking caps turned around..or something not as tight on your head. Consider too..if all the funding is cut to the bone...there are a lot of countries just waiting for it to happen...why would anyone in the military want to fight for a country that does not care about them at all.....only thermselves... as this country is showing now.

The mantra of a blank check doesn't cut it, when this is about allocations of costs from past Administrations and Congress.

It's ironic how so many persons keep saying that President Obama is not, or hasn't done anything in office as it pertains to the deficit or taxes. When that in and of itself is farthest from the truth. The only branch of Government that haven't done their jobs is Congress. All this talk about the President has never entered a bill during his presidency is ludicrous. He can't. He's not supposed to. The President of the United States cannot write bills, he can only sign them into law or veto them. What he CAN do is have someone in Congress write one for him.

Thus, all you who bellow he has done nothing as far as writing a bill, you're absolutely correct; because constitutionally speaking his hands are tied. That job belongs to Congress. So if you are going to debate the ills of the Presidency, at least have your facts straight, or get to know your constitution well enough to bring thought to your debate. Rhetoric and vitriol can carry you but so far. And the only way a bill will get passed through Congress is with compromise, not hijacking an economy.

So what should we learn from freshman senators of the TEA Party? That they will not allow a Democratic President to pay for bills incurred on the Republican watch? Why weren't there prerequisites to the 18 times Ronald Reagan asked for a debt ceiling increase? Or the seven times George W. Bush asked, and he was cooking the books by keeping two wars off the budget, while increasing the debt to over $10 trillion? One ( deficit reductions to the budget ) has nothing to do with the other ( that being the debt ceiling increase ). You don't hold a President ( or a country for that matter ) hostage, for bills enacted from the past. The rhetoric I keep hearing from Republicans on the Hill, is that they want to do what any ordinary citizen would do with their household bills. If that is the case, then shouldn't past bills be paid? What average American tells the bill collector when they call that, " I will not pay you until I cut my spending in the future? "

I understand what many are saying and I agree with you, the runaway spending has to stop. But realize that in the year 2000, Bill Clinton got the National Debt down to $18 billion dollars. I am neither Democrat nor Republican myself, but this I do understand: while we need to cut spending ferociously ( not savagely ), the federal government still needs revenue, and unlike a private business they have no true product to sell, and what products they do "sell" is the service of their sovereignty.

Thus in order to give us that service, we the people have to pay taxes. We must, if there is to be any government to stand for. If we cut just spending, there is no way for the government to grow, or for the country as a whole to expand. We'd be cutting infrastructure projects, research and the education of our future generation. So at some point, taxes or better yet, the closure of tax loopholes within the Tax code must be addressed to increase revenue. And as we can all read, that is what is not being compromised. That effort to do so doesn't take ideology, that is just common sense. Bill Clinton proved this and got the Debt down to $18 billion dollars on that same premise. Instead of having a surplus and limited spending, that money was squandered away over eight years, and with the addition of tax cuts, no true revenue was there to replace it. You don't have to go to any fancy school to realize, that if you're playing Monopoly and you don't build up Baltic Ave. with infrastructure to increase revenue ( which will require some spending ), don't expect to win the game 4 hours later with the rent at just $6 dollars.

In the government's case? While there is runaway spending, the revenue of the United States of America must increase. And on Capitol Hill, Republicans are too moot to compromise in any shape, form or fashion when it comes to revenue. Attaching that stance to the debt ceiling is ludicrous. We as a country for over 235 years has paid our bills. Even if we have to use fiat money ( and fiat money is the only way to go about it these days... ask Richard M. Nixon how the rest of the world was stealing from us because we were the biggest country in the world on a gold standard, and thus had to take the US off of it ). Lastly, runaway spending is not the reason there are not any jobs, or a deficit for that matter. For a decade, the Bush Tax Cuts were in place and there was little or no job creation. With no increase in jobs or even the standard of living for the middle class, there was no broadening of the tax base, which would have increased revenue, and should in part lower the deficit. To continue in the same vein will lead to the same results. With that said, you need things like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare in place. Not savagely cut, since tax cuts have not created any jobs or growth to the middle class in over a decade. And with this recession, many are in need of these services. Why didn't just the Democrats stop these things when they were in control of the House and the Senate? I think the answer is clear. Any side can bully, but compromise is the greater peace. And instead of doing so, both sides did nothing. Yes, as a country, we have to cut our spending. But more importantly we have to pay our bills. And just as important we need to increase revenue, and not squander our surplus. Because if you do, you'll not have a government... let alone no taxes or job creation to instill or debate.

We've allowed the Private Sector to do just what many of you have said, for the past eight years. Where are the jobs? There has been no tax increase for a decade. Where are the jobs? In that same decade, most of the American jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries. We've even bailed out a few institutions in the hopes that they would hire and/or loan money, instead they gave themselves bonuses and retreats. Where are the jobs? Some corporations are getting $0 taxes. Which company should we allow to build the country's infrastructure and just how or who is going to implement or pay for it? Tax bases have been broadened, yes... they were just not broadened in this country. Where are the jobs? While I agree to an extent that the private sectors should create jobs, the only incentive for them doing so, shouldn't be just tax breaks and loopholes. It doesn't work, in and of itself.

Because when one does just allow or leave that only to the Private Sector ( pure job creation ), we have the guise of "Uncle Tom's Cabin " all over again. Hence the need for governmental regulation and growth. If the laws that are legislated are to only shrink the one force that would police the people from themselves, we cut off the nose to spite the face. There wouldn't be a need for a minimum wage. Companies wouldn't have to provide benefits. Or vacation to their employees. Eight hour work weeks turn into 10, 12 etc.. And from where I sit, I see that happening again, already.

The government like anything else will always need new obligations, because of the cost of living, inflation, etc.. and not even corporations show true balance in their budgets. It's either a surplus or a liability. Entitlement Programs work both ways. While it is easy to say, let's play" Soylent Green" with the elderly, or take a stark look at lower income families that abuse welfare programs, what about the tax loopholes that are taken advantage by the richer of the three economic class systems as well? That is why there needs to be a balanced approach to the breath of government. Stop paying farmer's NOT to grow produce. Stop forcing lower income families to live off entitlement programs; we definitely need to do that. But we also need to stop giving specific breaks and loopholes to specific industries, individuals and companies, who find it mete to take their profits and sit on it, instead of broaden the American tax base as everyone espouses is supposed to happen because of it, but has yet to be seen within the last ten years .

I know what government has to do. We all do. It doesn't need to shrink to oblivion nor outgrow the people. It needs to be a voice for the needy and allow Private commerce to prosper. In balance, not as a one-sided point if view. And if countries like Australia can provide the same entitlements and obligations to both individuals as well to the Private Sector, if Canada can make their dollar stronger than ours in less than ten years and still provide entitlements to their populace. If Norway can do it, the Netherlands ( and still have their currency tied to a gold standard ), surely the Greatest country on Earth can as well. But it takes a centrist view and by that I mean compromise by both sides of the spectrum. What we have going in our government right now are fraternities that can't come to a common ground, until the week before Christmas. And the only thing they can agree upon at that time, is to give themselves a raise.

By the way, I've not been indoctrinated in the need of anything left, right or independent... other than a need for the dismissal of Nepotism within this country.

Have a Nice Day.

nightowl5050

While I can agree with your points on how to get our deficit under control, you lost me with your broad generalizations, and cute, childish name calling. Nobody, not even the "Tea Baggers" as you call them, want to see this country fail, we all live here, and have a vested interest in the country succeeding, as well as ourselves. I do agree with their mantra, for us to take the spending levels back to only the basics. When your income is lower, you cut out all the extras, movies, dinner out, etc., and just pay your bills. The same should go for our country. I also agree with your point that we need revenue, but I believe we need to get spending under control first, make it concrete, then and only then, should we increase our revenue. Our government as a whole, both sides, have shown that they can't be trusted. If we let them raise taxes on anyone, or close loopholes, or restructure the tax code before making the necessary cuts and getting our spending under control, they will never do it, just keep on increasing revenue.

By the way, for the people who call the Tea Party "tea baggers", you do know what tea bagging is don't you? Who are the Tea Party tea bagging, certainly not me, maybe you?

What many get wrong is not the Provide the General Welfare versus Promote the General Welfare.

What they get wrong is that word welfare doesn't have the same meaning when they wrote the Constitution in the first place.

It was placed in the Constitution to authorize Congress to spend money on the people...........not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

It was designed to provide a court system, police, fire, education, imprisonment and national security............

It was not designed to be your way-of-life providing teet.

"Much of the measure was negotiated on terms set by Boehner, which included a demand that any increase in the nation's borrowing cap be matched by spending cuts at least as large."

It would appear that Obama got 'snookered' bu the Republicans.

Not only did they get cuts in spending equivalent to debt limit increases without any new taxes, but the Republicans also go into the 'commission' with a much stronger hand, and the 'commission' must come up with another $1.5 Trillion in cuts, again with no new taxes, or the 'poison pill' will require additional cuts of $1.2 Trillion, again with no tax increases, along with a required vote on a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' which is favored by 65% of Americans.

Even though cuts to the Defense budget will be included in the 'forced' cuts, the Republicans can merely restore them with a separate bill, and dare the Democrats to vote against our 'troops in the field'. The Balanced Budget Amendment will also expose the Democrats as 'big spenders' when they vote against it just before the 2012 elections.

It looks like a win-win for the Republicans and a lose-lose for the Democrats - No wonder the Liberals are furious - And all of this with only one-third of the government machinery (the House).

Without the 'Tea Party', none of this could have happened.

PS - I find it humorous that much of the liberal media is calling the Tea Party Republicans 'terrorists, when they refuse to label REAL Islamic terrorists that kill and maim innocent people as 'terrorists'.

Any victory the Right wing thinks they have achieved will be negated by the 2012 election when the Tea Party fringies are sent packing. THe AMerican people don't like it when a political party overplays their hand.

nightowl5050 "The tax rates pre-Bush in the late '90s were fair to all, and I don't remember us being in a recession during that time. "

Since about 82% of the Bush tax cuts go to the middle/poor class, do we really want to go back to the Clinton era tax rates? That would take another $3.1 Trillion out of the pockets of the middle/poor class over the next 10 years, but only about $700 Billion from the 'rich' and dramatically increase the income disparity in favor of the 'rich'. Keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts resulted in the 'rich' paying a significantly LARGER portion of income tax receipts than under the Clinton era TAX RATES.

With such a fragile economy, it would be far better to just let the Bush tax cuts expire for only the 'rich'. While it may have some negative economic impacts, it would be nothing compared with such a huge tax increase on the middle/poor classes.

Dave 138, All DB saw was the word welfare. What people like him fail to realize is this bill only slows the growth of the debt, it doesn't do diddle to pay it off so things are only going to continue to get worse in the long run unless we get the loonies who want a nanny state out of Washington.

The majority of liberals I know are either government hand out rolls or a trust fund, neither one can grasp the concept of where the working public finds themselves in this debacle since Obama went to Washington coupled with the decade before that the Democrats had control of both houses. Somehow in blaming Bush for everything they conveniently forget as now the President can't do anything without the approval of Congress. These guys approved everything Bush did and now they say it is all his fault and their supporters having conveniently no memory or grasp of how government works, believe them.

We really have to start having a quiz on the constitution and how the government works before we allow people to vote. We make new legal immigrants learn that stuff before they can become citizens so why should we continue to allow our country to be destroyed by allowing voters to be ignorant?

A balanced budget amendment would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. Isn't that a strain on the fragile economy?

Mad Independent, why is it that I always find the screen names of people bashing the Tea Party to be implausible? The Tea Party is not against a "strong Government" in its proper roll of providing for the defense of the nation. They are against a strangle Government that wants to control every aspect of its citizen's life. NOT what was intended when our country was founded.

If we cut out the miltitude of duplication in the Government, much of which gives us only finger pointing and inaction by all involved we'd have more money for defense spending. If defense spending was properly controlled we wouldn't pay exorbinent prices for toilet seats and hammers. Maybe they will trim that they can't get all the money they want and maybe Obama won't be so fast to spend billions bombing areas we have no business sticking our noses in like Libya. Of course I am forgetting he doesn't care where money comes from he only know how to grab and spend.

The defense of the nation sure isn't helped by all the multiple and again duplicated social programs. They have gotten beyond rediculous. I for one came from a dirt poor family with nine kids and made it through life just fine with no government hand outs and paying my Social Security taxes and Medicare. I wish these hadn't been invented because it made even us who should have known better count on the politiicans keeping their word and having that money for us when we retired. If not for that I and most people I know would have taken the money saved from these taxes and more to insure we had enough to live on in our old age and the insurance companies would not have stopped selling straight medical insurance once people reach Medicare age. They act like they did a a huge favor by taking our money and they think they can just not pay us now because of a Supreme Court decision in their favor against a deported person. I for one am going to look up that decision. Most Supreme Court decisions are pretty narrow and don't mean what politicians like to spread them to mean. Even with Obama's stacking of the court with Liberals I don't think they can justify starving the people who were forced to pay and continuing to give to those who have not paid and worse to those who are here illegally.

Re the tea partying crowd - [disapprove what they say, but they have their rights too and worked within the system to make their voices heard] and it has always taken radical thought to move this country away from the mediocre middle and the status quo.

It is unconscionable that our current (and last) leadership has allowed the nation to go into such debt to former adversaries as Russia and China. Debt that is being used against us to diminish the luster of a great country. If, in some way the TEA PARTY people have awakened others see the need to elect more active thinkers on both sides of the aisle to govern, then it wasn't all noise but rather a time-out to draw attention to the problem.

Antmanbee "A balanced budget amendment would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. Isn't that a strain on the fragile economy?"

It's about a 10 year process. I don't think our recovery will take that long...... unless Obama gets reelected.

lol

Purnell Meagre Jr. "THe AMerican people don't like it when a political party overplays their hand."

Yes, just look at what happened to Nancy Pelosi in 2010.

Putting the option for more or less government to a popular vote is an awful idea. So you're saying to let the entire population vote on what to do with other people's money. We effectively already do that. If you are dependent upon the government to take from someone else by force in order for you to survive or you feel guilty about your success and don't want to actually spend your own money to help others and would prefer the government to do it for you, then vote "D"...straight down the line. If you believe in personal responsibility and helping others through your own giving and the vision of the founding fathers, then vote "R" until a better option comes along. There is a concept in Washington that certain people cannot succeed without government and the harm it has subjected segments of our population to is greater than what any hate group could ever do. Social programs have done more harm to the family than anything else in our history. You can pretend that is not the case and tell me that they help the poor and the elderly, but imagine a system where these folks weren't slaves to the government. Imagine a nation where people were encouraged to make their own way and save for the future. Where government was there only to make sure the powerful didn't prey on the weak, not coddle the weak and encourage them to believe in their own weaknesses as their only character traits. We need government for infrastructure, for protection from foreign and domestic threats, to keep the powerful from oppressing the weak, and to protect the rights of the minority...any minority. These things are very big and typically not something individuals can accomplish on their own. However, creating your own way, saving for the future, helping the needy, fostering goodwill, and loving your neighbor can all be done through the efforts of the individual or a community of individuals. We do not need the government for that. We do not need a popular vote to determine the size of our government and how they should spend other people's money. When the majority is charged to decide what to do with the minority's property we will have surpassed our rights granted by the Constitution and will be simply living under mob rule.

