Could one of the FR lefty liberals please explain the following Obamath to me??

1. The current national debt is $14.3 trillion.
2. Barry is running annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
3. They are talking about reducing the deficit by a total of $1 to $4 trillion over the next 10-12 years.
4. That means the remaining annual deficits will add about $6 or $8 or $10 trillion to the national debt in the next 10-12 years.

And THIS will be Barry’s claim of fiscal responsibility that should earn him a second term??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From MSDNC.com:

President Barack Obama prodded Congress Tuesday to make a deal within the next two weeks on raising the nation's borrowing limit, and he said he was summoning leaders of both parties to the White House this week to try to get it done.

Obama said he opposed any effort to "kick the can down the road" with a short-term increase, as suggested by some lawmakers — though he stopped short of ruling that out. He reiterated his position that any deal must include not only spending cuts but also new revenue — tax increases already ruled out by Republicans.

"We need to come together over the next two weeks to reach a deal that reduces the deficit and upholds the full faith and credit of the United States government and the credit of the American people," Obama said at the White House.

Poor Mark Halperin...suspended by MSNBC for being too crass.

One is left to ponder how it's possible to be too crass at the network that employs Ed Schultz.

In any event...

Will the MSNBC brass hold Chris Matthews to the same standard of civil discourse it applied to Halperin?

Good morning Feisty

I'm happy to discuss these issues at the White House, but such discussions will be fruitless until the President recognizes economic and legislative reality.

SorrY Johhnie - we don't negotiate with terrorists - foreign OR Domestic!

Sure hope President Obama is reviewing the 14th Amendment!

So do I

House Speaker John Boehner says "The American people are worried about our economy, and our future. More than two years after the start of Washington Democrats' 'stimulus' spending spree, they're still asking, 'where are the jobs?'

If by "negotiations," you mean, an agreement where the President get to echo back to John Boehner STFU and go to work on a JOBS plan.

I'd love it

Judge Joe:

And THIS will be Barry’s claim of fiscal responsibility that should earn him a second term??

As opposed to what? The Ryan "plan"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely.

Good morning, your honor. Just popping in to say hello.

On vacation this week ... things to do ... gotta "get it done."

See everyone later, I hope. :-)

There is no longer time for a "big deal" as Obama puts it. If "anything over $2 trillion in cuts (+taxes?) over 10 years would fit that definition", that would require that more time be taken to to adjust the tax rates and exemptions (ie., tax reform). A process like that, if done correctly and with the countries economics (and not politics) in mind would take 6-12 months. You can't just slap something together at the last minute and expect it to work (see 2009 Reinvestment and Recovery Act for details on how damaging poorly done and political driven legislation can be to the country).

The Republicans put their plan out early, and instead of countering it with their own plan, the Democrats wasted months to demagogue the Republican plan. The Democrats still have no plan, none that they'll vote on, and none that will pass the Democratically led Senate.

So Obama once again leaves things to the last minute and then slaps together something that blows up in his face. You don't have to look further than the last minute extension of the Bush, and now Obama, tax cuts that were passed last December, at the last possible moment, so see how incompetent Obama is at figuring out a budget.

Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!

Nothing but Crazy Talk

Republicans Sucks Because they want Government Shutdown:

10 Inconvenient Truths About the Debt Ceiling to consider:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-inconvenient-truths-about-debt-ceiling

House Speaker John Boehner says "The American people are worried about our economy, and our future. More than two years after the start of Washington Democrats' 'stimulus' spending spree, they're still asking, 'where are the jobs?'

If by "negotiations," you mean, an agreement where the President get to echo back to John Boehner STFU and go to work on a JOBS plan.

Fox News alerted the Secret Service to the tweets, and will actively work with the ongoing investigation. Fox News is also working closely with Twitter to appropriately investigate the incident.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/05/secret-service-probes-hacking-fox-news-twitter-feed/#ixzz1RKiwsQ4c

And FAKE NEWS is FAKE NEWS. FAKE NEWS will call Brietbart, another HACKER, fast to investigate the Hacker; even if there is not really a HACKER. But, I'll bet FAKE NEWS aka FOX NEWS given the chance will spin this story.

Looks like dangerfield was right.

President Obama has been flushed out on the debt ceiling.

Fully flushed.

They've finally gotten his attention...and, not a moment too soon, if the matter is as urgent as everyone insists.

Job1-

Ending the Bush tax cuts would almost certainly result in another recession.

President Obama has no intention of ending the Bush tax cuts.

Joe I can 'splain it to ya.

The Republicans bankrupted our country, and now they are trying to blame it all on the President.

It ain't working though.

The Democrats aren't so much desperate as they are disorganized. Wasn't this the week that Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan had this "mystery plan" that he was going to reveal for the budget and debt ceiling? Wasn't Harry Reid going to keep the Senate in session this holiday week to work on the budget (but instead worked on Libya). So now both the Dorgan and Reid plans are being abandoned with Obama now having yet another summit at the White House. So don't the Democrats talk? They obviously don't plan. And the media of course just ignores these pratfalls by Obama and the Democrats. Obama seems to be using the Three Stooges business methodology in running the government.

@Job1

Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!

1. They are no longer the Bush tax cuts. They were passed by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

2. The tax cuts if revoked are estimated to raise revenues by 400B per year. the current deficit is estimated at 1.3T. That is a gap of 900B.

Isn't it the left that claim the right has the low information voters? Isn't the left that claims you can have your own opinions but not your own facts? Isn't it the left that claims if you repeat something often enough doesn't make it true? Are you indeed a member or the left or do you just post lies?

Mixed Bag:

Fully flushed.

Bag Boy made a funny. Sung to the tune of "Bag Boy Made a Funny"

and, not a moment too soon,

Indeed. Better late than never.

Mixed Bag-- We can't end the Bush tax cuts. Why, because they are creating so many jobs? Give me a break.

Alan:

You are really grasping at straws now.

lol

Job1-

Ending the Bush tax cuts would almost certainly result in another recession.

President Obama has no intention of ending the Bush tax cuts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Republicans were hostage takers and forced the Bush tax cuts on the President. Their dirty tricks are going to end.

MB: President Obama has been flushed out on the debt ceiling.

Obama is now in the open for all to see. No more hiding out on all the east coast golf courses and at all your fund raisers anymore Obama, now you'll actually need to do something, stake out a position, and once again forsake your base voters. Better get your spin machine in order Obama, the media won't cover for you forever.

GOP/TP keeps saying that President Obama made the recession worse but when questioned on this they can offer not real proof that is the case. In fact they try to deny they said it or walk it back. WHY?? Because they are wrong - again. A lot of right wing BS but no valid reports from leading economists of note that even comes close to their point. A lot of Rhetoric from the usual sources, but nothing else.

The GOP/TP Presidential candidates keep talking "Fiscal Responsibility" but when their records are examined more closely Romney, T- Paw and Perry are nothing more the scam artists using accounting tricks and outright lies to make them selves look good.

They do not tell you that they move budget issues down the road for the next administration to deal with, or how they used the stimulus money, they they did not want, to shore up their own Budget short falls. They do not tell you that as governor only 3 states had a worse job record than him.

Romney, T-Paw and Perry are liars and scan artists using smoke and mirrors to cloud their rather dubious records. Google these guys and check them out. Way too much info to put up here, so go look for yourself.

Sure hope President Obama is reviewing the 14th Amendment!

So do I

____________________________________

I find it Hillaryous that lefty liberals are asserting that our Constitutional law professor President might have the authority to issue debt without Congressional approval. Below is the relevant text of the 14th Amendment. Gee, what do the FR lefty liberals think the phrase "authorized by law" means??

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

No, Tom.

President Obama won't end the Bush tax cuts because his stimulus package has largely failed, and as a result, the economy is currently tracking along at less than a 2% growth rate...and may be slowing further.

He won't dare take that much revenue out of the pockets of American consumers with a resulting double-dip recession virtually assured.

Stop listening to what President Obama says, Tom.

Instead, watch what he does.

Nashville_fan

Alan:

You are really grasping at straws now.

lol

Why? Is my math wrong somewhere?

Nashville_fan

Joe I can 'splain it to ya.

The Republicans bankrupted our country, and now they are trying to blame it all on the President.

It ain't working though.

All politicians, not just Republicans bankrupted our country. Who voted for Medicare D - all Republicans or was the Lion of the Senate involved? Who voted for Iraq? Just Republicans or did the current and possible future Secretary of State vote for war? You really want me to Google the list of Democrats who voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? I know it was a Democratically controlled congress that voted for them in 2010. Take the blinkers off and understand this debt crisis was a bi-partisan effort.

Joe in Albany had a great line yesterday when he said he hoped FR conservatives had a happy Independence Day and FR liberals a happy Gov’t Dependence Day.

Pretty good Joe, and so true when you think about.

Independence, freedom? What would the Founding Dads think about us today when we don’t even have the freedom to chose what light bulb we can use? What would they say about the feds telling us what toilet to buy?

Freedom? The feds telling an American company they can’t build a new plant in South Carolina?

Of course ‘ole Joe was probably inferring a welfare state that depends on the federal government for everything, a gov't that treats the people like a big baby......... Hey Joe, maybe instead of Dependance Day, it should be Depends Days, Navy would like that. .......

Anyway ...... everyone is still flush with the pride of great the firework shows and we can leave that for another day.

In the spirit of we are all Ameicans ….

Seems Feisty was talking about firing up the gas grill, coleslaw, beer-can chicken and Mohitos (Really, I always pictured her as more of a Bud girl – sitting in a lawn chair wearing a hat made of knitted together Budwieser cans ...... learn something everyday).

Anyway in recognition of proud, unabashed defense for Obama and his policies, it makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Obama’s economic policies will leave our economy resembling something pretty much like a smoked, dead, yard bird with that can he kept kicking the road up its azz…..

Obama’s Afghan policy pretty much has the consistency of coleslaw…..

And Obama’s foreign policy, especially regarding Iran getting the bomb? How to describe that?

Tell ya what …… next year - pull out the gas grill, (make sure you have a full tank), fire up the grill on High, then on one side place your coleslaw, beer-can-chicken and anything else you want making sure to keep it on one side.

When everything is in there, take the gas tank and place it on the other side of the grill and close the lid.

Grab your mohito, hop on the lid (you can sit on it Feisty), take a sip and say ….. YES WE CAN!

Feisty ……… fired up and ready to go ……

Anybody else disgusted with the Republican rhetoric?

Pawlenty: "I commend the Republicans in the Legislature for sticking to their guns, even when politicians of the past call for old-fashioned high tax and spend solutions."

His home state is facing a crisis and he exploits the situation by turning it into an opportunity to wax partisan. What a "leader" what a "problem solver," what a dope.

job1:

amazing how they keep forgetting how they used the tax cuts as a hostage tactic: just like they are doing now for the debt ceiling - using the tax cuts to hold this country hostage until they get what they want.

same old same old - lies, denials and more lies. blame everybody else for what in fact (the gop/tp) is doing.

Joe:

"Authorized by law" means that all those bills that the Republicans ran up by passing stuff they had no way to pay for? That was them authorizing it to be paid for.

Duh

Alan:

Your math is great, your logic . . . eh. Oh, and this just in, if you suggest something and get other folks to vote for it, it doesn't change the fact that it was your dumb idea to start with. So if you are REALLY going with . . . yeah, we had a stupid idea . . . but we convinced ya'll to go along with it . . . then we are back to my original comment . . . you are grasping at straws. That is like Bernie Madoff pointing out that his victims willingly "invested" with him Alan. Geez.

bob is not a narcissist. He just really, really, really likes to read what he writes. :o)

job1: Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!

Eliminating the Obama tax cut extentsion for the so called "rich" will bring in about $70 billion a year. If Obama and the Democrats want to go further and eliminate the Obama tax cut extension on the all middle class taxpayers, that will bring in an additional $370 billion a year in taxes. The deficit this year is $1.5 trillion dollars, so as you can see $1.5 trillion - $370 billion - $70 billion does not equal 0.

JoAnnaSmith1

You can't just slap something together at the last minute and expect it to work (see 2009 Reinvestment and Recovery Act for details on how damaging poorly done and political driven legislation can be to the country).

LADY SNIFF

The dangers to the economy of default are real, and Republicans are giving people the very real impression ( see Minnesota) that they wouldn’t mind shutting the government down. As Chris Matthews said last night in the "et me finish" segment they think it would hurt the president.

The Republicans put their plan out early, and instead of countering it with their own plan, the Democrats wasted months to demagogue the Republican plan. The Democrats still have no plan, none that they'll vote on, and none that will pass the Democratically led Senate.

That is not a plan. It is republican "crazy talk" and it is pointless. It would make the deficit situation worse.

Oh, and this just in, if you suggest something and get other folks to vote for it, it doesn't change the fact that it was your dumb idea to start with. So if you are REALLY going with . . . yeah, we had a stupid idea . . . but we convinced ya'll to go along with it . . . then we are back to my original comment . . . you are grasping at straws. That is like Bernie Madoff pointing out that his victims willingly "invested" with him Alan. Geez.

I have no idea what you are trying to say above. You seem to think I am part of the we being the Republicans. 'Fraid not. I just want some fiscal sanity from government. As I've said many times Bush was a fiscal disaster. What I can't believe is that Obama was all about "Change" and all we are getting is more of Bush.

Isn't it funny how these phony conservatives keep telling us that their tax breaks won't add up to enough to help the economy . . . but they won't just give them up? I mean, hell, its chump change, right? So why not just give it back?

ROTFLMAO

Really, Navy?

You agree with Job1?

With the economy staggering along with a growth rate below 2%, you want to take more than $400 billion a year out of the pockets of American consumers, and out of this economy?

Because, that's exactly what would happen if the Bush-era tax cuts were repealed.

You may believe that's a nifty idea, less than 16 months out from the 2012 presidential election.

I guarantee you that President Obama disagrees.

"Authorized by law" means that all those bills that the Republicans ran up by passing stuff they had no way to pay for? That was them authorizing it to be paid for.

Duh

_______________________________________________

As I expected, the lefty liberal in this response does NOT understand the meaning of the phrase "authorized by law" as it is used in the 14th Amendment. Go back and re-read it slowly and maybe you will see that this phrase is referring to the "validity of the public debt", not spending bills passed by Congress as you assert above.

Duh

Mixed Bag

President Obama won't end the Bush tax cuts because his stimulus package has largely failed, and as a result, the economy is currently tracking along at less than a 2% growth rate...and may be slowing further.

If Bag claims the stimulus failed, then we've no choice to accept his word. Economists like Republican Mark Zandi have said the stimulus largely worked, but what do they know compared to the all-knowing Bag?

Good morning, Houston.

A sub-2% growth rate and 12 straight weeks of new jobless claims above the number associated with payroll growth is what it is.

You can believe Mark Zandi...or, you can believe your own lying eyes.

Your choice.

How about you, Houston...

Do you want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, or are you with President Obama on this one?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-white-house-salaries-soar.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/white-house-salaries/

Maybe he needs to address his own house before chastising others.

Feisty says .....

Sure hope President Obama is reviewing the 14th Amendment!

Dear Lord,

Please help President Obama to lack the understanding of the Constitution .....

the cowardice to think that the 14th is a back door for his political will .....

the arrogance to disregard the Congress .....

the stupidity to not realize the political back lash ......

and the narcissism to think he can get away with it ......

wait a minute ........ he already has all that stuff ...... never mind Lord ......

Go Obama!

Yes You Can!

NF: Oh, and this just in, if you suggest something and get other folks to vote for it, it doesn't change the fact that it was your dumb idea to start with. So if you are REALLY going with . . . yeah, we had a stupid idea . . . but we convinced ya'll to go along with it . . . then we are back to my original comment . . . you are grasping at straws. That is like Bernie Madoff pointing out that his victims willingly "invested" with him Alan. Geez.

Alan: I have no idea what you are trying to say above. You seem to think I am part of the we being the Republicans. 'Fraid not. I just want some fiscal sanity from government. As I've said many times Bush was a fiscal disaster. What I can't believe is that Obama was all about "Change" and all we are getting is more of Bush.

