E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Senate has rejected two competing bills to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year. Eleven lawmakers who caucus with Democrats broke with their party to vote against the Democratic version of the spending bill, which would have made relatively modest cuts to current government funding levels.
The bill drafted by Democratic leaders would have cut about $4.7 billion from current spending levels. It failed 42 to 58.
Democrats voting no were: Sens. Kay Hagan, Herb Kohl, Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Bernie Sanders (who is an Independent who caucuses with Democrats), Mark Udall, Jim Webb, Carl Levin, and Michael Bennet.
A competing GOP-backed measure that would have cut $61 billion from current spending levels also failed. The Republican measure, which passed the House earlier this month, failed by a vote of 44 to 56.
Sixty votes were needed for either bill to pass.
Tea Party-backed Sens. Rand Paul, Jim DeMint and Mike Lee voted against the GOP measure. The fiscally conservative lawmakers argue that the $61 billion in cuts did not go far enough to address the ballooning federal deficit.
No Democrats voted for the Republican-backed bill, which included cuts to Head Start, food safety programs, and all federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Manchin, who was the first Democrat to announce that he would vote against the Democratic measure, said Tuesday that the Democratic bill "doesn't go nearly far enough" and the GOP bill "blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our priorities or of our values as a country."
The current two-week stopgap measure to fund the government expires on March 18. If a long-term funding bill does not pass before then, both chambers will have to approve another short-term measure to avert a government shutdown.
NBC's Ken Strickland contributed
Leave a Comment:
who really thinks Democrats are about reducing Debt. They think its great to have Years of Trillion dollar Debt.. At least 11 know there is a problem
So they all got a vote on record and they can go back home and campaign on that vote. Sounds like government is working as designed.
President Obama's own budget proposal for the new fiscal year says that $13 trillion in new gross debt will be added over the next 10 years, resulting in debt interest payments approaching $1 trillion annually...
The co-chair of President Obama's own debt commission, Democrat and former Clinton White House Chief Of Staff, Erskine Bowles, says that the United States has perhaps two years before worldwide investors decline to continue financing U.S. debt...
And...what is the President actually doing about it?
Anyone...?
In 2004 Bush said that he would cut the deficit in half in 4 years, 4 years later he quadrupled the deficit.
I will tell you what Obama ismdoing about it, Mixed Bag. He is doing what he always does when there is a tough decision to make- he is ignoring it.
The democrats are also ignoring this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146525/Americans-Message-States-Cut-Dont-Tax-Borrow.aspx
It is, in fact, in line with every other poll on the subject. It has been proven true in not just my state, but also in Indiana, where their governor won re election by more than sixty per cent after cutting deeply.
We need to cut, deeply and permanently. There is no other choice.
Well, I guess you could call the liberal preference of "ignore it and it will go away" a choice- but as adults, we know that is not a viable choice.
Then again, we do not have imaginary play houses, either.
It looks like a government shutdown is very likely, since the Senate can't seem to agree on anything, and whatever they pass still has to be reconciled with the House version. I guess it's going to be each side blaming the other. Since the government pays about $80 Billion a month in salaries to federal workers, perhaps a 3 week shutdown might save the $60 Billion the Republicans want - as long as they don't later try to pay the workers for sitting at home watching television.
SJC -
Quadrupled?
Where are you getting your numbers? Thin air?
Deficits under Bush averaged under $300 billion per year in his 1st six years under a republican Congress. Deficits under Bush and a democrat Congress nearly tripled.
Under Obama and the democrats, the deficits doubled over Bush's worst year.
And FYI - Under Clinton with a republican Congress, deficits averaged around $200 billion - at no point in time was there an actual surplus - contrary to what liberals like to claim.
This is all posturing by both sides. It's also a discussion about how cuts are done either with a chainsaw or a scalpel.
Democrats know there have to be cuts, and I find it interesting that Republicans are "all about" cuts now when they certainly weren't during the Bush administration.
The bottom line, too many cuts will stall the economy and raise unemployment. Too little maintains the current course.
There is another option called raising taxes that should be considered and would be more palatable by the American people.
You guys are a talking point! Where was your outrage when GW and his six years of total Republican control took a surplus and turned it into a house on fire as he left office. Didn't hear a word from you so concerned about the debt back then. So one would have to wonder why now you are so concerned.
Thanks, njnb...
But...I'm not preaching to the choir.
Anyone else?
We have the opinion of West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin...
Anyone else care to weigh in?
SJC-1437429
And Obama said the 'oceans would begins to heal' when he won the nomination - did you believe that one too?
Tammy,
Where are YOU getting your numbers. At random, i chose a year in baby bush's first six, and the answer was:
You're not very good at this are you?
Eric, once again it appears you are a paid troll. Too little in cuts will screw up the country for decades. The sad truth is that the Republican measure truly does not go far enough.
Oh, and your comment about "raising taxes......would be more palatable" by the American people.......I really think this would take more spendable money out of the hands of consumers, thus stifling the economy.
Congress still wants to drink champagne on a beer budget and they haven't truly thought about the long-term consequences.
Reuters Poll
The President approval among independent voters who he will need for his 2012 re-election drive took a sharp dive, to 37 percent from 47 percent, the poll found.
Why do you think this is happening? People say its the gas prices, I am not so sure.
Eric, what I find unpalatable about tax increases is this- the Congresscritters have never EVER demonstrated an ability to use increased revenue to reduce the deficit. Not once. Every time they get more money, they use it to increase spending. So until they've demonstrated a working knowledge of spending cuts, increasing revenue on the backs of struggling tax payers will do at least as much harm to economic recovery as chainsaw cuts. We can't tax people enough to sustain spending at the current levels period. So first cut, then talk tax rates. In the mean time, rewrite the tax code to eliminate loopholes for both extremes of the income scale and we might actually make some progress.
Mixed Bag "President Obama's own budget proposal for the new fiscal year says that $13 trillion in new gross debt will be added over the next 10 years, resulting in debt interest payments approaching $1 trillion annually..."
That's about $27 Trillion, and the average interest rate on government bonds over the last 30 years was about 6.6%, which translates into about $1.8 Trillion per year JUST FOR INTEREST.
Contrast that with average interest expense under Clinton of $220 Billion per year, and G W Bush of $200 Billion per year (yes, it was lower than Clinton).
That roughly $1.5 Trillion per year increase will have to be paid before anything else, and since about 47% of American households pay NO federal income tax (a), that means that the remaining 40 million average families of 4 will get stuck with tax increases of about $37,000 per year ($3,000+ per month) JUST TO PAY THE INCREASED INTEREST. Congratulations on that "Change we can believe in" that you voted for.
(a) Since the lowest 47% of American families pay no federal income taxes, they could care less about the National Debt or interest payments, since someone ELSE has to pay for that, so they will continue to vote for whoever promises to continue their 'freebies' - the Democrats.
Nice job Bryan - that was a HORRIBLE year and a stupid deficit. You are really highlighting the problems now.
But now that number your cite would be great. $223 in one month equals nearly THREE TRILLION in one year.
Do you see a problem with that? You do realize that not only does it have to be paid back, but interest accrues and is compounded, right.
Got kids?
It's obvious that the deficit and the debt are of no concern to the Democrats, and both are only of a slightly moderate concern to the Republicans. Senator Schumer (D-NY) has suggested a "reset" of the budget process, it appears he wants to put tax increases into the mix. At least you can respect Sen. Schumer for trying, it's a valid alternative to the current mess with Obama and the rest of the Democrats piling on the spending and continuing to borrow the money.