Roy Wilson - Great posts. Keep them coming.

Newsvine administrator: I vote to delete all comments using the phrase "teabagger". If I use similar terms to describe the Democratic party, my comment would be collapsed. Think about similar words / phrases that would be found in a thesaurus... Why do you allow this disgusting term to be used over and over and over again? Clean this up!

concernedone - the Tea Party decided to make a public protest. They took TEA BAGS to the White House and said "We are teabagging the White House." Thus the term teabagger applies as it would indicate one who teabags. It's unfortunate that the term has another meaning, but the Tea Party invited the use of the term themselves. It's too late to rue the use of the word "teabagging" by some members, but it is NOT a liberal or Democratic invention or idea to use the term teabaggers. I'm sorry you object to the term, but you really should take your protests up with the Tea Party.

Cat - Right....... Don't try to better the world by ending the fighting and name calling. More fun to belittle and prove dominance with sophomoric name calling... EXACTLY the tone in Washington these days. A true reflection of this debt debate, and the inability of congress to function - they are just typical of our society, I guess...

Those using the term on these threads are not referring to the use of a tea bag as you would imply. You and I are both grown-ups. You and I both know the tone of the term when used here. I, for one, am not stupid, nor ignorant, and will not be patronized into a corner of acceptance that the use of this term is interpreted as anything but the most sincerely derogatory use of the term. Get real!

Your argument is kind of like saying that a woman who dresses scantily is asking to be raped, and if she is raped, she had it coming because of how she dresses. Do you see how wrong your argument is now?????????

@Dave

You're looking at promote from a modern perspective dating back to the mid 1800's.

Looking at the entomology of the word promote and placing it in historical context the definition would be "to further the growth or progress..." the general welfare. That definition is pretty wide open. As is most of the language in the constitution.

The Founding Fathers in their collective wisdom knew they couldn't predict future and left the constitution and government open to change and interpretation. Interpretation is the primary duty of the Supreme Court.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid haven't been ruled unconstitutional. The Healthcare Reform Act is still in the courts. It will be up the the SC to decided if any part or all is unconstitutional. Depending on the ruling there is a potential to unravel all of the government's social programs.

the last time the debt ceiling was debating was when it proposed over 70 years ago. Might I suggest we just get rid of it?

Jeff - I would rather keep the public debate as opposed to giving the government free reign. The freedom for government to function unimpeded sounds too much like a communist style, where the people have NO input and have no recourse if they do not agree with the ruling authority.

Debate is healthy, but so are agreement and compromise.

The freedom for government to function unimpeded sounds too much like a communist style

Essentially your calling every single western government Communism? the US is the ONLY western nation with a Debt Ceiling. in fact, we are the ONLY nation with a debt ceiling.

where the people have NO input and have no recourse if they do not agree with the ruling authority.

The fact that you're linking the debt ceiling ot a tyrannical dictatorship mean your part of the problem here. If there were no Debt ceiling, we would still be a democracy, just like EVERY OTHER democracy in the world.

Just sign the bill and lets get on with it, the teabagnuts destroyed this bill with blackmail just like they did when they gave that tax aid to the rich. The fleabaggers are so disconnected with Americas problems it is sickening. Dump these losers in 2012.

Jeff - I'm part of the PROBLEM? I try every day to improve things between the two sides of the aisle! I will try to reach the left and the right to come up ideas that WORK. I have never in my life been called part of the problem, so I guess I have come across wrong to you (I think). You have my apology if I hurt your feelings................

A car without brakes is still a car, but one that will not stop gracefully once you get it rolling downhill. We need measures of checks and balances. It is only the current abuse / neglect that is employed in Washington that is turning a good thing into evil IMHO.

Perhaps upon the principle that if you gave a million monkeys a million typewriters and a million years to type Roy WIlson has posted something I agree with, "With such a fragile economy, it would be far better to just let the Bush tax cuts expire for only the 'rich'" -

There is ebb and flow in politics - when one party tries to capitalize too much on a temporary advantage it always comes back to bite them - e.g. without the dark day of election day 2004 - and the illusory Republican mandate to money grab there would have been no Barack Obama. Without all this grandstanding by the Teabags there would have been no solid Democratic House and Senate in 2012 so it's good the Right Wing is doing their little "end zone dance."

Jonathan your post was long and probably many people won't read it for that reason but I liked it. It does all seem like commonsense doesn't it? Why so many don't get it is beyond me. I don't know if you've watched the video "Inside Job" or not but I think that is what's going on in D.C. I agree with you on so many points but I have very little hope at this point.

Well if they don't like being called teabaggers they should have picked another named. Thank Palin for that one, the moron.

I think every single politician in washington that has anything to do with this fiasco in DC should be taken out and shot between the eyes for treason. This clown act has gone on long enough. I'm tired of the battling i'm tired of this circus that call Washington DC. This has made our country the laughing stock of the world. I think teabaggers is an excellent for the pubes and wish there was a better name for the libs. The entire bunch would rather keep the money from it's own citizens and give it to foreign countries that hate us and want to see us all dead and illegal mexicans. To hell with them all. I will not vote for any person that is in office right now come next election.

I'm curious did it take as long to give themselves raises? If anyone knows please let me know

I vote larger. With less legislating of morality.

I agree more with the teaparty than the liberal leaches, and once they get in D.C. they are set for live even if they get voted out next term, they dont have to work at one job for 30 years to get retirement just one term, and most of them are rich already, ask Al gore he flies , thats right flies around promoting his global warming to the world on his jet that puts out a huge carbon footprint , another ignorant saying thougth up by an idiot to make us feel guilty just for living on earth. We sure have a lot of hyprocites in this country that take lying to a whole new level and expect us believe everything they say.

This is a false choice. Our choice is not in whether the government pays for us or not. We pay for our social security. We pay for our own Medicare. We pay for our own unemployment insurance. The government actually provides for very little.

The number of government employees hasn't changed a whole lot, either. We have barely 15% more Federal employees today than we did in 1946. So the debate isn't about people living off the public dole. It's not about the size of the Federal government.

Where does the extra money go? Well, it's Big Business. The money goes into Federal contractors, and lately, it has gone into Big Banks. Big Business is not efficient. It doesn't provide what we need. I think even the Tea Party is adamant about that.

The real debate is this: We pay taxes. We have paid taxes into social security and medicare. The debate is this: Should we allow the big business to steal these taxes or not?

Arguing about Obama, or the size of the Federal government or debating the meaning of what the government is supposed to provide are all red herrings.

Geithner is a LIAR just like Obama the ratings problem is from UNSUSTAINABLE borrowingJust last year Gethner PROMISED that LAST YEAR's borrowing and debt ceiling increase would NEVER cause the US to lose its "sterling credit rating"

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/07/geithner-says-u-s-will-never-lose-its-sterling-credit-rating/

Why doesn't the MSM quote contradictory White House statements from JUST LAST YEAR?

That's a pretty naive assessment, Dave. The record shows that the tea partiers have been making the biggest, most intrusive government possible in their six short months in office so far.

That's what some of that group call themselves - "teabaggers". If onlookers associate the term with a sex act and not a bag of tea, then that's their problem, not ours.

DC is dysfunctional due to the processes and laws in place that only serve to confuse the public. Time to scrap it and start over. I am sure there there will be some gunshots before it is said and done.

@ Concernedone - I totally agree with your post 1.36. The way the Liberals are using the term is in a demeaning, vulgar manner. I asked for the same as you several articles ago, it fell on deaf ears.

The fact that any Politician would identify the Tea Party as Terrorists if beyond the pale. The ignorance is overwhelming. So supporting fiscal responsibility is Terrorism. Like I said, the ignorance is overwhelming. We can't continue to let people who are this uninformed run our govt.

Yeh!! We are deeper in debt! I'm going to have a drink. hic~@%$*

Jeff - I would rather keep the public debate as opposed to giving the government free reign. The freedom for government to function unimpeded sounds too much like a communist style, where the people have NO input and have no recourse if they do not agree with the ruling authority.

May I remind you of your first comment

Jeff - I'm part of the PROBLEM? I try every day to improve things between the two sides of the aisle! I will try to reach the left and the right to come up ideas that WORK. I have never in my life been called part of the problem, so I guess I have come across wrong to you (I think). You have my apology if I hurt your feelings................

First, you didn't hurt my feeling. Second, I think you did come across differently than you anticipated. Helping the two aisles work together is a daunting task, and I commemerate you on that. But what part of that was determinable fom your first comment, where you blatantly compared our government not having a debt ceiling to communism? That is a comparison (whether or not you intended to make it) that I entirely oppose.

A car without brakes is still a car, but one that will not stop gracefully once you get it rolling downhill. We need measures of checks and balances. It is only the current abuse / neglect that is employed in Washington that is turning a good thing into evil IMHO.

We are a government of checks and balances. the debt ceiling is voting on money congress has already spent. its not capping what money we spent, Congress has already done that, that is the inherit system of checks presented by Congress. The Debt Ceiling was, and always has been an formality vote based on honoring our debt to the people. It has never been used before a threat to destroy our government.

Byron Raum is mostly right, but with a heavy biase against the business. Change the last part of his post to, "Should we allow business to take advantage of tax breaks or not?" It becomes much more debatable there.

I argue that big business has done nothing of merit with its tax breaks, except for the developmental part, such as small green energy companies. Funny that the green energy companies, which is a useful technology that could end up providing jobs and help get us off our oil addiction (no I am not coming down on big oil, just promoting the alternative as well), is the one targetted to be put on the chopping block. Big business has not used its tax breaks to significantly hire any workers. Therefore , big business should lose its tax breaks.

If big business had hired people with its tax breaks, it might have a case. As it stands, I'd rather see businesses lose their revenue breaks than tax the wealthy. Or start holding businesses to account, like we should be holding any aspect of our society to account, like teachers for teaching kids, military companies to keep their secrets, hospitals to not prematurely eject patients, etc.

Jonathan: I totally agree with every word you said, even if it was lengthy. No one put it more succinctly than you did. Thank you.

Great...so the government is sending the message to American consumers it's ok to keep on borrowing and spend money you don't have...isn't that what caused all this in the first place? Seems like we forgot what happened the past few years in the housing market, automotive industry, wall st., list goes on and on...

Thanks Congress for an exciting month. I can see this is only the beginning, can't wait to see how the committee works out, if any "triggers" go into effect around Christmas time. The freshmen Republicans have added very much already so far as I'm concerned. They're called 'Republicans', but it's a misnomer because they are regular people.

RoyWilson...Do you neocons ever stop with the lies? 82% of the Bush tax credits were distributed to all Americans. Neocon lies begin there. 1% of this country's wealthiest became 11% wealthier than the other 99%.

Skewing your facts again to make those conservative talking points look good? if 99% of Bush's tax credits were distributed to 99% of the population, did that make that 99% 11% wealthier as it did 1%? You bet it didn't.

In your post, you try to infer that those Bush tax cuts didn't engorge 1% of the population in wealth accumulation and that 99% of the population all received an 11% increase in wealth. More BS? You bet. That Bush tax cut netted most people with $40K incomes a lousy $250 a year.

If the sickos of the neoconserative bent need to make themselves look innocent of the fraud they perpetrate upon the rest of the country, look no further than the hundreds of billions Bill Oil earned in 2 years since 2009.

Fact: Go to the GAO report for 2005. There wasn't a single media outlet that didn't report the same thing. What's with neocon BS artists these days?

Reid, Boxer, and other Dems signed the bill, but took cheap shots at the "Tea Party" demeaning themselves. To suggest they are "hostages" is silly, juvenile, and just sour grapes. The freshmen Republicans simply did what they were elected to do in keeping with their promises to their constituencies.

The Tea Party got their money's worth and I admire them for it.

A Fiscal Train Wreck

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 11, 2003

With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.

And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.

scott

wow, just wow.

You do not even know what is in this bill. We pay Egypt 40 billion a year in hush slush money. The cuts form this is just a bit more than this.

The problem with the fundamentalist view of the Constitution is that it was written at a different time, for a different country. For one, the United States then was much smaller, and things like being free from slavery and women's suffrage were radical notions.

The Constitution is absolute in its legal standing and in precedent, but we have to ask ourselves if confining our government to its narrow scope will serve the interests of the America people now, in this time.

Personally I don't think going back to how things were in the 18th century is how we should play it. The Federal government should be smaller than it is, but I'm not sure if now is the time to do it with the private sector stalled. I also don't buy the argument that the reason for the stall is because of the 'menacing government.' It was private businesses that got us into this situation, and I don't believe that it'll get us out of it without any changes whatsoever.

Jeff - Yes, this is one of the issues where we disagree, but don't have to destroy a nation over it.

I look at raising the debt ceiling as a needed measure in anticipation of future spending, not in response to spending from the past. Every time the debt ceiling is raised, it is so the government can make future payments or fund future expenditures - yes some are from prior commitments, but those prior things should have already been accounted for as they were passed, not that these programs would be funded in the future by going deeper into debt & being forced to raise the ceiling! Therefore, if we remove the need for debate over setting a ceiling, we are saying to our leaders to "spend as you wish, without constraint". These loons in DC will not practice discipline and we could end up (God forbid) as the European nations in financial crisis. Any time we give up a freedom to the federal government, we move one step closer to government control. That is NOT what this country was meant to be!

If we remove mandatory financial constraints from our government, what is next? For an economy built on a requirement to spend money, do you see the danger in limitless spending (with good intentions) and the consequences if things get out of control? What if we spend ourselves to the brink, then an enemy launches an attack at a time when we cannot afford to take the hit militaristically or financially? We could be screwed, and the world's economies that depend on the US would follow suit. We are so intertwined that we MUST have cross-checks that keep us from "accidentally" pushing the envelope too far!

Think about this... Bush came into office following 3 straight quarters of economic decline - I believe a recession by definition. Our economy was already in trouble when he took over. Then we had 9/11. The 1 - 2 punch set a course for disaster. Add to that a string of bad decisions by Bush & we have the mess we are in today. Let's just ASSUME today's position is not a worst case scenario. Let your practical imagination run for a minute and picture the current condition on a factor of twice as bad - 3 times as bad - 4 times as bad...

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I might have used a term to harsh with communism, but I'm not sure what to call increased government control with me having a say in it.

The Tea Party did exactly waht they said they would do - why do the Democrats seem so suprised and Angry.

Noboby but the American People were "held hostage", and Reid, Boxer, Biden and all the others had their hand in it too!!

Gibb95—

Fantastic post. I think that so many times, people who support assistance programs forget—or don’t acknowledge—the fact that these programs do make people dependant. I am not implying that every person who accepts government assistance set out in life to be dependent on the government, because I do not believe that this is the case. However, I do think that these programs cause people to not depend on (or believe in) themselves.

We cannot all succeed equally. We cannot all drive expensive vehicles and have big-screen tv’s. Some of us may end up living paycheck-to-paycheck. Some of us may end up having to live on the bare necessities in order to pay our rent and utilities. And some may even end up without a home. This reality will only encourage us all to do our best. We will not relax and give up the overtime hours (or the job search) because we know that we are completely self-reliant. There will be no one there to help us if we, despite our best efforts, do not succeed.

Will there be sad stories that come out of this? Absolutely, there will. And that’s when the generosity—the CHOSEN generosity of others may help out. By this I mean, perhaps a kindly neighbor will offer me to join them for dinner. But that neighbor should not be forced through excessive taxes to help everyone out.