Nash continues on her quest to defend anything Obama. Gosh even the Ryan Budget, the one called DRACONIAN by every liberal, is nothing but a band-aid on the economy. More is needed, and leadership is needed to provide a solution. The GOP has shown their hand, they did so months ago, signing on to the Ryan Budget.

The Democrats and Obama have yet to do take a position on anything, instead just suggesting something here and something there to fix the economy. The Democrats latest whine is that the "Republicans must accept tax increases". Rather then say what the Republicans need to do, maybe the Democrats should propose and legislate something of what they want to do. I know, too much trouble, and it leaves them open to criticism. It's easier for the Dems just to be posers rather than legislators.

I see the new Conservative talking point is "we have the President right where we want him." A laughable premise, which Speaker Boehner obviously understands. Clearly he realizes 1) that President Obama MEANT IT when he said he wouldn't allow the GOPTP to fundamentally change the nature of America, and 2) Republicans don't stand a chance of being reelected if they shut down the federal government.

That would be understood by nearly everyone if it weren't for all the locoweed tea being consumed by the Conservative movement. T-Paw is up with ads in Iowa BRAGGING that he shut down the government in Minnesota. The Republican budget of Paul Ryan is further evidence that this isn't about fiscal responsibility.

It's about eliminating the social safety net.

It's about eliminating any expectation that average Americans can expect any services from government.

It's about establishing a Laissez-Faire, fully deregulated environment in which Caveat Emptor is the ONLY rule.

It's about establishing a new American aristocracy, one in which the wealthy elites rule in the way Conservatives see as natural.

Alan:

I'm trying to say that this is not a "both sides" problem.

This is a "conservative financial policies did not work" problem.

And saying that Democrats voted for policies that did not work does nothing to getting us closer to policies that will. And saying that the Bush tax cuts that Republicans DEMANDED be extended, or else they would tell the unemployed in this country to DROP DEAD (we can't afford unemployment, but we CAN afford to tax cuts, and no one in the media that they own has a problem with it) are now the "Obama tax cuts" doesn't change the fact that the boondoggle we were sold "tax cuts create jobs" simply is not true.

So you can continue to say you want "fiscal sanity", but the reality is, you turn a blind eye to the fact that the policies Republicans are proposing simply haven't worked, and yet they keep proposing them again and again. And you don't say a word about that.

How do we create good jobs and invest in a sustainable future for America and our kids?

Check this out:

http://contract.rebuildthedream.com/

And this:

U.S. Job Creation Index Highest Since September 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's Job Creation Index was at +15 in June. While this does not differ much from the +14 of May or the +13 of April, it is the highest since September 2008's +16.

The Job Creation Index has increased steadily if marginally in 2011. This continues a pattern that began after the Index matched its low point of -5 in April 2009, and is consistent with the improvement in the overall U.S. job situation over the past couple of years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148379/Job-Creation-Index-Highest-September-2008.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Americas%20-%20Business%20-%20USA

______________________________________

I don't think the right wing (teaparty crowd) is popular overall in this country. I think they got into office by people (Democrats) not voting in the midterms. President Obama has to deal with whoever we elected into office.

We did a lousy job in the midterms. Horrible job getting the vote out.

We have to all get into gear and work to GOTV next year. John Boehner, Eric Cantor and friends obviously don't want to do a responsible job of fixing our economy.

btw, have they presented a Jobs Bill yet since they won?

MB -- here are some economists who believe as you and I. Sort of better than citing a bitter ex-employee.

"The “’stimulus’ is not the road to economic recovery. It’s the problem, not the solution, writes Nobel Prize winning economist Vernon L. Smith.” Other Nobel Laureates like Gary Becker have also criticized the stimulus package. 200 economists signed a statement publicly opposing the stimulus package in an ad published in the Washington Post and New York Times."

Also from the same article:

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron explains why the $800 billion stimulus package failed in a recent article.

What’s interesting about Dr. Miron’s critique is that he shows how the stimulus was a failure even if you take for granted liberal assumptions about economic policy (such as Keynesian economic theory), since it was so badly designed and executed that it failed to achieve its goals, spending wastefully while failing to revive the economy. Indeed, the stimulus was so poorly tailored to the economy (and the goal of reducing unemployment) that Miron concludes that it was designed to reward politically connected “constituencies” and special-interest groups, like public-employee unions, rather than being focused on ”economic stimulus.”

Other Harvard economics professors like Robert Barro have also criticized the stimulus package. Barro called it “the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s.” Former Obama economic advisor Martin Feldstein, a Harvard professor who is a big believer in stimulus packages in principle, said that the stimulus designed by Obama and congressional Democrats was “poorly done”

Much stimulus money has been wasted. It has gone to prisoners and dead people, wasteful welfare spending, abandoned bridges to nowhere, and unnecessary government buildings. The stimulus subsidized foreign green jobs and wiped out jobs in America’s export sector.

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/10/31/harvards-jeffrey-miron-explains-why-the-stimulus-package-failed/

Cleaning up some of the leftovers from yesterday:

David Walker wrote yesterday ….

As far as the CRA lie that will not die, check bob lotsanumbers post wherein he writes of CRA as government interference in free markets. That’s an outright crock. Wow, there’s a first, a steaming pile of BS from bob lotsanumbers! All the government said in CRA is that red-lining is illegal – nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field.

You are aware that there have been numerous changes to the CRA, right? You are aware that these changes, say in 1992 effected Fannie and Freddie, the 2 GSEs that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing, right?

That’s not government interference in the free markets? What’s a crock?

Attempt to level the playing field?

Duh.

Yea, they leveled the playing field ….. those that couldn’t afford their house, could by buy the house the same as the people who could afford their house.

Regardless, I’ve always placed most of the blame on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Regarding my steaming piles ….. I noticed you devoted time to correcting me for flippantly saying “promised” instead of “projected” regarding Obama’s 8% unemployment / stimulus stuff.I appreciate it. But, how come you can’t correct anything else? Some of those piles, especially regarding the economic collapse, have been very long, full of facts and stats that are certainly easy to refute, no?

I guess not. Libs certainly would if they could.

But I’m just wasting my time.

At least you know how pointless it is trying to refute the facts and truth.

You guys just want to argue.

Actually we just want to get it right. (No more of the Bush tax rates and his 2 wars caused the recession crap.)

Big banking created the hole we are in, but it was big government that bought the shovel and handed it to them - it is big government that ultimately caused the economic collapse.

People need to understand that ……. We can’t afford to get the next election wrong.

Mixed Bag

A sub-2% growth rate and 12 straight weeks of new jobless claims above the number associated with payroll growth is what it is.

You can believe Mark Zandi...or, you can believe your lying eyes.

What I don't have to believe is Bag's dishonest attempt to conflate the effects of the stimulus with the pace of the recovery. The stimulus clearly ended the Bush Recession by turning the contraction of the economy that defines a recession into an economic expansion. The anemic pace of the recovery is due to a lot of factors that Bag wants to pretend don't exist, like the Greek debt crisis, the disaster in Japan, and the instability in the Middle East -- and that the fact that stimulus should have been greater as Paul Krugman and other non-Bag experts have suggested.

And my OWN economy has recovered very nicely judging by the recovery in the value of my investments, which were trashed by Bush's corporate cronies in 2008 and have regained their value thanks in large part to Obama's policies.

"We did a lousy job in the midterms. Horrible job getting the vote out."

Then, there was the message and the record.

They didn't help, Pat.

They (GOP/TP) has nothing for the 98% of the people that live in this country. All they have is more lies and more lies and more lies.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired - #1.2

The G-NO-P and Tea-Baggies don't seem to care that the 98% pay for all social services and grow the economy either... I call the 98% that includes myself the working poor... smile :-)

So you can continue to say you want "fiscal sanity", but the reality is, you turn a blind eye to the fact that the policies Republicans are proposing simply haven't worked, and yet they keep proposing them again and again. And you don't say a word about that.

If you look a posts down you will see that I say tax increases are needed to get our fiscal house in order. I would start with the Ryan proposal to remove personal and corporate deductions and then we argue over the where the rates are set. SS and Medicare need to be reformed because of demographics. If the people want to retain the benefits as currently structured then tell them how much it will cost (not "If the rich pay a little more then we don't have to change medicare"). I would propose that the tax for Medicare and SS be adjusted on an annual basis to pay for the current needs, a bit like the way you pay real estate taxes. This way we would not build up a trust fund for either program that can be raided by politicians of either party.

Do I think the Republicans have the answers? No? The Ryan plan does not go far enough to cut the deficit or the debt, that is why revenue increases are required. However, it does propose to stop the insatiable spending and that at least is a starting point. Harry Reid can't find one cent to cut in the Federal Budget which is a ridiculous position.

So at the end the day Nash, I'm for increasing taxes. Can I ask what programs you would be willing to cut? Then we can see what the tax increase will have to be to make up the 1.3T difference.

Glad to hear that your own "personal" economy is tip-top, Houston.

I'm certain that was the primary focus of the Obama economic team.

Viewed in that context...you're correct.

The Obama stimulus was a roaring success.

The anemic pace of the recovery is due to a lot of factors that Bag wants to pretend don't exist, like the Greek debt crisis, the disaster in Japan, and the instability in the Middle East -- and that the stimulus should have been greater as Paul Krugman and other non-Bag experts have suggested.

So now we're into the excuse and hand-waving game of explaining Obama's failures. I guess Obama is responsible for nothing, because there appears to be an excuse from the Liberals for his every failure.

But of course there are no excuses from the Liberals for Bush. To the Liberals 9/11 was Bush's fault, Katrina was Bush's fault, the housing market plunge was Bush's fault.

It's time the Liberals started admitting that Obama just isn't the greatest President ever.

If we want to cut the national deficit, we can. The Republicans REFUSE TO BUDGE ON WHO SHOULD MAKE THE SACRIFICES. OF COURSE IT'S WE THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT CREATE THIS MESS.

Think Progress:

The top 25 hedge fund managers in the United States collectively earned $22 billion last year, and yet they have their own cushy set of tax rules. If they operated under the same rules that apply to other people — police officers, for example, or teachers — the country could cut its national deficit by as much as $44 billion in the next ten years.

That may seem like a lot of revenue to raise from just a few people, but it’s simply what would happen if the income hedge fund managers receive to manage other people’s money was treated the same as income earned by other workers. Economist Robert Reich estimates that closing the hedge fund loophole could raise as much as $20 billion a year in revenue, overall.

It would take the combined income of 441,000 middle-class families to equal the income made by just the 25 richest hedge fund managers. The top hedge fund manager at the moment, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, yet the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to avoid default and an economic catastrophe.

__________________________________________

Never again. How many times have we heard that? Does it mean anything?

We see what the GOP is doing all across this country but there seems to be a sort of looking the other way by just about everybody in DC. It's how anti-semitism was able to grow in leaps and bounds across Europe.

Never again when WWII ended we have heard. Yet what happened to the Nazi's who committed those crimes? They got passports from the Vatican/Red Cross and sailed to So. America, America, the Middle East. Some of them became American spies to help us spy on the Russians. Imagine that.

Some of them just returned to their old jobs in Germany. Just like that.

It's happening again with those who caused our country to almost destroy itself.

The rich just keep getting away with whatever the hell they want. And our government just looks the other way.

It's nothing new.

Alan:'

Why do you use GOP talking points so much? Not becoming. It is ridiculous of you to continue to perpetuate the media narrative that "Republicans are for spending cuts" when it is Republicans who spent us into this bloody mess. It is Republicans who took us to two unpaid for wars and simultaneously CUT revenue with tax cuts. And you blame all of that on Harry Reid? Seriously?

In what other sector of the world could you completely $#@% something up to the breaking point, and then appoint yourself as the expert on how to fix it Alan?

I mean, we have a political party in this country telling us that if we follow the Constitution, that is narcissism, Alan. And you give me "both sides" pablum.

It's just too much.

Why do you use GOP talking points so much? Not becoming. It is ridiculous of you to continue to perpetuate the media narrative that "Republicans are for spending cuts" when it is Republicans who spent us into this bloody mess. It is Republicans who took us to two unpaid for wars and simultaneously CUT revenue with tax cuts. And you blame all of that on Harry Reid? Seriously?

I don't blame Harry Reid for two wars and and the tax cuts (except in 2010) but I do blame him now as he is a leadership position and has proposed NOTHING to deal with this issue. BTW the wars are no more unpaid for than the 800B stimulus you love to defend. All were paid for through borrowing.

BTW Being so anti Republican you would then be on the side of cuts, as you point out above they should not be trusted to implement them. So I'll ask again, what would you cut to close the deficit and by extension we can see how much in tax increases you would need.

Mixed Bag:

Do you want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, or are you with President Obama on this one?

I'm only part of the way on that one. The middle class tax cut extension is probably needed, but the upper income tax cut extension is obviously useless. Corporate profits have been soaring during the Obama presidency, but new hiring anywhere near in proportion to the higher profits has not resulted. Why would taking away their tax breaks make any difference?

@Pat -- How do you explain this? Me thinks to democrats are bought.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/largest-hedge-fund-donors-show-bipartisan-support-democrats/story?id=10425809

Alan:

Let me be real clear: the corporate people PURCHASED the Congress AND Supreme Court and they have RAPED and PILLAGED this country.

For you to equate a stimulus bill that provided EMERGENCY RELIEF to the American people after they were violently ASSAULTED by THIEVES who BANKRUPTED this country with banking schemes as being equal to starting a WAR based on LIES is just patently RIDICULOUS.

President Obama is doing what he HAD to do to help the American people. And for you to now pretend that he created the stimulus just for the hell of it because he likes "spending" is just the worst kind of political bullsh!t.

Same as a certain non-narcissitic poster here likes to pretend that all the corporate first bills just past the Congress by magic, not because the corporations BUY Congresscritters.

Enough of the foolishness Alan. Seriously. Phony conservative economic policies bankrupted this nation. And now you want to blame President Obama for not picking up the pieces fast enough, all while the same jackholes who $#@#ed everything up tell lies and obstruct?

No deal Alan.

Alan you do realize the Ryan plan adds over 6 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. It does not balance the budget as you would have us believe. Do some research before you post instead of listening to Ryan's lies. You really think he's going to tell you the truth about his medicare ending budget? If you do you are really a sheep following the heard.

Ben, thanks.

Going to be sending a few emails today. To both parties.

Government of the people?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

@Mo-681314

This is what I wrote:

Do I think the Republicans have the answers? No? The Ryan plan does not go far enough to cut the deficit or the debt, that is why revenue increases are required. However, it does propose to stop the insatiable spending and that at least is a starting point. Harry Reid can't find one cent to cut in the Federal Budget which is a ridiculous position.

This is what you wrote:

Alan you do realize the Ryan plan adds over 6 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. It does not balance the budget as you would have us believe. Do some research before you post instead of listening to Ryan's lies. You really think he's going to tell you the truth about his medicare ending budget? If you do you are really a sheep following the heard.

Once you can comprehend English we will have a discussion.

Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!

They became the obama tax cuts on Dec, 6, 2010 when they renewed by obama.

Nashville_fan

Alan:

Let me be real clear: the corporate people PURCHASED the Congress AND Supreme Court and they have RAPED and PILLAGED this country.

For you to equate a stimulus bill that provided EMERGENCY RELIEF to the American people after they were violently ASSAULTED by THIEVES who BANKRUPTED this country with banking schemes as being equal to starting a WAR based on LIES is just patently RIDICULOUS.

President Obama is doing what he HAD to do to help the American people. And for you to now pretend that he created the stimulus just for the hell of it because he likes "spending" is just the worst kind of political bullsh!t.

Same as a certain non-narcissitic poster here likes to pretend that all the corporate first bills just past the Congress by magic, not because the corporations BUY Congresscritters.

Enough of the foolishness Alan. Seriously. Phony conservative economic policies bankrupted this nation. And now you want to blame President Obama for not picking up the pieces fast enough, all while the same jackholes who $#@#ed everything up tell lies and obstruct?

No deal Alan.

1. What makes you think the President is immune to being purchased by the Corporate world? All those little donations? BS!

