Good points Louis

The media realize the individuals that rely on opinions from a few media and political puppets such as Rush, Sarah, Dick (Armey), Dick (Cheney), Bush and whoever else they tune in to will listen and take the topic as something “new” or “never tried before” and thus reinforce the anti-cultural view, to say Kenyan, Socialist, Marxist, “No longer the America we knew”, Islamic, Non-Christian, Unpatriotic…

They are the real terrorist.

Good Morning America

Crossroads"

It’s over says Mitch McConnell. The economy could have been worst had Republicans not opposed the President’s polices? What? What a hyper partisan play on words i.e flip. Still Mitch McConnell has no new ideas Mitch. Keep lying and being evasive with your incompetent plan. It will not work wonders for your hyperbolic function. Mitch McConnell’s new message will permit the G.O.P/Tea Party for a rude awakening by making this faux pas. Mitch McConnell is not correct in judgment Americans disagree with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Again, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner the American people have spoken. Therefore, Mitch McConnell’s symmetry; is not a mirror image as the people are sick of the Congress inability to work together. More importantly, Mitch McConnell. Republican only know how to run smear campaigns

Kudos to Senator Kerry’s response to Mitch McConnell’s mockery argument of business uncertainty 800 billion tax cuts would be disastrous and the same as before

Pooh on Mr. Gregory for trying to portray the President as weak and caving in.

Yes compromise as Senator Kerry said doesn’t mean comfortability; which is what the G.O.P/Tea Party wants, to stay comfortable with their planned additional 4 trillion give away to their corporate masters.

CBS Poll Finds Only 46 Percent Of Republicans Support GOP’s Stand On Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Rich

A CBS News poll released last night finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts “extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/03/gop-base-tax-cuts/

USA Today/Gallup poll, Nov. 19-21, 2010

Associated Press-CNBC poll, Nov. 18-22, 2010

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Nov. 11-15, 2010

Quinnipiac poll, Nov. 8-15, 2010

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/02/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-american-people-spoke-pretty-lou/

Republicans say the stimulus bill "didn’t create one new job."

Again, that is a where the republican? tea baggers display their expertise of lyin , denyiny, and skewd information. Their pants should be on fire. That money has clearly resulted in tens of thousands of jobs that wouldn't exist otherwise

. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/18/scott-brown/scott-brown-says-stimulus-didnt-create-one-new-job/

Stimulus added millions of jobs in Q2

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N55X20100824

I must say the G.O.P/Tea Party as well as the left have tied the President and the American people‘s hand behind his back. it’s as if the President and this country is in shackles. Everyone seems to be back stabbers smilie in the prez face the back stab

However, there is one Republican Senator who does appear willing to reach across the aisle. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act and has been leading the push to take up the New START arms control agreement. Therefore for Jon Kyle to is not er, like "muzhik" - or real man to borrow a phrase from the Russians

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/05/lugar-party-of-no/

PREDICTIONS FOR 2010:

Last December I posted some predictions and invited FR regulars to participate and give their predictions for 2010. I confess that my record keeping system is not perfect but over the weekend I reviewed the predictions I could find. Initially, I thought there would be a winner; someone whose crystal ball was clearer than everyone else's, but such is not the case.

Many of us predicted the Democrats would lose seats in the House and Senate. Frank "Grimey" Grimes predicted a pick-up of 23 House seats; I thought it would be between 15-21. Frank was closer, but in light of the 60 seat pick-up, we both missed. Still, reviewing Frank's predictions, he thought Harry Reid would lose and I thought Joe Sestak would win. I also thought John McCain would lose. Frank gets the edge here. One other comparison: both Frank and I thought the DOW would improve: Frank thought 12,000 range, with unemployment in the 9-10 percent range. I predicted the DOW would be around 11,750 with unemployment in the 9.3 range.

There were others who participated and deserve credit. Jody, Clara and I predicted HCR would pass, but no one realized how difficult it would be. Clara gets extra credit for predicting that Lawrence O'Donnell would get his own show; that is a direct hit. Clara also predicted that Sandra Bullock would win an Oscar in her role in "Blind Side". A second direct hit. Well done.

My favorite prediction came from Jody who had the insight to predict, "The Senate will realize it is dysfunctional and the rules of filibustering will change after the 2010 elections if not before." In January a new Congress will be formed and I bet she is right; there will be some changes in the cloture rules. This was a great prediction.

Some predictions were so off-the-wall, I did not want to embarrass anyone. If your reasonable prediction was overlooked, I apologize. Next Monday I will make some predictions for next year. My take-away from all of this is predicting political outcomes are far more difficult than predicting business outcomes. If you want to be humbled, make a prediction.

Thanks Feisty for pointing out that "protecting every dollar" only extends to THEIR money. The rest of us can just lump it.

Great way to start the week, enjoyed your comments, all good points.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner? Bonuses for Millionaires, Mr. Boehner, but throw the unemployed under the millionaire bus as it chugs toward the Robber Baron Station.

Ron, glad you kept those predictions. I remember making the dysfunctional senate one which sounded pretty far fetched as I think I commented it might be wishful thinking. Glad you spared us the embarassing ones although one of mine was that Iowa would vote their first female senator ousting Grassley--now that was wishful thinking as he has so much campaign money stashed that the only way he'll leave is when old age catches up to him.

The redistribution of wealth to the top 2% will continue to set new records. One of the brighter spots last week was that the Cat Food commissions report did not get the 14 votes it needed to get out of committee.

The Cat Food Commission’s report goes to the Dogs. Last week the much toted report from Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson failed to get the 14 votes needed to get out of committee. Thank God, as these recommendations would have put the majority of the burden directly at the feet of the middle class. Copied from my post of 11/11.

Some of the things in the draft are really disturbing for the Middle Class and hopefully they will not get the 14 (out of 18) votes needed to move this forward. For example from my reading of this Litter Box Tabloid I came away with the following major issues.

Taxes (on the front of it) look like they will go down. The lowest rate will be 8% down from 10%. The highest rate will drop to 23% down from 35% and corporate taxes will go from the highest of 35% down to as low as 26%. Ok people, what is wrong with this picture? We have an even worst redistribution of wealth to the richest 2% than we have now. This commission just stuck the Middle Class with the bulk of the taxes – again.

To make this even worst, you will no longer be able to deduct your Mortgage Interest payments on your taxes. Actually most deductions would be gone under this proposal. This, for most people, is their largest payment on a monthly basis and just increased your cost of home ownership. What about the 23% of Americans that are currently underwater? What about the purchase of new homes. You will see more foreclosures, the real cost of owing a home will increase just to name a few issues.

Corporations will no longer be able to deduct the cost of Health Care for their employees. Here is a great idea when Health Cost are rising by double digits (and have been for a long time now and has nothing to do with HCR) lets make it more expensive for the small business owners. Guess what, right now about 1 in 6 people do not have health care, starting in 2014 another 30 Million will be eligible for Health Care because of HCR. This will all be gone and we will have more people without Health Coverage than we do now. I would not be surprised if the number doubles or more. Employers will not be able to pay for it. Period. Also I do not remotely see the savings here if you take into consideration the CBO analysis of HCR.

Social Security (first Social Security has no effect on the deficit, period) will have the full retirement age moved from 67 now to 69, there is a hardship provision (supposedly) but I did not see any information on it. I do not like this either, some people are in jobs that the physical demands would not allow them to work until age 70. I can because I do consulting work. A steel worker or heavy duty mechanic, maybe not. They are going to raise the cap (currently at $106,800) to some number that will cover 90% of the revenue, which is the option I like best. Also the COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) will be gone. Bad idea, the COLA is the only thing that helps keep the benefits in line with rising economic costs. Without it over time we run the risk of benefits falling short of what we need and payees would fall under the poverty line.

And just to slap you in the face and get your attention, the Federal Gasoline Tax will increase by $0.15. OK, if they do with this money what they say they will do, repair and build roads, bridges etc I do not have a problem with that.

There are also proposed cuts for Defense. Currently we spend more on Defense than the next top 8 countries do combined.. We are not the “World Police Department” nor should we. There is a lot of waste, old technology, redundancy, too many chefs in the kitchen and even things the Military does not even want. This all should be looked at and cut as long as it does not put one solider in harms way. I am for a leaner and more efficient Military but NOT at the expense of our soldiers. Also Medicare is riddled with fraud and waste. These should be cut but cutting benefits is not the answer as in this proposal. And there are lots of others in the proposal as well.

In my opinion what is being proposed here is another vicious attack on the Middle Class. The majority of the so called cuts are directly aimed at Middle Class Programs. Once again we are supposed to shoulder the majority of the burden while the other 2% get basically a free pass.

Thanks John & Bev...

As Gordon Gecko said back in the 80's Greed is GOOD!

Fast forward to 2010.. and he was right on when he said Greed is LEGAL!

PS: Bev -- I don't have Comcast but saw it on the news this morning. Snow blower came in handy though! ;0)

THE RICH WILL GET THEIR "JUST DESERTS" ONE DAY!....The upper 2% have tax cuts already in place....NO TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT PERIOD!!Doesn't work..Even Pres. Reagan's budget director is against the wealthy having a unfunded TAX BREAK!....PERIOD!...Greedy bastar-ds!sh-t all over the middle-class AGAIN!AT LEAST THE AMERICANS THAT NEED THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS...WILL GET THEM AGAIN!..JUST IN TIME FOR X-MAS.....Those dam scrooges!

Ron Indiana-

Last Saturday, the Senate voted against the proposal by House Democrats to end the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning above $250K annually. The measure failed because four Democratic senators-Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Jim Webb (D-VA)...along with Joe Lieberman, (I/D-CT)-voted against it. Of those, only Feingold won't be back for the next session

In the new 112th Congress, senate Democrats will still effectively have the majority over Republicans...53 to 47.

However, Saturday's tax vote would indicate that the new senate will be much more closely divided than before. It's conceivable that, absent the filibuster and cloture rules now in effect, both Democrats AND Republicans could assemble enough votes for a simple majority on any given issue.

That unpredictability, along with Republicans now having control of the House after January, suggests to me that there will not be sufficient enthusiasm from EITHER party to change the filibuster and cloture rules anytime soon.

We'll see.