Obama's leadership on this is he wants to continue with his massive spending, pay lip service and do nothing about the deficit, and pay off enough groups to get re-elected next year. Obama would never cut his spending, he needs to buy those votes, or raise taxes, he'd lose too many votes. So we know what we have with Obama, ie., no leadership what so ever. The man is nothing but a clown.
And the Republicans aren't off the hook. $61 billion in cuts for the remain 2011 budget are next to no cuts at all. Here's the problem, for the 2012 budget, Obama wants to spend $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. That's the amount that needs to be trimmed off Obama's budget. Now we just need to find a leader somewhere that is willing to do the heavy lifting, because we know that lifting will not be coming from Obama.
sjc.............this is all about Obama now. Sorry, but the "blame it on Bush game" is over.
Fiscal YearPresidentParty of PresidentFederal SpendingFederal Debt
Billions[10]Adjusted[11]IncreaseBillions[12]
1977
Ford
Republican
$409
$1,040
$706
1978
Carter
Democratic
$459
$1,093
5.1%
$776
1979
Carter
Democratic
$504
$1,107
1.3%
$829
1980
Carter
Democratic
$591
$1,175
6.1%
$909
1981
Carter
Democratic
$678
$1,219
3.8%
$994
1982
Reagan
Republican
$746
$1,252
2.6%
$1,137
1983
Reagan
Republican
$808
$1,294
3.4%
$1,371
1984
Reagan
Republican
$852
$1,300
0.4%
$1,564
1985
Reagan
Republican
$946
$1,396
7.4%
$1,817
1986
Reagan
Republican
$990
$1,426
2.1%
$2,120
1987
Reagan
Republican
$1,004
$1,406
-1.4%
$2,345
1988
Reagan
Republican
$1,065
$1,447
2.9%
$2,601
1989
Reagan
Republican
$1,144
$1,499
3.6%
$2,867
1990
Bush
Republican
$1,253
$1,590
6.1%
$3,206
1991
Bush
Republican
$1,324
$1,610
1.3%
$3,598
1992
Bush
Republican
$1,382
$1,624
0.9%
$4,001
1993
Bush
Republican
$1,410
$1,615
-0.5%
$4,351
1994
Clinton
Democratic
$1,462
$1,642
1.7%
$4,643
1995
Clinton
Democratic
$1,516
$1,662
1.2%
$4,920
1996
Clinton
Democratic
$1,561
$1,673
0.7%
$5,181
1997
Clinton
Democratic
$1,601
$1,684
0.7%
$5,369
1998
Clinton
Democratic
$1,653
$1,721
2.2%
$5,478
1999
Clinton
Democratic
$1,702
$1,746
1.5%
$5,605
2000
Clinton
Democratic
$1,789
$1,789
2.5%
$5,628
2001
Clinton
Democratic
$1,863
$1,821
1.8%
$5,769
2002
Bush
Republican
$2,011
$1,929
6.0%
$6,198
2003
Bush
Republican
$2,160
$2,018
4.6%
$6,760
2004
Bush
Republican
$2,293
$2,082
3.2%
$7,354
2005
Bush
Republican
$2,472
$2,165
4.0%
$7,905
2006
Bush
Republican
$2,655
$2,249
3.9%
$8,451
2007
Bush
Republican
$2,730
$2,263
0.6%
$8,951
2008*
Bush
Republican
$2,931
$2,366
4.6%
$9,654
2009*
Bush
Republican
$3,107
$2,452
3.6%
$10,413
2010*
Obama
Democratic
$3,991
$2,392
1.4%
$13,954
Tammy-311614 "SJC - Quadrupled? Where are you getting your numbers? Thin air? Deficits under Bush averaged under $300 billion per year in his 1st six years under a republican Congress. Deficits under Bush and a democrat Congress nearly tripled. Under Obama and the democrats, the deficits doubled over Bush's worst year. And FYI - Under Clinton with a republican Congress, deficits averaged around $200 billion - at no point in time was there an actual surplus - contrary to what liberals like to claim."
You are largely correct. Here are the actual figures, from the government's own records;
Bush's average deficit for his first 6 years was $231 Billion under a Republican Congress.
Bush's average deficit for his last 2 years under a Democratic Congress averaged $310 Billion, an increase of 34%.
In Obama's first 2 years, the deficit has averaged about $1.4 Trillion, an increase of 600% over Bush's first 6 years.
Under Clinton, with a Republican Congress setting the limits on spending and the budget for his last 6 years, the average deficit was $40 Billion. I do have to correct you though, because there were 4 years of budget surpluses under the Republican Congress (3 under Clinton), but that's only because of the phony accounting tricks of the government. There was not a single year under Clinton where the National Debt actually went down.
SJC's figures are all made up. The Deficit in 2004 was $413 Billion, and 4 years later (2008), it was $459 Billion, an increase of only 11%.
Maybe not. If a driver crosses the center line, and you swerve to avoid him, but overcorrect and drive over a cliff, killing your whole family, would you also say that everything that happened after the other driver crossed the center line was your fault?
Or would you argue that the other driver had something to do with it, too?
But, you know ... just passing the blame back and forth is not really the answer, either.
@SJEFFLBI
You should put the party that controlled congress during each of your spending periods (since all spending originates in Congress)
I'll save you time, the democratic congresses are responsible for most of America's deficit spending.
No Joe---for someone who objects to our so-called imaginary life, you sure seem to bring it up a lot. What difference is it to you?
Thanks, Roy -
I was trying to give SJC a picture that Congress actually controls the spending as they can override a presidential veto. I think you used the figures without the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan though? I also am considering the stimulus added onto the 2009 budget which forces the average for those 2 years to be higher (The liberals like to contribute it to Bush although he had nothing to do with the stimulus as it is tacked on to the FY2009 budget).
The point is, the democrats have been spending, ever since Obama was inaugurated, worse than a drunken sailor (sailors have the sense to stop spending when they areout of money), yet they can't seem to find any place that they want to cut the budget. $6.5 billion is an insult to the American taxpayer when considering the insolvency of this country.
The stimulus was NOT tacked onto the 2009 fiscal budget, which had a $1.1 trillion deficit.
Yes spending has greatly increased in recent years, but much of that money has gone to mitigate the potential economic disaster that was/is possible due to inaction, I fault neither Bush nor Obama for their needed actions.
Wholesale spending cuts during an economic recovery, can only impact our economy in a negative way .
Manchin states the obvious, and I agree.
First and foremost. BUSH IS NOT PRES ANYMORE. Holy crap can we get over Bush??????? Obama is in office now and he has created the biggest mess in Washington since I have been a vote, 36yrs. Thank goodness the tax break all the libbies cried about, has finally started to create a few jobs.
The repubs need to cut more than they already have presented and the Dems need to come down to earth and get real. We are in trouble, big trouble financially. We have to right this ship.
Independent and working hard to repeal Obama, that mess of a health care bill and get Tim Pawlenty elected into the presidency.
girls, girls, girls - learn from the past, don't dwell on it. Work to solve the problem today and move forward. There is nothing that says the cuts will be permanent.
High Noon @ the OK Corral is what this reminds me of!
Rather than cherry picking the working poor's pockets, if any of them were REALLY serious, they would start with defense spending!
Instead, it's a whole lot of chest thumping & fist pounding...
I want to Start with Govt Employees. Get rid of abotu 700,000 Union workers that would be the Best Start...
Steve, how is losing 700,000 jobs going to help the reduce the deficit? That's less revenue coming into the government and more unemployment claims going out. It's one thing to resent union workers but quite another to undo progress out of spite!