2. The stimulus no more provided relief to the people of the country as it did to the political allies of the President. Is this your plan to get the country on its feet? As mush as I think the Bush policies put us here the Obama policies have provided NO relief. 280K per job SAVED?

3. Phony conservative policies did get us here as Bush was no conservative, and neither were his enablers in Congress over the eight years of his presidency.

4. So what is the statute of limitations on the Obama Administration? When does responsibility kick in? Obviously in your mind its not two years. One term? Or do we have to wait until he's had his eight years and then, maybe, he will actually be responsible for something. You say I don't think his policies are have fixed the problem. I don't think you find one person here who does, but do I think his policies are moving us in the right direction? I don't see it.

Bush or Obama, what's the difference? Policies are the same, it's just the letter after their name.

I would like to ask a few simple questions to the liberal fiscal policy posters. Instead of throwing flames for a second at whose fault it is, what morons each of the respective politicians are etc, I assume you also think we have a debt problem. I know where all of you stand on the tax increase side of the equation to raise revenue to close the gap. But we all know that wont solve the issue completely. So for purposes of this post, can we discuss the spending side. Instead of making broad generalizations of the horrors of spending cuts and making outlandish embellishments of what the republicans want to do like they hate women or education etc like Navy does, I would love to hear what spending cuts the liberal fiscal policy people are advocating. Lets start with the concept that from 2000 on, each of the budgets we are proposing to cut have grown way beyond the rate of inflation or the rate of revenue increase to the government over that time, so cuts to social programs may still leave budgets on an absolute basis greater than they were with inflationary increases. But my questions are

1) Do any of you advocate cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare or Social Security and if not why and if so, are there any proposed revisions to these plans out there by democrats or economists that you like?

2) Do you advocate any cuts to any other government programs in social services, education, government pension, payroll in the post office etc? Even if the cuts were to the slow the rate of growth?

I am not trying to stir the pot as I am more interested in what the fiscal policy positions on spending for liberal posters? Instead of rhetoric, I would like to understand the specifics

I just read the entire page of comments and shook my head. It's like no one heard the news for the last 2 and half years.

First, Obama stated yesterday that he was willing to cut Medicare by $100 billion, as a start. It's not just the Republicans that want to cut Medicare is it? Not one person here, you know the ones that were screaming that the GOP was trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly for the benefit of big corporations mentioned it. Strange.

Claire McCaskill, Democrat, said on Hardball last night that we can't afford to pay for prescription drugs anymore..."we're broke and we never should have passed the legislation anyway". So much for that social entitlement. Again, not just the GOP.

President Obama extended the dreaded Bush Tax cuts for 2 years. Both Houses of Congress passed it and he could have vetoed it. Not just the GOP.

As for the conspiracy theorists that keep spouting the nonsense about the GOP wanting to destroy this country...yeah, that's what they want, they want to destroy the US of America and take control of a bankrupt country. Yep, the voters won't blame them...just the Democrats, right. There will be no country as we know it if that happens and both parties know it. It is in everyone's best interest to resolve this on a long term basis.

Obama inherited this economy from Bush and, sometime about a year ago, the economists (whoever they are) declared the recession over. Let the recovery begin.

The problem is this has been a recovery that has benefited the rich and left the middle class behind. No job growth and high unemployment, GNP on the decline, declining housing prices, foreclosures continuing, tight credit, high gas prices ....most of the problems of the Bush administration still there. For the rich, the stock market has recovered, there was an extension of the Bush tax cuts for 2 years, corporate profits in the multi-billions...virtually no change from the Bush years.

Yes, Obama inherited the economy but he has not yet figured out how to fix it. The stimulus did not work as expected. There have been no new ideas coming from the WH.

Yet, we still have people here calling the GOP the "party of obstruction".

Let's look at the legislative record. The vote on the Obama budget was 97 to 0. Every member of the Senate voted against it. Obama said that the cuts did not go deep enough and he would put forth another budget. Still waiting.

What other recovery plan or job legislation has the President put forth that was defeated by Congressional vote? I honestly can't think of any.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major legislation since the stimulus that addresses the economy.

The GOP has blocked a lot of legislation but I don't remember any concerning jobs.

In the minds of the the people that count, the voters, he owns this economy due to his failure to make the significant fixes to it he promised.

So stop blaming the GOP and Bush and start placing part of the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the shoulders of the President who, in 2 1/2 years has not figured out how to stimulate economic growth, grow jobs and jump start the economy.

Not only can’t the Teapubicans add and subtract they are counting on the rest of America to be mathematically challenged and morally bankrupt.

How else to explain their reasoning that we can balance the budget and bring down the debt without additional revenue; when the Congress and assorted Republican presidents have spent us into oblivion and are now mad at President Obama because he hasn’t fixed the mess.

To boot, they have decided to allow the country to default so that Obama can take the blame for the country’s demise. They hate the man so much they would rather see the country fail than see him succeed.

That is some scary isht! And we are afraid of the Taliban.

The Republicans are more frightening than a *#&*%

boatload of Somali pirates!!!

Joe in Albany

Sure hope President Obama is reviewing the 14th Amendment!

So do I

____________________________________

I find it Hillaryous that lefty liberals are asserting that our Constitutional law professor President might have the authority to issue debt without Congressional approval. Below is the relevant text of the 14th Amendment. Gee, what do the FR lefty liberals think the phrase "authorized by law" means??

Phony T-baggers and Republicans like you have no freakin idea WTF you are doing except to sabotage this President.

You JOE in Albany need to get away from the FOX-fication you've been subjected to.

You can fool some people sometimes
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light,
We gonna stand up for our rights!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuMlHdxiIZ8&feature=related

You don’t know, couldn’t know, how glad I am to present to you the facts:

You see, the 14th Amendment itself was a response to southern conservative attempts to duck from taxes to pay the nation’s debt in the aftermath of the civil war.

The Lincoln administration had borrowed freely to finance the war machine. As Reconstruction dawned, white Southerners complained bitterly that they would now be taxed to repay the funds that had been borrowed to defeat their cause. “What, ruin us, and then make us help pay the cost of our own whipping?” one asked a Northern journalist in 1865. “I reckon not.”

Southerners were used to having their way in Congress–they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861–and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation’s IOUs.

Section Four was the response; its language is extraordinary. First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its “validity … shall not be questioned.” Only one other section of the Constitution–the Thirteenth Amendment’s proclamation that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”–is as unqualified and sweeping.

Second, it suggests a broad definition of the national debt: “…including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion.”

From this language, it’s not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients–pensioners, that is–above the vagaries of Congressional politics. These debts have to be paid, the argument would be, in full, on time, without question. If Congress won’t pay them, then the executive must.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/obamas-big-leverage-un.html

@Kirk and Ira

Get ready to duck!

I dont disagree that all politicians are "supported" by large corporate interests but why do the liberal posters think its only republicans and the evil corporations only sponsor republicans? GE? Obama's biggest supporters in Chicago are the billionare Pritzker family and of course Buffett. When he was a local politician he was great friends with Tony Rezco the fixer of chicago politics. Besides the unions, large hedge fund owners, GE and large evil corporations where huge supporters of his. By the way, I am not saying thats bad, its just that all politicians are supported by the companies especially ones from their district. We need to stop pointing fingers on this issue because its not a party issue

Ira and Alan:

Hope this helps your memory, Ira.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/republicans-block-bill-to-aid-small-business/

You say the President has not "figured out" how to fix the economy. Who has Ira? Again I ask, what is the proper way to eat a turd sandwich? Who in the GOP has a better way? You can blame whomever you want.

But I am trying to get to an actual SOLUTION. And "tax cuts" and "deregulate" ain't a solution.

Get it?

You have problems that have been brewing for DECADES, and then you pretend like President Obama should have had it all solved, when in fact we have a complete disfunctional and non-reality based Congress who actually had to do their damn jobs before we can move forward.

And Kirk?

I am open to ANY ideas, but it seems to me that it would be COMMON SENSE to start with the folks who have PROFITED from BILKING the American people instead of starting with those who got BILKED.

Maybe that is just me.

With apologies, I thought my post was deleted from page 1 and I posted it again on page 2.

Again, apologies.

Pat,

I hate to tell but September 2008 was the PEAK of the recession.

In other words, after almost 3 years and trillions spent, Obama's job creation index just now equals where it was the peak - everything other month under Obama, his job creation index is worse than the job creation index at the peak of the recession.

Well that doesn't look as good as it did before, does it.

Your 25 hedgefund guys?

Good point!

Just think, by July 6, 2423, they will have paid off the principal on Obama's debt for this year.

Nashville_fan..

You say the President has not "figured out" how to fix the economy. Who has Ira?

There are lots of ideas, like the Obama appointed Debt Commission which he has chosen to ignore. Besides, he's the President, it's his job not mine or yours. That's what he was elected to do.

Do the 'Rich' pay their fair share of taxes?

Out of curiosity (not personal experience, unfortunately) I decided to figure out how much a 'Rich' person would pay in taxes over their lifetime. For a self employed person who earns taxable income of $1 Million per year for 50 years, lives in California, saves half of their after-tax income and invests it at 5% interest, and is subject to the new tax rates starting in 2013, pays payroll taxes on all of their income, and then dies - here are the results;

Total Earned Income = $50,000,000

Total Taxes Paid

Federal Income Taxes = $24,774,000

State Income Taxes = $ 6,624,000

Payroll Taxes = $ 7,038,000

Sales Taxes = $ 1,827,000

Estate Taxes = $ 5,356,000

Total Taxes Paid = $45,619,000 = 91.3% of total earned income

I guess everyone has to decide for themselves whether they pay enough.

Ira:

So basically, you don't really care about reality. You just want to carp and complain.

Cool.

President Obama is bad. He should use his President magic to solve our problems. He should force the Congress to pass the debt commission report with his laser vision.

That is what he was elected to do.

P.S. Let us all observe a moment of silence to lament the plight of the rich in the country. Roy Wilson has pointed out that they are being abused mercilessly . . . it must be stopped . . . poor babies.

Good grief.

Ira Lapin

There are lots of ideas, like the Obama appointed Debt Commission which he has chosen to ignore.

Obama has NOT ignored the debt commission's recommendations. That's why he's been agreeing to spending cuts. The debt commission also recommended revenue increases, but it's the Republicans who are irresponsibly blocking all revenue increases.

Besides, he's the President, it's his job not mine or yours. That's what he was elected to do.

While corporations have been whining about Obama being their "enemy", they've actually seen their profits soar during Obama's tenure in office in large part because of his policies. The trouble is, Obama doesn't have the power to force big businesses to stop sitting on their big fat assets and start hiring. Whether you think it's a conspiracy theory or not, the Republicans are in fact benefiting from the failure of corporate America to increase hiring in proportion to their increased profits. And in the long run, corporations benefit, too, by getting a Republican president and Congress elected who will repeal of all those burdensome regulations that prevent business from making even larger profits at the expense of everyone else.

Nashville, Ira has some valid points in his posts and both parties share the blame. Pointing the fingers and showing who is to blame isnt going to solve it. But so far no one has responded to my post and it seems like when you sit down and try to actually talk specifics with the liberal posters on this board, thats when things get tough and no one wants to actually have a conversation. I promise I want call you or anyone any personal names but lets actually discuss spending cuts. You say, the people who have bilked or profited from this? Who are these people and are you only again addressing the revenue side? I am willing to discuss the revenue side in another post where we can discuss taxes but lets stick to spending in this post so propose some cuts. Spending has to be reduced to levels of revenue the government brings in and to pay our interest on the debt. To do that we need to bring down the level of spending increases? I want to know what the liberal policy position on fiscal matters is?

Nashville_fan

First, the President has ignored the debt commission report. There is no forcing anyone to pass it, he's totally ignored it. There has been zero legislation presented to congress on any portion of the report. It's not magic BUT it is a plan that cuts expenses, raises revenue and encourages economic growth.

Have you read it? You might find it enlightening. If you haven't how can you dismiss it out of hand and deride the comment with a comment like.."He should force the Congress to pass the debt commission report with his laser vision."

Let me suggest you join the discussion with Piertro on page 2 instead of saying I don't care about it. That's just being disingenuous and completely wrong.

Kirk

If I am not mistaken, the President and the Democrats in Congress have ALREADY agreed to billions in cuts. Also, there were cuts made as a part of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

So for you to pretend like a good place for you and I to start a "conversation" about the debt/deficit is MORE cuts is just a little cute, no?

I must of looked over the part where you indicated how we were going to raise revenue, and how you feel it is justifed to extend tax cuts that were designed to expire even though we can't afford it.

So yeah, I don't have time to play the "specifics" game this fine morning. I "specifically" know that most of the folks here who want to "debate" the issues actually want to have everything their way because they just know that they are right.

So be right Kirk. Just don't propose that we keep repeating the same stuff that created the problem as the solution.

Ira,

Great comments today.

BTW - Pretty sure their only legislation has been the re-newal of the Patriot Act.

More Bush, huh?

From this language, it’s not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients–pensioners, that is–above the vagaries of Congressional politics. These debts have to be paid, the argument would be, in full, on time, without question. If Congress won’t pay them, then the executive must.

__________________________________________________________

Sounds like you believe in the Imperial Presidency a la Richard Nixon. I doubt you would even get one of the liberal justices' votes if this question were to go before the Supreme Court. It would clearly be a violatoin of the Constitution's separation of powers among three co-equal branches of govt.

Nashville, I dont know what the President and others have agreed to cut. What I am asking is what specific spending cuts are the liberal posters on this board in favor of? How would they deal with entitlements, defense, social services etc? I really wasnt trying to be cute as I really would like to know what suggestions or the starting point. Yes I am definitely willing to discuss revenue and I did address it so you did misread it. I have no problem discussing tax increases and revenue but for purposes of this post, I wanted to limited it to how we are all going to address spending.

Kirk:

Perhaps I stuttered. I am not going to list out what spending cuts I am in favor of. You know why Kirk? Because we cannot address this problem with spending cuts alone. Now if you are really concerned about it, you can use your time to find out what spending cuts have been proposed/agreed to by Democrats in Congress.

You are using the same technique in your posts that the right always uses to "negotiate". You decide the topic. You decide the parameters of the debate. You ignore the questions asked of you.

Nice talking to ya Kirk.

@Feisty - you have violated internet protocol by accusing MSM of being pro-right wing. Charges of media bias are the exclusiv e domain of right wing nut jobs - please remember to adhere to this rule in the future.

Ira:

You and Pietro have a fine discussion. You told me all I need to know with your "you aren't President" crack.

Indeed you aren't.

Holler at me when you can identify enough votes in Congress to pass the Debt Commission report Ira. Or is that President Obama's job too?

Nash-

It's possible that President Obama's Debt Commission Plan will never have enough votes to pass both Houses of Congress.

But it certainly will NEVER pass without President Obama's vigorous endorsement and use of the presidential bully pulpit to advocate for its passage.

So...

What's he waiting for?

Mixed Bag:

He is waiting for Mitt Romney to be elected President. Then we will all be free.

Free of taxes. Free of reality. Free to do as we please without the gubment interfering, unless of course we need them to clean up some oil or bail us out after we $#@# up again.

Hope that helps.

Seriously, Nash?

That's the best response you can offer on the President's unwillingness to sign off on the Plan submitted by his debt commission?

I'm surprised.

I thought you'd do better than that.

That was pathetic, Nash.

I guess that means you don't understand it either.

Nashville, I actually was serious and wasnt trying to rile you up at all or use some negotiating tactic. I really was just asking. I have addressed my tax increase opinion in other posts and I am all for it and I realize both sides of the equation need to be addressed. I think we need a simpler fairer and yes progressive tax system. I hate all kinds of social engineering in the tax code so I want all deductions removed and no more welfare for people just because they have children or buy a house or deductions for whatever which party in congress is in power wants to reward whether it be unions or real estate hedge fund managers. I think everyone should pay into our income tax system above a certain poverty line etc. I am fairly certain that we could increase tax revenue and reduce rates in a very progressive system in which we dont have any loopholes so I am all for increasing taxes but everyone needs to be part of the ownership society. But spending needs to be addressed and it doesnt matter whether you like the proposals but the republicans have put spending cuts on the table. I think the democrats should too but my question was more philosophical in that none of the liberal posters on here ever make a stand and say lets cut this or that. We have to start somewhere and thats all I was asking

Mixed Bag:

Actually, it means you have shown your true colors and it ain't too pretty. And also, who said that the Debt Commission proposal was all that and a bag of chips in the first place? If I am not mistaken, isn't that the same Debt Commission that Republicans supported, until the President said he agreed, and then they voted against the very thing they had sponsored? So then the President used his Executive authority to create a commission, and now you want to trot that out as the President abdicating his responsibility, when there wouldn't have even been a freaking commission if the President did not create it?