As far as the programs that we pay into (and supposedly eventually benefit from), it would be much more beneficial for us to keep our own money and plan for our own futures. Again, some will fail to plan appropriately, and these individual will be a sad, cautionary tale for others.

Thanks for the great points, Gibb95. If there were more people like you, maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are.

Did you hear that Teabaggers!!?? "work together". We make some cuts...you accept new revenue in the form of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. We make some more cuts...you close the big business tax loopholes, etc., etc., etc. Anything less is unacceptable...PERIOD! Your continued ignorance will get you and this country no where!

ewent

If you learn about the difference between Income and Wealth, perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion. They are not the same.

Income is the amount of money that a person makes - typically in a 1 year period.

Wealth is the accumulation of what people have been able to 'save' after having paid taxes on previously earned (or inherited) income. They are not 'interchangeable', since many middle class income earners have invested wisely and accumulated considerable 'wealth', while many so-called 'rich' income earners spend virtually every penny and may have very little 'wealth'.

@concernedone

It looks like I'll just have to agree with you to disagree. And I see you standing point which just lets be happy that you are not irrational.

I see this, the debt ceiling only serves one purpose--if voted against, we essentially collapse out nation. What id the point of that? There are other measures we could take to not risk such a disaster. For instance, Congress can choose not to approve a budget unless it meets certain requirements. We can cut spending and subsidies and we can raise revenues so we can afford our budget.

Just curious, what's your opinion on increasing revenues to afford our current spending level in oppose to cuts?

And on another note, the bill that just past will, over time, bring our spending level close to what they were 60 years ago, however, only our spending levels, the US also had higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy at the time.

Same old same old. Words taken out of context without the full story behind them.

This is from a man that swore to uphold the Constitution.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

I would like to talk about the lie that Republicans are in favor of small government. The Republicans want a government as large or perhaps even larger than the Democrats do. They just want the nature of the government to be different. They want the impoverished to "agree" to a lifetime of slavery in exchange for being able to eat. Social programs get in the way of this "ideal." And they want a very large police force. They need it. When you are enslaving the masses, you are going to get rebellions. I can assure you that if there are ever cameras in every bedroom, it will come from the Republicans. They want to dictate every aspect of our lives -- although they will give a pass to the masters who are able to supply such generous campaign contributions.

FactOfTheMatter....

Excellent post (1.68). Constitutional scholars will tell you the exact same thing. The US Constitution was constructed as a "fluid living" document with the ability to amend. If the Forefathers were to write a new Constitution in today's world with 315 million people, diverse ethnicity in post industrial America...it would look very, very different. Sadly, we are dealing with a group of people (Tea Party) that does not accept reality and the fact that 18th century logic is just that...18th century "regressive" logic.

Roy Wilson...Don't try to impress others with that self-righteous neocon BS. I know the difference between wealth and income...For the rich there is no difference. If their income is a billion, that's also their wealth.

Many middle income earners also have double incomes and are DINKS (Double Incomes No Kids). Trying to make an across the board linkage between people of the Middle Class is redundant ignorance.

I know many people who have children and are Middle Class. I also know the DINKS. These are the privileged Middle Class who spend only on themselves and don't have kids because that's more responsibility than their overindulged, hotcha selves can manage.

Or, are you saying that you can be wealthy with one income, 2 mouths to feed and then spend wisely and save for investments? That only happens in a state like Alaska or Texas where the other states support those two and then those 2 states help themselves to all the tax reductions they can't get their filthy rich mitts on.

Some of us are planning to demand government strip away some of these equities in state funding. Why should any Middle Class income earner have to work 2 jobs just to pay the Exxon Valdez fine?

One size doesn't fit all. Sorry.

ewent; I agree with most of what you say, except please remember there are couples with no children simply because they can't have any, gays and straight people.

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 Politicians.

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.

Hypocrisy.

http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/07/how-republican-speaker-boehner-helped-grow-the-national-debt/

@Mark. I think it is pretty evident (and ask either side of the aisle, whatever you 'favorite team', I mean political party, is) that the money we spent on Egypt in the past was well worth it. We purchased an ally, one that even tortured people for us (I leave the right or wrong of that for another debate), and that worked on our behalf. Kind of sucks to have a beautiful navy and have to sail it around the Horn of Africa because you'd be worried someone would blast it as it went through the Suez Canal. Point is, it worked out for then. Looking ahead? We shall see.

So first, the general welfare comment can be interpreted in many different ways. It was left vague for a reason. Even our founding fathers could not completely agree and knew that they did not have all the answers. How will our future generations promote this? "General Welfare" is also very broad and those who pretend to believe their way is the only right way is, in part, what defines ideologue. This is something you can learn in an introductory political science class, or if you think that public education is some sort of liberal conspiracy, you can pick up a book and read it (unless all books are evil too).

Even with that, our world is profoundly different from how our founding fathers saw it. Now, we are the greatest country that ever existed, no worse than the US of the past.

Second, Roy its good to see someone trying to use numbers but you have severley miscalculated and misrepresented them. Although there are many ways we use to measure economic growth, the measure most often use (for its ease and inclusive nature) is real GDP. The change in GDP for 2003 to 2007 (2002 being the base and ending January 2007) shows a 2.9% yearly increase.

Still, this correlation ignores so much. First, does the mere presence of certain congressmen improve our economy, or is it their actions, like the passing of a certain type of bill? Do these actions manifest immediately, do they take time, do they depend on the individual bill, or do they have no effect? You can easily find much more pro-democrat correlations in the vast amount of knowledge but thats not necessarily because they are better fiscally. Unfortunately, the same group that brings up the peter principle suffers from it themselves (Whats with this sudden usage of "the peter principle" anyway. Someone on Fox must have mentioned it ;P).

Lastly, its always amusing to see one party complain about name calling, when every other post has something like "communist", "libtard", "self-impressived idiot," "odumbo", and others. By not seeing this, you are just proving to everyone that your blinders are still on.

Jeff - I support a tax hike for incomes over "x" amount. Not sure I agree with $200K, but I am in favor of a two sided approach. Timing is important!

Someone earlier said to get the spending under control as a first step. I agree 100%. We can't fix it all in a single measure. The next step in my mind is to raise revenues. This does not necessarily have to be with tax increases, but might be accomplished with further closure of loopholes that enable corporations to avoid paying taxes. Thus, taxes are not raised, but revenue is increased.

The thing that bothers me most about raising the ceiling was the debt to GDP ratio as compared to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, etc... We are in big trouble, and approving more debt without getting spending under control may very well put us in a similar position. Our path was unsustainable, and will lead to disaster if not followed up on, and debt to GDP kept in check!

Chuck in Olathe...I wasn't referring to people who through no fault of their own can't have children. Obviously, you don't live near NY City. Your hair would stand on end if you saw the pretentiousness and ostentatiousness of these DINKS. Believe me when I tell you that most of them are too long in the tooth to be anything but middle-aged Peter Pans and Wendys.

For this group, texting all day long and into the night is fun and games. Work ethic to them is showing up at their jobs, looking like the ruling class of the Beautiful people in their show off haute couture clothes and those luxury sports cars.

This isn't the Jersey Shore hooligans. This is the uppercrust with too much money to spend who are the first to deny others a salary increase to afford food or rent for their families. The only tune this bunch knows is "Greed is Good".

I am a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal, you can decide how you want to spin it.

I don't understand the conundrum? If Americans could afford to buy American Products wouldn't the price drop and increase our exports?

Thank You!

@concernedone

Were you also aware that this is the second time the debt ceiling is being raised under Obama, the first was without objection. And I don't mean this in any offensive or mean way possible. But were you all upset and everything the first time Obama raised it?

Roy - you're at it again with the numbers and facts. Eventhough the numbers are what they are, most people here don't believe you. You are also right that all of this nonsense at the current spending levels will need to be repeated in 15-18 months.

Some interesting posts on here, it looks like the big issue to most of you newsviners is whether the government should be big or little, and how the constitution dictates what the founders of our country originally intended. These are great topics that need some debate and resolution, but I feel our government (all parties) have done an incredible job of distracting most Americans from the most important issue - class warfare. The Republicans, through their concrete stance against any revenue increases have once again won the battle, the middle and lower class will be the ones who end up carrying the burden of balancing the budget, while the upper class (who are largely responsible for this whole mess) won't have to do a thing and will continue to rake in outrageous salaries and profits, all the while sending our jobs overseas. The whole trickle down effect just does not work. The Dems are absolutely no better (and quite possibly even worse) I'm not sure if it was to distract their base from their latest failure in order to save what little ground they have left for 2012, or possibly to appease the corporations that really control our government, but through yet another failure to execute the will of the people, they have only hurt us more and helped big business become even more powerful. Regardless of how big or what our government should do, the important thing to ALL AMERICANS is to start to speak out against elected officials who do exactly the opposite of what they were voted in to do, and kick special interests and big business out of Washington. The most important line of the constitution is: "We the People of the United States" not we the people and the corporations of the US, or the money of the US, or the special interest groups of the US; but only the people of the US. Let me be the first to heed my own advice and say Obama, you've let me down for the last time, I wil not vote for you or any member of the current US government, I will thoroughly research the candidates in the 2012 election, find and vote for the ones who have demonstrated that they share the same values as I do, and hold those politicians accountable for their actions.

No one believes Roy's numbers because Roy's numbers are conveniently selected to prove his biased opinion. Numbers are numbers...not part of bias.

"a more fundamentalist view of the Constitution and its mandates ... a broader government with greater social programs and policies"

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, there are many in our society today who benefit by making you believe that they are.

I do think that most are trying to support the economy and defense and social programs and all of the other things for which we need a federal government. There are just different ways to do that.

Laws are a response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience.

When the pres starts talking about corporate jet owners what is he trying to convey (this is just one example)? How does he expect to garner support for his ideas with random assessments such as this? Is this a foundation for legislation? He has skewed our view of our collective experience. Until he gets real no real progress will be made.

Intelligence is not a negative thing. Stupidity IS!

well glad to see freedom of speech being collapsed...come on collapse this msnbc...

This bill still leaves the government spending substantially more than it takes in.

Which is why we have to raise taxes revenue. I love how politicians thins the "t" word is now taboo. I wish the Prez would come right out and say "we have to increase taxes....".

Anyway we can cut and cut down to the bone JS but the only ones that win out from that are no one. We hurt the people that need our social programs to survive. Sure I think that our retirees get way too much money when they can afford to live in massive gated communities. But they should not have so much of those entitlements removed that they have to move into nursing homes just for a place to live.

We have to raise taxes or let the GWB cuts expire and then reform the tax code to close out the loop holes and specifically say that all income generated in America, no matter the source, will be taxed under penalty of federal law. We have to make it so that no one can dodge taxes anymore if they make money.

We also need to do away with the income brackets. Everyone should pay between 20% and 28% of their income.

That may sound like a lot, but it isn't. If you make 20,000 a year, 25% is only going to be 4,000 in taxes. If you make 200,000 a year that is only going to be 40,000 in taxes. If you make 2,000,000 a year that is only going to be 400,000 in taxes.

If America had 200,000,000 citizens and half made a combined 350,000,000 a year, 50,000,000 made 600,000,000 a year, and the other 50,000,000 made 1,000,000,000 a year the Us would take 780,000,000,000 in tax revenue at that 25% flat rate.

This is the kind of tax system we require in the modern age, and those that work against implementing such a system are the people who got us into this mess along with all congresses and administrations over the past decade.

I didn't take an interest in politics until about 20 years ago. Until then, the national debt was something you heard on the news once in a while. It wasn't really until about mid-second term under Clinton that I began to pay attention. I guess I was duped under Bush (because I was a novice) into us having to raise the debt ceiling because of a recession his administration did not create, to take on deficit spending to take the battle to the enemy, and to try to promote economic activity through those wonderful stimulus checks we received.

The increase in December of 2009 came days after passage of the health care overhaul bill. As I recall, this all happened in the final week of the super-majority senate, and only days ahead of default (at that time - just like this time). The first time there was a CRAP LOAD of objection by conservatives, but nothing could be done ultimately. The left had the country held hostage (to quote some die hard lefters on this vine), and ultimately they could do what they wanted. I believe that raise was passed on party lines with unanimous rejection from conservatives? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I remember the president kept saying the right would not offer anything positive to the conversation, so they were just left out. Truth was, the right felt the left was wrong and they submitted MANY ideas. But those ideas stood in contrast with the president and the Democrat's agenda, so the ideas were dismissed as "nothing positive" because they were in opposition.

780,000,000,000

should be 780,000,000

That may sound like a lot, but it isn't. If you make 20,000 a year, 25% is only going to be 4,000 in taxes. If you make 200,000 a year that is only going to be 40,000 in taxes. If you make 2,000,000 a year that is only going to be 400,000 in taxes.

Replace all 4xxxxxxx with 5xxxxxx. 5,000, 50,000, 500,000.

If you are supposed to pay 28 to 32% taxes on your income, pay those damn taxes and stop trying to get off with paying less. Every time a wealthhead earns an obscene salary, he rails at having to pay his fair share of taxes according to mandated IRS regulations for his salary bracket.

So, then, he helps himself to truckloads of exemptions that reduce his taxes from 32% to half or less. Who has to make up the difference for that? Not him. He's gotten away with his responsibilities.

He chose to earn an obscene salary but then everyone else has to help him keep what he earns while we lose what we earn.

One Thing, and ONE THING only has changed. We will not have an impending bond crisis TOMORROW.

Real spending decisions have been deferred, real tax reform has been deferred, real Entitlement Reform has been deferred. Nothing has been solved, except we took the knife away from our own neck.

ewent "Roy Wilson...Don't try to impress others with that self-righteous neocon BS. I know the difference between wealth and income...For the rich there is no difference. If their income is a billion, that's also their wealth."

Thanks for the laugh. It's obvious that you DON'T know the difference. Wealth is an accumulation of savings over time. Anyone that makes a lot of money but spends it all has no 'wealth'.

ewent: I've been watching "Roy wilson's comments since this debt war began. He continually says the same things over and over. It's obvious he knows only what the "Dick Armey" handbook tells him. It's all a "one size fits all simplicity" based on warped history and selective building blocks of facts. The man is a typical "tea party shill. Give him hell there my friend. Regards

The Tea Party and more of the GOP leans toward a more fundamentalist view of the Constitution and its mandates.

What the GOP wants now, and what they want when a Republicant is president, are always two different things. And they do it with a straight face. Where was Boehner's big mouth when Bush was amassing trillions in debt, and NOT creating any jobs? And their "followers", incapable of analytical, individualistic thinking, just march in line. The party of low IQ. You don't need to do any thinking when you follow the script, without question. It's called a "cult".

I'm just curious: do the tea-baggers realize that while they may have legitimate visions of the country, the politicians that purport to represent these ideals are just corporate whores? The tea-bagging politicians are duping the most ignorant americans with buzz words of freedom and protecting the constitution (when many - but obviously not all - of their followers don't know the constitution from a take-out chinese menu). Any politician that is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the country by using our global economic position as a political bargaining chip in the name of protecting the assets of corporations are CLEARLY not doing it for the people who voted them into office...they're doing it for the corporations who paid for them to get voted into office by the people that were duped.