Just basic math folks.
$223 billion times 12 equals a $2.676 Trillion deficit.
Now who can calculate the cost of that at current rates? Now what happens when rates go up, as we all know they will.
Heck the cost of the existing debt is $5 billion PER DAY. No worries, though. It seems Obama and the dems totally realize the degree to which we are screwed.
What's that, them Cowboy's need their poetry? Oh, ok.
Think Progress: In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly moments ago, State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), one of Walker’s closest allies in the legislature, confirmed the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push. Fitzgerald explained that “this battle” is about eliminating unions so that “the money is not there” for the labor movement. Specifically, he said that the destruction of unions will make it “much more difficult” for President Obama to win reelection in Wisconsin…
______________
Nothing like exploiting the working people in order to gain even more power. Too bad more people in this country, specifically republican supporter sell outs in this country, don't demand more from the wealthy. It's always easier to just bully the working class.
And now the GOP have a problem. They want to rob from the elderly, after at one time blaming President Obama for wanting to have death panels for our grandparents during the hc debate.
The GOP message - just don't touch the rich. And they have sell outs all over the country who are willing to go along with this. Why? Well, because they're incredibly selfish. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh yeah, and the media's favorite pin up boy - Gov. Christie - his poll numbers are going down, not up, in NJ.
Shhhh - that's not going to sit well with NJNB! lol
No doubt, she'll figure out some way to spin it! ;o)
Sorry Steve, but there's a good possibility that you may be an idiot. There is only one way to make our deficit go away is to start making top 2% pay there fair share. I doubt if you belong to that group so taxing them as we did in 2000 would be the best start. Yes some changes need to be made to the current entitlement system too. Sorry to call you an idiot Steve but the way to get this country back on it's feet is not by sending an additional 700000 people to the unemployment line. It's time you Tea Party types start looking at it the way we Liberals do. The fat cats are getting away with destroying this country that we both love. We are close to being on the same side.
Planned parent hood was part of thewar on poverty. It helps reduce abortions, crime and school drop outs. What good republican wants a potential democratic voter to be born?
http://groundswellfilms.org/1114/four-wisconsin-republican-state-senators-receive-direct-government-subsidies/
Four of the 19 Wisconsin Republican State Senators annually applied for and received direct farm subsidies from the federal government. These are the same people who want government spending limited, apparently except when it comes to their own welfare checks.
Is that with or without unemployment benefits, Steve? Because if it's with, then you'd better net that out of the cost savings. And if it's not, then just skip to the next paragraph. But either way, you'd better net out of the cost savings the amount those employees would normally return to the federal government through the income tax.
And then, we should also net out of the cost savings the amount of money that those employees no longer spend in the economy, with its corresponding generation of federal tax revenue.
And then, we should also net out of any cost savings the amount of money that we will need to pay for the emergency room services these individuals may need for themselves and their families when they no longer have health insurance coverage.
And so on and so on and shoobie-doobie-do.
And pretty soon, it's non-sum-zero, ain'a, Steve?
In short, I don't think that's your answer. No surprise there.
@ Pat ~ Oh, no -- don't be ridiculous. Subsidies for republicans? That's just good business.
Or not ....
http://www.themidnightreview.com/2011/03/wisconsin-gop-state-legislators-collect.html
Ron,
sounds like the bone you have is with Obama and the Democrats the Controlled both the House and Senate that gave us the OBAMA tax cut Extensions. I mean. Why did Obama do that. I mean afterall He was against it before he was For it.
Real smart Steve, laying off 700K Goverment workers would be a "good start"? Did you not get enough hugs as a kid?
Talk about your non-sequiturs. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government's responsibility to defend the country against threats both domestic and foreign is a free ticket to engage in unlimited and wasteful spending? Because if it is, Halliburton would like to know. Sheesh. Even the Defense Department knows better than that, already having identified billions of dollars that could be saved without compromising defense.
And by the way, are you saying that George W. Bush's war in Iraq WASN'T authorized by the Constitution? Because there still has been no identified "threat," either foreign or domestic, that justified it.
Maybe we should just ask HIM and all those contractors who took the money for that war to pay it back.
Now THAT would go a long way to fixing the deficit.
Thanks, American.
p.s. As for Planned Parenthood, I refer you to Salt Grass's EXCELLENT comment @ #2.8.
Barefoot and pregnant DEMOCRATS. I wonder why we haven't thought of that before? Same strategy employed by the Catholic Church.
Thanks, American.
yea. Just a Good Start. We can lay more off later..
Hey True American- get real.
you like all the other Tea party fools think the only thing government is about is Defense- then you quote the constitution-
well if you want to be constitutionally STRICT, then lets just remember that you are allowed to own a gun in times of a MALITIA. So you gonna give up your guns, cause you are a constitutionally strict Tea Party SHEEP? It sounds good til ya really get into the nitty gritty.
And yes I want governement for more than defense- I want govermnet to defend me the consumer, regular person against money power and greed. i want government defense against pollution of the water, food and air I must use to survive. I want government defense against the raping of the forests, parks, oceans, beaches and everything else that makes America great against the big coorporate oil bazillionaires.
You don't like government? Move to Samalia loser!
True American:
True -- Pay attention. We STILL don't have a bill. This is NOTHING to celebrate.
Actually, this is a lot like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. So far, we've rejected both Mama and Papa Bear's porridge, and we're still looking for the porridge that's just right.
Pull up a chair, but not Mama Bear's. She's a democrat and it's WAY too soft.
You'll need the chair because, if history is any indicator, this may take a while. If you need a nap, just go upstairs and find a bed ... but not Papa Bear's because he's republican, and that's way too hard.
Steve:
LoL Get a grip, Steve, you're confusing this with the joke about what you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of Lake Michigan.
Nope Anna..
I am Serious. You see i dont live in a Fantasy land. you know that place you and the other libbies here seem to gravitate too . What do you guys call it. The Dew Drop Inn. with Imaginary Drinks and Imaginary Beads and Imaginary Friends .. I mean Every Word i say. I want to lay off 700,000 Govt Employees most of the UNION workers. Not funny not a joke Not about Lawers Not at the Bottom of any Lake. I want them Fired. The Day we have paid our Debt off Completely we can then Start talking about Rehiring some of them. But even then I would say No. dont rehire them. But we can Talk about it..
Steve: you're starting to think and I like it! I was not very happy about that tax cut extention. I really think the only reason Obama let it go through was to keep unemployment benefits going . Your side can be incredibly cruel sometimes.
Anna Molly, thanks for your comments.
I can see some of the posters here do not remember the 60's or did not live through those day.
If you're taking the Scott Walker approach to negotiating, Steve, then what's to talk about?
But I believe you mean every word you say. Because no one could make this stuff up.
But how would you suggest we pick the lucky 700,000 who make the first cut?
To cut 700,000 jobs would be crazy. Hit the rich and not the middle class.
Well, lets do some basic math rd. Bringing back the 2000 tax rates on the upper 2% would bring an additional $70 billion dollars a year to the federal government. With Obama running a $223 billion deficit last month, and projecting a $1.65 trillion dollar deficit for fiscal 2012, that additional money would have reduced last months deficit from $223 billion to [$223 billion - ($70 billion/12)] = $217 billion, and Obama's deficit spending in 2012 from [$1.65 trillion - $70 billion ] = $1.58 trillion.
Gee, hardly anything at all.
Yeah, you may be.
Mrs Smith 70 B would be a good start.