Like I said, your slip is showing, and it is raggedy.

@ JOb1

How much money will be raised by ending the Bush tax cuts. I was under the impression that it is 70B per year. Last article I read was that if you took 100% of the income from every billionaire it would almost pay for the spending in Washington. My concern is that if you "tax the rich" and it does nothing, what is the next step? Tax them more? When that doesn't work, what is the next plan?

Your post is very irresponsible.

Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!

Nashville, what did President Obama do after the release of the debt commission report to push the findings through congress? What democrat party (which he is the defacto leader of) bill contains the findings of the commission?

Seems to me if it was a real priority for him, like health care reform, he would be using the bully pulpit to demand that the panel findings be implemented.

Dear Book 'em:

That is the most original post I have read today. Read what I wrote to Mixed Bag, that is the official response to GOP talking point 1,234,432.

Thank you.

Ultimately by solving the wrong problem, the real problem will surface. And to me that is the basic economy.

1. Job creation through balance trade (today China raised interest rates to reduce economic growth momentum.)
2. Increase revenue sources. Tax the upper 2%,
3. but don't forget to consider taxing capital gains bringing in Buffet, Trump and more of the Uberwealthy.
4. And find a tax system that taxes our corporations, and encourages them to relocate their corporate headquarters back to the US.
5. And find some methodology to tax the 47% of those that don't pay tax to create some form of buy in, eliminating the social/class warfare we see today.
6. Balance spending with revenue predictions, and eliminate out of control year to year % increases that are not married to revenue.
7. Eliminate most, if not all loopholes.

Lastly, I am appalled at the Republicans who have blown the perfect chance, again, to try to push a fiscally responsible budget. They spent so much time trying to appease the far right fringe radical idiots that they forgot the other 95% of us, and the 80-85% in the middle.

Sorry that I hadn't re-freshed my screen while reading all of your drivel in which you, as usual, fail to address a question directly but rather deflect and employ ad hominem tactics.

For once, why don't you answer a direct question?

If you won't answer what has been proposed by democrats, then answer this. How much out of every dollar is the appropriate amount to take from someone?

Nash-

Eleven of the eighteen members of President Obama's debt commision voted to adopt its Plan;

Twelve of the members were serving in the House or Senate at the time of the vote;

Six of the commission members serving in Congress voted to adopt the Plan: Three Republicans, three Democrats.

Six of the commission members serving in Congress voted against adopting the Plan: Three Democrats, three Republicans.

You appear to be ill-informed about support for President Obama's debt commission, but I'm happy to help.

Republicans do indeed support the Plan submitted by the President's debt commission, as do Democrats.

Question is, how many votes are out there?

President Obama should be about finding out how many bipartisan votes in Congress there are for his debt commission's Plan, and working every day to get it through Congress and onto his desk for signing.

Again, Nash...why isn't he doing that?

Do you have a better answer than your last one?

For heavenssake...I certainly hope so.

Mixed Bag:

I do indeed have a better answer . . . go back to ignoring you.

Book 'em Danno:

I am sorry that you folks cannot do anything without President Obama's help. I really am. Oh well.

Mixed Bag

A sub-2% growth rate and 12 straight weeks of new jobless claims above the number associated with payroll growth is what it is.

You can believe Mark Zandi...or, you can believe your lying eyes.

OK, so we're in agreement that Mark Zandi is a smart guy and his opinion bears some weight. Let's see what else he said;

Mark Zandi, a prominent economic forecaster, says the US economy will gather steam in the second six months of 2011 – unless Congress fails to raise the government debt limit. In that case, “we go into recession, and my forecast would be blown out of the water,” he said Tuesday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters.

The chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, Dr. Zandi expects economic output to be growing at about a 4 percent rate by the end of 2011, versus 1.9 percent in the first three months of the year. “Weights on the economy are lifting,” he said, referring to diminishing effects of higher oil and food prices, as well as the impact of the Japanese tsunami on auto production.

Zandi remains wary of the return of high gas prices, he says, and thinks unemployment will fall slowly, but he remains cautiously optimistic about the overall economic recovery.

But Zandi's relatively upbeat outlook would change abruptly if Congress and the Obama administration fail to agree on a plan to raise the federal debt ceiling by August 2, requiring the government to dramatically curtail operations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0628/Top-economist-Raise-the-debt-ceiling-or-blow-the-recovery-out-of-the-water?cmpid=ema%3Anws%3ANjQxOTk3NTE1NQS2

Notice he DOESN'T say "unless we dismantle the social safety net" or "unless we cut spending exclusively, because we have a spending problem not a revenue problem." So when are Republican Conservatives going to stop using the debt ceiling in an attempt to impose their draconian plans upon everyone else?

This needs a balanced approach...spending reductions (in EVERY part of the budget) and revenue increases. EVERYONE understands that except the Tea Partiers who are holding the process hostage.

Why can't you answer a direct question, Nashville_Fan? What are you afraid of?

Ugh....lack of taxes isn't the problem and that is all Obama can talk about. Spending is the problem.

I have seen no seen zero spending cut measures. Obama has been talking about cutting over 10 years, but no specifics.

From an article on MSN today:

Negotiators for the Obama administration and Congress have discussed about $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years — about a 5 percent cut in total projected spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43647632/ns/politics/

Do the math on that. If 5% cuts equals 2.4 trillion, at the current rate, the government plans to spend $48 trillion over the next 10 years.

Repeal all the tax cuts and the governement gets an additional 3.4 trillion on top of the 22 trillion in current taxation.

Only in a liberal's world (Job1) does 48 trillion = 25 trillion.

By the way, what do you think the interest on an additional 23 trillion will be in 10 years?

No more projected savings, start cutting non-essential expenditures TODAY! Obama's budget for this year was $3.7 trillion....that needs to be cut by $1.4 trillion. If he can cut it by $1.2 trillion, reversing the tax cuts can generate the other $240 billion, but until that is done, the republicans shouldn't agree to anything.

Bookem,

As a fiscal conservative, I have to say that Nashville doesn't have to answer your direct question. This isn't about you vs. him and the points that either of you can/will score on a Wednesday after a holiday. This really is a forum about what we should do about the direction of our economy, and an opportunity to clearly and honestly submit the good points of both sides that the politicians ignore, simply for personal gain.

Although you and I may often share the same vote, I will side with Nashville in not answering your question. Taking left and right wing radio talking points and defending them are too often pointless, and very, very one sided. Such that when one runs with those points, and starts to believe in them they become no better than our fringe politicians, and will get to a point where they will listen to nothing that the other perspective presents.

Zandi remains wary of the return of high gas prices, he says, and thinks unemployment will fall slowly, but he remains cautiously optimistic about the overall economic recovery.

Zandi is also the one that stated that if we didn't approve TARP the sky would fall...and that without the Stimulus we would have gone bankrupt. Zandi is a follower of Keynes, who has never been proven to be right.

The fact that he still adheres to his statements that the economy is recovering just shows how out of touch with reality Zandi is.

LOL Look at the liberals insisting the sky is falling again if they aren't allowed to tax and spend anymore. Here's a fun fact: If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we won't default. Well, let me rephrase that....we don't HAVE to deffault, but Geitner will MAKE us default so he can say "Nyah nyah! Told ya so!".

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-us-wont-default-even-if-the-debt-ceiling-stays/

Democrats, party of defaulting and grandma going over cliffs since 2011!

LOL gotta love them scare tactics.

A message to Obama, the spineless one.

If you cave into the Republican't party and agree to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Disability and Medicare, we the people will see to it that you will be voted out of office in 2012 and you will become just another has been one term president who is quickly forgotten as a failure and as the man who made it possible for the Republican't party to throw Grandma into the street.

We will also vote out any Republican't and democrat who votes to end Social Security, Disability, medicare and medicaid.

Book 'em Danno:

I answer things that I have time to answer and/or that I feel merits an answer.

If you would like to flatter yourself by believing that I am afraid to answer, that works as well.

You cannot badger me into playing games with you. Find another way to entertain yourself.

Kirk,

Not sure if you would consider me a fiscally minded liberal and will admit straight forwardly I don't know how much savings specifically these would amount to. However to answer your post about cuts I think that cuts will have to be across the board. First and foremost I would look at the defense department which single handedly receives funding that each year surpases all other departments combined: education, environment, state, commerce, transportation, homeland security...

Call me naive but I belive we can discontinue most production of cold war weapon's systems. The creation of bunker buster nukes, new stealth bombers and aerial combat manned jets should be phased out as it appears we can begin to rely more on drones in our current war activities whether they be sanctioned or not. If our forces are in need of manned aerial combats then I think our current stock of jets should do. I believe we could cut our military based foot print in Europe and Asia. I would leave Iraq completely by end of 2011 and Afganistan by 2012. All said if we can agree that yearly the defense budget is nearly 700 to 750 billion dollars I think a reasonable amount of saving cuts could equal about 150 billion dollars annual - counting money saved due to lack of ops in Iraq and Afgan.

Second I believe that an all encompassing repeal of the Bush/Obama tax cuts be put in place. That would mean that we would be able to garner about $70 Billion from top 2% and another $400 billion from the remaining 98%. I disagree with liberals that repealing the tax cut extensions would solve our deficit issues.

Third I agree with some posters who think that the Debt Commission has to be championed by Obama. I can agree to some portions of it including removing the tax deduction for home mortgage. I believe that tax loopholes should be eliminated to enable more companies to pay a higher portion of taxes. The more economically inclined can shout about the rates but I would set them a bit higher than what they suggested.

Entitlement reform should include reducing the amount of pay out to seniors who are in upper to higher earning rates. I agree with the DC to increase the age of retirement, when people can begin drawing payments.

With the current for profit system with out a public option and little competition it the law IMO didn't do enough to combat rising costs. That said, perhaps some additional cuts needs to look at some of the HCR definitions of how many people can be covered. A while back I heard that some could claim coverage if they were more than 4 times the poverty rate.

I think some governement subsidies can be restricted or done away with such as the oil subsidies to oil companies, ethanol subsidies to farmers who use their corn/grain for the fuel.

Again not sure what all this will save an estimate, based on my liberal computation skills:

150 billion defense cuts, 450 billion for the tax cuts being repealed, savings from medicare 5% of $450 billion dollars or approximately $20 billion. ($600 billion total?)

I thought I read that savings in implementation of the DC has proposed that spending cuts would amount to about $3 trillion over 10 years and $1 trillion in more revenue.

1) Why dont you guys use the "Enter your response" box when you want to reply to the article. The "reply" button is to reply to a specific post. The post/person I want to reply to is 50 posts above the last "reply" button, making it virtually impossibe to reply. GOOD GRIEF!

Feisty, will you PLEASE knock it OFF with the embrassing facts??!!?? It gets the radical all confuzzled!

For my part, I think the the DEMs should bend no further. If the GOP wishes to vote to raise the debt ceiling, that's THEIR responsibility. If they decide NOT to raise the debt ceiling, and plunge the country into default and all the catatrophic results that entails, that is ALSO their responsibility! It's my position that if they do the latter, the country will NEVER forgive them! So, the ball is in the GOP's court. I predict a LOT of people are going to lose a LOT of money in the market as this drags on and the GOP will be blamed for that too---deservedly!

I think it's the height of hypocracy for the GOP to become deficit hawks when it was THEY who caused the problem to beging with, using their starve the beast strategy of cutting taxes for the rich and record deficit spending. Even today, Pres. Obama would NOT be dealing with such a record deficit had he not inherited it from bush ( $1.3T) and the GOP had not crashed the economy! They KNEW it was coming. They didnt act until it hit, hoping it wouldnt crash till AFTER bush left office! REPUBLICANS: This was all AVOIDABLE.

Magnum Serpentine-

You must be lost.

The liberal/progressives posting here march in lockstep with anything President Obama decides.

They can be steadfastly opposed to the Bush-era tax cuts for years...but they're all aboard when President Obama signs a law extending them.

Same principle applies to Afghanistan, Libya, and the War Powers Act..

It's actually much easier to be a conservative than a liberal at First Read...

Fewer whiplash injuries from the abrupt changing of deeply held ideals.

Try Firedoglake.

They'll welcome that message with open ears.

"This needs a balanced approach..."

Why John B.-

You devil.

You're talking about the Plan crafted by the President's own debt commission, aren't you?

And after all our battles...

Welcome aboard.

Mixed Bag - Cmon now, you don't want to scare Magnum away!

I really do wish that people would get off the whole class-warfare gimmick that is dividing this country. Also, those that want to do nothing but demonize the opposing political viewpoint and not come up with anything constructive as intelligent conversation need to just remain quiet until they can speak with rational thought without sounding like a teenager.

Now, that being said I have this to say.

Anyone that thinks doing the right thing to save this country from the financial ruin is going to be painless is just delusional, it is going to hurt alot. This day has literally been coming since the creation of the Federal Reserve and with the irresponsibilty of both Republicans and Democrats alike over the years since 1912. "We the People" need to take the ultimate blame because the many that act as the perfect sheep have continuously reelected these corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians time and time again.

You want to increase revenue through taxation? Fine. It is time to scrap the Marxist tax code that we have and replace it with a Flat Tax that applies to everyone equally with no exemtions, credits, or deductions, with the only cavet being that the first $15,000 is exemt from taxes to protect the truely poor. This has been proven to work in Russia at increasing tax revenue, an increase of 21% in the first year and then 20% in the second before leveling off to follow GDP.

Democrats should love the Flat Tax becaus it treats all people equally, and also it would stop people like Warren Buffet from paying less in taxes than his secretary. The Republicans should also like this plan because it would lower the tax rate on the so-called "rich", and it would also add a good portion of the 47% of wage earnes that currently pay no taxes at all, (or get refunds in excess of taxes withheld), back into footing the bill for this country. The fact is that every working American making more than $15,000 a years should have to pay taxes, they are benefitting from this great country so they need to pay as well, not just the top 53%.

Republicans should also like this plan because of its very nature it would decrease the size of government. The IRS could be severly reduced in size and scope because the entire taxe code could be explained on a single sheet of paper. Now of course there is a downside to the Flat Tax, the accounting profession would get decimated. Tens of thousands of accountants would literally lose their profession overnight, companies like H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt would be out of business in a heartbeat, and therein lies the pain for that single fix that would help our economy.

How typically Conservative of you, MB, to quote Zandi when he supports your point and dismiss him when he doesn't.

Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or philosophy, it's just a big PR campaign to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.

cdahl, sorry that you feel I am trying to score points. I was asking a direct question and hoping for a direct response, which I now know will never happen from Nashville Fan.

As you stated, on many, many issues, you and I agree. But, I must ask how someone can have debate if the other side is unwilling to join in and actually answer a simple, direct question. What about the question: how much should the government take out of a person's paycheck is so difficult to answer? Until I know where the other person stands on that simple issue, I cannot address where I think they are right or wrong.

First of all, to Alan (1.60)....count me in as that ONE. You said NO ONE would agree....well, ONE did.

Secondly, Kirk, I would, personally, agree to raise my Social Security deduction a small amount if I thought it would help. I'm 65 years old, still working full time, and I HAD to sign up for Medicare Part A. Why can't they make it a choice to sign up for Medicare....why is everyone FORCED at age 65 to sign up if they don't want to! Of course, I'm not paying anything for Part A, so it's no big deal, but there might be people who have a lot of money who would decline signing up. That would save a couple of dollars, don't you think? As for doing away with Bush's tax plan....sure, that means I would lose a couple more dollars in my paycheck, but someone has to pay for the infrastructure of this country, and I'm willing to do my share.