Unfortunately, our politics used to be just about money and money (republicans and democrats); even more unfortunate, however, is that now it's all about money, money, and MORE money (adding on the tea baggers). While elected republicans and democrats aren't necessarily trustworthy, at least they disguise it more than the tea baggers.

Look, if you believe in tea party ideals, then vote in people who will actually represent you...that's your right as Americans. But don't just vote in the people you see on TV with a gun, an accent, and a bible...that does nothing to protect the people, the country, or the Constitution.

Jonathon Yard Jr. -

The debt was $4.1 trillion in Jan 1993 when Clinton took office.

The debt was $5.7 trillion in Jan 2001 when GWB took office.

The debt INCREASED $1.6 Trillion under Clinton.

At no time during the Clinton administration was the National Debt $18 Billion. It was never less than $4.1 TRILLION during Clinton. The last time the debt was only $18 Billion was 1931.

ROY WILSON-336103

Since about 82% of the Bush tax cuts go to the middle/poor class, do we really want to go back to the Clinton era tax rates?

I've already proven you wrong on this once today, so to come over to another vine and post it again is just pure lying.

Bush tax cuts went to the rich

Thursday 2 June 2011

From the Economic Policy Institute:

Ten years after their enactment, the Bush tax cuts remain expensive, ineffective, and unfair. As outlined in a new EPI policy memo, the Bush-era tax changes conferred disproportionate benefits to those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality at a time of already poor wage growth.

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.

If you'd rather see pictures than read, here's the chart:

Over 1/3rd of the Bush Tax Cuts went to the top 1% of earners

Either refute the facts or stop the misinformation.

RealAmericansFirst

No reason to keep beating that dead horse. I have disporved a number of Roys posts and he just keep cutting and pasting.

And here's another...

Congressional Majority by Year

95-01 - Repub majority in senate and house

01-03 - Repub majority in house / Split in Senate

03-07 - Repub majority in senate and house

Also - the economic growth experienced during the 2000's has evaporated under the same deregulating government that created that "growth" (growth being in double rabbit ear quotes).

As regards the constitution, it says 'We the people", not "just us and our friends".

Sad; such a great country in such shambles. It doesn't look like things are going any better any time soon.

Debt bill passes Senate, Obama signs it Just another Mont Blanc for Obama's collection, can he at least use a pen the was 'Made in America' ?

Things are looking better every day in Costa Rica !

You can promote all you want but if you don't provide for the promotion you have accomplished nothing. For example, I could promote you to a higher paying position but I must also provide the funds for the position. I wasn't there and neither were any of you but I believe the Founding Fathers meant to promote and provide for the common cause. Otherwise there would be no meaning to their statement.

Sometimes a President will sign historic legislation and save the pen for posterity. In this case, I hope President Obama tossed the pen in the fireplace, or flushed it down the toilet.

The actions of Republican politicians in the debt ceiling flap are tantamount to firemen conspiring to deliberately commit arson. There may not be a law against what you have done, but it is immoral, unethical, and unpatriotic.

Stacey, I stand corrected... in 2000 it increased no more than 18 billion.

Seems to me that the bigger the government, the more taxpayer money is needed to support it. I know it's more complicated than that, but it just stands to reason.... I think the Tea Party might just have a point there.

This is what President Obama said today about creating jobs,

A deeply frustrated Obama, while praising Congress for finally passing the compromise bill, demanded legislators immediately turn their attention to fixing the economy and creating jobs. "We've got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work," he said, shortly after the Senate voted 74-26 to pass the measure.

An American company is ready to put 8000 people to work, all they need is an approval on a loan guarantee from the D.O.E., ….the same approval that D.O.E. gave to French Government owned Areva on May 21, 2010. Read the brief summary that follows, or Google USEC DOE Loan Guarantee, and Areva DOE Loan Guarantee.

USEC applied for a $2 billion loan guarantee from DOE in 2008 to build the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio that will support approximately 8,000 U.S. jobs during construction. When complete, the ACP will provide low enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power reactors in the United States and internationally.

“USEC has been working diligently with DOE over the past several months to conclude the review process for our loan guarantee application, and we appreciate the attention they are giving to the matter. We are working hard toward a successful conclusion, but we have not been able to conclude the conditional commitment process before June 30, which was the outside date for the next stage of the Toshiba and B&W investment. This standstill agreement provides the limited additional time needed for DOE to complete its review and reach a decision during July,” said John K. Welch, USEC president and chief executive officer.

I guess 8000 jobs in Ohio are just not as important as building a good relationship with the French!

ROY WILSON:

A more honest picture of income receipts under GW Bush would to include the fact that corporations were given a one time tax break to bring their profits they had sitting overseas back home.

That rate was a mere 5%.....it did however boost the treasury as your numbers indicate. But it wasn't income from the common worker as you infer.

Things are going downhill fast:

Paducah Times

Controversial Proposal Going To Special Debt Committee

By Fred Lumlow

Published: August 1, 2011

Washington - An unnamed official in the Obama administration has said that one of the compromise proposals the Special Joint Committee On The Debt, mandated by the debt ceiling bill, will look seriously at is an audacious if controversial idea for a partial or complete suspension of cash payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients and the substitution of vouchers for dog food, a tin cup and a box of Band-Aids.
According to the official the President and Bi-partisan congressional leaders' thinking is that the dog food would take care of basic nutritional needs for the retired and the tin cup would be used to solicit "outside charitable" donations to further augment their diet and provide for clothing, shelter and a little spending money.
Obama, accompanied by Democratic Congressional leaders, spoke briefly about the proposal today in the Rose Garden, "Make no mistake, this is not my first choice" he declared "It's an old idea, but I think in this era of unsustainable federal deficits and belt tightening it's time has come around again". Speaking to critics he minced no words: "There will be those who denigrate this idea and pronounce it barbaric, but have they ever fried up a can of Kibbles 'N Bits themselves and actually tried it?" Pointing his finger he declared "Don't talk the talk if you haven't walked the walk"
In an encouraging remark for the proposal's adoption, Republican House leader John Boehner praised the "tin cup" element of the idea, in a brief appearance with congressional leaders on the Hill: "Americans are a generous people, and won't let a fellow American starve to death on the sidewalk, I don't think" adding "The Far Left may not like it but the money this saves will allow us to cut taxes even more for the wealth creators in your country so we can produce more jobs and get our economy back on track"
The anonymous White House official also offered that the only sticking point so far between the two parties was how many cases of dog food per month would be accommodated by the vouchers.
"The Republicans want one case but the President is holding out for two or two and a half"
Obama also spoke to this issue today: "We think, after years of hard work, raising a family and contributing to our great country's prosperity that retired folks deserve more than one case of dog food a month and on this position I will hold my ground.....or not".
Both the President and Boehner praised the use of vouchers rather than "handouts", both of them pointing out that it would give a boost to the bottom line of food and pet supply distributors as well as reinforce the public's reliance on private enterprise rather than government support.
The dog food substitution is an extension of the work done by economists at the OMB on the Consumer Price Index. Experts discovered when seniors couldn't afford beef because Social Security payments didn't keep up with inflation they would substitute less expensive meat, like chicken.
According to Edward Mumff senior analyst for the House Committee on Budget Priorities, "all of a sudden it hit us, if seniors substitute chicken when they can't afford beef or pork why can't they substitute dog food when they can't afford chicken, or, more to the point, why can't we substitute it for them"
The monthly allotment of a box of band-aids as a substitute for Medicare payments was a late addition contributed by the President's Commission On Aging. According to a spokesman for the Commission: We killed two birds with one box of band-aids with this addition to the benefit" he continued "one of the biggest problems cost wise with both Social Security and Medicare is that people are living longer these days. A box of band-aids is a good thing to have if you cut your finger but it's not going to do much for cancer of the liver or a heart attack"
"Bingo, you get better attrition at a significantly younger age and you save money again by not having to pay for euthanizing those individuals who are no longer creating added value".
The White House ended by saying: we may not be able to do it now but, eventually, our present economic system may demand this or something similar.

Zed McCaffery and Bill Durbow reporting.

This is all media hype and they should also be blamed as they are loving that this is getting us all worked up; gives them viewers/readers on their media coverage. Even in this article it even stupidity:

Fourth paragraph states that “The administration had said the government could not pay all its bills…”, but then at the end of the article it says “Without legislation in place by the end of Tuesday, the Treasury would run out of cash needed to pay investors in Treasury bonds, recipients of Social Security pension checks, anyone relying on military veterans' benefits and businesses that do work for the government.”

What is it, we wouldn’t have paid “ALL” our bills or we would “run out of cash” and couldn’t pay for any them??? We all know that without the credit card to use, we would have to live off what we take in, thus we would have to pick and choose what expenses we will have to pay.

The media is the one saying that we would not be able to pay our interest payments, social security or military payments without the credit increase on the credit card. This is pathetic, the whole thing and the Media (NBC especially) is to share in the blame.

Roy Wilson

I applaud your reasonable arguments.

ewent

In the case of wealth vs income you are wrong they are not the same no matter how much an individual makes. You also don't realize that income from investments is taxed as income but income from sale of investments (stocks, property etc,) is taxed as capital gains. In the past I've also noticed that you often confuse the deficit with the national debt. Again two mutually exclusive entities.

The facts remain that while the spending cuts in the bill are large numbers, they mean little based on projections that are at best ludicrous. The budget needs to be balanced so government is spending within its means. Increasing revenue without a lock into balancing a budget does nothing but encourage the status quo ante. You can cry and complain all you want to but you have just witnessed political theater at its best. If by some miraculous occurrence a balanced budget amendment is sent to the states, then this bill will mean more than just some ink on paper and a monumental waste of resources by both sides. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. Uncontrolled spending is what has brought us to this point. At least fiscal conservatives have recognized the point of no return and are trying to stop the train before it completely derails. Democrats have failed to submit a budget let alone try to pass one for two years. The first budget of Obama's term was discarded the day he took office. The projected deficit for that year was around 450 billion yet it ended up at 1.5 trillion. The insanity must stoop and Washington must be reigned in or what is happening with Greece will only be a footnote to the mess we will see.

All those screaming cut the money out of Social Security Insurance to those who have already paid their premiums, and preaching from a soap box to gut the social safety nets for the misfortunate are about to find out:

The loud mouths who make the most noise about infidelity are the ones who get caught screwing around.

The liars who make the most noise about drug users get caught using drugs.

And those who preach about how important family values are, the very ones who get caught in an airport bathroom are playing footseys with an undercover cop and every one gets to see you as the foul hypocrites you are.

Don’t be shocked or surprised when its shown to the world you are saying:

Do as I say not as I do…

(You’re delinquent, over extended, and behind in your own payments)

So keep on preaching your new political religion, its funding taken from the weak, and the sick and the old.

The US voters are looking at you because you are destructive extremists and zealots.

Even the wealthy who told you to shut up and sign something so that the countries credit rating wasn’t damaged … can now see you as an unchecked sickness in the system.

I normally try to put my self in the shoes of others and maintain a central moderate position, but not with this group, no quarter.

archangel 3:16,

Since the National Debt is the accumulation of deficits from every year, what exactly do you mean that they are "mutually exclusive"?

The TEANUTS work for the RICH.

First, the Tax Cuts that Acting President george the lesser made ONLY benefited the Billionares and Trillionares. It helped no one else and it destroyed the Surplus of President William Clinton.

And thats my Opinion.

Funny thing is, that is not a matter of opinion. Fact is that all Americans received a tax cut. Also, every year under Clinton, the defecit was increased. So, while he did a much better job than Bush II or Obama, lending yourself money and increasing intragovernmental holdings every year does not a surplus make.

The Tea Party and more of the GOP leans toward a more fundamentalist view of the Constitution and its mandates. The Democrats want a broader government with greater social programs and policies not originally called for upon the founding of the nation.

Actually, If you look at the parties' actions, and not their big TV talking points, you find that the last 3 Republican Presidents have added MORE Government Employees (particullarly the most recent Bush) than any president in recent history.

How is that smaller Government? That is the very definition of larger Government.

How is it that the party faithful almost to a fault never see that the Republican party almost always does whatever they want, regardless of what they say?

Repupublicans swear and scream they are for less spending, and smaller government, But they Increase spending and the size of Government every time they are in power.

Why does no one see this?

RealAmericansFirst "ROY WILSON-336103I've already proven you wrong on this once today, so to come over to another vine and post it again is just pure lying."

In your dreams perhaps. Here is the link that summarizes the Treasury Department's analysis of the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts, which I will quote here;

"Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years. Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners."

That's 81+% going to the middle/poor class. Here is the link;

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

I'll go with the government's Treasury Department estimates over your biased sources that like to 'spin' the truth by using distorted figures.

Mike-416 "No reason to keep beating that dead horse. I have disporved a number of Roys posts and he just keep cutting and pasting."

Just out of curiosity, could you give me a single example of any facts that you have 'disproved'?

By the way - Your dates were a little off for control of Congress. Here are the correct dates;

Republicans controlled Congress for 1995 - 2000 (The years when we had all of those Budget Surpluses).

There was a split Congress for 2001 & 2002.

Republicans controlled Congress for 2003 through 2006 (When we had all of that growth in the economy and jobs). (a)

Democrats controlled Congress for 2007 through 2010 (When we had the 'Great Recession').

(a) - To avoid a lengthy post, I will detail that period with my next post.

For those who like to “Blame Bush”, perhaps a few FACTS are in order. Bush only had a Republican Congress for 4 of his 8 years (2003 - 2006), and he could do nothing without the express permission of Congress. During those 4 years with Republicans in control, The economy grew by 25.9% (6.48% per year), a net total of 7,942,000 jobs were added (1,985,500 jobs per year), and government tax revenues grew by 29.88% (7.47% per year - despite the Bush Tax Cuts that some people blame for 'reducing' tax revenues). It was only after a Democratic Congress was elected in 2006 that things went to pot (Thanks, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid). The figures for GDP are readily available online. The figures for Jobs and government revenues are at the official government links below;

PS – The average number of net jobs for Bush's last year in office was 145,362,000 people working, and for 2010 (after 2 years of Obama), the4 average number of jobs was 139,064,000, for a net LOSS of 6,298,000 jobs. That's something you won't find reported in the media.

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

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

I guess you might call this "An Inconvenient Truth".

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

By the way, Mike - Let's see you 'disprove' any of these facts. I won't hold my breath, though, since I listed the GOVERNMENT links to verify them.

"We the people" please stay focus...............both parties are holding "we the people" hostage!! We the people cannot blame anybody but ourselves. It is "we the people" who are suppose to have direct oversight over all three branches of our government agencies according to our Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. We the people have been missing in action by default. The truth is mankind is the blame for all the evil now what?

I think the dems mean well. But i think we need to stop giving money to the Foreign countries that hate us and let our own people use it. These foreign leeches want us dead yet they'll take our money. We can't keep up protecting foreign countries. We need to bring home our troops and keep our money and anyone screw with us or UK we drop a bomb on em. We can't keep up policing the world. It's just no possible.

Me. Putin is so transparent and wants to be back on the world stage

in 2012.

Everyone should disagree, that's who.

mad inde: thank you. Everyone always follows the Obama way of criticizing our country. "Exceptionalism"? Damn straight! You people are suppose to be Americans and yet you're going to give a comment by Putin credit? Move.

Wow.......how well do you know Putin?

Is he a personal friend or just an acquaintance?

DC shopper seems to keep company with the Russian leader also.

Interesting that you guys give any credence whatsoever to Mr Putin.