Beverly, you are filling the back of a pickup truck with apples, but the tailgate is open and apples already in the truck are rolling onto the ground, if you put 200 apples in the truck, but 300 fall out, you've failed your employer. You say "I added 200 apples, look what a good job I did", I say the truck has 100 fewer than it did to begin with. We're both right, but we'd been better off if you'd just shut the tailgate.

About those pesky Right Wing Robber Barons and the Righteous Saint Obama:

In the last election, Wall Street money went to Obama and the Democrats at 4-1 margin. Nasty hedge fund guys, like Soros, donated to Obama at twice that margin. How'd Wall Street come out with those bailouts? How they doing today?

The big 5 big banks got $135 billion in bailouts then the government turns around and gives them $125 million to handle the IPO of GM which was made possible by us giving GM the $50 billion in bailout. Don't forget the $45 billion tax credit over the next 20 years to shore up the empty union pension funds and make the IPO look better.

But Hey! GE is going to buy 25,000 of GM's new Volts. Good, smart deal, right.

Funny, GE donated almost $700,000.00 in 2008 to Obama and the Dems. Obama gave GE $24.9 million from $787 billion. GE dumps 18,000 US employees in 2009 and reports a profit of $156 billion.

Why did Obama give a company that had a profit of $156 billion a bailout of $24.9 million? Oh yea, about those 25,000 Volts. GE will get a little tax payer funded credit of $7,500 per vehicle, or $187.5 million.

Bad news this is just the tip of the iceberg - just the Obama/GE iceberg. Obama takes the GE boys to India and announces big contracts for jet engines, kills the energy/oil in the Gulf to help promote demand GE green technologies/wind turbines, etc. on and on and on...

Feisty, John, Bev and Others

Obama says Merry Christmas and thanks for being tools.

Yep, you simply can't make this stuff up, no one would believe it. The Republicans, elected by the teabaggers, who are simply not that bright, pontificated about the "DEFICIT". Boy, howdy, didn't we hear way more about their demand to cut that deficit now then we needed to, given their behavior! What do they do when they take office? Do the one thing that will surely bust the deficit for a long time to come: gave a tax break to their corporate owners, who are now so brave about their rape of this country that they don't even bother to hide it. What else do they do? Refuse to entertain any sort of relief to the long term unemployed AT CHRISTMAS! The Corporate masters of the Republican Party got exactly what they paid for, both in ownership of the Roberts Supreme Court, and the party itself. Not only have they been enriched AGAIN at the expense of Joe and Joan America, they don't even have to worry about that old contract that they used to hold with employees. That is, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I suggest each and every one of you "teabaggers" who voted this bunch of thugs in Google Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech. It is long, but I imagine you can find someone to explain it to you. You may learn something about how a good Republican President was prescient about the dangers of this kind of thinking for the country. Or failing that, read Dicken's A Christmas Carol. You might be reminded of our obligations to each other.

It is sad and pathetic that every time a liberal is not getting their way and people do not agree with them, it is almost always either punishing the poor or it is racism. When will the liberals stop using this as an excuse and crutch? What has obama done in the last two years? Largest deficits ever in our history. A healthcare plan that is already punishing millions of Americans. obama has lied time and time again. Where is the transparency? Where is the most honest administration ever? Where is all Americans will get a chance to read a bill before passed? Bottom line is that the American people spoke on how obama and the democrats are doing their jobs. The largest swing in the House of Representatives since WWII.

The GOP makes my stomach hurt.

I just figured out how we can pay for $300 per week per family in unemployment benefits for the chronically unemployed! All we have to do is also give an average of $120,000 per year to every rich family in America, then it all balances out!

Drink more tea!

Worried that lawmakers won’t extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, financial firms like Goldman Sachs are discussing moving up bonus payouts from next year to this month

Goldman Sachs was a company the Dems helped bail out, right? Ah yes, $12.9 Billion. http://www.google.com/search?q=goldman+sachs+bailout&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Beverly, the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote for over a year. They failed with supermajority. Trying to blame others for what didn't get done under their reign just shows the left isn't ready for control yet. The name calling is just juvenile and the November elections showed most of the country agrees.

which is what the G.O.P/Tea Party wants, to stay comfortable with their planned additional 4 trillion give away to their corporate masters

Aha! So you guys have been LYING about how the increase on the top 2% wasn't for corporations, but for only wealthy people! It IS about taking 4 trillion away from corporations that could be used for hiring!

Jody, "Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?" - he doesn't take majority leader until January. Besides, at least he's smart enough to know that it's not the job of Congress or Senate to create jobs. Gov't jobs are just expenses passed on to the non gov't workers through taxes. Eventually you'll run out of taxpayer $$ and it will fail. Their job is to make sure they don't suck the payroll departments dry so they can hire.

I could go on all day but you guys seem to have anger management issues. I have about 5% trust in the Republican party because they're a bunch of politicians and lawyers. It's even less for the Democrats due to the name calling, rewriting history, and inability to get the will of the constituents done when they had supermajority.

tea-bag-not

Even Pres. Reagan's budget director is against the wealthy having a unfunded TAX BREAK!....PERIOD!...

Now you know you have just posted a heretical opinion for all Tea Bagger nuts.

Sources told Fox News on Sunday that Obama is trying to "sell" liberals in the House on his potential acceptance of tax rates across the board and for the wealthy, potentially marrying the cuts to jobless benefits, and he wants a deal done this week.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who is also a member of the commission said he doesn't want rates to increase for anybody, but spending must come down.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/06/obama-push-unemployment-benefits-condition-extending-tax-rates/

===================================================================

While the president is expected to emphasize the need for more unemployment benefits as a condition of any deal to extend current rates, Republicans are saying the UNemployed don't need unemployment benefits since they are to lazy to take a shower to go look for a job.

O-M-G... LOL LOL LOL

At this point I am so disappointed in our Party that I'm beside myself. What a bunch of wimps. Where's their juevos? No wonder President Obama can't get things done with no backbone in his Congress. It's discussting.

The estimates that I saw on either Pew research or OBM for extending the tax cuts for all for 2 years was 581 million, not counting unemployment and other cuts, A trillion isn't a far reach. One still wonders how all this stuff is getting paid for. Looks like neither side is slashing spending.

Is there anyone in this country with a brain and critical thinking skills that pays any attention to anyone in the media? And that includes FOX and MSNBC and CNN and HLN and ABC and CBS and NBC.

What used to pass as journalism is now simply a narrative the corporate masters make their people write. If we had real journalism, we would not have stories about Dancing with the Stars.

Bloggers, too, who could and should be counted on for information, have also sunk to middle school levels with name calling and misinformation.

Those who have studied rhetoric, how the written word is important, understand the nuances used by supposed journalists to sway the reader to the accepted narrative.

This country is a lost cause. The uninformed, the ill-informed, the uneducated, have brought this country to the lowest common denominator. And the so-called media keeps feeding the ignorant.

"it is almost always either punishing the poor or it is racism. When will the liberals stop using this as an excuse and crutch?"

When Conservatives stop pretending our President is from Kenya, that $300/month in unemployment puts those who can't find work on easy street, and people aren't dying because keeping taxes low for the rich is more important than medical care for those who aren't rich.

I say shame on the republicans for holding all those poor souls hostage! I will NEVER vote for a republican again.

This "compromise" is just another example of politicians not being able to do what is needed for the good of the country. Long term consequences are never a factor. It is all about short term benefits.

As my political science professor taught....In new age politics the truth doesn't matter. What matters is what you can make people believe.

well, at least I've found out where the "left wingers" hang out.

I know you won't agree but the whole "class warfare" thing started when Obama campaigned suggesting everyone making over $250K a year is rich. He then proceeded to pit one group against the other. Remember one thing, these are not tax cuts. These are taxes people have been living under for some time now. Extending them is just supporting the "status quo". Another thing, the Dems insisted that the taxes for people over $250K must be paid for----------why doesn't the whole tax bill have to be paid for?????? If not taxing people over $250K is going to cost the govt. revenue, I'm sure the same holds true for those making under $250K.

The Libs have to stop drinking the "Obama kool-aide" and become realistic. I think the general population has finally figured out they were fooled by a politician who the press got completely behind and wouldn't print anything derogatory about. I think since Obama has been in office, he has shown why he voted "present" over 100 times while a senator---the man can't make a decision. He is an "empty suit" who turned his presidency over to Pelosi and Reid and is now caught with his proverbial "pants down" not being able to satisfy either the right or left.

where I grew up, calling conservatives racists just because they dont believe in a wasteful, socialist agenda that will financially destroy a once strong country is racist. you libnuts have caused all the financial problems facing this country. don't be so stupid by believing your racist president that the free market and capitalism conservatives have caused the financial problems facing this country. keep it simple stupid: liberal spending causes financial problems, conservative spending prevents financial problems. it's not a party issue, it's not an individual issue ("bush did it"). it's a behavior issue liberal. believe the logic, not the president and media rhetoric that has divided a once united country. this country needs a needs leadership that unites us, not continues to divide us. take off your racist blinders.

why dont all you libs get off your as- and go get a job class warfare is all you know what a bunch of sickos

Bob, if being in the top 2$ of tax payers isn't "rich" then where does that figure start?

As far as class warfare is concerned that started more like 30 years ago, when we started funnelling unprecedented riches to those at the top of the economic ladder. It's brought us to a place where the "land of opportunity" apparently is someplace else.

This bar chart puts the United States as the dubious front runner with the highest income inequality among 20 wealthy nations. With the exception of Japan, all the countries have European heritage. In 2000 the United States’ inequality stood well above all other rich nations. At the other end of the scale the Nordic countries plus the Netherlands had very low inequality ratios. Most Western European nations, as well as Australia and Canada fell in between.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/01/22/inequality-among-affluent-nations/
That was really accomplished by working both ends of the economic spectrum. People of average means have languished since Reagan made his mark on America.

The dashed line in the next chart shows what median income would have looked like had it risen in sync with per capita GDP. The difference is huge: in 2007, the median family’s income would have been $91,000 instead of $61,000.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/01/22/inequality-among-affluent-nations/

If you're wondering where all that wealth might have gone it isn't hard to find.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Class warfare has been around for quite a while now, and the wealthy elites are doing very well.

i'll make a deal with you lefties, i am fine with tax cuts expiring. but i am not going to extend benefits to people who can't seem to find a way to get any sort of job in nearly 2 years. and i want you to repeal this mess of a health bill. then, people can put on their big boy pants and act like adults and take care of themselves. you say conservatives are selfish - i say YOU are the ones who are selfish taking away from my family more of what i earn to give to people who are too lazy to stand on their own.

and i love how if we don't like what the president is doing it all comes down to 'racism'. that card is so worn out. perhaps there are people who just don't think he is up to the job. or that his ideas for what america 'should' be are way off base.