Roy, I somewhat agree with you, but as an owner of a home-based catering business, we also have legal business deductions that we can take, which oftimes offset what we have to pay out. Most businesses have various tax loopholes they can use so that they pay little or no taxes. This goes especially for BIG business....they have high-paid CPA's that know EVERY loophole available, plus they have money they can send to offshore accounts to hide. The average business person really can't afford that high-priced CPA. I know we can't....so we have to use whatever legal deductions we can take; i.e., business losses, in order to offset what we end up paying.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I honestly think most middle class Americans would NOT mind small raises in their Social Security taxes and Federal taxes if it meant that we could get out of the mess we're in. Another note is that cuts in spending are great, but without increased revenue from SOMEWHERE, you can't pay your debts at all. If I had more debt than I had revenue coming in, I'd be in big trouble....and that's where we're at now. All the cuts in future spending in the world won't pay off our current debt unless we find some additional revenue from somewhere. Even a mathematically disabled person like myself can make sense of that!! We ALL need to bite the bullet, but the GOP needs to understand that you need revenue as well as cuts...you can't have one without the other!

As Plouffe says, "Any significant budget deal HAS to be revenue-positive." Again, makes sense to me!

Please point out where I quoted Mark Zandi, John B.

I don't recall doing that.

I believe that the line that you're attributing to Mr. Zandi is actually my own.

Glad you liked it, though.

Do you still like it as much as when you thought it was Zandi, John?

Per the article above, the ad being run by the RNC is just more chicken crap from conservatives. Foreclosures and unemployment has been a result of failed Republican policies during the Bush era and before) and most Americans know that.

FOX also tells so many lies -- you can scroll through the lies for eternity on PolitiFact. The right-wing complex is so out-of-control it's mind bending that anyone supports the GOP/TP. It's just a big PR campaign based on irrational emotion.

To the question about deductions from pay, please refer to Jan Schakowsky's fair tax bill--that's what we need to do.

The current national debt is $14.3 trillion.

11 trillion of that 14.3 is from your beloved cons in the GOP. That's not 'Obamath' that's the fact of the matter.

FactOfTheMatter

The current national debt is $14.3 trillion.

11 trillion of that 14.3 is from your beloved cons in the GOP. That's not 'Obamath' that's the fact of the matter.

And what of the $101 trillion in unfunded liabilities in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid?

The Democrats fingers are over that problem.

Both political parties brought us to the point we are at today.

Since the 2010 election, congress has done NOTHING! This is a clear documented fact, and not my opinion. The most notable and glaring aspect of this do-nothing congress is Republican failure to submit any legislation for job creation or ways to stimulate the economy. Come on conservatives, let's hear your defense of this, because there isn't one.

People speculated what would happen if Dems lost the majority, and now we know. If Republicans had a clear majority in both houses they would still try to use the debt crisis to jam through their radical right-wing social engineering instead of sincere efforts to improve the lives of 98% of Americans and restoring the American Dream.

The GOP/TP were given a second chance to turn the economy around and they've blown it. We don't need Roe v Wade overturned with building code machinations, and we don't need attacks on labor with union-busting and abolishing the minimum wage, and we don't need tax evasion and further redistribution of wealth from the middle-class tax payers to corporations earning record profits or speculators and investment bankers on Wall Street who should be in jail.

If people want to move forward in this country, they need to get out the vote for Democrats in 2012. Even if you don't like the Affordable Care Act, or parts of it, at least congress was getting a lot of positive things done from jobs bills to finance reform. Compare what congress accomplished from 2008-2010 versus 2010 to present--it's day and night. The GOP/TP have NO viable plans, so resort to obstructionism and ultimatums--that's all they can do.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

Wizard...good post.

I have to disagree or at least defend on of your points though.

"We the People" need to take the ultimate blame because the many that act as the perfect sheep have continuously reelected these corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians time and time again.

While we should take some blame, We the people haven't had much of a choice. How many times have you been in the voting booth saying to yourself "ok, which one is less worse?"

300 million people and we can't find 536 that are better than what we have?

To really start righting the ship, campaigning and campaign financing needs to be totally revamped. Penalties and removal of those corrupt in office needs to be done better as well. Censure?? Come on!!! I'm for one strike and you're out in congress.

Enough is enough.

Mixed Bag:

The liberal/progressives posting here march in lockstep with anything President Obama decides.

Bag Boy made another funny. Twice in one day. Well. ;-)

Sheila above wrote: "To boot, they have decided to allow the country to default so that Obama can take the blame for the country’s demise. They hate the man so much they would rather see the country fail than see him succeed."

I can explain legitimately why I did not support Dubya, starting with the lies to invade Iraq and then horrible mismanagement of the invasion/occupation. I was watching a segment of Glenn Beck on FOX, in which President Obama is on tape speaking, saying nothing controversial, and Beck is going bucknutty putting his hands over his ears. What has President Obama done to generate such hate? Was he behind the assassination of JKF, or Watergate, or embroiled in a sex scandal, or just embarrassing the nation with poor speaking skills--what?

Well clearly Teabaggers must hate the president because he's a Democrat, but we all know there's more to it including racism. I have yet to see a conservative make case and point about any legitimate egregious thing President Obama is guilty of. As stated above, the lies told by FOX are so numerous on PolitiFact you can scroll for eternity. Until conservatives tune into credible news sources, the ignorance and distortions will continue.

Well...OK, Anna Molly.

Most do.

Not all.

By the way...you've implied that you could see yourself actually voting for a Republican over President Obama, but certainly not for one in the current field of candidates. And, you've said that virtually guarantees you'll vote to reelect President Obama in 2012.

So...name the Republican you could vote for over President Obama, running or not, AM.

I can't wait to hear this.

:-)

Just a few layman observations, my few (not 6 ) things.......

They want Obama involved in everything that they need to focus on, so they can elbow each other and say "watch this, watch this.....Nooooooo." We just love when he ask us to do our jobs, what is right for our country and people so we can say no.....

Boehner is still asking "where are the job's Mr President"....Where are the jobs bills from Boehner? They were rushing to take credit for the jobs that were created before they took office...now it's crickets.

All these wonderful congressmen who has Norquist at their dictator, can save the country some money in salary and benefits by just letting him BE the Republican party. There goes one spending cut.

This congress has done less than any other congress in the history of the United States........Maybe we should cut spending by paying them for only what they do.

They want to block and say no to everything this President wants, at the expense of the American People. It is only important they they get (re) elected to continue doing zip.....

If this President should say, okay I got you, I will use my position and make more executive orders.......Dear God almighty, he is an arrogant dictator, who refuse to listen to Dictator Norquist the folks who were put in power by the people.

The cuts that the President wants to make, like the small amount of welfare for corporate jets and those wonderful gas companies, does not add up to much and they are against it. But they refuse to stop the welfare for the ones that adds up to a lot.

Poor Mitt is back pedaling like crazy. I never said the President made the recession worse, he just made the recession worse, I said

I now see why all Republicans Norquist is pushing for Christie to run. He is a lying cheat and user, who cares nothing about his constituents unless they are rich. Perfect Republican President.

I noticed Fox did not show the Presidents answering those questions through twitter. I can totally understand. First he did not use a teleprompter and he came off as a brilliant knowledgeable President who can answer any question with actual facts. I can't wait to hear Hannity interpretation...."he was using a teleprompter, they just hid it"....

So...name the Republican you could vote for over President Obama, running or not, AM.

I can't wait to hear this.

Me, either. And when I think of one, you'll be the first to know.

That's exactly the problem. I can readily think of half a dozen or more distinguished democrats who have the raw intelligence, command of the issues, relevant experience, and temperament. I cannot think of a single republican.

Beyond the current field, can you?

Of course I can, Anna Molly.

I would love to see Senator Tom Coburn run against President Obama.

I wouldn't mind if Rudy Giuliani took another shot at it.

I'd prefer either of those men to most, if not all, of the current field.

Of course, I feel that the whole Republican field, except for Ron Paul maybe, (and then only maybe) would be preferable to four more years of President Obama...and, I really don't care for some of them.

Among Democrats, I'd have no problem voting for Senator Jim Webb.

Anyway, your answer doesn't surprise me.

I never really believed you could possibly vote for any Republican...at least, based on my exposure to your political views.

I just wanted to see if you were serious.

You weren't.

I guess that's that.

It's so cute how "feisty" the lefties get.

1. Fact is, Obama is in big trouble, and he knows it

2. His opportunity to be re-elected is dimming with each passing day

3. Liberals are now left to blaming others, looking back, as they have no plan and their trillions in extra spending failed miserably.

4. Obama and democrats are going to make a deal, as they realize they are screwed if they don't. How do I know? They are now agreeing that Medicare is on the table.

5. WHERE ARE THE JOBS MR PRESIDENT? You see Obama had about a Trillion in which to produce some results, and he failed. Only 7 months into the Republican house, liberals are already whining but they know that the political season will be rife with Obama's failed promises.

When Obama and the dems make the deal, "feisty" liberals will crow about how they really showed Bohner and those evil Republicans - but they will know it's a lie.

RetiredNavyVet: You sound like you are really scared your benefits are going to be cut. Is that what really drives your rhetoric? Tax everyone else so you can lie on the beach; take theirs but don't touch mine?

20 years of service, retire at 40, and live off the rest of us for another 40 years along with the gov't union pensioners. Sweet gig.

MB, going back I see that I misread your post. You were making fun of an accomplished economist and taking the word of the Conservative echo chamber instead. My mistake and I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

Patriotic millionaires with a simple message: "TAX ME."

YouTube video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlttMTDCDwY&feature=player_embedded

ROY WILSON-336103 said:

Do the 'Rich' pay their fair share of taxes?

Out of curiosity (not personal experience, unfortunately) I decided to figure out how much a 'Rich' person would pay in taxes over their lifetime. For a self employed person who earns taxable income of $1 Million per year for 50 years, lives in California, saves half of their after-tax income and invests it at 5% interest, and is subject to the new tax rates starting in 2013, pays payroll taxes on all of their income, and then dies - here are the results;

Total Earned Income = $50,000,000

Total Taxes Paid

Federal Income Taxes = $24,774,000

State Income Taxes = $ 6,624,000

Payroll Taxes = $ 7,038,000

Sales Taxes = $ 1,827,000

Estate Taxes = $ 5,356,000

Total Taxes Paid = $45,619,000 = 91.3% of total earned income

I guess everyone has to decide for themselves whether they pay enough.

#1.72 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 5:48 AM HST

--------------------------------------------------------------

Well ROY WILSON, not that you ever pay any attention -- you don't -- but here's the replies you received for reposting your "numbers game," with your right-wing claim that the wealthy supposedly get taxed too much:

--------------------

FactOfTheMatter

ROY WILSON-336103

Your math is wrong simply because most of the people who earn million dollars a year, it's not all salary, much of it is stock sale, which is taxed at 15 percent for capital gains.

#1.64 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:36 PM HST

obamaiseverythingbut

This is such a fallacy . . . .

First of all, $1M in taxable income is not the same as $1M in earned income! You can earn tens of millions and only a fraction will be taxable. . . . this is first lesson in tax class.

Secondly, if you earn $1M/yr in taxable income, your federal income taxes will never amount to $495,480 (divide your total FIT by 50),not even with AMT. . . According to your calculations, the effective tax rate for federal income tax alone will be 49.5%, which you know is not true - not even for stolen money!

Thirdly, higher grossing individuals pay less FICA taxes as a proportion of their income compared to lower grossing individuals. Here's why: social security is only taxable on an annual maximum - capped at $106,800 for 2011. In 2011, someone grossing $1M pays 2.1175% of gross as FICA tax [(14,500 + 6,675)/1,000,000], while someone making $100,000 over the same period will pay 7.7% of gross [(1,450 + 6,250)/100,000]. Per your calculation, a person grossing $1M/yr pays $140,760 in payroll taxes . . . . .this is almost 7X the actual number!Where are you pulling your numbers from?

Fourth, if you don't want to pay sales tax, move to a state that doesn't have one!

Fifth, if you have to pay estate taxes as much as you propose, you must have not done your homework well while you were alive. In any case, you are dead, what do you care?

Such sensationalism makes a mockery of any attempt to have any sincere dialogue between a disconsenting people. Any surprise why America, or American discourse at least, is so polarized?

#1.65 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:39 PM HST

Bodene3062

The ultra-wealthy don't draw paychecks like the working class. Wealth is accumulated through capital gains. Even Warren Buffet admits he pays no income tax. He is only responsible for a 15 % capital gains tax.

Get your facts straight Roy Boy.

#1.67 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:41 PM HST

Actually, John B-

My comment referenced the latest statistics released by the federal government on economic growth and new weekly jobless claims. (Update: The Labor Department reported this morning that new weekly jobless claims were in excess of the 400K level for the 13th week in a row. New jobless claims below the 400K level are associated with payroll growth.)

The source was not "the Conservative echo chamber".

You've pretty much gotten it all wrong, haven't you?

Our conversations might make a little more sense if you actually read what I've written BEFORE you respond, eh John?

ROYWILSON

I don't want to split hairs and quibble; but your math skills aren't even remotely up to par for the narrative you are trying to pull off:

Self Employment Taxes on 50 years of 'work' would be capped (currently on the first $106,000), so WORST CASE SCENARIO,...(assuming it was $106K for ALL 50 years, which it was not):

106,000 x 50 = 5,300,000 x 15% (you said SELF employed) = $795,000

I have no idea how you are calculating your Payroll Taxes; but come on now,...get real. I know it sounds RADICAL to conflate these taxes on EARNINGS,...but don't forget all those lovely little credits and deductions, mkay? I don't feel the need to continue your mythical calculation to its natural conclusion. I'm sure others can see the ruse, as well.

(rradiko, I see you handled that better; but doesn't it drive you nuts that they pull this crap from some chain email and pass it off as truth? I have limited tolerance for this kind of BS).

Bagger, you missed the part where Zandi (and other economists) project a big improvement in economic activity IF we have a debt deal, ignored the fact that the economy continues to improve (though slowly), and and are apparently clueless to the fact that ALL economic recoveries are variable, with hot and cool periods within the recovery.

Meanwhile oil speculators continue to throw a blanket on the recovery by stealing from the rest of us, and Republicans continue to block any legislation or regulation that might eliminate this opportunity for the rich and powerful to abuse the rest of us.

You claim not to have gotten this from the echo chamber, yet somehow you're saying EXACTLY what the echo chamber says.

Then rebut the numbers I posted, John B.-

Stop whining.

Rebut.

"Bagger", eh?

Must've pushed a button.

lol, John.

It's not the numbers that matter, it's the spin that you're putting on them--a spin that ignores reality to tell a fairytale of Conservative rhetoric.

As far as pushing buttons there's no chance of that...I know enough about you to prevent surprises.

rradiko "Get your facts straight Roy Boy."

I did 'get my facts straight'.

I stated my assumptions right up front, and then calculated the taxes based on those assumptions.

Your saying 'rich people would find a way to do things differently' is meaningless, because my assumptions were perfectly reasonable - not everyone invests in the stock market or looks for 'loopholes'.

Where people may get confused is by ignoring the fact that the interest income they earned is taxable at the same rate as other income (which accounts for much of the 'perceived' discrepancy on total income taxes paid). The comment about 'why not move to another State' is silly, and nothing more than saying 'I would make different assumptions'. And the comment on payroll taxes is also ignoring the assumptions - There are proposals to lift any caps on the maximum deductions for payroll taxes (which I favor).

If people apply my assumptions and run the numbers based on the income tax rates that are scheduled to take effect in 2013, they will arrive at the same figures I presented.

If people want to make their own analysis based on their own different 'assumptions', they are free to do so, but my point was that the 'rich' probably pay much more in total taxes than people think.

PS - Personally, I favor letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the 'rich' (but not for the middle/poor classes), and I also favor closing lots of their 'loopholes'. Some might consider that a contradiction, but I can assure you that it is not. I closed with the comment "I guess everyone has to decide for themselves whether they pay enough", which I thought was more than fair.