Back in 2007 he tried to convince China to join him in dumping billions of US backed mortgage securities, China acted in it's best interest and not only refused, but warned Putin against doing anything to endanger the world economy.

Communism is dead, his country's attempt at capitalism is being run by the Russian mob and somehow Putin must use his experience as head of the KBG, to fix it all.

Putin is merely trying to relieve stress with anti-American sound bites.

Annierich: can you form a sentence without using the name Obama???

Dale, is there a reason why she shouldnt!

hey piegan

I am a teacher and when you deal with children you have to go down to their level to get your point across

Question, we default on our loans what is going to happen , China going to come and take our country away, we need to ask for all the money the taxpayers have put out in the last 100 years to the rest of the world, with which a lot of them wouldnt be as productive as they are now , who ever started foriegn aid must have shared a brain with an idiot.

Why do you people allow tangents to take your attention away from the real issue?

We are broke and this bill did nothing to help anyone just reassert that PORK is more important than a HEALTHY COUNTRY.

Get real it is both sides. When the fires start remember you heard it here first.

DT you in your proffesion have done a great job with educating the american people, and this is sarcasim, I have had 3 children and they didnt even teach the basics in school , they had stupid programs that would teach to get in touch with their inner feelings and winning doesnt matter, you need to feel good about yourselves and now they stand at a window saying would you like fries with that order. I believe one comintator on the news called it the "dumbing down of America". he said the stupider the people the more they would depend on the goverment to take care of them and give up more of their freedoms.

Putin can't even plant a potato.

Obama: "Now, Mr. Standard and Poor, are you happy? My Administration has introduced certainty into the market by passing this historic legislation."

S&P: "Certainty in the marketplace? Mr. President, you're a FOOL!!! Instead of cutting your country's debt by $4 billion as we've asked you've INCREASED it by $6 billion."

Obama: "Well, we'll be cutting $21 billion next year, if the Blue Ribbon Special Committee decides to act, and I'm certain they will."

S&P: "The only certainty is that you're a buffoon. You've increased your debt by 25% in four years, and you've done NOTHING to deal with your $103 billion MONTHLY deficit. You really don't have any idea what you're doing, do you Mr. President"

Obama: "Well, we're going to have a super committee deal with that, they know what they're doing, I think."

S&P: "Your failure to address your insurmountable debt leads us no choice, we're going to downgrade your bond rating"

Obama: "It's Bush's fault..."

Piegan...One week ago, President Obama stated very plainly in his speech before the nation that he'd forego his tax credits because and I quote, he "didn't ask for them and didn't need them."

Now...apologize for bashing President Obama and trying to paint him the bad guy. I'm sick of this president getting hell from right wingers with cow dung in their ears and blinders on their eyes.

ewent;

Obama bears responsibilty for his role in this game of chicken played by both parties, and most certainly bears responsibility for his part in burying the economy even deeper. His "spend us back to properity" actions have deepened the hole and when Obama-care kickes in the party will be over.

Chuck in Olathe...Not true. I bear no responsibility for anyone else's actions but my own. I make sure I take the time and trouble to take the right path. On several occasions, President Obama publicly chided both parties for lack of cooperation. More than that, should he have played dictator and fined them all for not doing the jobs they are paid to do?

No...President Obama does not bear responsibility for this economy. Stop looking for a whipping post. Where was the outcry when Bush handed out billions to corporations in 2001 to hire and create jobs they never did? Where was the bitching about the increasing debt from Iraq? Or the $200 billion that went mysteriously missing in Iraq? Or that embassy no one but Bush decided needed to be built in Baghdad? Who decided to privatize more than half the government and hand off the military to Halliburton? Think any of those things didn't add to this deficit? Think again.

I'm sick of people looking for a reason to make this president appear the failure. What do you think McCain or Palin would have done any better? Wave a magic wand and make all the Bush BS disappear?

ewent; What I said was this - Obama is responsible for HIS role in this, and if you look at the record, the deficit has grown under his watch. We can discuss Buch's role (and he spent money as though he was a Democrat), but he is no longer in office. I'm not looking for anyone to chastise but I am looking to the future. We need to make decisions that would improve or situation.

The one and only reason I point out Obama's weaknesses is that I'm convinced he' not the one to lead us after 2012. I think that Obama did little to bring the warring faction together - a sign of weak leadership skills.

I'm just hopeful someone that shows promise will run for the office.My own personal nightmare involves Obama running against Palin.

What, are we really debating who initiated this unbelievably harmful mess?

That's easy enough. Any reasonable and informed person knows the Republicans and the Tea Party are responsible for insisting on holding the country hostage.

Just to feel powerful and to honor their inane pledges. The real damage they have done has yet to be assessed.

Sorry DW, you're mistaken - had the other members of Congress been working together the Tea Part votes would not have meant diddly. Somehow the liberals are missing that simple point.

Chuck in Olathe...A President's role is to set policy. Republicans refuse to allow him to do that. He had a complete agenda for reforms, all of which were soundly rejected by Republicans, bitched over or had more holes poked in them than Swiss Cheese.

So...if you want this President to take ownership of debt he was totally instrumental in creating, are you willing to put Bush before a court of law and do the same for his 8 years? President Obama at no time has denied he increased the debt. He had to.

Should he have done nothing at which point the Republicans would then accuse him of doing nothing? Sorry, but Americans are fed up with that "Damned if He Does" and "Damned if He Doesn't" routine. That's more politicial grandstanding than Americans will tolerate.

If President Obama came into office with this massive debt, didn't set up ARRA, didn't try to stimulate the economy by helping out GM and set up Cash for Clunkers, would Bush's mess magically disappear with no movement in any direction much less this President forward and onward and upward movement?

Get real. McCain and Palin wouldn't have done any better. You can't unemploy 8 million Americans, send American jobs to foreign countries, hand over one tax credit after another and then expect the Middle Class to make it all feel better.

ewent - some questions, but first - I agree that "cash for clunkers" was a good idea - it was even inventive, although many examples of abuse of the program were documented.

1) Why do you keep bringing Bush up? Because Bush was bad for the economy that is an excuse for Obama's poor performance? Bush is history, Obama is currently in power. How about if we judge Obama strictly on his record- okay? Should we talk about Hoover? What do Palin and McCain have to do with this?

2) What reforms? Name a few that would have cut spending. Obama-care? That will crush what's left of our economy.

3) You might want to look at some of the polls on Obama's popularity. If anything it's looking like Americans won't tolerate Obama after 2012.

4) If you read my post, you might notice I've given no pass to Bush, McCain or Palin. Why do you think Obama should get one?

I'm not a Republican - I'm an independant leaning a little to the right, although I've voted for some liberals in the past. I'm defending nobody, just judging men on their records.

Cash for clunkers artificially propped up the auto market, killed the new car market today, and has inflated the cost of used cars. Another example of a band aid that held the wound together, but ultimately did nothing to help heal it.

Obama in February 2009 at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit in which Obama said he was "pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

Has he lived up to this? Let's remember this statement was made with full knowledge of what he "inherited".

Chi - Nice post,

I agree with everything you said except that C for C was what inflated the used car market and killed the new car market. If I remember correctly, the deal was that the credit for a clunker could only be applied to new cars - correct?

Upside-down failed theory of supply-side economics.

The MIDDLE CLASS are the job creators.

This is all political theater. Obama and the democrats could have passed a budget before the 2010 elections. Google "Corzine clause" for Obama in MF Global Offering. Corzine is the ex governor of New Jersey and a democrat. The bonds will receive an extra point of interest if he takes a job with Obama. Bloomberg business news. It is all ridiculous.

The republics( I'll put the ans back in the previous word when the Republics put ic back in the "Democrat" party, What you don't see the antagonism there?) are hiding behind the Koch funded, Fox promoted tea party. The favored story line (lie) was that Boehner couldn't corral the tea wing or that the tea wing isn't Republic, they're different. The tea party doesn't have control unless they are given it. They provide cover for some extraordinary actions in hostage taking by a supposed responsible and mature Republic party whose only reason for being is to try and make Obama a one term President. Looking at your current field, good luck with that.

When these Republics say they want smaller government, what are they saying? We know they're for less regulations, okay, which regulations, and be specific. When pressed they won't be specific because it's usually some regulation that won't allow for monoply (see AT&T), or false accounting (see Enron), or some environmental concern (see BP), or unmitigated gambling with OPM or the whole damn economy (see the derivative, CDF BS hoisted upon us in the 2nd great depression), or some new credit card ripoff (see Wells Fargo, BofA, Citi, ect.)

"Entitlements" they like to call them,(odd since we pay for them), are evil treasury sucking instruments going to undeserving slackers. Welfare, bad.........corporate welfare (which far exceeds AFDC, food stamps etc.) good, very good.

Taxes going to pay seniors, children and the unemployed base survival needs......bad. Taxes going to pay some corporation not to grow something, or to pump federal resources(oil) at a profit while not paying for it, or laser beams in space waiting for the next boogey man to be created (won't exist for another 20 years but why wait?).......good very good.
Really the DOD needs to be renamed the DOO because a defensive force is not whats been created, rather offensive (double entendre intended).

Keep government out of our lives, unless you're talking about wombs or where you choose to put your penis, or what you choose to ingest, or when you choose to die, or what religion you're supposed to be, or if you belong to a union and especially if you're talking about progressive taxation. These titans of industry make money the old fashioned way, they steal it from poor people.

G W Bush decreased taxes ..Obama extended those cuts ... the tea party insist on cuts to domestic programs .. privitize Social Security ... end medicare .. repeal health care reform ..gut the EPA.. deregulate Banks... end Consumer protection .. break unions.. repeal minimum wage ... defund womens health care .. defund education ...just as Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts he will agree to the tea party demands

Why bother with a vote?

80% of the nation receives some kind of free government benefit

The choice of the people will be more free benefits, exactly how Obama won the election, through promises of more money for the lower classes. Logically it has already been put to vote and Obama won. He always leans towards more taxes for big business and the rich favoring the desires of the remaining 96% of Americans.

The media and money mongers can slander Obama's admin all they want, but the lower classes have never had it so good, extended indefinite unemployment, more free medical, lower taxes or no taxes at all for working families, higher minimum wages... The list goes on....

The GOP clearly favors upper classes, but the Obama admin shy's away from that because history has shown it's a good way to lose votes, thus the battle ensues, but this is the exact strategy that got them in office in the first place, whether it will work again next election is anybody's guess...

I'm thinking the lower classes only complain because they want more free stuff, and you can't get more if you never complain about what you already get, but they aren't stupid enough to favor the GOP's suggestions; otherwise they risk falling off the public dole, thus, Obama stands a good chance of a surprise win since the sentiments expressed in the media, generically anti-Obama, are not representative of the way the public actually reacts to cuts in benefits.

This will bite them in the rear come elections, and Obama knows it, acting as if he was backed into the corner by the Republicans today who want to cut public benefits, but signed it immediately because he knows it ultimately works against Republican reelection efforts.

What exactly do you mean by "free" in your second sentence? Just asking as S.S. and Medicare are basically insurance programs and account for a huge majority of funds paid out by government. Most of those who receive have payed at some time and their is interest in our government holding the debt for these insurances, instead of private company's that are driven by profit and would be unaffordable for many if not most individuals, in today's world.

What do you suppose would be the total individual debt if we did not have these programs in effect and the debt had to be carried by the individual, and not OUR government, elected by us?

Dwell on that thought as you propose changes to the basic insurance, health, and retirement of most all Americans.

Bob, something that can't be argued is that the trust funds that held all the receivables for these programs have been raided year after year, by both parties. As it stands, they are not sustainable, and will go broke. They must be changed, and contrary to popular belief, simply taxing the "wealthy" won't scratch the surface of what needs to be done to keep these programs solvent.

According to the Trustee's that run the program you are wrong. Look it up under S.S. .gov.. With small changes today the programs are sufficient to be positive for yours and my lifetime, just as they were after the last reform of S.S., passed by the Congress during the 80's, under Pres. Reagan. Unfortunately we were told that those fixes would last 75 years, which is true, but reactionaries in politics have exaggerated the claim of insolvency, for their own good.

The bad thing is every time the S.S. Act is reformed, the benefit is reduced and the age to full retirement is raised, which is contrary to the plans objective, and is more harmfull to those who depend on it the most, while those who do not do not suffer, and that is my opinion. Just because we now live longer, many can not sustain their occupation longer as it is very physically demanding, those our the ones who are hurt by the new Republican suggestions. These people are not lazy or stupid, and that is my opinion.

Do you honestly think it will?

rob your idiotic vitriol should stop for the good of the country

The Tea Partiers got what they wanted? I thought they wanted no debt increase. But this bill increases the debt ceiling by $2 trillion.

Anger against the wealthy has been fostered by the liberal democrats. Historically resentment between the classes has been most notable in European countries that once or still does have a monarchy. Our country as a whole has had no resentment for the wealthy except from those that are not willing to put in the time and effort to improve their situation.

if we want the tax-breaks for the rich to stop :

• We should let the couch & TV remote and go to VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICAN -TEABAGGERS from office, so the tax-breaks will expire.

Enough with T.E.N....Y.E.A.R.S... of break. Why they are treated differently ?

wcritiquing

if we want the tax-breaks for the rich to stop :

• We should let the couch & TV remote and go to VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICAN -TEABAGGERS from office, so the tax-breaks will expire.

Why stop there? If it really is a revenue problem, let's stop the "tax-breaks" for everyone. Let's end the earned income credit, get rid of the child tax credit, let's close up all loopholes period, and have a flat tax across the board. It's easy for people to say that someone else should pay more, but nobody wants to do it themselves. Also, please see my above post regarding the use of "teabaggers". You lend less credit to your argument with the use of childish name calling.



How would a "flat tax across the board" work given our current system has the lower 47% of the population paying zero taxes? (Scratching my head.......)

You do a vat on purchaced items. ALL things receive a 20% tax. Then you are taxed the same across the board.

5.00 dollar burger has 1.00 tax...that is for me you and the rich guy down the road. All spenders pay.

Congress does not like this..all their loopholes to paying no tax will be gone.

I don't remember another time when so many Congressional officials openly declared that they voted for something that they weren't entirely satisfied with. Usually, after a vote, there are x-number who insist that they voted for a bill that was 100% ideal, just so they can fool their constituents and get re-elected. Maybe, if nothing else, this was an unprecedented exercise in honesty for our politicians.

Bob Burnham...I'm a strong believer in "What Goes Around, Comes Around". If there's one thing I've lived long enough to observe, it's that money always runs out. For the wealthy, it's about to.

Republican wealth protection can go no further. They planted yet another weight on Middle Class shoulders they will regret.

Figure it out for yourselves. How can people who are living on salaries CEOs deliberately stagnated to 17 year lows or are unemployed take on more reductions in programs they need to stay afloat?

The rich asses don't dare ask for any more bailouts. That too much like asking for a revolt by those they crushed under with rich ass debts. Those corporations the rich own are sinking because they are only on paper. The paper billionaires and multi-millionaires are about to watch all that paper blown into the wind.

$13.2 trillion in unfunded derivatives. Not going to come from us this time. Hotcha And hootchie koo...Bye Bye Mercedes, Beamers, McMansions, private jets and the rest of the trappings of wealth.