We got to this because the American people voted for the republicans you can't blame that on Obama when you are out voted, the american people are really stupid instead of helping people they would rather vote in the republicans help big business and help the richest 1 % of the USA. Did you see gas jump over 3.00 a gallon as soon as the republicans had some power? So pat yourselves on the back I thought we would have learned in the Bush era when everybody was paying through the nose for gas and the goods they needed. It really is pathetic

LouisJ:

The truly sad thing about your comments is that you genuinely believe all the "chicken crap" you've been fed.

Glad you were finally able to play the race card instead of waiting for a follow-up.

"by the people...for the people" *cough* *cough*

em

Washington carefully orchestrates what we see in the media. Why didn't the Dems bring up the tax breaks and the START Treaty when they had the votes? I say it was because they were trying to orchestrate how it would look to the public. They were already reeling from how the public reacted to the healthcare debate and were worried for their jobs. And rightly so as it turned out. They knew all along that taking the tax breaks away from the middle class in the middle of a recession (which they said we were out of last year) would hurt the recovery. Taking money away from consumers wouldn't help the economy. They also know taking away money from the ultra rich could send jobs overseas and cause inflation as the corps. will start to either go up on their prices of goods or cheapen their goods so they can still hit or exceed their bottom lines to appease their shareholders.

Washington is broken people! They worry to much about getting re-elected and don't give a rats behind about the citizens of this country. Bush screwed up and now Obama is screwing up and Congress thinks their screw ups will be covered by the Presidents screw ups. GEEEEZ!

John B, Des Moines, IA - ...When Conservatives stop pretending our President is from Kenya,

Sure, as soon as he releases his records that he's spent nearly $2 MILLION to hide from the public. (That's a FACT).

that $300/month in unemployment puts those who can't find work on easy street, and people aren't dying because keeping taxes low for the rich is more important than medical care for those who aren't rich.

I know people in California making more like $520. a WEEK! That's $2080 /mo.

When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, my taxes DID go down, and I make far less than $250K. Though it was not a whole lot, every little bit counts. I'll take it. If the democrats REALLY care about the middle class and really understood that Keynesian economics simply doesn't work, they would REDUCE THE SPENDING DRAMATICALLY, then lower taxes to ALL AMERICANS. That will stimulate the economy and result in increased revenue to government over time.

I have no particular affinity for "the rich", but when they're making money, they spend it on things that generate work for all the rest of us. I work for a medium sized business that recently decided to spend BIG money and move to a lerger facility in the middle of a recession. Why did they do this? Because of the many TAX INCENTIVES they got from the city they're moving to. Thanks to this, entire crews of local contractors are getting their first big contracts they've had in two years. Electricians, plumbers, carpenters, machine movers, machine shops, trucking companies and laborers are all very busy now. If it weren't for that simple tax incentive, the company would have simply stayed where we are, and sat on that capital.

This has convinced me that Democrats are far more concerned with pushing their social agenda onto the populace and using their media cohorts to convince people that it's the right thing than they are with actually helping the citizens. That's why I believe they truly are Marxists, and I'll never vote for any democrats again.

Middle Class American.....

Both sides held hostages. And I hate using sides! But, the GOP held the unemployed hostage and the Dems held the middle class hostage.

Do you really think they would have cut unemployment benefits? Do you really think they would cut the tax breaks for the middle class or the wealthy? This is all political wrangling to help define themselves in the aftermath of the elections. This is status quo in Washington. It's practically scripted.

I disagree, I am poorer class, I make under the lowest amont. I can hardly make ends meet, and I am always Evicted and I sleep outside in the winter time when it is really cold outside,So I do hope they DO Extend the tax cuts, So I can sleep in a warm Appartment.

Calling it the way I see it Chuck.

There's a movie called The Nightmare Before Christmas... Jack Skellington discovered a place called Christmas Town. He was so excited that he wanted to try something new. So he "borrowed" the Christmas theme for himself and incorporated Halloween into and on top of all that, he kidnapped "Santy Claws". Once Jack realized his version of Christmas was a mistake he had to fight off the villanous Oogie Boogie to rescue Santy Claws to right the wrong.

In short, there are some people (Republithugs) in this world that would take a great idea and incorporate their misconceived platforms into it to shape it to fit their own agenda. The Republithugs have grabbed all the campaign slogans President Obama created and placed into them an idea that the Republithug proposals are intuitive and original when all they are a disaster waiting to happen. Stealing is a crime that the Republithugs commit in plain sight.

Now I am not putting Jack Skellington (as I said he "borrowed") in the same category as the Republithugs as Jack was a good guy that was just confused. The Republithugs steal anything and everything which in turn are out and out devious acts of Sabotage on Democray.

Bob - you don't understand economics. First, you must make more than $250K and don't feel like you are rich. I know people in that category and they truly do not believe they are because they compare themselves to the multi-millionaire and billionaires. But from my perspective, $250K sounds pretty damn good.

Your "status quo" is ten years of Bush "tax cuts" that were to expire. Ten years ago we all paid more, and it was the "status quo" at that time. And times were good. No budget deficits. Economy was booming.

The people making over 250K can AFFORD these tax hikes. They also do not SPEND the taxes they will not have to pay if they are extended. That is the purpose of extending the tax cuts to people who make less - so they will SPEND the money and rev up the economy.

So - lets forgo 400Billion in tax revenues by allowing the tax cuts to continue for all over the next 10 years and start the cutting of expenditures - what shall we start with? Social Security? Medicare? Roads? Defense? Education? Medicaid? Give us your ideas.

Sure, as soon as he releases his records that he's spent nearly $2 MILLION to hide from the public. (That's a FACT).

Okay... NOW i GET it!

I'm suppose to believe it's a FACT because YOU say SO? Okee Dokee... lmao

PS: Thanks to that little gem- I couldn't get past the first line in your lengthy rant...

Thanks for playin anyway!

When Conservatives stop pretending our President is from Kenya,

Sure, as soon as he releases his records that he's spent nearly $2 MILLION to hide from the public. (That's a FACT).

Sometimes it's obvious when someone isn't worth arguing with. I prefer to live in the reality-based community.

Beverly, the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote for over a year.

I wish this lie would go away. The Dems NEVER had a filibuster proof majority during Obama's tenure, NEVER. It just didn't happen. They never had 60. Why don't people understand this?!?

From what I have read today there seems to be some misguided anger.

People are talking about taxing the rich. So be it. But change the argument to taxing corporations and take home pay. Don't tax the small business income that is left in small business for expansion. That will take the Republican argument out of the equation, and keep more fuel in the small business arsenal for hiring people.

Large companies are shedding jobs, small business is creating them. Yet we lower the tax rate on corporations, and to-date I haven't seen a blip on raising those taxes, especially to outsourcing companies.

Small businesses are creating jobs, taxing the money that small business owners will reduce the amount of hiring and investment. And, as some of you point out that only amounts to 3% of the "rich" then what is the harm in not increasing the taxes that small business leaves in for investing in their business. If the owner taxes the money home, then by all means tax it.

Lastly, all the people that state Republicans are against the middle class and only support the upper 2%, that is regurgitated rhetoric from the Democrats. Business needs a healthy middle and upper class to shore up their sales. Eliminating middle class customers to sell to 2% of the population is not a healthy scenario for any company.

Democrats and Republicans have different economic philosophy's. Pure and simple. Neither policy is necessarily correct or wrong. Both work in different ways, and depending on what outcome you are looking for one may work better that the other, in general. Nothing Macro works perfect for each of our micro-personal economics. Unfortunately, politicians have really polarized all of us to a Blue or Red person. In reality, we are all some shade of Purple. (works for me, I'm a Vikes fan).

I just wish the poplutation would settle down and start talking about the validity of both sides/ideas. Since those we elected on both sides can't.

Y'all have a good Monday!

Heck...I've always believed CNBC was going to win this!

Key Qoute:

tax cuts for two years will likely cost more than the stimulus did

President Obama I have supported you the pass 2 years, through thick and thin, but if you don't grow a pair and let these tax cuts expire for everyone, I'm throwing your ass under the bus!!!!

Gas was over 3$ a gallon before the elections dude.

All the posts I read are complaining about the wealthy people saying they do nothing for America but get free rides and horde money.

How about I post 1,000 articles about charitable donations made by the top 5% of wealth in america, helping to drive medical research and care for those less fortunate. How about I post more articles about how the top 5% of wealth in this country already pay 95% of the taxes.

This country was built off the fact that an everyday man can accumulate mass amounts of wealth. Look at the creators of myspace and facebook. Just regular kids not BILLIONARES..that had a good idea. And now they are rich. More than likely both fall in the top 5% now...Creating socialist policies that allow people to not strive for more wealth and prosperity create this funk we are in right now. Give me free benefits, give me free medical, give me free money...soon it'll be give me a free house I can't afford it! Soon no one will go to college because the government will be giving it all for FREE.

Trust me I'd benefit from this agenda, but I don't agree with it just based on the principal. Just because I'm on the winning side of the politics doesn't mean I should blindly follow. These top 5% are doing what they should be doing for this country...The "middle class" needs to just buck up and realize that they are the MIDDLE class. Stop trying to buy your BMW, and think you can barely afford a 1/2 million dollar home and live within your means. Stop blaming other people for why you dont have money.

Republicans and Democrats have messed up over the years. We need two parties in this country so that ONE party can't just push agendas through the government how they please without debate and discussion. Look at what the dems did with full control of the government. It's not right that ANY party be able to push anything they want through congress.

Don't you all find something wrong with the fact that EVERY democrat votes for or against a bill. And Every republican the same. If you are going to accuse republicans of being lobbied and voting party lines then you must also accuse the democrats of doing the same. Whether you like it or not republicans AND democrats are both lobbied. The only way to make a fair government now is to have an equal control of power to force debates and discussions. Without that you are in a dictatorship with one party ruling the nation.

None of these ideas are re-quoted, spewed ideas from other news agencies. Stop being robots and make your own opinions not copy-pasting someone elses.

The Greedy Ol' Party has struck again...DRAT!