You know Ron maybe we are coming to realize the true cost of Government and that we can't have everything we want. For the past eight years through the Bush Administration, and now for the first two years of the Obama Administration, we have had Government on the cheap and not being paying the true cost of the services provided. By borrowing 40% of the revenues required to run the Federal Government we have been living on the credit card for too long. I hear that we are paying 18% of GDP on tax but spending 25%. You want to raise taxes? Fine! Start detailing who/where the 7% increase required will come from. Start detailing the further taxes required to meet the liabilities of SS and Medicare. I've heard that some want remove the cap on SS contributions for both employees and employers. Propose it and see who is willing to pay instead proposing that you have the government you want but someone else will foot the bill.

The real issue as I see it is that in practical terms there is very little light between the last two Administrations, and the last ten years of Congress regardless of was was in charge.

Ron:

Very true, the whole agenda from the beginning has been to keep unemployment high and the economy stalled. This is the ONLY WAY for the repugnant party to regain control of the White House. They even made that apparent to everybody with their arrogance and lies and their constant "OBSTRUCTIONISM".

The people of America are going to lay this mess at their (GOP?TP) feet where it belongs. The lies and no longer ringing true to many people.

They do not give one iota for America. It is all about them and those that bought their elections for them and the hell with the rest of us. - PERIOD.

There is no room for America in the GOP/TP Party. They have morphed into something completely "Foreign" to the true ideology of this country.

Ron, Brooks wrote that "psychological protest" of these so called republicans do not accept the logic of compromise.

MN republicans are a case in point. Their anti- tax radicalism has shut down our state. Today their leaders are urging Governor Dayton to accept a "lights on only bill". Dayton has rejected this. He again stated he want a whole budget passed with new revenue included. Without it the HHS bill will reduce our state health care program to draconian levels.

As NYTimes editorial, "Anti-tax extremism in Minnesota"(july5,2011) states: Republican everywhere had the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts".

Governor Dayton is trying to work with these delusional leaders. Hope Obama is paying attention

Alan NJ,

Best time to realize you can't have everything you want is before to sign the contract to purchase that new car. Otherwise you have defaulted on your loan haven't you? That is all we are trying to avoid. Why no angst when Bush did this seven times in his time in office but lots of angst now? Republicans are so predictable! Debt is ok when we are in charge but now that Democrats are in charge let's force a default. Grow up already!

@AnaBanana

I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of both sides. The argument that it was OK for one side but now I'm power I can do the same thing shows you the bankrupt leadership we have in Washington. Candidate Obama ran against many aspects of the Bush administration and now you use the Bush Administration's actions to justify the current Administration's actions? All I can say is that both Administrations were and are wrong. I am not against tax increases, in fact I cannot see how we get our financial house in order without them. But I want to see what is proposed and what we get for this increase.

My point is that politicians of both sides have been negligent by promising the electorate the moon to get elected and then borrowing the difference. If you think this is a partisan argument because it so happens there is a Democratic Administration so be it. At the end of the day it won't matter because we (the middle class) are the ones who will have to foot the bill for the excesses of both sides.

Well said, Ron. David Brooks accurately described what the GOP has become.

The respect I once had for the GOP diminished during the Bush 43 years as I watched them be anything but fiscally responsible. After watching the GOP the past two plus years morph into a party that would rather watch America crash and burn than do anything to help Americans because that would mean helping President Obama, I have zero respect for them. What kind of legislators are these people? How can they claim to be patriotic citizens wanting what is best for their children and grandchildren? If they meant those words, they would not allow the country to default on its debt (the money has been spent and they were responsible for the biggest portion of it), they would be helping pass legislation to create jobs and rebuild the economy. Instead, they threaten, obstruct, delay and deny any effort to invest in America. I have only contempt for the GOPTP legislators these days because that is what they have for the country, for democracy and for the Constitution.

Ron NJ, I agree that new revenue and spending cuts are needed. But here in MN and in Washington, the republicans anti tax extremism is the major obstacle to doing the job that needs to be done.

Your point on Medicare reform is a reasonable option among many. But again the Ryan budget want to transform it into oblivion for those under 55 years of age.

Good morning Ron Indiana

The "Do Nothing Congress":

Do Republicans really want to see this happen on a national level

I put it succinctly, Yes, they do.

As Chris Matthews said last night in the "Let me finish" segment they think it would hurt the President.

I have never in my whole life on this planet, apart from the Civil Rights Era seen such a recalcitrant group of idiots. At, least the boowevils weren't trying to sabotage this country and the global economy.

This T-bagger republican party is crazy because they think they are right.

You want the GOP to help Obama? Help him do what- continue the outrageous spending that stimulates nothing but the deficit?

Details on the stimulus program are now coming out day by day- everywhere but here, obviously- and the facts reveal what many conservatives had feared- it was a staggeringly expensive boondoggle.

Take expanded broadband access. Sounds great, right? All those poor rural people left out of the Internet age- surely, it was a government "good" to help them enter the 21st Century?

Well, take just one area of Montana. Despite then presence of at least seven broadband providers, 1.5% of the households in that region lacked broadband access- unless you count 3G wireless, in which case, just SEVEN households lacked access.

Stimulous provided that- at the cost of SEVEN MILLION dollars PER HOUSEHOLD.

You can read more here

http://blogs.forbes.com/nickschulz/2011/07/05/how-effective-was-the-2009-stimulus-program/

Is there any wonder that all polls show that Americans want the debt cut by spending cuts alone? Or that they have no "hope" in Obama's handling of the economy?

p>

Great post, Ron. It's an empty Conservative talking point to say that they finally realize the importance of of fiscal responsibility and the "true cost of government." If that were the case they wouldn't have ALREADY voted to increase the debt by TRILLIONS with the Ryan budget.

This is about eliminating any expectation that people should expect other than the cold shoulder from the government they elect and fund. In the Conservative world government is a tool for the wealthy elites, nothing more.

Oh so true. The Republican Party of today has hit the all time low. How can everyone with an ounce of self respect endorse or be a part of this group. It's all so simple, they just want to defect President Obama at all cost.

The biggest question I have for the Republican's is WHY?

Good morning Jody, part of being fiscally responsible is to be willing to compromise.

The republican ongoing protest movement "NO NEW TAXES" is according to Bill Clinton because Grover Norquist is the GOP enforcer and has a chilling hold on the nation's lawmaking. In his speech in Aspen recently, he said "that any revenue concessions need to be approved in advance by Grover Norquist."

"You are laughing, he told the crowd of 800. But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republicans senators PERMISSION...on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what's best for the country' It was chilling"

Source: dailykos.com Jul 4 2011

Jody, What are Republican in Iowa saying about getting rid of ethanol subsidies?

Job1, I assume you mean defeat, and not defect. Obama's defects are his own, and no one inflicted them on him.

So, why do republicans want to defeat him? Well-

Four trillion dollars added to the debt in two years comes to mind. Then there is the unemployment rate- which is far worse than when he took offices, despite almost a trillion dollars in stimulus spending, which stimulated nothing but the aforementioned debt.

Then, there is anemic economic growth. Oh, and the "third war" against Libya, which violates the constitutional powers given to congress- you remember, the one where we are dropping "non-hostile" bombs.

Maybe engaging in diplomatic relations with the Muslim Brotherhood adds in? How about his visible contempt for Israel, or his bumbling ineptitude on state visits- going so far as to not only speak through the playing of a national anthem, but to claim, afterwards, that he thought it was the background music to his speech? (the truth is, I take him at his word- he really IS that egotistical).

Or not knowing the year when he signed a guest book? Or perhaps his waste of taxpayer monies on various jaunts- like the "dinner and a show" trip to NYC, for which he reimbursed the cost of two first class tickets- leaving a couple hundred thousand to be picked up by the taxpayers.

To say nothing of his little flight to Copenhagen to secure the Olympics for Chicago- we got the full tab for that embarrassing failure.

Maybe it's his complete inability to address any crisis in a timely way. He ignores, stumbles, bumbles, and, finally, makes an appropriate statement- three weeks too late.

Maybe it is the fact that he spends more time on his own personal enjoyment- lavish travel, golf, b-ball, than actually doing his job. Or maybe that is good, given his total ineptitude at the job.

Or maybe it is all of the above, and more than this space can accommodate.

I will tell you why I want him defeated- the very existence of my country depends on it. We cannot afford four more years of Obama.

Is anyone surprised at what is happening? Rush Limbaugh laid out the Republican agenda in the first year of Obama's presidency when he said he does not want the president to succeed--meaning that he does not want President Obama's agenda to get the economy back on track to succeed.

That is the difference between today's Republicans and just about any other party in US history. In the past, minority parties have grumbled and complained, but in the end, there was nothing they could do. Today, they use every obstructionist tactic in the book to ensure that nothing is done unless they get their way. Look at how they managed to take care of their millionaire masters in late 2010. They simply held their breath and said they wouldn't do a single thing for the country (including extending unemployment benefits and helping 9/11 workers) until the tax breaks for the wealthy were also extended. In any other situation, that would be known as extortion--but in DC, that's politics as usual.

No Joe,

Sorry, your response as to why, does not cut it for me. The reasons you give are clearly made up reasons of a person who just hates the man, with no facts to show why. It's more of the canned and false facts from the FOX right wing play book.

Not one reason you listed is true.

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I think many Obama haters just don't like having a man of color who is smarter than them in charge.

NNNJ, "...I want him defeated-the very existence of my country depends on it." Wow! Our country will exist no matter who is president. If you" can't afford four more years of Obama," that is your conviction.

Your list of reasons are really all over the map. But I wish you luck finding who you can support out of the pantheon of republicans who are out there looking for your vote in the primaries.

Really, Job 1?

Unemployment is not higher today than in January 2009? Sonofagun- here I thought that "nine" was a bigger number than "seven"!

Economic growth is not weak? The debt is not four trillion dollars more than when he took office? We are not involved in Libya? He did not speak through the national anthem in England- or put the date at 2008, rather than 2011?

I am not going through point by point. Your response just exemplifies what I have known all along.

Obama worshippers are, truly, delusional.

no joe, no bo, nj - You are correct about the slow recovery. Unfortunately, the Republicans have wanted President Obama to fail since before his inauguration. And, from the very beginning, some Republicans in Congress have made statements to that effect. Jim Demint's "Waterloo" statement is just on example. After the 2010 elections, what did Senator McConnell state? He stated that the NUMBER 1 priority of the Republican party is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term president. Those are chilling statements. It clearly demonstrates that rather than working with him and compromising, they will obstruct to no end.

I'm not an Obama worshipper and I'm not delusional. As a conservative Democrat, I have always looked to the conservatives to help legislate in a fiscally conservative manner, while still allowing for the health and welfare of all. This is no longer the case.

Really no joe calling some one delusional. WOW!

Mr. Brooks is right only that it is 'a no-brainer'

Every poll conducted of late has shown that two of the top issues in the minds of voters are the national debt and spending cuts. The exact things, along with job creation that Republicans campaigned on and have publicly fought Democrats tooth and nail for, since last November 2010.

This battle is over the debt ceiling. The last one was a budget. The next one might be an appropriations bill or yet another budget bill, but Republicans must, at every turn, with every vote, continue to fight for spending cuts and balancing our budget aka not spending more money than we have. They must continue to fight against the Democratic solution to everything which is spend more/tax more instead of getting their spending habits under control.

Just to put things into perspective.

The Day Obama took office the national debt was $10.626 trillion, today the national debt is $14.396 trillion.

During Bush's two terms the debt increased by $4.9 trillion. (Source, CBS News)

In two-and-a-half years, Barack Obama has raised our debt by almost as much as Bush did in eight.

Republicans finally understand we cannot tax and spend our way out of this mess, cuts must be made, entitlements must be recalculated and adjusted to a sustainable level, a balanced budget must be created and our politicians must abide by it.

These are non-negotiable promises that were made and that must be kept.

We are done. Compromise time is over.

No Joe,

These problems are all the hangover affect from the Bush years and the Republican party failure to do their jobs.

PS, I hope your little girl continues to get better :-)

Mary, there is a difference between "wanting" something to happen, and "knowing" it will.

You tell children not tom play in the road, not because you want them to get hit by motor vehicles, but because you know it could happen.

Anyone with any knowledge of economics, or history, knew that Obama's economic plans were doomed to fail. Most people with common sense understood that Obama's diplomatic plans with states like Iran were doomed to fail.

As for the Middle East- Obama was warned last year that war and weather had combined to bring food shortages that would inevitably, lead to unrest in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Had he taken action by spurring the Agriculture Department to take the step a that would have increased production of wheat and corn for export, hem would have had a "twofer"- farmers and distributors would have seen increased productivity and the jobs that support it, shippers would have seen increased activity, and the jobs that support it, and the Middle East would not now be in a state of chaos.

Those of us who understand these things urged action- we knew that his inaction would result in exactly the situation that exists today.

So, did we want him to ignore the situation?

Why blame those who warned Obama that his actions and inactions would have bad results? It's like blaming the doctor for your heart attack when you refuse to stop smoking. By the reasoning of the democrats, that warning meant he "wanted" you to have a heart attack.

It is faulty reasoning, meant to cover Obama's failures. Sorry, but I simply do not buy into the thinking that all these failures are as a result of Republicans putting a hoodoo on his presidency.

He owns his policies- and their failures.

Job1: "Ending the Bush tax cuts alone would wipe out the federal deficit!"

I do not know if that is even close to an accurate statement or not but I would sure as hell love to try it. Christ, they need to start doing something. This whole thing is just ridiculous.

End the tax cuts, cut back on defense spending and any other program that has more money than it actually needs or isn't needed at all and pull the friggin troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we need to, raise taxes and then if we still need to after that, raise the debt ceiling.

These jokers have got to start doing something and it is both sides who are screwing us right now so Navy and Fiesty can just go jump in a lake.

Obama worshippers thats a good one, but speaking for myself i don`t worship anybody but i do love this country and i`m really tired of all the brainwashed rightwinged idiots that think anything that the GOP/TP party has done since 1980 has in any way helped this country or made thier lives any better unless your at the top. (can anyone tell me anything) every single election except Clinton only because he left a (SURPLUS) has run on the same bs democrats spend to much and you idiots vote in a republican and they cut cut cut from its people to give away to the rich and run up the debt then we vote democrat and you idiots still refuse to see the truth when its in black n white, what did they run on in 2010 cut spending and jobs jobs jobs they`ve got you idiots so focused on the debt that you idiots are blind to what they are really doing. ya know the really important things abortion and bush taxcuts and for you idiots that keep saying that thier Obama`s taxcuts now lets not distort the truth remember he was held hostage with no unemployment without running up the debt a little more with the bush taxcuts now they are holding us hostage again only this time we all pay and still no jobs. so thank you GOP/TP and all you idiot sheep followers for killing this great country.

alboyano: I hate to burst your bubble but you my friend, are one of the sheep.

@ Northstar.

MN republicans are a case in point. Their anti- tax radicalism has shut down our state. Today their leaders are urging Governor Dayton to accept a "lights on only bill". Dayton has rejected this. He again stated he want a whole budget passed with new revenue included. Without it the HHS bill will reduce our state health care program to draconian levels.

As NYTimes editorial, "Anti-tax extremism in Minnesota"(july5,2011) states: Republican everywhere had the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts".

Governor Dayton is trying to work with these delusional leaders. Hope Obama is paying attention

Of course, you missed the fact that in light of the worst recession in 80 years, the Republicans have put forth the largest spending package in Minnesota history. Without tax increases. As a fellow Minnesotan, I'm surprised that you left that out.

Look who's pretending to be an economist again. Let's see what a REAL economist thinks, and a Conservative economist at that;

In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

No Jo - If you read my post, I agreed that the economy is President Obama's. However, the Republicans have obstructed to no end. If they had worked and compromised with the President, I wonder if we would be better off.

Don't put words into my mouth.

John B- I do not know where you get your information from, but Mark Zandi is as conservative as Barack Obama.

He is a Keynesian- sees government spending as the answer to everything from recession to the common cold. Of course he thinks the stimulus worked- he played an intrinsic role in helping Christina Romer present it.