A good start, because it takes a village.
I bet Steve collects unemployment....most of the tea party people I know do...along w/ social security adn medicare while they drive over the bridges maintained by the army corp of engineers...they all bemoan the the federal government while they take tax subsidies for their farms and enjoy a low crime rate in a civilized society that enjoys some of the lowest tax rates in the civilized world. Boo-Hoo "Steve"
ron davidson-530439
"Sorry Steve, but there's a good possibility that you may be an idiot. There is only one way to make our deficit go away is to start making top 2% pay there fair share."
So 35% isn't their fair share? What are you paying in federal tax, if anything? What are the 40 million on welfare paying? Nothing. They are living on the 35% the wealthy are paying. The top 2% already pay about 80% of all income taxes. Why should they pay more? Why shouldn't you pay 35%? That would be fair, wouldn't it?
Feisty, the poor are cherry picking the pockets of everyone who pay taxes and give nothing back.
So do it. Why didn't Obama include that tax increase in his 2012 budget? Why isn't Harry Reid including it in his budget talks? The only one that has the courage to talk about tax increases is Senator Schumer.
You Libs have to leave Fantasy Land and come back to Reality World. None of the Democrats, except Schumer, have even suggested raising taxes. Just no courage I guess. And with Obama "leading the charge", taxes will not increase. It's not going to happen, so you're just going to have to deal with it.
@ Pat in Boston: The government in order to control over planting will pay farmers to put a per-centage of their land into a program where they will receive payments but in return cannot plant on that land for a period of years (say 7).
My Oklahoma relatives, who have farmed all their lives and are all Democrats, have used this program many times and feel it is a good one. It keeps their land from being over-farmed while they get something to let it lay fallow (you are restricted as to how much of your land can go into the program).
I can not for the life of me figure out why so many would go so far overboard in advocating for the ones who already have almost everything. Are they paying you are do you really not understand what is happening with the wealth gap? Why do you not complain about the corporate welfare and huge subsidies that go to many republicans (who want to KEEP them). That moonbat Bachmann, who continually whines about welfare is part of the farming subsidy welfare queens family. Her family got hundreds of thousands of "welfare". Not a peep out of you. If you hate government, move to Somalia. Everybody knows spending need to be cut, but most of us don't want the cuts republicans are putting forward.
It's a hell of alot cheaper to pay those 700,000 employees unemplyment than it is to pay them a 1000 or more a week. You people whining about it do the math. Those union gov't employees don't pay social security or much of anything besides a few taxes!!!
Lib50 - other than not believing that redistribution of wealth will have any long term benefits for anyone
Not allowing the innovators to reap the benefits of their work and passing it down to their children or spending it on philanthropic endeavors.
Or having the government insist that they control us from the cradle to the grave
These are three things that immediately come to mind
As for the rest, why not wait and see what the house proposes for the FY 2012 budget.
The current $61 billion cut equates to just 0.4% of the 2010 economy or if you will, for someone earning $30000/yr that amounts to a cut of $120.
Upon intensive interrogation by congress last week bernanke (as reported by bloomberg tv) looked at the cut as maybe cutting jobs by 200000 and GDP by tenths. The funny thing about it all was that the democrats wanted him to agree to their higher numbers and the republicans to their lower numbers.
The really sad part of this all is that the democrats want to keep kicking the debt down the road and the republicans at least recognize the danger of such a debt load, but neither party wants to agree on a course of action.
Newsflash: 11 DEMOCRATS ABANDON REID.
Wow, guess these 11 Democrats didn't want the taxpayers to pay for "Reid's NV Rodeo".
The Senate majority is literally on the verge of implosion. Maybe the rest of the Democrats sitting on the fence will finally get wise. Oh, sorry.....the remaining Democrats all have tunnel vision and could care less about how much the Continuing Resolution is costing the taxpayers, and they certainly don't give a D.... about the National Deficit.
look folks i am 40 and know i will never see ss til i am 70 or above . stop all the bull and be honest . we need to stop all sudsidies have a falt tax so everyone who uses services pays for them. palnned parent hood needs to go so does npr sodoes pbs. get rid of fanny and freddie let the free markets do what they will. lets see we pay farmers not to grow and well the price of food rises. we pay dictators for oil instead of using ours and are surprised that muslims hate us. we need to stop policing the world bring homes the troops take care of our citizens first. if you want to be honest they actually be honest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Wait a second... if republicans recognized the danger of debt problem why in gods name would they cut taxes for the very wealthy.... That's not going to help the debt problem at all. Stop pretending that either party can see the danger of the debt problem because they don't. Republicans aren't willing to raise taxes to pay for things their constituents want and democrats aren't willing to cut spending for things they want. Trying to pretend that either party sees the upcoming disaster or is really doing anything about it shows incredible stupidity. If the GOP would have let the tax cuts expire on those making over 250k a year filing jointly and 200k filing single that would have saved around 1.1 Trillion over the next 10 years. This also wouldn't greatly effect services for the average person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Rich don't spend their tax breaks.... historically they save them so giving out tax breaks at the already low tax levels won't effect their spending habits. Business opportunities effect their spending habits which is far more dependent on a functioning middle class to buy things.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
doggysaywhat - obama made the proposal and the republicans accepted and the money flowed through the system and all of it was spent or invested
As for the wealthy not spending tax breaks that is a fallacy. I have never known anyone who would willingly let a pile of cash sit around doing nothing. Even in the cheapest case scenario when the wealthy deposit the extra cash in a savings account drawing 1% interest, the bank has to do something with that money to pay the depositer their 1% interest. The bank then loans that money back out at a rate to pay the depositor + pay the banks expenses + profit to the bank. That loaned money is now being spent in the economy.
Based on the budget woes that blue states have and what congress is doing, it appears that Dems are a large part of the problem when it comes to cutting the spending instead of being part of the solution.
They act like it's a personal insult to ask them to cut any spending. Read this blog and you'll see that statement is correct.
And they obviously don't care that their overspending is totally unfair to the tax-paying public who are punished with higher taxes to pay for the government's spendthrift ways.
For American, not spending the money from the tax break and saving it instead does very little to help with the overall problem of a crashing economy. We're talking about paying down the debt in the first place vs spending on tax breaks. Tax breaks for the low to middle class stimulates an economy far more then giving a tax break to the wealthy and having them deposit it into savings because a crashing economy makes banks re-evaluate who they give any loans too. If tax breaks for the wealthy worked out so well, then why has it been extremely difficult for small businesses to get loans over the past 2 years. Giving a tax break to the very wealthy did nothing to solve that because giving out a loan to a business is based upon the prospect of that business being in the black after some time to pay back the loan. It doesn't matter how much money the bank has in savings. They won't give out a loan unless they believe the person getting that loan for things such as a small business will pay it back with a successful business.
If you give out a tax break to the middle class, once again, small businesses will be able to become profitable because people buy things from them. Banks will loan to small businesses because they see a chance for that small business to become successful and pay back the loan. This will not be effected by the wealthy getting or not getting their huge tax break. The bank will still base that loan on the survivability of that small business. This survivability depends on the middle class buying things from that business. This is stimulated by a tax break for the middle class, not the wealthy.
So, once again. Don't sit there and pretend Republicans give a damn about the national debt because the very first thing they did when they got power was to push through a measure that would increase the national debt over 1.1 Trillion over the next 10 years.
For Getalifevirginia. You should probably cite sources for something like that. Since you seem to be lazy about that, I'll do it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
mmm. Seems like the blue states are paying more then their fair share where you some of the red states at the very bottom.