Obama can't fight Cable T.V. people! No matter what is or is not true.

Everyone,

I understand that some are upset because the "RICH" are not paying their fair share. So what is their "Fair Share"?

What we should be working towards is not making people pay more taxes, but making them pay what they are suppose to pay. We need to reform the tax codes so that people don't have the loopholes and tax deductions to bring their income down several levels. That is going to be the way you make up your revenue, not by taxing people that can hide their money and find the loopholes.

If the compromise works and the cuts are extended for 2 more years, that will play big into the next election. Obama needs to make it a 3 year extension for taxes, just to take the cuts out of the equation, but don't see that happening. And besides, how much longer are we going to extend unemployment benefits, until the next election cycle. How long should the government be taking care of these people?

I would rather see them all expire -- tax cuts and unemployment -- than take on the massive debt this will create just so millionaires can buy another diamond necklace, yacht or week on the Rhine.

I don't know what everyone else will say BB, but I'll say what I say every day. The top 10% hold nearly 85% of wealth, they should pay 85% of taxes. Any less and they're getting a subsidy from the rest of us.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf

The media is complicit in the narrative being driven that the Stimulus did not create jobs (negative for the President) and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs (positive for the Republicans).

These lies have been percolating and circulating for months and the only journalist who regularly disputes these claims with facts and figures is Rachel Maddow.

Why is she the lone voice in the wilderness?

Where are the Network journalists whose job it is to present the facts? They present the talking points of the Republican Party and the public is none the wiser.

This propaganda machine would make Chairman Mao proud!

BTW, A CONCERNED MIDDLE CLASS Citizen:

Gas was not $3.00/gallon on November 2nd in Maryland. Regular was around $2.80 in most suburban towns and now it is over $3.00.

What say you?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL - Okay... NOW i GET it!

I'm suppose to believe it's a FACT because YOU say SO? Okee Dokee... lmao

You obviously have a computer, so LOOK up the info for yourself. Don't take my word for it. There is much more information to be found than just the swill you get from Media Matters and Move-on.org.

The United States Justice Foundation has had many lawsuits in court since before the 2008 elections trying to force Obama's hand to reveal his birth certificate, college records, Harvard Law Review articles and much more, but Obama has hired a high profile law firm and has so far paid nearly $2 million to keep all of this from the public.

Next time, know what you're talking about before becoming a smart-ass. LMAO

I've got a better deal - liquidate the assets of the financial CEO's and other executives who received government subsized bonuses after presiding over the economic collapse that led to the unemployment, and use that money to extend jobless benefits.

John B,

Why should anyone have to pay 40% of their income to the government?

Why should anyone have to pay more than 10% of their income to the government?

Our churches only ask of 10%?

When the government starts getting rid of un-needed programs, wasteful spending, and reforms the tax code, social security, and medicare, then we can see what is needed for taxation. But since they can't even learn the value of a balanced budget, then they should be given less, and having to make tough cuts.

What did the rich ever do to you? Make it on their own? Or at least inherited it?

Next time, know what you're talking about before becoming a smart-ass. LMAO

Well... the least I can do is thank you for confirming that I'm smart one and you're the ditto head ass!

Around here we provide PROOF (you do know what that is don't you?) to back up our claims...

Can you at least give me the name of this supposed law firm? Or hasn't Glenn Beck and Rush Limpballs released that info to you yet?

Curious how the Tax cuts from what I heard by all accounts were $70 billion for each year or $700 billion over the next ten years.. Even a number of Dems had stated this on the news. So where is how they came up with the Math they talked about above? So who is right?

I have never seen any 4 Trillion figure.

You may want to make an appointment with your nearest surgeon - *IF* you have the ca$h or the health in$urance - to have your cranium removed from your rectum. Wake up! The majority of registered Republicans are *middle class Americans* who DO NOT want to live in a socialist, Marxist society - working our tails off to make ends meet while the majority (but not ALL) recipients of government assistance stand with their hands out begging for more freebies. I worked my way through college to achieve two associate's degrees, a bachelor's degree, and am currently working on my master's. WHY should I have to share everything I have EARNED with the "less fortunate" who have chosen to ask NOT what they can do for themselves, but what everyone else in the world can do for them? Wake up! And if things keep going as you are apparently hoping for, I recommend you at least brush up on your Arabic and Chinese. A little eye-opening information for you while you wait for your foreign language classes to begin: http://www.americanthinker.com In the interim, I will pray for you. (You're welcome.)

machinehead, here's barack obama's birth certificate -- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg -- It's been online since 2008. Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice.

There's a lot of assumptions in your post. Allow me to set you straight on one major thing, however. The democrats don't care about you either. Paint them in as pretty a picture as you would like to, but the solid fact is that the democrats don't care about the American citizens anymore than the republicans. The problem with this country is not the democrats or the republicans, it's the democrats AND the republicans. Mix that with people, such as yourself, who are party based voters, and there's the issue with the country and the problems we are having. My suggestion to you? Put the country before the party you like. The reason this country is in the mess it is in, would be because of people like you. I realize it's easier to vote based on a party, after all, it requires less work on your part, but in doing so you mess things up for the rest of us. Try becoming a real American for a change. Do your homework and vote for the best candidate.

WOW! The liberal cry babies are out in full force today.

Louis, I red a post last week where you said something like, not in these exact words, "can't we stop the fighting and work together" yet every time you post all you do is ridicule the republicans and call them names.

You are a loser with a capital L.

May I ask who you voted for Bill? And does that make your patriotism bigger than everyone else? And while I am on the subject... what's a real American?

Bob, I am for working with one another. Just because I call out the few that make up the core of your beliefs, does not make me a divisive figure. People that call the president out as a person that is non-American, or unpatriotic are those that are not Integrationists but use policy bashing as a mask to their own inner faults of racist.

Republicans that spit on people, shout and shout names at people, stomp on people are thugs thus the term Republithugs. You can try all day to spin and twist it to however it suits you and makes you feel all warm and bubbly inside, but you support these actions of intolerance through the lack or desire to denounce it.

Well said Bill.

Louis, why ask? Of course Bill voted Republican across the board. That's what Republicans have to do to justify their vote -- disparage both sides so Bush and the GOP don't look as bad in their minds as they really were. That's the essence of the Tea Party movement. Republicans who want to re-invent themselves with words but remain the same in action.

Please don't think for a second that I condone all the republicans actions because I do not! Take off your liberal blinders.

As an independent I am sick of both sides!

And jacaf, that's the same narrow minded thought process that got the Democrats slaughtered in the mid terms. Obviously there more than just republicans who voted for republicans or the bleeding would not have been so bad.

(I'm a "teabagger" as you guys put it)

John B,

Interesting point. Should we tax on wealth rather than income? I don't necessarily dislike the idea, in fact, it may spur a bit more activity for the wealthy to use their money productively. In any case, what you're suggesting is a flat tax. That's EXACTLY what I want as well. A single % across the board.

I have BEGGED more people than I can possibly mention here to PROVE the claim that Obama has spent $2,000,000 defending against all those bogus lawsuits and NEVER has anyone proven that he spent a CENT!!! The fact is EVERY ONE of those lawsuits were tossed because they lacked merit. I can't remember her name but the one crazy looking lady just about got prosecuted for abusing the court system with her FRIVILOUS lawsuits.

So despite NONE of the people making this BS claim EVER ONCE even TRYING to prove their claim I will ask one more time.....PROVE IT!!!

This tit-for-tat, you give us all the tax cuts and we'll give you unemployment, is unintelligent, uninspired, and makes little or no common sense, and represents a capitulation, rather than a compromise. A compromise would consist of perhaps raising the limit for extending the tax cuts to $500K, but leaving all the tax cuts on the table is stupid.

No matter what the Republicans get, it will never satisfy them. We voted for a President who would stand for the people, the shrinking middle class - do you think that allowing the tax cuts to expire for the upper class will in any way affect them?

It leaves me scratching my head as to the Democrats, their spinelessness, and their lack of fight. You cannot win anything if you do not fight.

The Republicans, stupid as their logic might be, at least stand as one blob unit. Something the Dems should figure out how to do.

The Republicans may as well have won the 2008 election the way the blue dogs and Reid have been allowing them to drag the Dems around by the nose.....I thought we won the election, but I guess not. Now look where we are.....the message of this election is not that we were not bipartisan enough, it was that when we had the chance to lead, we didn't. As far as I am concerned, and believe me I am not a fringer, or "professional" leftie, but I believe in Democratic values, which we have now rescinded in favor of kissing a$$ with the Repubs who couldn't care less about Main Street.

"What did the rich ever do to you?"

They broke the social contract that made America great. We have a tradition of allowing those who control the capital to do more or less as they please as long as they support the society and are fair enough in their wage practices to support a healthy middle class. It worked very well for the most part and America became an economic powerhouse as well as the world's longest surviving democracy.

Then the rich decided they had no obligation other than to themselves. They decided Americans were of little use to them because we're just an overpriced labor market. They decided the concept of being a good corporate citizen was quaint and obsolete. They decided that their wealth and power weren't enough, they'd use their rapidly increasing wealth to fund Conservative think tanks to polish their message of inequality into something shiny enough for the middle class to buy and a giant Conservative media to sell the message.

The end result is a society in which a few become wealthy to an extent never seen in history while the masses become progressively impoverished, a little at a time in the hopes that we won't notice until it's too late.

That way lies the end of the America I know and love. That way lies a second rate nation, glory days long behind us. Without that social contract between democracy and Capitalism we're just another arisotcracy, filled with haves and have nots.

Democrats have no moral authority to move their agenda, you Dems lose in November, most Americans kick you out , left leaning of this site still support Obamanomics, but majority of Americans reject your liberal policy , we vote for Republicans and tea party supporters because we oppose the way Democrat Congress is doing business , Democrats should pack go home and leave their political agenda. loosers Go Home

Shelia, MD: Because Maryland gas prices are the voice of the whole nation? I've been paying $3 + in Florida for a long time. I only saw a MINOR decrease and then it went right back to $3.

Gas prices werent even the point of the post. At least argue about something more relevant

The Media in our country is comprised of almost 90% registered Democrats!!!!!!!!! This is a well known fact that Dems seem to gorget when they try to blame FOX for all their woes. Blame liberal Dems for screwing up the reporting of everything.

LoisJ....

Both sides are equally evil with the exception of the faint minority members who are silenced.