In other words, more liberal delusion presented as fact.

Northstar-3473315

As NYTimes editorial, "Anti-tax extremism in Minnesota"(july5,2011) states: Republican everywhere had the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts".

The problem is, and rightfully so, that since the 1930's revenue to the Fed has remained fairly constant at around 15-20% of GDP while the Federal spending over the same timeframe has increased from 15% to 40% of GDP.

Revenue has NEVER really been the problem, spending is the problem.

You really should try the google, John B. Here, from Zandi's Facebook page

Mark ZandiWikipediaLike
Author
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View on Wikipedia · Edit
Mark Zandi is an American economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, a widely-cited source of economic analysis.. Moody's Economy.com is part of Moody's Analytics.

He was born in Atlanta, Georgia of Iranian descent and grew up in Radnor, Pennsylvania. He attended Upper Merion High School where he earned his diploma. Zandi received B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. His surname of "Zandi" comes from the Zand dynasty (formally known as the Zandieh dynasty), which ruled southern and south-central Iran (1750–1794) in the eighteenth century.

Zandi's analysis of the impact of an economic stimulus package on the United States economy was cited by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein in their report on President Barack Obama's proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. Zandi uses old-style Keynesian models in the spirit of Nobel Prize winner Lawrence Klein. The utility of such models to gauge the impact of fiscal stimulus has been questioned by Harvard economist Robert J. Barro.

References

Yeah, that's one conservative guy, there!

It's more than just Barro who question the use of such models, though. It's everyone who is not a Keynseian.

No Joe & Pride & Joy: You keep harping on the $4T more in Obama's budget since he took office....what you seem to forget is that Bush conveniently did not include the cost of the 2 wars that he started in his budget. How much more would that have added to the Bush budget if he had actually put those in it??? I bet it's a heck of a lot more than what the Obama budget is showing....a heck of alot more than $4T for the years that we've been in these two wars.

Didi, you are confusing "budget" and "debt". Bush funded the wars using resolutions- not at all unusual, by the way. At the end of the year, when the deficit was added up, the costs of the wars were contained therein.

It is a false talking point.

NJ, My point was that he's a Republican and was John McCain's economic adviser during the '08 campaign. I can't help that you pretend to be an economist and disregard the experience, calculations, findings, and track record of real economists.

cdahl, Hope you see this post in this long thread. My post was about the David Brooks article. I used MN as one example of anti-tax extremism. I agree that the the budget of 34B of the MN republicans is larger than last budget in spite of spending cuts. But Dayton is saying a budget of 35.8B will provide a heath and human service spending bill that will not throw lots of people off Minnesota Care. So 1.5B is in negotiation. Republicans say NO, Just like Pawlenty who balanced the last budget on one time delays and accounting gimmicks.He left a 5B deficit for this budget to close.

Where are the moderate Republicans in MN and in Washington? They are an endangered species.

Fun movie. Great personal take on it.

Having graduated from high school in 1976, I'm quite familiar with this musical. I saw a stage version where the actor brought the house down with the song "I'm Henry Lee, Henry Lee, Henry Lee from Virginia!"

1976 is also notable for being the last time Republicans were associated with moderation, pragmatism and a fondness for science, math and history.

Terrific post, JoAnne PA.

I've often said that if conservatives--the red-coat sympathizers--had their way in 1776, we never would have fought the Revolutionary War. Liberals sought a different path than that of a King ruling and people having no voice in Government. Today's conservatives seem determined to return us to the wealthy barons ruling the peasants era. I think it is Oklahoma that is trying to pass legislation that would remove the People's vote for Senators and replace it with a group of old-boys appointing them.

Amy - Social-Lee, political-Lee, financial-Lee, natural-Lee!

Anna Molly - You said something in one of your posts yesterday about not being a "lockstepper" - which, by the way, is just one of the things I admire about you. But then last night it finally clicked in my aged brain:

Anna Molly......anamoly. Defined as "something that deviates from the norm or from expectations". Geez, do I ever feel even slower than usual now. Here all this time I thought it was just a really prtetty name!

Jody - Hadn't heard that about Oklahoma, but at this point almost nothing would surprise me.

JoAnne, great post. Timely and thought provoking. And it IS worth pointing out that, even at it's inception, this country was based on compromise.

JoAnn in PA. In 1776 John Quincy Adams was only 10 years old. David McCullogh mentioned him in the book, however the musical was not long enough to include much of the material in the book.

Your bias is showing, lol!

From JoAnn in PA:

Our Founding Fathers' legacy deserves much better from them.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other Founding Fathers legacy's do deserve much better from Us! They were all states rights guys and very afraid of the Central Government becoming too strong and as such erode our freedoms that they fought for. I know they would be very disturbed to see that their fears are being realized today in 2011! Yes JoAnn they do deserve more from us and hopefully that will happen!

Republicans are not your friend unless your rich

Republicans want to keep us in the ditch

If we complain we are just a bitch

Now ain't that rich

I am glad there are so many rich posters on the board today. Only the rich have any reason to defend the Republican plan which is destroy America and give it to the rich.

Why do Republicans hate America? They think it is better for the country to fail than to compromise. The lies are going to get bigger and bigger as more corporate money is used to control what use to be democratic elections. Democracy will be dead under Republican control and from the sounds of it a lot of posters here will be happy. Anything to get that black man out of office, destroy the country, tell lies over and over, the Republicans have been in control of the house for 6 months now and not one, repeat not one jobs bill.

Where are the jobs Republicans? You have got the tax cuts, you got control of the house, where are the jobs? Where are your jobs bills? I forgot it is more important to shut down the government and cause more pain to the poor, sick, old and unemployed. Compassionate Republicans at their best, stomping on the little people.

ya must have went to the restroom during his scene wingnut can`t be wrong little john was there how the hell can anyone with a half of brain cell take that whack job for anything but a whack job

American, do you not ever aspire to be rich? Do you wish to remain without wealth or income?

Why do democrats hate the successful and want to force equality in poorness and misery?

Before you ask republicans where are the jobs bills, answer a question for me: how many bills passed by the house have been brought to the floor of the senate for a vote? Of those, how many passed?

So surfaces one of the most favored and formulaic lies of the Conservative movement...that Democrats hate the successful.

As an avowed Liberal I have no problem with the wealthy...I'd like to work myself up to that level (that's right, WORK) one day as well. What I fight against is the Conservative program to give ALL the advantages to the wealthy and Wall Street, NONE to the average American and Main Street. I resent that billionaires have rigged the system so that they're able to pay a much lower tax rate than a person of modest means. It infuriates me that the Captains of Industry who tanked the economy in the Bush Recession have been made whole--no, made even richer than before--while the rest of us continue to suffer. It offends me that Conservatives would suspend virtually all services to the middle class while greatly expanding welfare for the wealthy and corporations. I find it absolutely criminal that Republicans are so deeply in the pockets of special interests that they've legalized bribery through the Citizens United decision.

THAT, my friend, is what I believe. Your misrepresentation of my position is simply laughable.

Jody - I've often said that if conservatives--the red-coat sympathizers--had their way in 1776, we never would have fought the Revolutionary War.

Have to call you on this as it is a bit of a stretch. Your statement is just like trying to claim southern democrats (w/ Jim Crow and anti civil rights ideas) during the 60's have the same values as democrats of today. Or that Democrats and Republicans of Lincoln's time have the same feelings, convictions and beliefs of our current parties.

Obviously during our early formative years there were two thoughts about government the Federalists and anti federalists. These ideas about states rights and federal powers and rights have directed much of our history through and up until the civil war years.

Yellowdog -

Just "through and up until the civil war years"? It seems like on everything from immigration to gay rights to collective bargaining issues to healthcare reform, the battle between states rights and federal powers is a never-ending one. Or have I been reading a different First Read than you have the last few years? :)

Yes the struggle continues on the issues you mention. However, prior to the civil war the central argument was not about issues being handled/decided by state in lieu of governemnt it was whether we were a collection of states able to secede at whim or a nation indivisible under God.

Yeah, let's follow the Chilean model.

After all, Joe said yesterday that we can't follow the Korean model.

But that's okay. At least THIS will be South American Exceptionalism.

Thanks for the reminder, IR, I had forgotten that former President Bush praised the Chile plan. While I am a private enterprise advocate for most things, guaranteed pensions (social security) and medical health insurance are the exceptions. Government is not in the "for profit" business. Investment firms and private insurance companies are in it for profit and every dollar in profit means less dollars for the actual pensions or for medical care. We already have private retirement savings in the form of 401Ks, etc. Social security is the safety net for when those investments fall prey to the whims of Wall Street risk takers ala 2008.

Anna Molly,

Joe would follow any model,...or any 'pretty' face,...HAR HAR (Although I hear the Brazilian's are much more attractive. Do you think Mark Sanford can clue him in?)

Broken equipment, violations of safety rules?!

From conservative corporatists?! Well, I NEVER.

That's just the cost of doing business, isn't it?

Good morning Anna Hope you are enjoying your vacation as much as I'm enjoying mine.

I heard that Massey kept two sets of records--one for the safety inspectors and one that contained the actual records. A tragedy waiting to happen because Massey would rather pay fines than spend the money on prevention.

OOOOOOHHHHH. You heard???? Whooooaaaa. You must be an insider. Where did you hear this from??? We are with baited breath and chillingly in awe of your connections.

Two sets of safety records:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/29/137493009/w-va-mine-operator-kept-two-sets-of-safety-records-investigators-say

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/06/massey-coal-record-books.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2011/06/29/204379.htm

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/11578/feds_massey_hid_mine_violations_through_two_sets_of_safety_records/

Dennis, according to the article by NPR, there are six family members who said the feds said that there were two sets of books and they contacted NPR.

Were the other families contacted for their input? I would think if this was the case, the family member of all victims would be contacting multiple news organizations and not just NPR. I could be wrong, though.

Morning, IR. Sorry I missed you. Vacation rules.

I wanna do it again, next week. LoL

From the point of view of Blankenship and other Conservatives the problem isn't that they were in violation of federal regulations, it's that there are too many regulations. They're doing things the way they see best...if people die that's really nobody's business.

It's a callous attitude toward life and the law that goes back to the very beginning of today's Conservative movement. The criminal Oliver North and others maintained they did nothing wrong in Iran Contra, it's the law that was wrong.

So much for the Conservative reverence for the rule of law.

Hey Obama! Paul Ryan has challenged you to a debate or your to chicken to face him on this debt crisis?

President Obama has already said what needs to be said on the subject of the Ryan budget;

This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page; it's about more than just cutting and spending. It's about the kind of future that we want. It's about the kind of country that we believe in. And that's what I want to spend some time talking about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there's always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we're all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/politics/14obama-text.html

Why is destroying the social safety net even worthy of debate?

Job, were is the math to support this statement. The entire Bush tax cut package for everybody is about 300 billion per year, no where near the well over 1 trillion deficit. Show me the math on this one.

Job1- In response to your comment. If Obama and his party keep spending the way they do that deficit will never go down if the Bush tax cut is out. Obama and his party like to spend all our tax $$$$$$$$$$$ on pork and welfare. I call the Democrats the welfare party, you know free handouts to everyone just to keep the voters in check when election time comes.!!!!!!!!!! Like for instance shrimp on a treadmill.!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama, from the Party of "NO CLUE"!

Constitution used to support Republican points of view: good.

Constitution used to support Democratic points of view: bad.

Snark...

Anybody hear about that Yellowstone river oil leak?

It's beyond ironic the very same people squealing about debt & deficit don't give a rats a@@ about the destruction corporations are doing to OUR air & water...

It doesn't matter to them, their kids and grandkids won't be able to go outside without a respirator as long as their pockets are lined FULL of cash!

Good Times!!!

I heard last night that the pipe burst in the area where Exxon Mobil had been warned several times that repairs were needed. These oil companies make billions every quarter but choose to ignore warnings of potential problems and the damage caused ultimately costs more than the initial repairs would have.

Feisty,

As soon as the Republicans got control of Maine's legislature they started attempting to repeal our environmental laws, all in the name of lifting the "burden" of regulations on industry. Luckily, moderate Republicans (there are still some) were shocked by these efforts and held the line on the worst of the repeals.

Maine's economy depends on a clean environment because of our seafood, agricultural and tourism industries. Thankfully, most Mainers understand this, especially those who remember how long it took to clean up our rivers of industrial pollution. I think this issue, and forcing teachers to sacrifice so the wealthiest Mainers could have a historic tax cut, will make this the shortest length of time the Republicans hold the majority in Maine's history. Certainly Gov. LePage will not have a second term.

Rachel Maddow had a great piece on the Yellowstone River oil spill last night. Exxon Mobil, having made the largest profit ever last year, is mopping up their oil spill with absorbent pads.

Priceless. In every meaning and definition of that word...

Nashville Fan: And isn't it the Republican party that wants to either do away with the EPA or cut it to the bone so that it's a useless group? Wow.....why should we worry about the environment? This is what happens when you cut things like the EPA, the Consumers group, etc. You get rid of the people who keep us healthy and informed. Republicans don't like that!! They're all for cutting things like this, but when it comes to cutting subsidies to big oil, etc....they just aren't on board!! Guess we know who pays their way!

The failure of Obama will mean the success of the United States.

Recession is when your neighbor loses a job.

Depression is when you lose your own job.

Recovery is when Obama loses his job in 2012.

Ben you've wrote some stupid posts in the past, but this one tops them all.

Thank you Mo -- You resemble that remark.

Great Conservative talking point, too bad the reality is much more ugly. President Obama's failure at this point means not agreeing to increase the debt ceiling. Not increasing the debt ceiling means plunging the economy back into recession immediately.

By the definitions of Conservatives they win when the President fails. Too bad they're not so concerned about what happens to the rest of us.

Ben: How old are you? You sound like a 10-year old!!!

The GOP has known all along that the Keynesian economic theory that 1 Term 0bama would try would fail - it has failed every time it has been tried. 1 Term 0 doesn't need any help in failing - he is doing a great job of that by himself. He managed to fail with a Congress that was heavily Democrat in both Houses. Most of the people in the country do not want to see us become a Euro-Socialist psuedo Democracy. That is the reason Repubs want 1 Term 0bama to fail - it is to save the country that we have - we didn't vote for the change we got and are in the process of ending the error of 2008. Jan 20, 2013 - 1 Term 0bama's last day in office. Thank God.

"block all Democratic measures that would lead to greater growth in the economy and a decrease in the unemployment rate."

How do you "block" nonexistent measures? Democratic measures have been tried for 3 years, and have not led to growth.

If the GOP really wanted to sabotage the economy, they would let the Democrats pass another 'stimulus' ....

Bob-1887910

How do you "block" nonexistent measures?

You mean nonexistent like this one?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/senate-republicans-block-small-business-lending-bill-sought-by-democrats.html

Republicans Block Small-Business Lending Measure

Senate Republicans blocked a measure that would cut taxes and ease credit for small businesses, saying they objected that Democrats refused to consider their amendments to extend tax breaks and cap federal spending.

The GOP blocked by filibuster every piece of jobs legislation democrats put forward even though the legislation was paid for. Legislation passed the House prior to Jan 2011 and died in the Senate. Google it instead of listening to the chatter class who make false statements. While we're at it, where are all the jobs the GOPTP promised to legislate when running for office before the Nov 2010 elections? Oh, that's right, instead they focused on eliminating women's reproductive rights.

@Jody -- Then why didn't the democrats do that when they were the minority in Congress? If they didn't, that means they were complacent with what was passed by the Republicans and therefore equally to blame. Can't have it both ways.

Ben. The democrats have tred to pass legislation in the House since Jan 2011--but most of the time they cannot get it brought to the floor and when it is, the GOP defeats it. Senate democrats have tried several pieces of legislation since Jan and all have been filibustered by the GOP and will not pass the House GOP's majority anyway. You see, Ben, it takes both sides to do something and when one side (the GOP) fails to do its part with compromise and joint efforts, nothing happens. What is worse is when one side (GOP) prior to Jan 2011, filibustered everything in the Senate. It is called tyranical rule by the minority and that is what we have with the GOP Senators.