Well, let's look at some of the federal expenditures vs. federal taxation.
Here's a nice source
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
Federal dollars spent vs. taxes received. Here are some highlights from 2005.
Cali-0.78 dollars spent per dollar taxed. Yeah those bastards, getting 3/4 of a dollar for every dollar taxed
Texas .94
New York .79
Tennesee 1.27
Virginia 1.51
So I guess that goes to show your statement about blue states being the large part of the problem is rather stupid.
I was waiting for the train at grand central last night and saw this boy maybe 10 or 11 years old. He had a big plastic garbage bag which was clear that it held most if not all of his belongings. It was slightly torn from being carried around. I think he was waiting for his mom who was in the bathroom. I looked at this kid and I got angry, I got angry cause all the republicans talk about having to cut spending and programs that affect someone like this kid. I got angry cause they howl at how they need to fix the deficit when their party are the ones who created it. I got angry cause they vilify this kid as being the problem.I got angry cause they are now back in power with the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I got angry cause they no longer call it trickle down economics they now call it tax cuts to help rich people spend more money. This little kid is not the problem. This little kid is not some loafer who is just living off the government hand outs. This little kid is poor. He's poor and its not his fault. And what are we doing about it? Telling him it's his fault and that we are going to give him even less. We are going to give him less teachers. Less affordable housing. Less kindness and understanding. I got angry cause I was once this kid and I know the struggles he faces and my country that I love seems to think he's expendable. They seem to think I was expendable.
I'm angry. I am that kid. We all at some point where that kid. And just cause we are doing ok and have a house and a little money doesnt mean that kid deserves less. It means we dig deep and reach out to that kid. Say, hey life sucks but we are here to help.
Instead that kid got up when his mom came out put his bag on his head and walked away. And I felt like crying.
dont fix the deficit on the back of the people who didnt cause it!!
Well said.
That's all the libs can do is drag out another sob story.
*Standing 'O' jorge*
The righties have never met a tax cut they could pass up, but, when it comes to taking care of the middle class & disadvantaged - it's all about I got MINE FU!
Jerry
You are a poor excuse for a human.
A lot like the free-loaders in this country who never pass up a handout. While 54% of us have to pay the bills. Freedom comes with some responsibility, you know, like taking care of your own well being. You are not entitled to someone else's money just because you think you are. This self absorbed, entitlement mentality that you demonstrate is what is destroying this country. A helping hand is one thing, but enabling someone is another.
And if Planned Parenthood's funding had been higher, that kid might never have been born.
jorge, what a surprise a liberal bleeding heart from New York City. New York State has piled up a massive amount of debt. Even a democratic governor can see there is a problem. You seem to want New York to tax its citizens until no one has anything. Great plan.
Know what makes mess angry, gorge?
The fact that that kid is still in the custody of a parent who cannot or will not provide basic care- shelter, food, clothing- for him.
That liberals, such as yourself, find his circumstances something to EXPLOIT, rather than ameliorate.
That you have made it possible for a kid like that to live in the chaotic world he inhabits- because his mother's rights surpass his.
Thatnis what makes me angry.
Oh. Along with the sanctimony of the left. That does not reLly make me angry though.
It makes me sick.
The President was in Boston yesterday proposing a new Education Department Agency at the cost of $90,000 million dollars for the first year to develop classroom gadgets.
Why? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but why?
jorge sanchez -
That you faced these same struggles and obstacles and can still talk about "my country that I love" says a lot about your character. It's good to know that at some point there was someone in your life who realized that you were anything but expendable and dug deep and reached out to you. Thank you for sharing your story.
Elaine...
just ..making a point. All the Dems do is find some case of sadness to drag before us and say that's why we need to spend all this money we don't have.
NoJoe: "The fact that that kid is still in the custody of a parent who cannot or will not provide basic care- shelter, food, clothing- for him."
There's a huge difference between "can not" and "will not", NoJoe. And I guess recognizing that difference is sort of the huge difference between us.
Thanks for sharing that story, Jorge---a real human face on hard times.
No Joe and others like her will suggest that it is solely the fault of the homeless. Instead of being grateful for their own blessings, they blame those who are less fortunate for whatever reason. I wouldn't want their karma, for sure.
Chris, did I read you right? Did you actually just say we should have given Planned Parenthood more money so the kid could have been aborted? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that callous.
Jorge, I don't think you will find many republicans who think that child should be in the circumstances he is. Obviously the kid didn't ask for the position he is in and every opportunity should be afforded to the child to get out of that circumstance. Frankly the opportunity for help needs to extend to his mother, too, so that she can get a leg up. Those who put forth the effort and still can't rise above the hand life has dealt them have never and will never be the people the majority of republican voters feel should without help. I've never heard ANYONE say someone doesn't deserve a hand UP. The problem comes in when we have generation after generation of people who make no effort to help themselves, they just sit and wait for the hand out.
jorge,
Thank You.
These Republicans are heart less BASTARDS.
History for 500 points;
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Acedia
Despair
Wrath
Envy
Pride
Vainglory
Suzy,
"Did you actually just say we should have given Planned Parenthood more money so the kid could have been aborted? I have a hard time believing anyone could be that callous."
And there's is the misinformation in that story!! Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are connected with abortions! 97% of its services are for contraception & family planning, immunizations, cancer screenings and woman's health problems! This little boy's mother might have chosen to to wait to have a child when she could have supported one, if there was more access to services like Planned Parenthood. De-funding Planned Parenthood, it is estimated by the Guttmacher Institute, will result in a million unplanned pregnancies and many many abortions! If conservatives really want to curtail and stop abortions then doing away with contraceptives & family planning clinics is NOT the way!
LoL Reminds me, perversely, of a song --
"The seven deadly virtues, those ghastly little traps
Oh no, my liege, they were not meant for me
Those seven deadly virtues were made for other chaps
Who love a life of failure and ennui
Take courage-now there's a sport
An invitation to the state of rigor mort
And purity-a noble yen
And very restful every now and then
I find humility means to be hurt
It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt
Honesty is fatal, it should be taboo
Diligence-a fate I would hate
If charity means giving, I give it to you
And fidelity is only for your mate
You'll never find a virtue unstatusing my quo or making my Beelzebubble burst
Let others take the high road, I will take the low
I cannot wait to rush in where angels fear to go
With all those seven deadly virtues free and happy little me has not been cursed"
Diane:
If conservatives really want to curtail and stop abortions then doing away with contraceptives & family planning clinics is NOT the way!
That's not what they want. Have you read THE HANDMAID'S TALE?
Should be funded by private money, just like NPR.
As a kid in the 60's I thought it was so wonderful for LBJ to declare a war on poverty. Everyones life would be elevated, no more hunger, shelter for all, etc. As I grew older the housing projects went up, jobs were created and people had shelter. As I grew even older many of the project dwellers didn't care at all about maintaining the housing or seeking employment or caring about birth control. They had government supplied housing, they had food stamps, they had welfare and they taught their kids how to do the same. as I grew older still and revisited the scenes of my youth the old projects were no longer there, but there were newer ones instead with newer tenants and signs of decay.
I thought back to the 60's and wondered what went so terribly wrong for I knew there were those that cared about improving their families lives, working multiple jobs so their kids would have better opportunities. I met many of them at my places of employment and listened to them tell of overcoming hardships.
Then I recalled what Jesus once told the multitudes "the poor you will have with you always" and I recalled another saying "give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime"
"the poor you will have with you always" could have been said by Socrates, Confucious, Buddha or Mohamid. Our well intentioned politicians (L or R) gave all this money away without asking or caring what the poor really wanted.