Greed is what brought this about. A greedy government who for the past 40 years or so has been spending the Americans money on bull@!$%# projects and spreading it around the world. I paid my taxes for my retirement or in case I wound up on disability. This was my money my taxes yet Democrats and Republicans spent it like it was Government revenue then to justify it called them entitlement programs. How the hell are the entitlements when I and tens of millions of Americans paid into these programs for our retirement. These so called Tea Baggers are nothing but scum and should be voted out as well as any from either party who voted with them. Millions of Americans spent the last several weeks wondering if they would have a roof over their heads,medical or food to eat because they are on a power trip I hope the over 50 million of Americans on S.S. remember these people when they go to vote in 2012 how close they came to being homeless.

I agree with you Bob-- the wealthy need to be taxed already. But it's not greed that is prevailing. I am an independent- but have been both democrat and republican at different times in my life. What democrats don't understand is that when republicans say they don't want the wealthy taxed, it's not because of greed-- it's because the republican political view is that the wealthy create jobs. They believe that when the wealthy are taxed, jobs will be lost. Democrats believe that jobs are created through increased spending of the middle class. It all goes back to the underlying differences in beliefs of spurring the economy (top down or bottom up). Personally, I believe that it is both of these 2 factors working together. There is a time to cut taxes for the wealthy so more jobs can be created. And there is also a time to limit those cuts so that the middle class can get a break. We've had many years of tax cuts for the wealthy. It's time they bear a least a little of the burden. Another idea is if they give tax cuts to the wealthy that PROVE they are using those cuts to create new jobs. If they can't prove it, they don't get the cut. It's all this beaurocracy and rigidity in both parties that is keeping our country down. People have to realize that it takes compromise and working together. No one side is every 100% right. There is not a right party and a wrong party-- just different solutions to the same problem. Our leaders have to start listening to each other and swallow their pride.

Jared : Do you blame me ( about the name calling ) ? ? ? I learn from the Republican masters.

right Bob, greed and separation yes. the evolution of information by way of what has become internet equality has almost killed the qualified and the unqualified are becoming a complicated nightmare that is now making ripples in a cyber world society. Greed will always be the rule but seporation has been strip mined by lawyers that win on either side with insurance games and loss suites that are killing any small company that the taxes with the cost of state and city regs, permits, ect by the score havnt caused closures. if you have 10-20k somewhere now, someone will figure a way to take it from you in court. the information highway has made a new standard for America that could slide into a third world country status without or without the congress if it stays the course. Nations may not be the key players before long.

Hey Chuck - if "Obamacare" is really going to break the nation, why did the SAME CBO that Boehner is using to tout his deficit reduction plan say it is going to CUT THE DEFICIT BY $135 BILLION?

You can't use a source as your "expert" one minute and then claim YOU know better than them the next minute.

The liberals keep blaming the rich for not paying "their fair share" The conservatives keep blaming welfare recipients for being lazy and wanting a free ride. The poor went out and purchased houses they should have known they could afford. I know a lot of poor people (I'm one myself) that were smart enough to know they would be screwed once their mortgaged went to a higher interest rate. That is why my house is financed with an FHA loan. The rich saw a chance to make a bundle and they took it. Mostly the young X-generation who saw a chance to get rich quick by "flipping this house". So this time the middle class got screwed from both directions. The poor and the rich. As long as the democrats insist on buying voters with our money the middle class will continue to get screwed.

[W]hile there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:

Tea Party Caucus Members by Region (bar chart)

Tea Party Caucus Members by Region (pie chart)

The four states with the most Tea Party representatives in Congress are all former members of the Confederate States of America. The states with the greatest number of members of the House Tea Party caucus are Texas (12), Florida (7), Louisiana (5) and Georgia (5). While California is in fifth place with four House Tea Party members, the sixth, seventh and eighth places on the list are taken by two former Southern slave states, South Carolina and Tennessee, and a border state, Missouri, each with three members of the congressional Tea Party caucus.

We're fighting the frickin Civil War all over again.....

I do not think I will sleep until President Obama signs it.

Let's hope Obama rejects the bill.

It's almost like an episode of "24", waiting until the very last minute to pass and sign it, and you're waiting to see if someone or something holds it up. Where's Jack Bauer when you need him?

Why are you worrying, because you believe the Democratic rhetoric? Wake up folks and smell the fear mongering. It is time to see the big picture. Even if he didn't sign the bill today, there won't be a big collapse tomorrow.

I hope everyone is aware that this bill projects adding a minimum of over $7 trillion to the debt over the next ten years. That is if the actual reductions, based on rosy projections, occur- I don't think they will. Just one example, the increased revenues from the improving economy which justify some of the debt relief are based on a GDP growth of 4% this year- 6 months in we were less than 1%. The question is not if we will default, it is when will we default. Also, our credit rating will also be downgraded even with this passing as we have done nothing to bring the debt under control. This bill is such a joke.

All the Republicans and Tea Party did was prove what Americans already knew: They refused to give up their power to any administration and have now held the nation hostage twice.

If we take this one sitting down, we become permanent hostages of the Republican Bullies who are well on their way to One Party Rule.

No matter who the majority chooses for president from the opposition, that president will not be allowed to set up his own administrative policies without Republican approval. How is that not One Party Rule?

How do you feel about the fact that Obama has a projected budget deficit of at least $7 trillion over the next ten years (I know that he, at best, will be in office for 6 more years)? Do you find any problem with that at all?

ChiCity...No...I have no problem with that. I've reviewed the Obama plan as he stated it. It took 8 years of ignorance of the growing debt and it will, according to all unbiased economics experts, take 16 or more years to get out from under this mess.

All you have to do is look at the number of small businesses lost since 2000 for the answer to where the mess started. All of that corporate consolidation under a dozen or so major Big Business umbrellas should have been a red flag for Americans. We were all led to believe that the buying and selling of tens of thousands of small businesses would not impact the economy in any way. Until the first 10,000 people were downsized at the end of 2004 in a single day. From then on, there were red flags all over.

The ongoing Big Business cry was that pensions, healthcare and taxes were causing them to leave the US to offshore their businesses. That was a fat lie. It was as bad as when the Mafia tried to invade Cuba with their dirty businesses to avoid paying US business taxes.

Tying all of that venture capitalism to Wall Street and calling buying and selling businesses and homes "business" was another huge red flag. This country was ripe for the kind of corruption that only Big Business could mastermind. And what really did they have to lose? In the end, we the taxpayers bailed them out as they always knew we would rather than risk another Great Depression.

However, the mess isn't over until they pay up what they owe in those derivatives. That's the real reason they are keeping money in tax free havens offshore. They know what's coming and are more than happy to dump it all in your lap.

So ten years from now, when the debt stands at $25 trillion, you believe that 6 years later we will get out from underneath it? Really? Also, nearly all economists agree that the plan that was just passed actually does nothing to bring the debt under control. Quite the opposite, it further puts off hard decisions and grows the debt at a remarkable rate. Not sure what economists you refer to?

They are Obama's tax breaks. He voted them in. His regulations (over 5000) are job choking. Maybe he wants the country to go down so he can rebuild it the way he wants. Cloward Piven strategy.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop... what surprises are hidden in this hastily drawn up and passed legislation? How badly are we going to be shafted (again!) by the politicians when the dust clears and someone actually reads the bill? Be afraid, be very afraid...

We are still spending more than we take in, and this bill only delays the day of reckoning. This is a problem more than 40 years in the making, and government growth is the problem which needs to be addressed and reduced. We have more government and programs than we can afford, and if we don't change this reality, we can turn out the lights on this great nation. Sad...

I was going to say....create jobs doing what, with what money? Oh, I know- the rich people who have had their taxes reduced for ten years are going to suddenly realize their taxes are lower and start hiring people to do nothing, for nor reason. People really don't understand economics....least of all, the lawyers who run this country...

They will not "create" jobs, because there are no buyers! No jobs, no money to spend.

Yes, here is a suggestion. Force our public owned corporations to pay our minimum wages wherever they go. This would bring back jobs and show a little respect for workers. We really should require that labor be represented on corporate boards. I'm not holding my breath for these to owned parties to do anything.

They just showed us what they are again.

That trickle down should start... any minute now...

The republicans/tea baggers held the debt hostage until they got a deal that would provide as little chance of solving unemployment and creating jobs as possible.

Create huge import taxes for American companies that manufacture overseas and ship their products to the U.S. Make them pay heavily for using cheap foreign labor. Give incentives for companies to keep their facilities here in the U.S. and use American labor.

Work with companies that currently employ illegal workers. These migrants perform very labor-intensive jobs that others simply do not want to do. Without them, productions in many different industries would suffer: construction, agriculture, etc. But, we also need to collect taxes from these workers and have them registered. So, cut a deal, require yearly registrations and/or updates on these workers, label certain jobs as "exempt", and allow these businesses to pay these workers a lower wage that the set minimum, and allow the workers to avoid paying taxes such as social security, since they're not going to collect on it anyway. Make them pay federal and state taxes like everyone else. Impose harsh penalties on companies that do not follow these regulations. It's a compromise to get taxes out of migrant workers but yet allow companies to pay lower wages in order to survive.

Eliminate "Obamacare" completely. In each school, put a medical professional in place of school nurses. Offer a competitive yet affordable salary that may attract retired physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants who are looking for reduced hours or more time off. This way, if a child is ill, he can be seen at the school, and medicine prescribed if needed. Plus, the school "doctor" can perform physicals and other preventive care duties. This will dramatically lower the number of visits to regular doctors that are charged to Medicaid. All salaries are paid for by federal funds, which is still enormously cheaper than funding a full Medicaid program. For those that say it will put school nurses out of work, it's an incentive for those nurses to go back to school and get the degree they need to perform one of these jobs, and funding can be provided to encourge this.

These are just some ways of raising revenues and putting people back to work

You cant force anyone to do anything with THEIR money! Why do you people feel the need to take what someone else has earned and give it away. If you feel that strongly ...... And I have said this at least 8 times in the last 4 weeks, and not one person has stepped up. As a matter of fact not one response. Go to Irs.gov and using your SSN open an account. Then once a month you can send the gov. money. they will put it in the general fund. I sent $600 last month after my bills and investment outlay was satisfied. Some times I only send $50 but I send something every month.

Same answer!

Great opportunity to see who is correct about jobs. If the conservatives are correct then passage of this bill and retention of the country's AAA rating should be a job creator in and of itself.

Rick, I agree with you. I am almost inclined to vote Republican next time so that we can see how this world looks:

Privatize Social Security

Privatize Medicare

Repeal Obamacare

Eliminate minimum wage

Reduce influence of unions

Get rid of EPA/Department of Education

BTW, it would be interesting to see if Republicans use tariffs and other incentives to keep jobs here. I have not seen on proposal from them on this.

Once this is done, we will have a good idea of how Obama did as President

if we want the tax-breaks for the rich to stop :

• We should leave the couch & TV remote and go to VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICAN -TEABAGGERS from office, so the tax-breaks will expire.

Enough with T.E.N....Y.E.A.R.S... of break. They are NOT creating any job on our country. Why they are treated differently ?

I think that any jobs bill will be DOA. With the cuts in discretionary spending in this bill any job bill will need to basically spell out where the money goes. Good luck trying to get Congress to agree on that.

Trey,

Why would a jobs bill spend money? Here we are relying on the government to get even bigger. Why can't a jobs bill do things to make company's want to manufacture in the US?

B707...You know all those McBillionaires? It's all on paper. And that paper is already overwritten with so much BS that it's nearly threadbare.

The rich pulled a fast one. They bought and sold small American businesses, put people out of work and collected huge sums of money for the art of the deal of buying and selling businesses. That's what the Bush Era was all about: venture capitalism on steroids.

If you look at every single one of the companies on Wall Street operating as paper companies, how many have substance to them? Maybe a dozen or so actually produce something...goods or services. The rest? Toilet paper.

The idea of instant gain is why Wall Street will fail again and again. Instant gain based on paper corporations whose only wealth was obtained from buying and selling other smaller companies is unsustainable now that small businesses are hurting from a decade of downsizing, outsourcing and offshoring purposely done by Corporate America to reduce the power and might of the small business community in the US.

Well now these "Take The Money And Run" geniuses have no more small businesses to buy up, no more Americans they can unemploy and their paper companies are out there in trillions of dollars of unfunded derivatives.

Smell gambler mentalities yet? What did you think their high risk hi-jinks were all about?

the Dem Party is going to finish off the failed Tea Party/Republican Party next fall.

We need two brand-new parties. The Democrats are all spineless cowards. The Republicans are all lunatic theocrats.

They are both loser parties. We are still deficit spending, nothing changed. Shut down the military bases we have around the world. Provide for a common defense at home, not be set up for an offense abroad. Money saved. Put tariffs on companies that take their business out of the US and their jobs. Either that, or if you take more than a certain percentage of your business out of the US, you do not ship your product back in. You move for cheap labor, let those people buy your damn product.

It's not the lowest level of domestic spending in actual dollars, it's the lowest level as a percentage of GDP; therefore, inflation, population growth, and other paramaters are already accounted for.

Push for state constitutional conventions to pass the election/campaign finance amendment proposed by the Popular Amendment movement at www.faircampaignreform.us. That is the only way we will ever change the way politics are handled in this country. Until then, it will continue to be politics as usual. Just look at the way the 2012 campaign is already headed. Our elections are controlled by the wealthy power elite (both American and world-based). And yes, the New World Order is seriously involved in all levels of the federal government....members of both houses of Congress, administration, judicial, the FRB, etc. (search Masons, Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group). It won't take a "single world government" to control the world; it will only take (and is already being done) the control of the global economy to control the world. That is what multi-national corporations are all about. Laws that favor the growing wealth of the wealthy elite is exactly what will bring about the total control of the citizens of not just this country, but of the entire world. We will all soon be living in third-world nations if we, the voters, don't start finding ways of controlling our own lives and finances. We had better be finding ways of becoming self-sufficient (as much as possible) like our ancestors if we expect to survive the future.

Shutdown the military?

I think we should pull all our troops back to America and replace airport security with soldiers. At least most of them can follow protocol.

I also think we should ban most imports and force foreign countries to manufacture goods in America if they want their goods to be sold in America.

I have always pondered why someone would spend millions of dollars to campaign for a job that pays < 250k/year. Lets elect only people that gross less than 35k/year. We have seen what the rich f#$kers do in office. Lets see what the poor does to the country, can't be any worse.

Put it up for a vote....... Liberal point of view or Conservative point of view! Straight up or down. I think Vegas would love the odds on this!

The Liberal point of view has always eventually won out. Its called progress. The history of human civilization is the struggle between the Right and human progress. There will always be a segment of society that will allow fear, and the illusion of exceptionalism to hinder them from moving forward. However, that segment has always been drug forward. They may move forward grumbling all the way, but the Right eventually comes to accept that they were wrong. Or more accurately the Right eventually absorbs the liberal assumptions of the past and then tells themselves they believed in those ideals all along. This is evolution. The democratic movements of history, abolition, civil rights movements, environmental safety regulations are all evidence of this.

The Human race is in trouble the day that the "Left" stops winning the over all struggle. Yes we move slowly but we have always moved forward. When this stops humanity will at that point become irrelevant.

Oh, don't you worry, George, the Tea Party is ready, and able, so watch out, you libs!!!

Raising the Debt Ceiling had NOTHING to do with the Budget!

The Tea/GOP counted on the ignorance of the American Public and it worked.