@Jody -- My question was relating to the first six years of the Bush administration when the democrats were the minority. If they were against the Bush administration's proposals, why didn't they filibuster like you say the Republicans did from 2006 through 2010???? If they could and they didn't -- they were complacent and part of the problem those who blame the previous administration for. If the dems had stuck together, they could have put an end to the filibusters since Obama has been in office -- but they weren't convicted enough.

Ben, are you REALLY saying that Democrats were complacent and complicit because they refused to obfuscate, filibuster and otherwise cripple government?

Are you REALLY saying that government should be about making things NOT work, a la the Republican method?

REALLY?!

Yes fielden, he REALLY just suggested that continuing to allow the government to function was irresponsible, that anything short of destroying the government means that Democrats take responsibility for the Bush agenda onto themselves.

Jody: I'd rather the Republicans (and the Democrats) would do more to find a job for my next-door neighbor and leave my uterus alone!!! I think the payoffs would be a lot better with the first one rather than the latter!

Why would they not? They gave up even the illusion of membership in the Fouth Estate in 2008- they are now merely paid propagandists, parroting whatever Obama or his minions put forth.

Take today's "Twitter town hall". Think the leap into new technology might leave Obama open to twits- I mean, tweets- of those who are not his worshippers?

Think again. The list of accepted tweeters, (or whatever you call them), has been carefully pre-screened. Thirty of his most loyal followers will be tweeting him to another worship fest.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-05-obama-twitter-town-hall_n.htm

Then there are those who wonder why he is so out of touch.

Oh, dear me, the Loyalty meme,...

think, think, think, now WHERE have I seen that before? Hmmm?

oh right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html

Now tell me,...why is it Republicans get ANGRY when Dems finally figure out how to play by THEIR rules?

We Dems used to be tolerant and open; but the batsh!t crazy wing of your party has caused many of us to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak.

Carry on,...you were whining about WHAT again? I forget.

Does White House spin usually come from Mark Zandi, economic advisor to John McCain, and the Wall Street firm for which Zandi works?

Mark Zandi, a prominent economic forecaster, says the US economy will gather steam in the second six months of 2011 – unless Congress fails to raise the government debt limit. In that case, “we go into recession, and my forecast would be blown out of the water,” he said Tuesday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters.

The chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, Dr. Zandi expects economic output to be growing at about a 4 percent rate by the end of 2011, versus 1.9 percent in the first three months of the year. “Weights on the economy are lifting,” he said, referring to diminishing effects of higher oil and food prices, as well as the impact of the Japanese tsunami on auto production.

Zandi remains wary of the return of high gas prices, he says, and thinks unemployment will fall slowly, but he remains cautiously optimistic about the overall economic recovery.

But Zandi's relatively upbeat outlook would change abruptly if Congress and the Obama administration fail to agree on a plan to raise the federal debt ceiling by August 2, requiring the government to dramatically curtail operations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0628/Top-economist-Raise-the-debt-ceiling-or-blow-the-recovery-out-of-the-water?cmpid=ema%3Anws%3ANjQxOTk3NTE1NQS2

Maybe leaders have to adapt their views and promises to a real world situation, they all have to change their mind to a changing world, I do it and would bet you do too.

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

G W's top ten flip flops.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml

Republic of Texas #1

Re-registering as a BANNED poster, will get you banned again. Just thought I would give you the heads up,...

and yet not nearly as much as W managed to rack up while being supported unanimously by his party of "Fiscal" responsibility. He had it good for SIX years, too. And didn't manage to outlaw abortion, either. Kind of shows you about his 'values' right?

He was elected to fix the economy, but people think he and his party have failed and have exploded the nation's debt in the process,"

George Bush and his Republican congress exploded the debt long before Obama became president. The current Republicans in congress have no solutions other than cutting taxes and more deregulation -- the same thing that caused the mess in the first place. Electing republicans to fix this economy is like smoking to cure lung cancer.

Charlie = Good re-write of history, now check the facts so your liberal ignorance is not so blatant.

I stated the FACTS. Clowns like you just don't want to believe them. Try getting your information from places other than Rush the junkie and Fox Propaganda and yu just may learn something about reality. One more time --- George Bush and his Republican congress exploded the debt long before Obama became president. The current Republicans in congress have no solutions other than cutting taxes and more deregulation -- the same thing that caused the mess in the first place. Electing republicans to fix this economy is like smoking to cure lung ca

Charlie - My, my our meds must have expired. Libs took over the congress, spending went through the roof, they were buying votes from uninformed lemmings. And what has Obama done to the debt since he took office? He had a free hand until the people spoke in Nov. 2010, they will speak again in Nov. 2012.

Charlie - My, my our meds must have expired. Libs took over the congress, spending went through the roof,

I don't know what's up with your meds but I suggest you get your facts straight. Bush and his Republican Congress turned the largest surplus of all times (and those are Bush's exact words he used to justify his tax cuts) into the largest deficit of all times -- without including the most of the costs of 2 wars. They did than between 2001 and 2005. Those are FACTS. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they White House. They spent, spent, spent, spent and spent more. The first trillion dollar deficit happened under Bush. Bush never vetoed a single spending bill until 2007. Most of you so called conservatives said NOTHING about the massive deficits run up by Bush and His Republicans. You're nothing more than a collection of hypocrites.

Nice job sticking to the FACTS, Charlie. Bush and the Republicans turned a surplus into a deficit IMMEDIATELY upon taking over. Since that time it has spiraled out of control.

There was a surplus on paper thanks to Clinton getting his butt kicked in 1994 and he moved to the middle. As soon as the libs took over the congress, during the Bush years, spending skyrocketed. I guess that is okay since the lemmings don't understand capitalism anyway.

Republic of Texas #1

All due respect to a fellow Texan but: The surplus even "on paper" was a projected surplus that would have taken us through ten years and would have allowed us to do some real work on SS and Medicare, in 2000 the GW Bush Tax breaks, according to the department of revenue, wiped out that projected surplus.

There was a surplus on paper thanks to Clinton

Yep -- and that paper surplus was what Bush used to justify his tax cuts. Among other things he said --- "we have surpluses for as far as the eye can see."

"As soon as the libs took over the congress, during the Bush years, spending skyrocketed."

One more time --- GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT . The surplus was long gone by 2005. Democrats didn't take over Congress until 2007. Bush didn't veto a single spending bill until 2007. You're so misinformed it's laughable.

i"n 2000 the GW Bush Tax breaks, according to the department of revenue, wiped out that projected surplus."

Robert -- dittoheads don't like FACTS.

Charlie, for someone to criticize others regarding facts, it would be wise to parrot correct facts. The tax rate reductions did not happen in 2000. They occurred in 2001 and 2003.

The effects of 9/11 also had a large part in the reduction of projected surpluses. One can only wonder how things may have been different had we not been attacked. (not going to argue one way or the other on Iraq).

marshal = And who is Immelt and Soros funding? Who are the corrupt unions, trail lawyers and other shadow figures funding? Also, check to see who got the most from Insurance companies, Wall Street and Oil Companies during the last presidential election.

Amazing how you pack so many lies in to one post there Tex.

Trying to sell that idea that Obama is a friend to big corporate interests?? He must be a friend to them and to capitalism since the DOW is up about 80% since he took office.

Thinks Brent, but we already knew that.

Well if people already know that, then why do people keep supporting Obama like he's a godsend?

HE is a god send compared to what the republicans have to offer

very independent of you Jack Mack.....Team O'Hypocrite" is incompetent but hey they have "good intentions" while Repubs are "treasonous pack of wolves".and "looting the treasury".? LOL gimme a break....

I agree with one thing Team Obama is completely incompetent and frankly their doing so much damage to this great country that I wish the Repubs would act more like wolves instead of lambs

I do believe that Obama came into office with good intentions. I believe that he wanted to effect significant change in American politics, and I think he came in wanting to restore some sense of balance and order.

It is painfully apparent that he turned his back on those intentions almost immediately.

Meanwhile, the intensity of the hatred focused on him from the political right has been like nothing I have EVER seen in American politics. Although it's somewhat aged, I hold a degree in History and focused my studies on the US, specifically through the post-Civil War era up to about World War I. There have definitely been periods of intense political wrangling throughout our history (a quick look at the campaign literature of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is pretty shocking) but today the focus and intensity is difficult to compare even to that, though the language is less coarse.

The Republicans show, to my eye, a willingness to put party far, far in front of country. This is part of what makes them, in my view, evil. They are willing to destroy the nation in order to show the strength of their party loyalty. With respect to looting the public treasury, blame for that realistically belongs to both parties; this is what's been happening for 30 solid years through the permanent "stimulus" of our bloated military budget, through tax policy that distorts economic activity and favors the few and giant over the small businesses that once were the economic engine of the US.

I've consistently (though not always) voted Libertarian since the 1980s. I remember very well seeing Reagan for what he was: a charlatan, a thief, the architect of a massive scheme to sink the government so deep into debt that it would one day destroy itself. He was the dreamer of Grover Norquist's fondest dream - to destroy the government.

While these folks have convinced themselves somehow that hatred of government and love of country can somehow go hand in hand, I really don't see it that way. That is why I use the term "treasonous monsters." Rather than looking to fix what's wrong, their only goal appears to be to hand all the remaining tax money to the institutions that have bought Congress lock-stock-and-barrel, and then tear it all down.

Wow, it's medicine time. You have a very warped view of history and reality my friend.

The Democrats show, to my eye, a willingness to put party far, far in front of country. This is part of what makes them, in my view, evil. They are willing to destroy the nation in order to show the strength of their party loyalty. With respect to looting the public treasury, blame for that realistically belongs to both parties; this is what's been happening for 30 solid years through the permanent "stimulus" of our bloated entitlement budget, through tax policy that distorts economic activity and favors the few and giant over the small businesses that once were the economic engine of the US.

They are so wrapped up in the "hope and change" they are unwilling to see what a failure Obama is. Cash for clunkers- fail, foreign diplomacy- fail, leadership- fail, housing tax rebate- fail, the only thing he is good at is partying like a rockstar and speaking like a tent revival preacher to brainwash the weak minded minions. Oh, and he let the Navy kill Osama- kudos.

Crystal, what is it exactly that makes you believe Democrats are trying to destroy the nation? I don't see that anywhere.

As far as the debt is concerned it realistically does NOT belong to both parties. It belongs to the failure of Supply-Side economics.

In a nutshell, Keynesian (demand-side) economics, says that when a country is in a recession, it's because businesses don't have enough business. That is, people are not buying as much as usual, so they can't sell enough, so they lay people off, and then the people who are laid off, or are afraid of being laid off, buy even less. To get things going, we need something to increase demand. Conservative economists tend to say -- have the Fed reduce interest rates so people and businesses will borrow and spend more. Liberal economists tend to say have the government cut taxes for the poor, because they will spend, or have the government borrow and spend more to help business get started again.
The right answer, is that in a regular recession, monetary policy works and is much easier to use so that is best. But in a terrible recession or a depression, the interest rate goes down to about zero and can't go any lower, so then monetary policy stops working. Then you need Keynesian economics -- like the spending for World War II>
Both conservative (monetarist -- like Milton Friedman) and liberal (Keynesian) economists say that the government needs to stimulate demand in a recession. But the two "supply-side" economist say both are wrong, that we need to give tax cuts to the rich and then the rich will be stimulated to work much harder and they are the ones who are most productive and that will make the economy hum again. Laffer drew his famous "Laffer curve" to try to prove this point (but it is just plain silly). It claims that if the government cuts their tax rate, the rich will make so much more money that they will pay more taxes not less. It also claims that if you cut the tax rate for the bottom 98% of the population this won't happen.

So this was tried under Reagan. Big tax cuts for the rich. And G. W. H. Bush called this "voodoo economics," because only two economists believed it (or at least they often said they did), and because the idea that cutting taxes for the rich would collect more money not less. Of course it never worked, and that's one reason the Supply Siders ran up the debt (even compared to GDP) for 20 out of 20 years, while other Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats did not have this problem.
In a nutshell, Keynesian (demand-side) economics, says that when a country is in a recession, it's because businesses don't have enough business. That is, people are not buying as much as usual, so they can't sell enough, so they lay people off, and then the people who are laid off, or are afraid of being laid off, buy even less. To get things going, we need something to increase demand. Conservative economists tend to say -- have the Fed reduce interest rates so people and businesses will borrow and spend more. Liberal economists tend to say have the government cut taxes for the poor, because they will spend, or have the government borrow and spend more to help business get started again.
The right answer, is that in a regular recession, monetary policy works and is much easier to use so that is best. But in a terrible recession or a depression, the interest rate goes down to about zero and can't go any lower, so then monetary policy stops working. Then you need Keynesian economics -- like the spending for World War II>
Both conservative (monetarist -- like Milton Friedman) and liberal (Keynesian) economists say that the government needs to stimulate demand in a recession. But the two "supply-side" economist say both are wrong, that we need to give tax cuts to the rich and then the rich will be stimulated to work much harder and they are the ones who are most productive and that will make the economy hum again. Laffer drew his famous "Laffer curve" to try to prove this point (but it is just plain silly). It claims that if the government cuts their tax rate, the rich will make so much more money that they will pay more taxes not less. It also claims that if you cut the tax rate for the bottom 98% of the population this won't happen.
So this was tried under Reagan. Big tax cuts for the rich. And G. W. H. Bush called this "voodoo economics," because only two economists believed it (or at least they often said they did), and because the idea that cutting taxes for the rich would collect more money not less. Of course it never worked, and that's one reason the Supply Siders ran up the debt (even compared to GDP) for 20 out of 20 years, while other Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats did not have this problem.

http://zfacts.com/p/voodoo.html

And so the national debt belongs almost entirely to the Supply Side presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html It isn't the fault of Democrats that Conservative Republicans convinced the American people that the federal government runs on rainbows and unicorns. Now the American people are finding out otherwise.

you may be right about the "change"

The Republican Party:

The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, professionals, and wealthier farmers. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs to protect heavy industry. They always held true to their beliefs of big business. Rest In Peace

born 1858

died 2012

Robert I guess it's your wing nut liberal dream to see the end of white people, business, religion, hard working professionals, "wealthier" successful farmers, banks, and infrastructure...

just wondering where you gather all your information as these wing nut liberals also control the media

So Robert, it seems you have no respect for the American Constitution. Thank you for your patriotism and respect. What you fail to realize is our founding fathers were devoted conservatives, to which the conservatives believe in limited government. liberty, and free of oppression. Now please remove your sorry ass from my country!

What a bunch of cry babies and you all wonder why things never get done? go ahead and keep calling each other names like that's every solved anything? The main problem is politicians (both parties) until we set term limits in the Senate and House there's always going to be to much money going to special interest group instead of going back to the people. This country has major infrastructure problems ( roads, rail, waterways, power plants, bridges, dams, the list is long; that need to be fixed (JOBS), but are we fixing them? Why not? That's a question that both parties should be asked, I'm pretty sure jobs create revenue, which in turns create more taxes revenue which helps cut down on the money we barrow as a country. The CCC worked well in the 30's and helped dig us out of a depression, so instead of spending our dollars overseas why don't we invest in our own country and people?

Nobody can be that stupid twice.........or can they?

P. Walker....they were when they voted Bush in twice!!

oh Didi - that was a low blow.

: )

You didn't happen to notice we were in a huge downhill slide BEFORE 2007 did you?

Ernie, its an impossibility to address spending without reducing social security and medicare benefits. The elderly control over 80% of the wealth in this country so maybe we need to address means testing some of these programs but you cant have programs in which people get $3 dollars for every dollar invested back from the government without bankrupting our children and grandchildren. Its a fact so we do need to address these programs. Its not about living on social security as thats not the point and I would never advocate taking a benefit from those least able to afford it but we need to address actual aggregage expense somehow

.

Kirk--is is impossible to address spending without reducing the "defense"/military industrial complex budget! We spend astronomical amounts of dollars at exponentially more than the rest of the world combined. Cuts in this area should be considered first before gutting the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. A country is judged on how it cares for its most at-risk citizens--and we are not doing so well!

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