This nation will/must default on its 14Trillion debt. Keep that alone in the forefront and prepare your household for the worst. Forget all the media jabberings and these opinionated sites. These sites deliberately distract our thinking to take it away from the true dilemma.

Our media is really the culprit and has too much power.

So if the wealthy are going to get this tax cut how many jobs are going to go to the American middle class? We know that past Bush history of outsourcing jobs to save costs. I do not see that this will benefit the American worker at all but then what does Rush, Boehner, Palin care.

Democrats have enough votes to pass any peace of legislation , stop blaming Republicans. However I believe that are some democrats that do not want to destroy this country , supporting democrat liberal agenda which is fighting and demonizing the group of people that create jobs. Do the 50 % of the population that do not pay taxes have the ability to create jobs?, the reality is that small business and the evil corporation the ones that create jobs, and if this administration keep picking and choosing what corporation support or not , the economy will continue going down, and employment up.

Some people will never learn to include the GOP, who really don't care about anyone, but themselves. When the taxes go up, businesses are motivated to hire and grow their business in order to get their tax deductions rather than paying all of it to the taxes. What businesses needs is a special tax deduction or credit (cash off your tax) that motivates the companies to hire new workers.

John B,

What social contract have the rich broken? I am pretty sure since the beginning of this country we have had the "haves" and the "have nots". There have always been rich people throughout our history that have taken advantage of the people and the laws.

Did the plantation owners of the south not take advantage of the poor to fight a war of succession?

Did the railroad builders not take advantage of the chinese & irish to build their lines across this country?

Did the "white man" not take the lands of the indians throughout our history?

Did not millions come to this country to have a chance at a better life? Do they still not come?

How many of these "Rich" people are the biggest donors to our charities? Yet, they do nothing but take from the poor?

And in this country, wages are higher, minimum wage is higher, and yet we complain.

Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

It seems, that while everyone that is working is making a higher wage & income, there are those that think that it is not enough. I still believe everyone in this country has the opportunity to succeed, your success is dependent upon what you think your success is. But to blame the rich for the problems of this country and our government. Well...

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL - Well... the least I can do is thank you for confirming that I'm smart one and you're the ditto head ass.

What are you...5?

Around here we provide PROOF (you do know what that is don't you?) to back up our claims...

Can you at least give me the name of this supposed law firm? Or hasn't Glenn Beck and Rush Limpballs released that info to you yet?

The name of the firm is Perkins Coie. According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $693,464.18 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009. He has spent much more since that date.

Following is a link to World Net Daily, with an extensive record of news stories following the Obama eligibility lawsuits.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95772

So it turns out that this whole time you were defending Obama's eligibility, you really DIDN"T KNOW what you were talking about, as I stated earlier. You're welcome for the info. Perhaps later I can help dispel your misconceptions about social policy, economics and national defense.

Louis, the only people who applaud what you say with are those Democrats and Liberals who are in complete agreement with you. Try writing a convincing proved fact argument that someone who doesn't belong to your clan might agree with. Until then what you write is nothing more than poo-poo.

S'funny Larry, I've had plenty of disagreeing people agree with me. Why speak a lie when I have the truth and that is fact Jack... I mean Larry.

BB, I described the social contract in detail. Now the spread between haves and have nots is at an all time high and the economy is weak, prone to bubbles, and has no resiliency. Think that's a coincidence?

Extending the unemployment benefits will end up hurting the people that it is suppose to be helping. Being that at one point in time I had to file for these benefits and they lasted for 13 weeks. This was enough time for me (who only had a HS diploma) to find another job. What these extensions have created are careers in unemployment. Why get another job when you can make the equivalent of minimum wage and not have to work. I do understand why these extensions are passing at this time, being that a lot of the people collecting these benefits are using them to pay their debts (mortgages, etc.) and the ceasing of these monies would cause approx another 7 mil foreclosures. But at what point in time do we teach people how to take care of themselves and not rely on the controlling handout of a soon to be social based government.

"Why didn't the Democrats try to work on the Bush Tax Cuts 6 months ago?" Because they were too busy working with less significant issues and the Health Care Reform for well over a year, which we can't even afford at this time in the Recession? It could have waited until the economy stabilized. Next, the Tax discussion was held off until after the elections in order not to influence any negativity towards them (Dem). With both parties, it's all about politics as usual and what makes them look good. The Democrats order of priority did not put jobs first as it should have been. It just doesn't matter that there are people living on the streets without food (a new form of Death Panel from both parties).

Look it doesn't matter what party the wealthy in the media are or what news media they are on...

They are wealthy cable T.V. Corpos and they work for theirselves.

Nothing wrong with that of course.. It just means when it comes to money the middle classes can't when! What is worse is they make most of their money from the middle classes.

It makes me sick but we do work for the Wealthy and buy from the Wealthy.. and.. they win almost all the money... and... it gets a little worse every year.... and... has been for thirty years.

They will keep the model as long as it is working so well. Only a few like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates will be honest to the American People and do for the less fortunate in a big way.

Funny... the way Buffet and Gates do things have made them the most successful billionaires too.

There's one thing I haven't seen mentioned here. The fact that "It takes money to make money". It is the wealthy of this country and every other country that take chances with their money. They gamble that their ideas will make them profit. Some of them fail and lose their money and dreams while others prevail and make big bucks, as they should for taking the huge gamble to begin with. And it is these people who again take chances with their money.

Should they be punished for having foresight? Should they be punished for having success?

If you heard you can buy a house and after one year sell it for an extra $20,000 and you know there is still a chance the markets could go belly up. Would you take the chance? And would you still take the chance if you had to give the government 50% of the profit. It would be quite a gamble wouldn't it? I realize most people in this discussion are not in the top 2%, but we all know how money can be lost and gambling can be dangerous. Think about it......

John B,

Throughout history there have always been bubbles, there have always been recessions, but in today's media world, it gets out faster and everyone can read about it.

Yet in today's world, people are better paid, we have a higher minimum wage, and yet they complain. Maybe it is time to quit spending at home and buy the essentials, instead of buying un-needed things. Part of what made this country great is the fact that one could, and can still become wealthy, you just have to find the right business.

The name of the firm is Perkins Coie. According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $693,464.18 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.

Hey Beckerhead -- kinda falls short of your original claim now don't it? You're not nearly as informed as you pretend to be! lmao!

machinehead

John B, Des Moines, IA - ...When Conservatives stop pretending our President is from Kenya,

Sure, as soon as he releases his records that he's spent nearly $2 MILLION to hide from the public. (That's a FACT).

The only fact you've PROVEN today is you SUCK at math and have NO idea what the hell you're talking about!

Like I said earlier... thanks for playing and we have some lovely parting gifts for ya! ;0)

Machinehead,

I have to ask you since you are so knowledgeable. Can you give me the information on the past say 10 Presidents that you claim Mr. Obama is paying to hide?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Hey Beckerhead -- kinda falls short of your original claim now don't it? You're not nearly as informed as you pretend to be! lmao!

The latest figure (if you read the provided links) is around $1.7 million. As I said, NEARLY $2 million as stated. But I see you're trying to ignore the fact that there is ample proof Obama is actually paying big money to keep his documents secret - as I originally claimed.

The only fact you've PROVEN today is you SUCK at math and have NO idea what the hell you're talking about!

Per the statement above, I know exactly what I'm talking about, it is you who is clueless. That is why you, like all liberals, attempt to use deflection, name calling, counter-accusations, or anything at all to avoid actually addressing the issues. That's okay, you can't explain philosophy to a fence post. There are still organizations pursuing the truth as we speak.

Fletch2-1565982-I have to ask you since you are so knowledgeable. Can you give me the information on the past say 10 Presidents that you claim Mr. Obama is paying to hide?

So, of the past 10 presidents, which of them have any situation that lends doubt to the idea that they were born on U.S. soil to TWO American citizen parents?

Obama's history has numerous details that are self-conflicting, including family statements, Obama's prior statements, conflicting records, missing records, and spending big money with a high-profile law firm to prevent any scrutiny of his records. Something is rotten here, and Obama knows it. The DNC knows it. If you payed attention, YOU would know it.

Tomorrow is December 7^th a “date that will live in infamy” (President Roosevelt – 12/07/194i). There is another date in American History that will also live in infamy – January 21, 2010. This is the date that the US Supreme Court sold this country out to the highest bidders (Foreign or domestic) with their “Citizens United” decision. It was later basically ratified by the Republican Party on September 23, 2010 when they successfully blocked the Disclosure Act with a vote of 59 YES and 39 NO. Every Senate Republican voted NO, with 2 not voting at all. Every Democrat and Independent voted yes. A minority vote of 40% was able to block the majority vote of 60% and has forever changed the political freedom of this Nation.

Historians will look at this date as that point in time where the United States of America had its political freedom and the very fabric of our democracy put on a “Time Clock”.

We have witnessed this last election cycle an unprecedented amount of undisclosed money being funneled by “Special Interest Groups” like the US Chamber of Commerce and a bevy of others to influence and buy elections. We have no way of knowing neither who is funding politicians any more nor what their agendas are. We do know that they are bought and paid for and once in office they will have to pay these contributors back with legislation that benefits their agenda, like repealing HCR, Financial Reform, farm jobs overseas, repeal regulations that protect Americans and employees. The list is endless.

While it is not the money per se, people have been buying elections from day one, it is the fact that the American People are being kept in the dark as to who is doing it and how much are they spending to buy these votes. Without knowing this we do not know what the possible agenda of the politician we are voting for is. If a Senator is being supported mostly by the Insurance Industry, for example, we have an idea of how he is going to vote on legislation – regardless of the rhetoric spitting out of their mouths.

The “Special Interest Groups” are already gearing up for the 2012 elections and this is going to prove to be another record in campaign contributions.

This must be stopped.

Well said USN, I couldn't agree more. Anonymous contributions are BRIBERY. Calling it anything else is LYING. This decision is corrosive to the very heart of our democracy and it shows once and for all that Conservatives don't believe in democracy. They don't believe in egalitarianism. They don't believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion and a voice in our government. They believe in crushing the opposition and creating one-party rule with themselves as the new aristocracy.

John B.

Agreed. There is an article on the US Chamber Watch web site that is a tad disturbing as to who is funded them and how the majority of their money is coming from just a select few Industries.

RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans are hijacking our country.