Many of you chose to express pity and sadness for the boy and his mother and many blamed a political party for their plight. I hope that the family jorge saw realized that their situation was only temporary and chose to overcome rather than give in to poverty and dispair.
Giving lasts but a day, teaching a lifetime.
For Jorge. Well.... at least you can take solace in the fact that instead of spending money to feed the kid, fund his schools, give him a chance of success in his life, we decided to give people making over 200k a year a tax break. They clearly didn't have enough in their savings. Why... it's a shame many of them could only afford 3 houses before... now they can buy 4.
For American2051576. Yeah.... how are you going to teach them if you don't fund teachers? And no... unfortunately for some kid in his position, it's not really temporary.... most of the time it's permanent... at least until he dies.
doggy say what - do you really think that you can legislate a redistribution of wealth to solve the poverty of the world? Our politicians have tried solving the poverty problem since the 60's and yet it still exists. The soviets tried it from the 20's to the 80's even changed after the 80's and poverty in russia still exists. The chinese tried it from the 50's until now and poverty in china still exist. Castro tried it in Cuba and still poverty exists. Poverty existed in Haiti before the earthquake in 2010 and after all the international aide poverty still exists there.
So, all of a sudden all our teachers have vanished? they all quit? I have five teachers in my family, two are in cleveland, two are in buffalo and one is in pennsylvania and they are all employed and enjoy teaching.
Baring some mental deficiency on the part of this young lad or his parents, opportunities will always exist. Will it be easy/ NO! but it will be possible. Sorry to see you so filled with selfpity.
It's not self pity, it's a reality. Self pity would indicate that I am in that position with I'm not. Physics college graduate going to grad school. I saw plenty of kids in poverty situations that were bright and talented and yes opportunities existed for them. The hard part is that 1 opportunity existed for about 1000 different kids. Yes they all had an "opportunity" but most of them ended up right back on the poverty line they came from.
Most of the kids in that position will be in that position until they die. Trying to pretend that a small chance of getting out of it means it's perfectly fine is the fallacy.
If you want to fix the education problem you need more funding for better teachers, not less funding. If you cut education funding schools will have little choice but to lay off teachers and increase class sizes. Teachers don't vanish, they become unemployed or switch careers.
Shut the Gov't down...so be it. Lay off all the union goons. C'mon Obama..come up with your next brilliant idea...make a speech.
No. Shut the Wars down. Shut down foreign nation building. Shut down the war on drugs.
Yes! Declare the ineffectual war on drugs a "tie" to save face and stop putting non-violent drug offenders in prison. Take all the money we save warehousing these non-violent criminals, and put it into schools, where we can help "pre-habilitate" people before they start doing the things that put them in prison.
You mean the 50% that graduate high school and many of college freshman have to take remedial english because high school did not prepare them for college?
What i would like to know, is most people think both wars should be ended. So I wonder why Obama won't end them. He could have ended them anytime prior to the elections this past november, when he controlled the house and the senate. So the question is, why didn't Obama end the wars? They needed not one Republican vote to end the wars, but what did they do, they extended the time the troops will be in Afganistan.
On another note, many people are upset about the happenings in Wisconsin, uhmmmmmmmmm since Federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights (thank you President Carter) why should state employees have them, and if it is so important for employees to have collective bargaining rights why hasn't President Obama issued an executive order for Federal Employees to have collective bargaining rights?
ghult - send all the druggies and pot smokers to mexico where they can live in the warmth of the sun. That way the drug suppliers can follow them south and cut down on travel times and smuggling
If the represenatives in Washington DC currently elected to pass a budget and run the country are unable to do so, then it is time to start a nationwide recall of them all. That includes the current President to the newist congressman and all cabinet members, and other appointed personel.
That's what a representative democracy is all about. Who would you put in their place? Why do you think anyone would agree with you?
#1 So far 3 agree with me and only you agree with yourself.
#2 This is not a Democracy, it's a Republic!
#3 Sorry ghult..... YOU LOSE
old pilot - No disrespect intended, but since you say you are old-pilot, remember this saying...
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots,
But there are no old, bold pilots.
Just curious.
Wow-
Bad news.
"Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations-our president-has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?"
-Senator Joe Manchin, (D-WV)-
Why, indeed?
When are you going to start leading on this issue, Mr. President?
On the same day elephants roost on trees.
Not before.
Want to stop the debt? Keep business moguls like Donald Trump from declaring bankrutpcy or using bankruptcy as a 'free card to get out of jail with'. Bankruptcy tactics may free the individual from their obligation's to pay but someone has to pay. Those that have to pay are American's. We pay for the elite's purposely created screw ups at the gas pumps, grocery store etc. Just so the wealthy can live debt free and rub it in our faces. "See what I have and how much I paid for it? No it's your debt to pay so I don't have to pay but still get to keep what I have."
This is an equal opportunity country. You must really love those who walked away from their mortgages right? Got any anger management issue Dhuth?
No surprise here. The senate having zero trustworthy behavior. No honesty, no transparency, can't deliver results on critical issues, cannot confront reality and never practice accountability. Sounds a whole lot like Obama doesn't it?
Actually, I 'd say you just described the 'dubya' to a tee.
Not delivering on critical issues? Health care, DADT...ring a bell.
I'm still waiting to catch Osama and find WMD and the real 'mission accomplished.' What are your complaints about accountability and delivering ANYTHING that was promised again?
How did that recovery summer work out for you? I bet you got one of those shovel ready jobs that cost 200,000. dollars apiece. Or maybe those 60 green jobs GE created. All the jobs in the Gulf that disappeared really helped the economy. Now after Obama's visit with the President of Mexico, independent truck drivers will join the workers from the Gulf. I get it, Obama only cares about jobs when they are union jobs or not involved in oil in a state he won't carry in an election. Think Obama will visit Gitmo? It is nice there this time of the year.
No surprise with this news. Did anyone really think that one of these bills would pass in the Senate?
The problem we have now with the politicians and the people in this country is they all have "Charlie Sheen Syndrome". Winning is everything. Doesn't matter if its right or wrong as long as your side wins.
Just read some of the braindead remarks written here. How is cutting 700,000 jobs going to help anyone. How is preventing women from getting birth control, mammograms, and healthcare check-ups going to cut the deficit? How will defending DOMA put money in your pocket? How is putting money in the pockets of the Koch suckers going to help you?
Everyone knew it would fail. I guess the main point was to emphasize the necessity for compromise, and hopefully Boehner understands his job a little better. Also of interest is the list of who voted for and against each bill.
BTW, am I the only one that was sort of relieved to see bills fail with less than 51% of the vote? I know they needed 60, but it's always so bizarre to see bills fail with a majority vote. At least this time they both fail-failed.
Clotho,
You're absolutely right. Everyone knew it would fail, but they wasted the time and our dollars posturing for their constituency. In the meantime every GOP candidate is calling for us to go into Libya unilaterally, and Palin even suggests we might have to put troops on the ground. I finally realize what the GOPs plan is for creating new jobs. The military and the military industrial complex.
Although I think we should, with other countries institute a no fly zone with other countries as Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people.
Lastly, I'm so tired of hearing everyone who is currently poor and without, as being slothful. Look at the number of people who have lost their jobs and their homes. Where do you think they are? Until you've walked a mile in their shoes don't assume you know where they're path has been. BTW, by the grace of God I'm not one of them. I've worked my entire life, have an advanced degree and own my home, but one major medical catastrophic illness could wipe me out, as it could any of the self-righteous "I did it all myself" people on this board unless you have an extra million tucked away for a rainy day. What if you develop cancer or MS and can't work, have a serious accident and end up a quad. These things happen to real people every single day. Just count your blessings and stop judging.