At no time in America's History has the debt ceiling been combined with the budget, because they are TWO different aspects.

Obama should not have capitulated to that kind of Ignorance, neither should have the Democratic House.

You can bet on it, and the democrats are done for at least the next 20 years. They have corrupted the government and no one is going to trust them for a long, long time. Everyone wants to blame the tea party and the GOP, but what most don't realize, include the stupid, ignorant liberals, is that it was their own party and Obama that caused this issue. the democrats have been in control of the Congress for 6 years and the House just got turned over to the Republicans. It will take us about 20 years to fix all the mistakes the liberals have made, and you are right about one thing. When the American people wake up to find that the democrats have been lying to them from the start, they are done. They will be out of power for a long time. Thank God!

cathee the ignorant like the majority of liberal leaches in this country, lay back and the gov will take care of me. The motto of the left "you cant fix stupid" and we are living proof. Obama is only in there because of the ignorance of the white democrates and Hollywood bunch and those who would believe anything they say, get a clue people they are actors thats what they do for a living , act.

a lot of ignorant people spewing hate about the Tea Party really don't know what the Tea Party is about, they only know what the liberal media and the Democrats have said, instead of actually studying their ideology.

To educate the ignorant the Tea Party is for...

- smaller government

- balanced budget

- less tax, especially for the poor and middle class

- a return to values that made this country great in the first place.

Try again Wayne I'm a liberal and I'm in the top 10% of incomes.

And Jack a few corrections:

-smaller government: Except for abortion, who you sleep with, and freedom of religion.

- balanced budget: Well they're for a form of it. However, even Tea Party members have admitted that if the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation had been law when we hit this sort of crisis we'd have been screwed. A balanced budget is a noble goal but needs to be designed by people who A) understand economics, and B) with a long view on the prosperity of the nation. One of the House Tea Party members actually tried to push a "lower the debt ceiling" bill which demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of what the debt ceiling even is.

- less tax: Taxes are already at record lows. If you want to have first world infrastructure, and world class schools, and top notch research you got to pay for it. The Tea Party seems to be under the impression that all the things they enjoy in our society is completely free of charge. We need revenue. Deal with it.

- a return to values that made this country great in the first place: This is a personal favorite. You do realize that during the US golden age we were had higher taxes, much more government oversight, and we had massive infrastructure projects all things the Tea Party fiercely opposes.

We're all familiar with the Tea Party "says" it believes in. But it doesn't take much effort at all to see that its just talk.

Hey lefty, I am employed by a rich man. The more he is taxed the smaller my pay check is or possibly even i get layed off. The less he is taxed the more raises i get and the more people get hired, job creation.

America doesn't have a low tax issue, it has a low tax payer issue. So, get over your hate for the rich.

@Jack--

I think most people understand what the Tea Party is about. They just don't agree with it.

I believe that the government is probably sized about right.

I don't believe that budgets have to be balanced because in a recession, the government becomes the spender & job creator of last resort to avoid a depressionary downward spiral.

I also think that you are 100% incorrect about the Tea Party standing for less tax for the poor and middle class, unless you include Social Security and Medicare taxes, because they would probably abolish those programs and the taxes that go with them. I associate the Tea Party with the so-called "Fair Tax" that would implement a flat tax rate, and when I crunch the numbers on that plan, my family would definitely face a larger tax burden, while the wealthiest Americans would see their burden reduced. So I disagree with their tax policy, also.

As far as "a return to values that made this country great", I'm assuming that you're talking about slavery, racism, anti-abortion, and don't ask/don't tell/defense of marriage, etc. (or maybe I just have that wrong and you only mean the more recent defense of marriage act).

I know what the Tea Party stands for, as they will not stop talking about their hateful opinions on everyone that disagrees with them and everything that they find disagreeable. I just 100% disagree with everything that they stand for, even though I believe in their right to say and believe whatever they want. They have beliefs that are different from mine, and I understand that. Maybe you can try to understand that also, that I have different beliefs. I do not need to be turned from the dark side, and I have not been brain-washed by anyone. I understand economics and American History because I read and have taken classes on these subjects. If "common sense" people with no education were able to rule the world, we would not have airplanes because common sense says that a craft waying many tons cannot fly, and we would not have steel ships in our military because everyone knows that steel does not float, right? So when I go to the polls, rest assured that I will vote for an end to "amateur night" in Washington, D. C. Even the career politicians are better than these fools, although if I could have my way, we'd be rid of all of them and have 100% fresh faces in Congress.

So, yes, I understand the Tea Party and respectfully disagree with their position on every single issue that comes to mind, and just about everything they have done since taking office.

Do you know what is beyond my understanding? How Obama, Harry Reid, and EVERY democratic senator can argue against raising the debt limit in 2006, vote
against raising the debt limit on March 16, 2006, and then do the EXACT OPPOSITE in 2011! They are all total hypocrites! This is what Barack Obama said March 16, 2006 before voting AGAINST raising the debt limit:

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

youtube.com/watch?v=RWOMsugKkfk

Obama also said the following:

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren... America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Many neo-con republicans are also guilty of the same kind of hypocrisy, and that's why many of them were voted out of office in 2010. But there is one republican who has a CONSISTENT voting record and who votes by principle, not party. That republican is Ron Paul and he is running for President in 2012. Ron Paul understands that the only legitimate role of the federal government is to protect our freedom, not tell us how to spend our money. He also understands the that government and the federal reserve are responsible for the current economic downturn by creating unsustainable economic booms that inevitably must be followed by economic busts. These economic booms were created by subsidized housing, artificially low interest rates set by the fedral reserve, and
ineffective economic stimulus.

So in 2012 vote for freedom, principle, consistency, and financial reponsibility -
vote Ron Paul!

George Ola#8: You Sir, spoke a mouthful of truth. It has ever been thusly.

David-1295283: Ron Paul is an old and odd "cob" whose corn was shelled back in the early part of the 19th century.

I hope we do settle this in the next election. All I see are crying democrates addicted to spending going thru withdrawal like a drug addict. They use my tax money as their campaign funds. Waste, fraud, corruption.

Less spending. Less taxes. That is what we need. Oh, and less lip service too.

Senate fails to end costly FAA shutdown

Stalemate could cost government an estimated $1.2 billion in uncollected ticket taxes

So all those Tea Partiers are SOOOOO worried about the deficit that they're willing to forego $1.2 BILLION (and counting) in airline taxes just so they can bust the unions?

Does that not tell you what they're REALLY all about?

.....you do know all government shutdowns are confirmed and agreed upon by the Secretary of the Treasury, right? Of course you don't. You're one of those pseudo-intellectuals that claims to know everything about everything then proceeds to blame the economy on a President.

PS - Secretary of the Treasury is Timothy Geitner FYI. That would be as liberal a man as you can find on the Hill. Maybe your outrage should be directed at him instead of "the tea party", who has little to no pull with their numbers.

PPS- All it's doing is DELAYING collections of fees and taxes. Delay means they come later, not get thrown away or never collected. At least have half a brain before you try to rap intellectual about......well......anything really. You definitely are a Real American though. Most Americans act like their 5th grade social studies education is the end all be all of information on the government. You fit right in.

Ron Paul has voted for every "pork bill" that feeds his constituents, if his vote is meaningful. Look it up, it's true.

No, they assured that the people they represent, the super rich, will be allowed to keep all their cash and you will be paying for the debt. In part, I kind of get it; if I was a billionaire would I want to fund the irresponsible childish life style of the average American?

I know people who are high school drop outs, others with no college education, yet they all drive BMW and $40k sport utility vehicles that they trade in every three years; they have beach homes, big screens in each room, $300 a month smart phone bills, blah blah blah. Who would have thought that being a glorified bank teller would be so lucrative a vocation?

Felang, Kinda sounds like you really want some of those things.

Too bad most of the posters on here don't see it as clearly as you do.

There is no leadership and we are in dire need of statemen.

I don't think there are any such people left nosferatu......statesmen, that is.

Agreed. Not just Pelosi, ALL OF CONGRESS NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT!

Lu Moseley, great post. Last I checked California is so bad that southern California wants become its own state?! When the rats are jumping ship, you might have a leak.

How are you going to vote against all of them, unless you hold residency in all of the states?

Ok, what do you see as an appropriate jobs bill in this environment?

So, your position is that the government do nothing. Let the private sector take it from here. If that is the case then the president and congress are immaterial to improving the economy but you pointed out earlier that unemployment was only 5.2% under Bush, so you must think government can do something.

I got an idea. Let's make it illegal for prisoners to do any work. You know, outside of the prison or as manufacturers inside the prison walls. They can't do it. Sure somebody can work in the cafeteria or whatever. Next, let's not let any people who are here Illegally work. Or get Welfare. Or Foodstamps. Or housing. And don't tell me they don't. It's against the rules, but it happens more than you want to think. (Obama's Aunt, anybody?). Next we stop creating an environment that rewards our corporations for outsourcing thier labor. Through tax incentives, regulations, and yes, Tariffs. Tariffs used to be used to stop foriegn countries from flooding our markets with cheap goods. What's wrong with that? Makes perfect sense. And scrap all the free trade carpola, that's just bad for us. You know it, I know it, they knew it as they were signing the damned things. Next we stop giving everybody else money. Why should we give them money? They fricken hate us, most of them, but they still all want to live here. Freaks. And then maybe when we don't owe everybody money, we can walk around the block a little with our heads held high. Maybe when our President visits China he can mention Human Rights instead of begging for a lower interest rate, or an extension on his credit limit, like some cheap gambler who's down a lot.

Sorry. Daydreaming again. It sure seemed nice..............

Rob, you are wrong again. The "shovel ready" infrastructure part of the stimulus package was actually quite small. 1/3, of the stimulus money went towards tax deductions, for individuals and corporations. The only thing put to rest, from the stimulus should be that reducing taxes creates jobs.

the bush administration didn't spend less money, they just didn't put it on the books. how many wars did obama start that he didn't pay for? how many health care initiatives?

Obama hit libiya and a failed stimulus plan which hit us all, why didnt he give that money to families and not his rich buds in the business world. And get your facts right , Obama has spent more then the last 2 presidents put together,you must watch cbs or nbc , cnn news.

Wayne....and it's obvious you listen to FAUX news!! If ex-president Bush had put the cost of his two wars in his budget, it would have clearly showed that he spent more than President Obama.

Didi, Obama knew that what he was inheriting when he said he would lower the debt in his first two years. Should he be held accountable? Further, he has escalated the cost of Afghanistan, and lengthened the time period that we will keep forces in Iraq... At what point does Obama become open to sharing the blame of our current mess. None of the things he "inherited" were surpirses to him.

ChiCity...President Obama should be held accountable. But, it's the same with Republicans. They should be held accountable for refusing to allow this President to do his job, for constantly setting up roadblocks so he'd fail and for their BS actions to delay anything and everything until they get control, if ever.

Sorry, accountability is not the Republicans strong suit. If it were, those Iraq war investigations would have seriously reduced their ranks.

Typical hedged answer again shifting responsibility.

You mean like GE and BP? Billions in profits, no a penny in taxes. The rich are actually taxed at historic lows right now. I realize that Tea PArty members aren't history buffs, but it's helpful to point out that the rich paid a slightly higher tax rate under Clinton and we didn't have these kinds of deficits and the unemployment level was something like 4%.

Because the rich own 71% of all the wealth in the USA and the rest of us have to make do with the remaining 29%.

Butterfly, he did not cave in on Healthcare and Wall Street reform and other issues, but he has shown that when it is absolutely necessary he is willing to move to the center to reach consensus and achieve the larger goal of preserving our way of life and security, something that some of his opponents and critics dismiss as irrelevant.

Judging by what you say in your posts that seems to be a fact that has eluded you in the past, hopefully it will stick now that you have been enlightened.

Butter , relax, the rich are paying the same as they did yesterday so you will not be burdened. Try to stop hating those better off then you and appreciate what you have.

Too much Government is a problem as is too little. Unfortunately, we swing to far left and then too far right. If we could somehow stop the dramatic swings we would be okay. A big problem was putting a man like Obama in the White House to lead the Country. He had no experience running anything. Because so many people hated Bush they would have voted for anyone. Huge mistake, the man has no leadership skills just oratorical skills. The man is an academic and people in the real working world know that those that can do and those that can't teach.

Dominick, you have a good point. I was thinking along the same lines as Butterfly too, but it is because Obama has been compromising with the party of NO. NO touching the rich's money, NO help for the common people, NO compromise. It does make it seem like he is giving in by moving to the center when the other side won't do it.

So if rob has conceded that the rich has most of the wealth, how long until he makes the leap to understanding they are the one's who are going to have to start help paying for this great country they live in?

Maybe the President should have offered to sell them all some high grade FED heroin then he might of got what he wanted.

Junkies love to give away everything without a fight they just freak when they need more of that FED heroin to stop the shakes.

The best drug in congress is FED heroin and it's highly addictive as we all have noticed over the last 4 years or so.

Judging by what our elite has done since they were given the latest round of tax breaks in 2001 I don't expect them to change course any time soon. They will continue to do what they have always done, pursue new business opportunities wherever the largest ROI happens to be.

Those that support subsidies and loopholes for our corporations should consider the fact that "our" corporations are actually multi-nationals traded in world markets and owned by investors in the USA, China, Saudi Arabia or Germany. The taxpayer's monies used to fund corporate subsidies are not benefitting Americans workers or our society, we are paying the dividends of shareholders worldwide.

Butterfly; I'm afraid you are right. Obama is to the right of some republicans. If he hadent caved again every day the market went down and the government was out would have totally killd them. Also, they would never have defaulted becaus most of the debt is owed to big banking.

Republicans should love Obama. He keeps saving their buts.

Buterfly,Dominick,Byl

I hate to break the news to you but Obama was and is no different then any politician in the current establishment when it comes to protecting his interests. he sold you and the rest of the country bumper sticker slogans and everyone bought into them. The truth is he is a JAP ( just another politician) no different then any of the establishment on the right or left.

UPDATE 1-Wall Street boosts Obama's campaign cash haul

Obama Donations Show Strong WallSt. Support - NYTimes.com

Democrats are darlings of WallSt. - Los Angeles Times

Who is behind the finances of the Tea Party, murky territory here, what is the Tea Party, no longer a 527,is it a PAC and is it part of the RNC? Is it it's own party?

Different rules apply to each type of political entity.

What is the Tea Party and what information must they divulge?

Butter & Byl --- Talk about Posting Lies or Having a Short Memory!!!! Oct 2008 is when this "Crisis" or "Recession" started. Go Back to Dec 2008 when Obama was pushing for Half the TARP Money to be Allocate to him even before he was sworn into office. Obama took 350 Billion from the TARP then immediately passed a 987 Billion Stimulus Bill thereby giving him Over 1 Trillion to put towards Job Creation, Saviing the Economy, etc. His "Sky is Falling" Fear-Mongering got the Bill pass, but he only chose to paid off ACORN & Campaign Supporters (like Exxon/Unions), while sheltering the rest (600 B). Fast Forward to 3 yrs and 8 Recessions Later.......Nothing has been done or saved by this Inflationary Spending Bill...Except 7500 Pet Projects, Hidden Raises & New Jets for All of Congress, and More Campaign Money at the Taxpayers' Expense. I guess You missed the Media Blitz of June 2009 declaring that "The Recession is Over" because Obama swift Bill Passing & Wise-Spending saved America!! still roflmao on that one!!!