John B. Thanks for posting the interview, I didn't get to see 60 Minutes last night. I read a good article not long ago about why this is NOT the time to pull back on government spending or reduce deficit spending. That is what happened with FDR, he listened to the GOP and pulled back too soon which lengthened the depression. We must have a plan in place to reduce the debt but hold off for a couple years before implementing it.

2008 is the closest we have come to a second Great Depression; what happened to the banks is nearly identical. As unpopular as it was, the bank bailout prevented catastrophe. The problem is that selling saving us from catastrophe was difficult for President Obama and democrats; how do they get the message to the people that "it could have been worse but we stopped the bleeding" when unemployment sits at nearly 10%. That's an impossible sell; had a republican been president, the same voter scenario would have taken place on Nov 2, 2010, only the democrats would have been the big winners.

Ah yes Jody, the recession of 1937. The moment the economy started to show a little life Republicans started screaming for a balanced budget and Roosevelt complied. The premature removal of government stimulus from the economy plunged the nation back into recession. FDR couldn't have known for certain, he was acting on economic principles that were just starting to be proved.

Now we have history as our guide and should know better. Conservatives don't care. Their war on the middle class goes on unabated.

Remember this, the democrats had a much larger amount of $$$ donated by these groups than the Republicans.

This is such a good deal for the average working stiff I can't believe anyone is complaining about it. $700 billion over ten years and an average of over $100,000 per year to every wealthy family in America in order to pay for $300 per family per week for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits for a few chronically unemployed basket cases. It's not like anyone now living has to pay for it. The Chinese will finance it if we continue giving them our factories and our great grandchildren can foot the bill once they're born!

It's like stealing candy from a baby, except it's MONEY! Thank you Jon Kyl!

In the last election, six of the top ten PACs are big unions. Little Chamber of Commerce - 18th.

The most undisclosed money, un-traceable money - big unions. On top of that, of their traceable money, dues, as much as 60% of the dues money is confiscated against the will of the employee/member.

Big unions gave 93% to Democrats.

Heck Dems got 52% of business money, 61% of ideological money and 73% of the other money.

And you still got a historic thumping!

Yet, you come here and cry day after day about the Chamber. Pathetic. Funny, but pathetic.

Mark:

the democrats had a much larger amount of $$$ donated by these groups than the Republicans

The reason you can say this is that, thanks to the Supreme Court, you cannot SEE what groups donated to the Republicans.

whatzzit:

Looks like Obamas rich Democratic friends are pushing him to compromise, why else would he do it.

To move the country forward, something the Republicans have flatly stated they will not do.

There wasn't a reply tab on your ridiculous post about anonymous campaign contributions, so I'll spank you about your prejudices and lies here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39918524/ns/politics-decision_2010

Democrats blast GOP 'front groups,' but use them too

Party strategists funnel donations from nonprofits into attack ads, records show

Read it and weep, hypocrite.

Also, as a conservative small business owner who employs and provides health insurance and pays double the SS as a sole proprietor and volunteers and gives to charities and is putting my kid through college I will say that YOU are the one spreading hate for people who people who disagree with you.

As for the tax cuts, Econ 101, the Laffer Curve. Lower taxes make for more Federal revenue- always have, always will.

All this is devastating to your case, I know.

Navy,

So as the left starts setting up their organizations for the next election, with Obama's approval, are you going to denounce them also?

I will denounce the right for taking contributions for foreign companies, if it is ever proved!

I'm not Navy, but I'll say it very clearly;

Anonymous donations should be outlawed--for EVERYONE.

The DISCLOSE Act would do that, but Republicans have it blocked in the Senate. Interesting that.

You may be the world's cutest cat, Nermal, but you haven't got anything better than the Laffer Curve? Bad ideas have no expiration date, do they?

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz17Lu4vJg7

Point A represents nirvana, the point at which you have both the highest possible government revenue generated by the lowest possible tax rate.

But there’s a downside to the Laffer Curve as well. Note that if you move beyond Point A into the region marked B, tax rates continue to fall but this time revenue plummets. Region B represents the part of the curve where cutting taxes does NOT generate enough growth to compensate, and in fact may not generate any growth at all.

Figure Two

So the trick, it would appear, is to identify where Point A is. But that’s difficult to impossible, in part because the location of Point A probably varies wildly from country to country, era to era and tax system to tax system.

Figure Two, for example, offers just as plausible a depiction of the tax rate’s impact on revenue as Figure One. In this example, Point A, the sweetspot, is at roughly 60 percent; any reduction in rates below that point would put you into Region B, where government revenues would drop. (NOTE: The percentages used here are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to reflect actual taxation or its impact).

But the problem is, something very destructive happened in the translation of this economic theory into political language and policy. In the popular conservative version of the Laffer Curve, no debate over the location of Point A is even tolerated, because cutting tax rates is said to ALWAYS generate more government revenue.

In effect, Region B, the part of the curve in which lower tax rates produce sharply lower government revenue, has simply been banished from the discussion.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/09/14/the-laffer-curve-debunked-part-one/

ho-hum, just another day in liberal la-la land. Fiesty passing out her "hate-or-aide" to her cronies. Bev and louisj ragging on the no-good republicans, rather surprised that they don't rant "the only good republican is a d*** republican". And johnb is still trying to dazzle us with his ability to cut and paste. So far the only three items of value that I have read here today is...

By the way, the deal appears to be more done than folks realize, but the issue continues to be the White House selling it to congressional Democrats, which will take place tomorrow on Capitol Hill when the parties hold their caucus meetings

and posts #1.47 & 3.9 and still reading

BIGBEAR;

My opinion is the same as John B. and I have said so many times on this board. This is not just a republican issue, it is on both sides of the aisle and I want full disclosure. NO undisclosed contributions period either to republicans or democrats.

Thanks, Navy,

I respect that, I want both sides to come clean.

How many people prefer to stay home because they prefer live in welfare than get pay lower than their expectations. The unemployment rate will continue high for many years to come, so lets get gain the money they got, put the unemployment to work for the government instead to heat their butt watching TV, we have jobs that need to be done.

Nermal your understanding of the Laffer Curve is well laughable. You don't seem to understand that it is a CURVE!!! There is a point where lowering taxes actually results in LOWER revenue but you Tea Party types will never admit that.........

Research on Revenue Maximising Tax Rate

One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21%.^[18] Pecorino (1995) argued that the peak occurred at tax rates around 65%.^[19] Another empirical study found that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.^[20]

2005 US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the effectiveness of tax cuts

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal income tax rates in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, i.e., it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.^[6]

There are too many variables for ANYONE to say exactely what tax rate will maximize revenue but according to the above source even if the most generous growth scenario a 10% across the board tax cut would only recoup 28% of the cost of the cut over a 10 year period. Is there a level of taxation that would result in lower revenues? Yes I believe there is but it sure as hell isn't 39% according to most research it is closer to 60-70%. I wonder how much we could pay down the debt if we brought rates back to 70% where they were before Regan? Bring them back to where they were before the most dramatic transfer of wealth from the lower 90% to the top 10% in our nations history.

Oh as for campaign financingI want EVERY contribution from EVERY party to be made public. They MUST be made public if our Democracy is to survive. We NEED to know who is funding our campaigns so we can FULLY understand what they expect from OUR elected officials. The only way we are going to take back our Democracy is if we take the private money out of politics. We NEED publically funded campaigns that start no earlier than 6 months before the election and any candidate who is found to have taken ANY support other than public funds will be taken off the ballot or have their win vacated if found after the election.

WE MUST TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS!!!

This is a quote from a Susan Isaacs novel that to me says it all. She is speaking of gated communities, "I wondered if this wouldn't be the true Reagan-Bush legacy, not a return to the lassez-faire, invisible-hand Capitalism of Adam Smith, but a slide into a tsarist state, where government existed to enrich the rich."

Looks like what was written as fiction is exactly was is happening in reality.

It's amazing to me how we keep falling for the Republican traps when it is the same thing over and over again. Especially when those traps aren't working for anything other than to win elections for the conservatives. When will the citizens of America wake up?

"Why didn't the Democrats try to work on the Bush Tax Cuts 6 months ago?" Because they were too busy working with less significant issues and the Health Care Reform for well over a year, which we can't even afford at this time in the Recession? It could have waited until the economy stabilized.

I see the Republipukes still won't answer for their LIES. Revenue ALWAYS goes up when taxes go down and uses the Laffer Curve to try to prove his lies. You see the Republipuke who tried to slide that one past those of us who know better doesn't understand what a CURVE is. It would be hilarious if it weren't so f**** terrifying that he actually BELIEVES it.

Oh good grief. Here... let me spell out how this works people.

Companies would like to hire more people but are unsure of the cost of doing business because of the uncertain future of taxes - that includes payroll taxes meaning business owners have to ask "How much MORE is it going to cost me to KEEP all of the people I currently employ next year?" Sure they have some spare cash to hire new help NOW, but how much MORE will they have to pay out of pcket in the upcoming year?

My husband is a recent law school graduate - top of his class. Over 70% of his class is unemployed. He's had multiple interviews for new positions that were later decided "weren't open spots" after the firm's annual review was conducted and it was determined they c"ouldn't afford a new associate."

So meanwhile we're left with school loans to pay and no job with which to do it.

It's an economy no one can win in, and raising taxes right now would only make things worse.

All this talk about how much income tax which segment of the population should pay,is just a distraction that keeps you from talking about the REAL issue.You shouldn't be paying any income tax at all.

The share of the country's operating expenses which a person pays should be directly proportional to the size of the share of the country which that person owns.That means property tax instead of income tax.

If 5% of the people own 95% of the property,then 5% of the people should be paying 95% of the taxes.

If 2% of the people own 90% of the property,then 2% of the people should be paying 90% of the taxes.

The institution of income tax is the biggest wealth concentrating rip-off of all time.And almost all of us are the victims.Yet this extremely basic inequity in the entire system never seems to be discussed.

This site isn't worth taking the time to make a comment, when they can't clear up some very significant MAJOR SERVICE PROBLEMS!!

Bigger than the stimulus? And here’s something to chew on: Extending the Bush tax cuts for two years -- along with extending jobless benefits and targeted tax cuts -- would likely cost more (approximately $1 trillion) than the stimulus cost (approximately $800 billion). Here’s our back-of-envelope math arriving at the $1 trillion approximation: If the price tag of extending the Bush tax cuts over 10 years is nearly $4 trillion, then doing it for two years is some $800 billion. And extending the jobless benefits and targeted tax cuts raises that price tag even higher.