Democrats are silly (empathetic, optimistic dreamers) - Republicans are stupid (cold, selfish "I got mine, S***w you!" mentality).....I'll take silly every day and twice on sunday!
The year is 2011. Obama is the President. They put Obama's picture up in all the federal building. It is about time he took responsibility for his own actions. It is about time those of you who seem to want to bring up the past need to see what is happening today. The lastest polls show his support from Independents is now at 37%. 63% of all Americans believe he is taking the country in the wrong direction. If he wants to win reelection he needs to start leading and stop dividing the country.
As opposed to Obama, who increased spending and cut taxes at the same time....Reagan authorized tax increases to pay for the spending he authorized.
and you defend Obama and bash reagan....no wonder you are a libby
?
Maxwell's: If he raised the taxes to support his spending, how come he tripled the deficit in his two terms?
I guess taking out a loan counts as raising taxes in Maxwell's mind.
Good so we got the votes on the record, now lets negotiate a deal.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is going to introduce a bill for a 4 % tax surcharge on top 2% earners that the Senate should pass.
Then we take back the 46 billion given to big oil and cut 10% defense spending cuts in which some these cuts would mean that we cut off the ties to Halliburton, as far as having then providing over priced military services.
This will be a great start as far as getting serious with cutting spending.
I won't consider either side as 'getting tough on spending' until I see a 20% cut in spending - including entitlements.
That is exactly what has to happen.
I continue to read these vines and find myself ready to hurl every time I tumble accros certain posters, (the folks on the right and left know who they are). It seems the answer to the current budget impasse is somewhere in the middle, and in the details of what gets cut and how much. maybe the process the Senate is using will get us to it, but untill both sides understand the need to come to a middle ground and figure out that working with the other side is not an admission of party treason, or a sign of gross weakness, we are not getting anywhere.
So can we do two things at once; figure out a cutting scheme that won't cause more pain than we are in now, and build a plan for future spending/tax plan that fixes both sides of the budget for the long term. and please cut the crap of calling each other names and making snide comments about race, tea partyers and the like (and don't call my president by anything other than his name) .. they don't help and just get in the way.
I have a suggestion for your 'delicate stomach' - If you don't like to read conservative ideas, then stay off the vine and you won't have to read them.
Tammy where are your ideas, other than cutting off your nose to spite your face (which in some cases might not be a bad idea, but usually doesn't work out too well) . if your fix is cutting everything in the 12% of the budget we are talking about, that can't fix the whole problem, if you are talking about cutting another $100 Billion out of the rest of the budget, deal with the folks who claim our defense would suffer too much, if you want to stop borrowing funds from Social Security or cut benefits from that - (I don't even want to think about who is going to come after you for that) but as you might be able to tell, every ox has a sponsor, and every sponsor has a good reason to keep some of the money for some program that is needed by someone. but sooner or later every ox needs to be bled a little for the whole to survive. Including taxes on those that can afford it.
Across the board cuts in everything of 20% - including entitlements, DOD, EVERYTHING. This would at least get us back to 2008-2009 levels. It's not enough, but it would be a start. We really need to get down to around the 50% of current spending levels area so that we could actually start paying on the principal of the debt.
Only after serious cuts would I consider a tax increase - and then only to pay down principal on the debt.
Smitty - I side with you and choose to push back on the extremists.
How's this for a start at fixing the fiscal problems. Return the budget to the last budget level that actually passed and was signed into law, then cut 1% from every department. Add back the top end tax bracket increases at half the rate the congress actually produces the cuts in each and every subsequent year. In other words, force the congress to cut spending and match them .50 on the dollar year over year. At some point you will reach the Clinton era tax rates, but the spending cuts should continue until the budget is balanced. It will take many years but will not be as disruptive. The annual spend must actually go down year over year while allowing the economy to recover and generate new revenues.
The key is moderation in the cuts and only increase the taxes to match the previous years budget cuts. Simply stated, the Congress gets an allowance for every dollar they cut, they get .50 in new taxes up to the cherished Clinton era rates.
And the final thing that must go along or it will not work. No new government programs of any kind that cost money, unless the money comes from an existing cut.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone would propose to stop giving tax credits to people who pay zero federal income tax? This jealousy and attitude that you are entitled and deserve the fruit of someone else's labor is pure socialism. I want what somebody else has. What a way to go through life in a country where you had the same opportunity that I had and all you can do is cry foul. By the way Bernie Sanders fits right in with your way of thinking. Ask him to redistribute his wealth. Ask him why Obama care is not good enough for him. Ask him if he is willing to reduce his fat government pension when he leaves office. Hehas you fooled that he care about you. What a joke.
Why don't we just take away those darn union rights and cut pay for firemen, policemen and teachers? What do they do to deserve a middle class life? Don't raise taxes on the top 2%. That will take away jobs. Didn't you all hear about the "tinkle down" theory during Reagan's reign?
Oh, Republicans already are pushing for this. Sorry.
Tony please learn to be quiet. you embarrass your self.
Because I disagree with you? Thats the spirit. Only your voice counts and should be heard.
No - I suggest this because most of the time you sound like a spoiled child who is not making any real point except how mad you are. --angry and stupid is no way to go through life son, ok you aren't stupid, I'll admit that, but you aren't making a difference either, can you say in any of your latest posting that you provided a path to a solution other than asking repetitive, rhetorical questions? if you thought you had the best answer that would be different (and I doubt that you do,) but I think somewhere deep down in side, you might have a partial idea that combined with another partial idea (like maybe one of mine, or some others) might make a difference, and turn a light bulb on, but otherwise you are just a cry in a dark place that is all heat and no light.
For your information my dad was a working man. Very big family, not much in terms of material things. He taught me self reliance. He taught me self respect. He taught me to make something of myself and be proud of my accomplishments. Spoiled child? I think not. Yes, I have an issue with people that think they deserve what I have worked for all my life. I earned the right to voice my opinoin and I will continue to do so whether you like it or not. My dad served in WWII with the BIG RED ONE. I served in Vietnam. I earned the right to speak my mind. You or any other liberal will never slience me. I make a few bucks in my life and you or anyone else is not entitled to it. Your condescending tone and comment son is offensive.
Let me get this straight, Eric Cantor thinks that the President should give the Republican led House a spending plan for the 2011 budget? Well what happened to all the new ideas coming from the newly elected house; like coming to Washington to kick the h--- out of it, or no funds for education, or getting rid of Veteran Affairs, or the entitlement programs or why not ask Boehner? After all he is the House leader.
Let me get you straight. Democrats did not and would not pass a budget for 2011. They did not want the American people to see the deficit they were racking up. given the elections in Nov 2010. Straight now?
Perhaps the $50 billion/month the war cost us that BUSH placed outside of the budget led us down this path. Too bad elected officials didn't spend the last two years trying to work together instead of grandstanding at every opportunity.
The CROOKED GOP Grandstanding and blocking 240 bills in the Senate that would have lessoned the BUSH GREAT RECESSION.
And how many of them would Reid not even allow to be debated because he didn't even have the votes inhis own party to pass them? How many nominations has he held up?
FYI - A threatened filibuster is not an actual filibuster. The fact is, Reid wouldn't have gotten cloture even from his own party on most of those bills. Want another try at justifying Reid's intransigence?