Obama had 3 yrs to act as Pres and 2 yrs as Senator.....The Dems had 5 yrs to "Drain the Swamp" ..... .Teaparty only 7 Mths.......Your Blame & Perception of Responsibility is about School-Age Level and IQ the equivalent of a Newt.

To the Thinkers in the Crowd - I Love His Two Biggest Foot in Mouth Statements in His 2009 SOU..."I'll do everything in my power" to help the Economy, Homeowners, Banks(giving them 2nd Bailout), Wall St, etc. and the Infamous Obama Quote "Judge Me by My Actions and Not by My Words"!!! Funny how Good Speaking Skills are All He's Got, and that comes from His Own Mouth in his Own Words!!! :-P

islander...How about a little truth here? Former Republican right wing Senator Richard Armey started the Tea Party. He gets assistance financially from the two Koch billionaires who are admitted anti-government John Birchers.

Whew! When the Tea Party defenders try to go all patriotic...they fly the flag of Green and Gold$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

islander, actually if you look at stats published by reputable sites, the treasury dept., the I.R.S., you will find that your actual tax burden is divided by the federal, State and local government, and the federal amount is less today than it has been for 40 years. Local and State taxes have increased and taken away much of the advantage you had. So the debate should be centered on the local and State governments inability to hold a budget.

you really are taking this as being all about you, but you are entitled to that view, though I would say it is very naive.

This is the problem many and myself find with the tea party effort. It is based on a Disney-type cartoon. We spend to much or we pay to much taxes.

Perfect example, the Hoover Dam built with Federal tax Dollars from all tax payers. Would it have been built if we had the supposed balanced budget amendment? Probably not as how or who would put up that kind of money with out a return in investment.

Also did everyone who began and has since the dam opened payed their fair share for the use of the water and electricity that the dam now controls? Was this dam built and the water and electricity given as a entitlement to those who used it ? Then why should those who never have been west of the Miss. River pay taxes for that dam?

Bob, most people who follow a budget, put money away for projects like these (I suppose on a smaller scale it would be home improvement projects, catastrophy funds, savings). If you operate under the mindset that you spend every dollar coming in (essentially living paycheck to paycheck), you are right. However, I don't find that responsible.

Note- I am not a supporter of tea party policies.

Let's not make a cartoon of it. Governments intent is to sustain our way of life, and in doing so it has been in deficit for many more years than it has not. In fact we owed European country's money they lent us to wage our war for Independence. So let's not make the solution a simple matter of balancing the budget, as a family should.

These balancing act comes up time to time in the political arena, as witnessed by everyone who was around less than ten years ago, when the deficit was not a problem of such importance, yet recently was attached to a raising of the debt limit, a automatic procedure, with few dissenting votes usually, and the dropping of investor confidence in our economy, the last few days.

Islander you speak the same idiology that was said when the Continental Congress first set up a State hospital in Pa. back in 1760's, look it up. So who is to be the judge as to who deserves and who will not? Sounds like a bunch of politics on your side of the arguement. Can't agree with your logic.

The problem is, both the Bush and Obama stimulus packages should have been created to prop up the banks as little as absolutely necessary, create jobs in the public sector repairing and replacing infrastructure, and help PEOPLE get rid of THEIR debt burdens, so they could once again start spending money to create demand, not given to the banks so they could pay their CEOs money, which fixed nothing and created nothing. The Bush tax cuts should have been targeted to corporations for the purposes of developing new technologies, and creating jobs, not to wealthy people so they could buy more yachts, and oil companies, so they could put it in their pockets.

As a result, we now have a situation where we need more stimulus, but we pay nothing in taxes, and (according to the right) can't bear to spend a dime on anything. The economy is going to go down the crapper altogether, and I know whose fault it is- I just hope all of the true independents are smart enough to figure it out.

We don't need endless stimulus, we need stimulus that goes to help all Americans, not just bonuses to the people who got us into this mess in the first place. We don't need programs cut when there is a recession, we need the ability for families to make ends meet and enjoy the fruits of their labor. We need to know our children will have a good future, not just be slaves to the corporate masters who will never have enough power, money and influence.

DB I agree with you. Lost decade coming.

If all government guaranteed loans were made directly, home buyers and young students would have their notes cut by half or more and trillions would be left in the hands of our people instead of thieving banks. Why should anyone pay a bank 600k for a 200k house even when the tax payer backs the loan? Isn't it obvious that our officials are more concerned with banks than the people they are with the people they were elected to serve. Why? Also why do we let banks use us like pawns and peasants to serve them?

David your an idiot , Gop plan, right, the dems have the presidency and senate, if you like high gas and food prices and unemployment to keep rising you go and cast your vote for Obama in 2012 and we will see what happens then.....BOOM the end!

"boom" will that be the big one, and who do you think will light the fuse? just asking.

How were they f'ing with people's minds?

They were f'ing with people's minds by doing this in the most dramatic least efficient way. They could have come up with a deal that delt with out of control spending and unfair tax codes but they decided to put a bandaid on it at the very last second and both sides will pout about it and point fingers.

Playing the back and forth games until the very last second. A responsible congress would have dealt with this long, long ago not waited until the final minute on such a crucial matter.

It amazes me on what matters they can have such precedental foresight and other matters they let go until there's a knife at their collective throats. I wish the american people would slit their throats already.

They were threatening to default as an excuse to further rape the people. Most of our debt is owed to big banks. You couldn't get them to really default with a shot gun. It was obvious the were playing with peoples minds,like we were stupid pawns to be jerked around and deceived.

The message they want to sell is this: "Sorry folks, we hate to do this ; But we really have no options. They are shameless liars . They had many options.

If people in this country think the rich and the goverment care about the little guy they are stupider than I thought, the rich just want the little guy to do the jobs they wouldnt think of doing and the goverment just wants your money so they can do their job and keep from sweating and getting their hands dirty from doing menial jobs , which there are less and less of , so get a clue , us at the botttom of the food chain are just there and have no voice, D.C. does as D.C. wants form the top dog to the bottom.

Wayne........I agree with you. And the Tea Party.........started off with good ideas then went to the weird side of wanting to cancel and close all government programs.........without touching the rich "job creators". Dumb as doorknobs if they think NO government is good and a reformed government is not a better goal.........They seem to prefer chaos over reason and maybe they should rethink their goals and produce a BETTER government and a BETTER budget and LESS wasteful spending and hold the "representatives" feet to the fire to achieve the latter.

most of the gop voting against this are tea party people, the bill didnt cut enough

Like I said, they get their way and still whine. So, will we be focusing on jobs now?

Hey Byi, the Tea Party is not made of millionaires and billionaires, it is made up of hard working middle class people of all races and genders. As a matter of fact, I don't believe I've every seen a "rich" person there. Its people tired of our government taking more and more of our hard earned money. Why don't you freaking go to one, then you might open your blind eyes to the truth!

Fights, You are an idiot. The Tea Baggers were supported by private GOP $$$ from the millionares and billionaires. They are mostly back-woods hicks who have little, if any, education.

Wow! Millionaires and billionaires and backwoods hicks. Well, these "backwoods hicks" may just have to kick you libs arses!” 2012!!!!! hahahahaha!

Is this the same democratic party that said that black people were property? Is this the democratic party that refused education to black people ? And do you share the belief that black and minorities cannot get into college without a grading scale ? And do you share the beliefs that minorities cannot get jobs because they are ignorant and you have to have job quotas? You lefties are a bunch of racist and you are always pigeon holing people. Back woods hicks my ass.

Here is a little trivia for you. Why was the South almost completely comprised of Democrats until 1964, and why has the south been almost completely Republican since then?

I will give you a hint, it had to do with a Democratic president and signing the civil rights act of 1964.

When Signing it into law, the president was quoted as saying, "I fear we have handed the South over to the Republicans for good."

So long ago, you would have been correct, but times change, now it is the Democratic Party that champions peoples rights and freedoms, while the Republicans try at every turn to makes us all slaves, and force their religion down every one's throat through unconstitutional legislation.

It is sad that the Democrats cant seem to let go of their spending problems, as a fiscally conservative, but Freedom Liberal Representative is what this country needs a lot of.

could you imagine the unemployment if we brought all our soldiers home, not only in afganistan and iraq, but all we have in germany, japan, korea and else where, these nations pay zero in defense, we pay it all for them and plan on doing it forever-why ron paul is actually the best gop choice he would end this madness of supporting every nation but our own

We need to return the military to a draft based system with draf type "service" wages. No exceptions to the draft requirement-the wealthy cannot buy thier kids out of it nor buy them a preferred position in the military. No religious, no studen deferrments. Enlistees receive the same wages and benefits as draftees. Every young person would be required to "serve" the country and earn thier freedoms-every young person would have to do something, at least once in thier lives that they do not want to do

If we are to reduce spending to pre-Eisenhour levels we should alse revise the tax code to pre-Eisenhour standards eliminating most non-cash deductions and fake loopholes designed to allow Corporate America and the wealthy to hide income.

Defense contracts and all government contracts would need a new system of approval to eliminate the out and out fraud that we all know takes place now. The tax payer is not a diamond pissing cow.

We should also look at the "Congressional Contract", you know the one that Congress created for itself. That in itself is one of the greatest frauds in our country today. Lobbying should be made illegal in any form, Congress persons do not need the "expertise of advice" they get from lobbyists, (what they really get is added income-we all know that-and tainted advice and biased expertise.

Blah, blah, blah: the inanae babbling of an old, politically independant fool. I just could not resist.

I will agree with you 100%....again all the pressure on the middle class worker...TAX THE RICH once for all !!!!

First off I am sick to death of hearing about the so called bush wars. The democratic majority voted the so called bush wars into our ever deepening debt.

What about the unsanctioned Libyan Obama war?

Second for all you people who somehow think the democratic party help the middle class in some way? Please do explain what middle class they help?

The middle class they put out of jobs with their higher taxes on their bosses?

Who now become a further burden on the economy with their lost jobs!

We as a nation must now support them because of some lunacy that tells some math challenged people government jobs are more important then the privet sector jobs who pay ALL the bills!

The middle class who now have a much higher cost of living?

The cost of living has done nothing but gone up sharply under Obama sliding the middle class into the poorhouse!

The unsustainable government jobs middle class who suck the nation drier and drier?

The TAX PAYING middle class is trillions of times more important then the government middle class. The privet sector the democrats shrink pay ALL the bills!

With the far less tax payers the democrats cause we will be lucky if we aren't dancing in the streets like the Greeks very soon.

We had one 170.000 transportation job before obama. We as a nation now have to pay for six more of them. HOW many more rich people has obama created off the backs of this nation? It seems to me the democrats only create a few rich friends off the backs of the nation. while they boast off some lie to the people who are foolish enough to vote for them. They are somehow helping a middle class.

BS the real fact is the Democrats are turning the tax paying middle class into the poor of the nation!

The liberals would go batsh#@t crazy!

Republicans always figure a way to have a military manned by the poor, while they stay home. Ask Limbaugh, O'Riley about that.

They are called "chicken hawks." Of course the rich Republicans have their lap dog workers just like the slave owners had their "house Negroes."

WHT3...This country is in debt because of Republicans push to privatize everything in government. And what a sweet deal it was for them. So, the Republicans privatized the military and those war debts just kept rolling in. Note how you never hear this mentioned by neocons, right wingers or the Tea Party?

You want these nut jobs to run for the Kaopectate? Ask to see the debts paid to Halliburton. I'd bet anything before any other US bills were paid the Bush Administration made sure Halliburton was first in line for payment.

Net 30 my ass. Halliburton knew the minute Bush was elected, it was a done deal.

Who privatizes a national army with slugs of the right wing like XE? An old college crony of GWB's? Who embed corporations so deeply into American government, the capital is now the capital of greedheaded capitalist venture capitalists on steroids looking for any channel of taxpayer revenue they can lay their syrupy mitts on?

"In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are @!$%#ed until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely." HST

Not true Joe, corporations wanted the debt limit raised a long time ago. It was right wing republicans who drew this thing out because they didn't want any tax revenues increased so that they could "strangle the beast", basically put the govt. in a position where they had to get smaller, get rid of portions, of the social safety network, because there would simply be no money, for them. This problem lies square with our right wing republicans. Biggest case of political extortion, in my lifetime.

how coincidental that both democrats and GOP can only agree on tax cuts for the rich,phony wars,and raising the debt ceiling eh?There is no difference,and we are left to argue over things we will never change except by the way our founding fathers finally got it.

Juan and all the Deomcrats showed us last year is how they will force a healthcare bill through against the MAJORITY of Americans. They also showed us they cant pass a budget bill for nearly 3 years even with majorities in the House/Senate. Yeah go vote for these idiots again.... because people who spend money they dont have are great for our country.

rob did you read the last two sentences of my blog?

I must have spoken the truth. It woke you up this morning.

Juan, good post. Unfortunately English comprehension is not as widespread as you think, and it seems obvious that some people would benefit from enrolling in Logic 101...

Just stating the facts. If logic thoughts had anything to do with the Tea baggers they would start packing there things up before 2012. Whats left of the middle class and the poor, FAR OUT NUMBER the brainwashed.

Dominick your absolutely right... English comprehension isnt that common today with all the illegals we have here. Most of the Left is filled with people who dont speak English... and most of them want handouts like Juan.

Juan you are clueless. You think its ok to keep borrowing money to pay off your debt. No household, business, or country in the world can survive like that. We borrow half of what we spend today... how long do you think that will last??? Idiots like yourself have creatd this mess because you blindly go along without reading between the lines.

@ Thom. I am glad I could make your day! For one thing you can't spell. I paid attention to the English teacher. "CREATD" ? I except your small minded opinion has a badge of honor. Thanks There's a spell checker learn to use it.

Pretty good Dominick; you ;left out Rob's favorite. "In a cost cutting measure the Republicans have now turned off the light at the end of the tunnel".

Dominick I hope you don't mind but I liked this so much I'm going to send it out to all my friends. This was great!

I can honestly say my life is better than it was 3 years ago. I no longer live in the U.S. and life is good. You're right though: "God Save America".

No need for name calling. Anyone that assumes all liberals don't pay taxes and then is worried about being called names, identifies himself without our help.

rob: You can't have it both ways is obama a supporter of corporate tax dodgers or a silly liberal? Does this mean you won't vote for him because you can"decide what he is?

Dad: I hate to pop your bubble, but I'm a liberal (actually just a little left of center to be exact); I work (at age 65), I pay taxes (on both a business AND personally), and I will vote for President Obama in 2012!

I also think any politician who signed Grover Norquist's pledge ought to be hung by their feet for treason. They pledged to work for their constituents (the taxpayers) and NOT for some uber-conservative windbag that wasn't elected to anything. IMO, if Grover wanted to rule the world, he needs to run for office!!!

Didi: Just out of curiosity, do you have any employees??

If so, do you provide them with health insurance?

If you don't have any employees, then you should be paying a lot more in business taxes because you are being greedy and keeping all of your profits for yourself instead of hiring people.

After all, liberals fully believe in using the tax code as a behavior modification and punishment tool.

If you do have employees, then you need to cut your own salary or business profits and hire some more and pay all of their health insurance costs for them, regardless of how much it costs you, and regardless of whether you actually need those employees.

The irony is that if, by chance, you disagree with even one of these things, the person you will be voting for again believes in all of them.