Back of the envelope?

How about doing it off your "backside envelope".

Something tells me your math is a little fuzzy on the "jobless benefits and targeted tax cuts", and a bit unrealistic on the "Bush tax cut extension".

But what do we expect from the "First Read" sheep?

Independent Thinker.

I get that alot.

You must not be an essay writing liberal.

x

Ike0716: Other than to win elections for conservatives?!? Do you realize that Georg Soros (noted, wealthy socialist who ruins world economies for the FUN of it) actually contributed the most to Obama's bid for President?! Good news is that recently he stated that his money will not find its way into Obama's coffers when he runs for re-election in 2012!

You can't ruin any nation's economy through currency trading unless they are lying about what they are doing with their debts. Exposing them as fraudsters doesn't make Soros the bad guy.

No point in talking to Jannie, Paul, it's a Glenn Beck thing. Somehow Soros' efforts to support dissidents behind the Iron Curtain proves that his work as a businessman in the US is designed to bring down the government.

Jannie - The good news is that old Rupert Murdoch was John McCain's biggest contributor in 2008. He won't be padding the pockets of Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckabee or Romney in 2012!! Who else do the Repubs have? Let me see, there's Barbour from Mississippi and Jindal from Louisiana, both are laughable!!! We look forward to 2012 with President Obama winning re-election by a landslide.

Bernanke hasn't looked out of his gated community lately if he thinks the only reason people are out of work is a lack of education. Sure, the "unemployment" rate for college graduates may be only 5%, but I know civil engineers working jobs that pay just over minimum wage just to have a "job".

Many of us who kept our jobs (and therefore aren't counted as "unemployed") have had our hours cut to the point that our annual wages are just above poverty level.

Maybe we're not getting unemployment checks, but that doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. Wake up, Ben!

Repost courtesy of the COLLAPSE COWARDS:

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Come on…Take the money & RUN:

You righties want to tell us again that there’s no class warfare going on in this country?

Worried that lawmakers won’t extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, financial firms like Goldman Sachs are discussing moving up bonus payouts from next year to this month, underscoring the industry’s focus on “protecting every dollar.” Without the extension, “a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/06/thinkfast-december-6-2010/

While you’re at it remind the middle class how HARD these people worked & WHY again they should be entitled to these bonuses? How many J O B S will these tax cuts create?

All the while the Republicans are fighting extending unemployment benefits to people who NEED them to maintain a roof over their heads and food for their children…

These right wing robber barons will NOT be happy until there are soup lines again…

Ain’t America grand!

Wow Feisty, really? Actually truth be told, I do not doubt it one bit. It's disgusting isn't it? Goldman Sachs is also the company that gave their employees generous bonuses at the beginning of this year, prompting many of the said employees to apply for pistol permits - for fear of public reprisal.

They are scum, and sadly, they absolutely know they are scum, otherwise it would seem that fear of reprisal would be the furthest thing from their minds. After all, if an individual sincerely feels that what they are doing is fair and strictly above board, they shouldn't have any fear of an average citizen inflicting damage on them in a fit of anger.

Not to worry Goldman Sachs, your precious breaks will be extended. And yes, it will be pretty cool to see how the 40k - 50k saved in taxes per each bonus received by an individual will be used to create jobs. Yeah right.

Another fine example of douchebaggery.

The Only thing in your post that I find worthy of agreement with (and in fact I do agree with) is Term limits and smaller salaries/benefits for Presidents & Congress. Too many perks has isolated key leaders in both parties from the realities most of their constituents face.

Term limits would be a good start...actually trying to balance the budget is my main concern (and I haven't seen either party try to do that since 2000).

My vote is to end all of the Bush tax cuts...

Paying the President less money? Seriously, the President's salary is a pittance for the 24/7 job, and I would have said that if a republican was president. CEOs make many times that compared to the money paid to run the country. People do not get rich being President. As for Congress, no pay raises for them, transfer their pension plan to social security. Term limits is not the answer but it might help. Voters can implement their own term limits by learning how to vote for the other candidate more often in the primaries and general elections.

I agree about letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, problem is that for the middle and lower income earners, it could hinder the economic recovery unless that income was spent on infrastructure and other things that would spur further growth. Allowing them to expire on 3% of the people would not impact the millionaires and billionaires.

What good would term limits do? How many people are better at their jobs when they first start than they are once they become experienced? Don't forget, these guys get a pretty hefty pension package.

Here's a thought. How about asking the American electorate start showing a little responsibility? How about holding government accountable to a high standard instead of just saying "goverment is bad" and "I want mine"?

Or we could just auction off the House and Senate seats to the highest bidder.

"Or we could just auction off the House and Senate seats to the highest bidder."

Thats what we done.

You all know that you get the opportunity to impose a term limit every election right?

Ron, I agree, Bush cuts need to expire. We need more revenue.

Jody, people do get rich being president, just not while in office.

commonsense - their pension kickes in at 59 1/2 years of age and 20 years federal employment.

extend unemployment = a pay out

leave the tax cuts in place= no money coming in

seems to me thats a negative + negative = bigger negative

correct me if this basic math is in error please

but I'm seeing this equaling a biger debt not any kind of healing the account........

The rich sat these cuts ending is re-distribution of wealth and a gift for someone that doesn't deserve it.

Arent ALL taxes a re-distribution of weaalth really? Thats how America is funded, by re-distributing wealth every April 15th.

With out that we will all, as will our country, surely fail..............

Concerning term limits, in theory they already exist because we can vote out the incumbents. However, incumbents have a huge advantage because they can use their office to boost their campaign. So, the reality is an incumbent versus a new candidate is not a fair fight - which is why I support term limits.

Yes, incumbents do lose occasionally, but it generally takes a monumental effort and something like we have now (a bad economy) to beat them. If the economy is doing good, it's almost impossible to beat an incumbent.

I will agree with term limitations--6 terms for House of Reps members, and 2 terms for Senate--each set of terms would allow the representatives to work with at least 2 presidents, maybe even 3.

I do not want the tax cuts to expire, I want our tax code to be reformed without the loopholes and deductions so everyone pays their share, so that the rich can't hide their money, so that everyone pays, not just 53% of the people.

BigBear, that's an excellent first step. Extend the tax rates to allow the tenuous recovery we are seeing to continue- raising taxes on anyone reduces their disposable income and will hurt the economic recovery more than Uncle Sam taking in less in taxes. Re-writing the tax code to remove loopholes and make sure everyone pays a reasonable share for the services they use is just good sense. Yes, it's going to hurt because we're all going to lose something we thing we need, but I do believe the proposals I've seen have reduced the overall tax rate at the same time they remove the deductions so one at least helps offset the other. Just like in the household budget, when income is reduced, it causes a bit of strain initially but in the end we get used to it and make it work. But we also need to talk about what's going on in DC. WE need to stop growing government- we can't continue to create new agencies and czars with every bill that goes through Congress to the Presidents desk. These jobs just add additional strain on the backs of the tax payers. WE need to reduce the size of the government that's already in place and no one should be exempt from cuts- military, treasury, congressional aids, you name it, they all need to be reduced in size. There is so much redundancy that the cuts shouldn't really be too painful and while it will add more people to the unemployment roles, in the end that's less of a burden to the tax paying public- it's cheaper to pay unemployment than salaries and benefits to government workers. And we need to cut spending. Again, military spending right along with everything else. Once we've revised the tax code, gotten the economy back on it's feet and cut spending and the size of the government workforce, we'll know what amount is really necessary to run the government. THEN we can talk about what adjustments might need to be made to the tax rates.

Bear,

I'm all for a fair tax at 23%, with prebates, and a surcharge on derivatives. But since that won't happen, I want the tax cuts to expire, reality to set in about unemployment, and for libs to shut the hell up.

I also concur that career politicians need not exist. They can do something useful for a change.

To US Navy Disabled Veteran- Retired:

Why don't you give some other people the opportunity to say something or read what others have to say instead of monopolizing with on-going enormous amounts of space on the first page?

independant - they do spew on, they must be getting paid by the word and not relevant content. never seen so many patting each other on the backs as here.

Most definitely Navy.

I can really see the Infrastructure projects such as creating and redesigning buildings to install new Wind, Hydro and Solar equipment into and many of the existing high rise buildings across the country, especially cities such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle. This would be a great place to start.

Road and highway improvements. The list goes on and on. They need to get busy on these projects.

It would seem that high schools would promote engineering curriculums since there is a wave of new technologies and large future projects that would greatly impact the mid 21 century. The next generation will have their hands full.

I would like to thank the New York Times, and you, for posting this.

It completely and totally gives the lie to the idea that not extending these tax cuts would reduce the deficit- the plans for spending these funds are in place.

What part of we want spending cuts do liberals not understand?

US Navy: What does about 70 Billion per year buy (the annual cost of just the Tax Cuts to the Richest 2%)?

And yet, in 2009, $878 billion dollars in deficit busting "Stimulus" bought us, . . . . . nothing.

@ Navy,

Tomorrow is December 7^th a “date that will live in infamy” (President Roosevelt – 12/07/194i).

And Roosevelt knew of the impending Japanese attack in advance, but did nothing to notify the commanders in the field. Roosevelt needed a war to stop the Depression.

Just after his Dec 7th speech, he removed the writ of habius corpus, arrested American Citizens, seized their personnel property and placed them into concentration camps.

Another date that will live in infamy is the date Obama was elected........

no joe, no bo, nj

I would like to thank the New York Times, and you, for posting this.

It completely and totally gives the lie to the idea that not extending these tax cuts would reduce the deficit- the plans for spending these funds are in place.

What part of we want spending cuts do liberals not understand?

Hear, Hear, Golden Lady Jo

You do understand the plan is the same one that got America into deep d@d@? I have not read the article yet. I suppose as usual you either skewed it or don't understand it at all.

YOU DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!!

Still selling out your voters!!!
I will never vote for you weak politicians on the Democrat side ever again in my life and I will never side with you suckers again.

Obama, I can't beleive that you are doing this and not sticking to your guns again on something we feel is the right thing to do for the country.
The trade off that you and the Republican thieves are bringing to the table do not add up.
If the Republicans don't want to extend unemployment and tales for those under $250,000 let them vote no. We will get past it.
But, to extend the tax cut for the top 2% of earners only shows that you are only looking out for yourself and the rest of the wealthy Americans who support you.
You Politicians are all in bed together.