If we quite giving WELFARE tax breaks to the MEGA RICH, BOOM-PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
Do you understand that all the belly ache over taxes only generates 700 Billion in tax revenues over ten years. That is less than just the proposed budget deficit from the administration for 2012. Not even close to solving the problem. In fact it represents less than 10% of the problem. Try a new screen name. Reality Not!
They got the vote in and nothing has been accomplished again. Do they really think people don't know what they are doing? Our country is tanking and yesterday the big news was "Cowboy Poetry Festival" and today it is styrofoam cups. We have got to get this bunch out of there..
2012,2014,2016...... CAN'T GET HERE SOON ENOUGH, the GOP/TEABAGGERS are TOAST!!!
The left & right are beating each other up over the bread crumbs. Only 12% of our budget does not come from Medicare, Social Security, defense and debt repayment. How long can congress, and I'm talking BOTH parties, ignore the three 800 lb. gorillas in the room? There's plenty of bloat (duplication, fraud, waste, etc.) that can be cut from Medicare, Social Security, defense with little or no compromise to what they provide for us. Congress needs to grow a pair and start some serious discussions about these third-rail issues or we will never get out of debt.
Here's the bottom line: Because of a decade of tax cuts, wars and the worst economy since the late 70's/early 80's (or the great depression depending on what economist you listen to) our federal government has amassed a budget deficit not seen since WW2.
Conservatives: Admit YOUR party had a larger part in the cause of this crisis because the GOP cut revenue and increased spending dramatically during W's 2 terms.
Liberals: Admit you kept the debt snowball rolling with stimulas, even MORE tax cuts and spendy reforms under Barry O.
Every adult with a high school education knows just how important and needed a strong central government is. This libertarian non-sense about cutting Dept. of Education, Federal Reserve, ect. is just bitter political theory. On the flip side, no, the federal government should not be regulating things that the states can on their own.
Having said that, the only way to balance the budget is through Budget Cuts to Military Spending, discretionary spending and Medicaid. Social Security and Medicare must be reformed by raising the retirement age and adjusting the income requirement, respectively. While ALSO raising revenue by cutting tax breaks for giant corporations and letting the Bush tax cuts sunset for those w/ income over 1,000,000.
Simple as that. The rest is just noise.
Hey teebagee
Obama cut taxes and increased spending...and you wonder why he set a RECORD with the most deficit spending in 1 month.
In fact Feb 2011 had more deficit spending than ALL of 2007.
The fact is that this country was not supposed to have a strong centralized government. The federal government is responsible for the defense of this country and interstate (and international) commerce. That's it. Nothing else falls under the purview of the federal government as per the Constitution. This was done so that we wouldn't end up like European countries with their centralized governments and monarchies.
The responsibilities and the rights of the federal government are limited to what the states grant as per the 10th Amendment - although the federal government has long been overstepping its authority.
The Dems proposed cutting less that one days worth at current deficit spending rates.
How to grow the economy, remain competitive, and eliminate the deficit:
1. Legislatively remove the anti-trust exemption for insurance, The McCarran-Ferguson Act.
2.. Legislatively restrict the wetlands definition of "navigable waters of the United States in the Clean Water Act.
3. Fund and begin construction of power generation and water supply projects necessary to meet future population and industrial demands.
4. Remove all geographic restrictions on oil and natural gas drilling, and use the power of federal money transfers to the States to prevent States and local governments from interfering with drilling.
5.. Remove environmental restrictions and environmental and social impact requirements for all infrastructure and utility construction for the next 10 years.
6.Cut Federal budget by 10% excluding defense, starting with those duplicative items identified in the 3/1 GAO report, however, maintain current spending for infrastructure construction, repair and upgrade for the next 5 years. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
7. Reduce corporate tax rates by 50%. Reduce Corporate tax rates by 70% on private utilities and transport companies.
8. Reinstitute significant tax and assistance payments for residential and commercial alternative energy instillations, particularly focusing on residential solar. Use Commerce Clause to force all electrical utilities to be reverse metering.
9. Subsidies the further development of electric and hybrid electric cars. Provide significant tax breaks and incentives for the purchase of same, particularly when combined with the purchase of a residential solar instillation within two years of one another. This is no longer a simple market issue, but one of national security as the time to substitution is longer than the economy can withstand when confronted with a supply side shock
10. Eliminate the Ethanol subsidy for any and all processes using foodstuffs. Redirect monies to nuclear and coal. Streamline regulation of new construction of nuclear power plants and provide incentives for same. Open Yucca Mountain as originally agreed.
11. Eliminate any power of the EPA to regulate Carbon.
12. Use the power of the Federal purse to eviscerate Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) and Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002),
13. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.
14. Hold congressional investigations into the roll of the Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie and Fannie in inflating demand and thus prices resulting in the collapse of the real estate market.
15. Build a wall embedded with sensors and toped with razor wire along both our borders, beginning with the southern one. In the name of national security remove all environmental restrictions and environmental and social impact requirements for the construction of same.
16 Pass legislation that all jurisdictions receiving federal monies of any sort are required to enforce all of the laws of the land, including enforcement of federal immigration laws.
17. Restrict the collective bargaining power of State civil service unions in line with the 1978 Federal Civil Service Reform Act
18. Scrap the tax code and adopt a flat-tax that will build the size of the pie (and thus tax revenues) for everyone instead of the Obama class warfare of trying to redistribute a shrinking one.
Won't work, DE-REGULATION is what got us in this fix in the first place, NICE TRY THO
15. Build a wall embedded with sensors and toped with razor wire along both our borders, beginning with the southern one. In the name of national security remove all environmental restrictions and environmental and social impact requirements for the construction of same.
???
Whoa buddy, I was with ya until that..."wall embedded with sensors and topped with razor wire"?! Yeah, SUPER way to cut spending....
Tea -
It would help to keep the illegals out - or can't you figure that out?
I think a chain link fence on either end of a mine field would do the trick. Same as we use to protect military installations. (After all, it is an invasion no matter how inhumane.)
During a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget.
In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.
"There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can't double-count," said Shimkus. "You can't count — they're attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare."
He continued: "Then you're also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can't do both. […] What's the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?
Sebelius' reply? "Both."
While the numb nuts senate play there political games the real losers are the american taxpayer. When will the congress, senate and manchild prez understand that the money they are spending is not theres its the american taxpayers. If you can not find a 10% cut in the 3 trillion plus budget we have a serious problem. To put it bluntly lead follow are get the hell out of the way dingy harry, cheerleader polosi and no b@ll$ Odumbo. How in the hell did we manage to elect this idiots.
You need to LOOK IN THE MIRROR CLOWN. I would bet you voted for Bush not only once but TWICE.
I vote for niether. They both suck. Obama's inexperience is killing this nation. The health care mess alone will bank rupt the middle class. Especially sinse we will be the only ones paying for it. What is it now 1000 plus waivers. Nice bill Demo's.
The tax cut is starting to creat a few jobs I see. Nice force Repubs. As for cuts, all areas must be cut evenly, then more should be cut from pork areas. Military, sorry guys if you have to wait another year for that billion dollar fighter. Welfare must be addressed, what a mess, almost as big a one as the health care bill. SS should not be used for disabled, It is for retirement. Welfare should be used for the disabled. Tax reform has to be implimented. Minimum taxes for citizens and Corporations. NO Loop holes. Universal Care should be implimented one payer system that Congress has to use. Just some thoughts that I will be voting for in 2012.
Independent and working very hard to repeal Obama and that health care mess.