I say no taxes for those making under $250,000 until this sorry ass government starts to provide its people with the proper support for the money that I pay to you.
I'm not getting back in services from this government the amount of taxes that I pay yearly.

YOU"VE BROKEN OUR AGREEMENT GOVERNMENT!!!

I NO LONGER WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THIS COUNTRY!!!

LEAVE ME THE -F- ALONE AND Because it no longer pays to be an AMERICAN if you make less than $250,000!!!

GIVE ME HEALTH CARE
GIVE ME EDUCATION
GIVE MEDEMOCRACY

OR I"M AM NOT TAKING PART IN YOUR AMERICA = NO MORE TAXES FROM ME!!!

DO WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE OR NO MONEY!!!!

NJ-

What part of we want spending cuts do the conservatives not understand? I mean when the Republicans didn't want to extend unemployment funds because it would add to the debt. So I'm still trying to think how can the tax cuts not add to the debt? HHHMMMM....it just makes me wonder! Yes they all say that they are in place but it still adds to the deficit!

TRR, they're perfectly willing to go deeper in debt to line the pockets of the rich. It's everyone else who can just lump it.

trr

I call it 'high stakes' extortion, in their effort to concentrate the wealth to the top 2%. I can't wait until that group decides only 1% should have 'membership'. That will be some entertainment as we watch them feast on their 'own'.

Selfish, greedy and UnAMERICAN, in my opinion.

Calm down Peel-Layer.. But I whole heartedly agree.. Democrats are like the little kid on the playground getting their lunch money taken.. The Republicans are the angry bullies who terrorize everyone until everyone decides to stand together and knock the crap out of them.. My guy Obama and the rest of the Dems have disappointed me also but every dog has his day and i'm sure all these far right christians have a very warm place to vacation for eternity when thet die.. Rest Assured..

I knew they will end up extending the tax cuts for all. Democrats will continue to exist without spines and Republicans will continue to vote no on everything they disagree on.

And besides, take a good look at the representatives at DC. The House, Congress and the White House. Both Democrats and Republicans. They all make more than 250,000 or higher per year from their salaries, book deals and other speaking deals they get. Basically if they approve only tax breaks for everyone under 250k, they are effectively giving themselves a paycut. What is something like that ever is going to happen......... never.

Excellent, US Navy. That $70 billion bonus for millionaires could do so much more for the economy of the other 97% of Americans. Too bad the GOP does not understand anything beyond Reaganomics, small government and tax cuts for their big-donor friends.

Eventually, we will all have to have a tax increase. There is no free lunch. But at a time when 98% of Americans are hurting, I, too, would have given the wealthy the tax cut in return for middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

What the people in this country don't understand. And I will never know why, is that it is the Republicans who are driving up the deficit. Because they got a tax cut for the wealthy, any citizen who hears the Republicans moan about the deficit should understand their hypocrisy.

But it has become tradition for people to vote against their best interests. And how can a simple explanation about tax code and economics be made simple enough for the uninformed? It can't. The only thing they understand is anything that fits on a bumper sticker. That is the thinking skills for the average American - a bumper sticker slogan. Does everyone realize that the literacy rate in the United States is actually declining now?

What frustrates me most is not President Obama, he was nonstop campaigning against extending cuts for 3% of the people to rousing cheers at pre-election campaign rallies but rather the Blue Dog Democrats who voted NO. They are the problem, they are the ones who forced the others to compromise. Pres Obama didn't cave, his blue dogs caved in Sept when they were out making the case to extend all the tax cuts.

The stimulus Bill did work. Virftually every leading economist both republican and democrat have been on the record for months now that the ARRA Bill was a success.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/when_good_policies_look_bad.html

Also here is an article taken from the NYT.

Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.

Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.

If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?

Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren’t hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Yet I’m guessing you don’t think of the stimulus bill as a big success. You’ve read columns (by me, for example) complaining that it should have spent money more quickly. Or you’ve heard about the phantom ZIP code scandal: the fact that a government Web site mistakenly reported money being spent in nonexistent ZIP codes.

And many of the criticisms are valid. The program has had its flaws. But the attention they have received is wildly disproportionate to their importance. To hark back to another big government program, it’s almost as if the lasting image of the lunar space program was Apollo 6, an unmanned 1968 mission that had engine problems, and not Apollo 11, the moon landing.

The reasons for the stimulus’s middling popularity aren’t a mystery. The unemployment rate remains near 10 percent, and many families are struggling. Saying that things could have been even worse doesn’t exactly inspire. Liberals don’t like the stimulus because they wish it were bigger. Republicans don’t like it because it’s a Democratic program. The Obama administration hurt the bill’s popularity by making too rosy an economic forecast upon taking office.

Moreover, the introduction of the most visible parts of the program — spending on roads, buildings and the like — has been a bit sluggish. Aid to states, unemployment benefits and some tax provisions have been more successful and account for far more of the bill. But their successes are not obvious.

Even if the conventional wisdom is understandable, however, it has consequences. Because the economy is still a long way from being healthy, members of Congress are now debating another, smaller stimulus bill. (They’re calling it a “jobs bill,” seeing stimulus as a dirty word.) The logical thing to do would be to examine what worked and what didn’t in last year’s bill.

But that’s not what is happening. Instead, the debate is largely disconnected from the huge stimulus experiment we just ran. Why? As Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the newest member of Congress, said, in a nice summary of the misperceptions, the stimulus might have saved some jobs, but it “didn’t create one new job.”

•

The case against the stimulus revolves around the idea that the economy would be no worse off without it. As a Wall Street Journal opinion piece put it last year, “The resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic — not the fiscal stimulus program — deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement.” In a touch of unintended irony, two of article’s three authors were listed as working at a research institution named for Herbert Hoover.

Of course, no one can be certain about what would have happened in an alternate universe without a $787 billion stimulus. But there are two main reasons to think the hard-core skeptics are misguided — above and beyond those complicated, independent economic analyses.

The first is the basic narrative that the data offer. Pick just about any area of the economy and you come across the stimulus bill’s footprints.

In the early months of last year, spending by state and local governments was falling rapidly, as was tax revenue. In the spring, tax revenue continued to drop, yet spending jumped — during the very time when state and local officials were finding out roughly how much stimulus money they would be receiving. This is the money that has kept teachers, police officers, health care workers and firefighters employed.

Then there is corporate spending. It surged in the final months of last year. Mark Zandi of Economy.com (who has advised the McCain campaign and Congressional Democrats) says that the Dec. 31 expiration of a tax credit for corporate investment, which was part of the stimulus, is a big reason.

The story isn’t quite as clear-cut with consumer spending, as skeptics note. Its sharp plunge stopped before President Obama signed the stimulus into law exactly one year ago. But the billions of dollars in tax cuts, food stamps and jobless benefits in the stimulus have still made a difference. Since February, aggregate wages and salaries have fallen, while consumer spending has risen. The difference between the two — some $100 billion — has essentially come from stimulus checks.

The second argument in the bill’s favor is the history of financial crises. They have wreaked terrible damage on economies. Indeed, the damage tended to be even worse than what we have suffered.

Around the world over the last century, the typical financial crisis caused the jobless rate to rise for almost five years, according to work by the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. On that timeline, our rate would still be rising in early 2012. Even that may be optimistic, given that the recent crisis was so bad. As Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson (Republicans both) and many others warned in 2008, this recession had the potential to become a depression.

Yet the jobless rate is now expected to begin falling consistently by the end of this year.

For that, the stimulus package, flaws and all, deserves a big heaping of credit. “It prevented things from getting much worse than they otherwise would have been,” Nariman Behravesh, Global Insight’s chief economist, says. “I think everyone would have to acknowledge that’s a good thing.”

So what now?

The last year has shown — just as economists have long said — that aid to states and cities may be the single most effective form of stimulus. Unlike road- or bridge-building, it can happen in a matter of weeks. And unlike tax cuts, state and local aid never languishes in a household’s savings account.

The ideal follow-up stimulus would start with that aid. It would then add on extended jobless benefits, which also tend to be spent, as well as tax credits carefully drafted to get businesses to hire and households to spend, like the cash-for-clunkers program.

By this yardstick, the $154 billion bill that the House passed in December is decent. It includes $27 billion in state and local aid, $79 billion for jobless benefits and other safety nets, and $48 billion in infrastructure spending.

The smaller bills being considered by the Senate are worse. They may end up with no state aid at all, and their tax credits sound better — with promises to help the long-term unemployed and small businesses — than they are. “The economic impact of the Senate bill, at this point, is starting to look very small,” Mr. Behravesh says.

Given what people have been saying about a successful stimulus bill, just imagine what they’ll say about one that doesn’t accomplish much.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

JohnB-

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

Clara

Selfish, greedy and UnAMERICAN, in my opinion

Yes, it is and a article in the USA Today stated that luxury spending is up!

"Jody, Iowa

What frustrates me most is not President Obama, he was nonstop campaigning against extending cuts for 3% of the people to rousing cheers at pre-election campaign rallies but rather the Blue Dog Democrats who voted NO. They are the problem, they are the ones who forced the others to compromise. Pres Obama didn't cave, his blue dogs caved in Sept when they were out making the case to extend all the tax cuts."

=====================================================================

I agree the blue dogs are a problem, but Obama has the veto, and it's past time for him to use it, let Congress send him a bill that extends taxes for the top 2%, he should veto it, sometimes you have to stand up for what's right and let the chips fall where they may, Obama needs to do just that or find a different line of work, continually bargaining everything away without a fight is helping no one but the wealthy.

That article just points out the problem I have with tax increases...the only thought seems to be how to spend the "new" money. What we have in this country is a spending addiction that needs to be broken. We seem to have lost the ability to differentiate between "need" and "want". Adding revenue without changing how government spends is just going to make the deficit worse.

My preference is to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire and use that tax increase to reduce the deficit - AND add 3x that amount in spending cuts. If we only look at the revenue side and continue to ignore spending (which is unlimited), we'll all lose in the end. (and I think that's why a large number of fiscal conservatives are against any tax increase)

"My preference is to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire and use that tax increase to reduce the deficit - AND add 3x that amount in spending cuts. If we only look at the revenue side and continue to ignore spending (which is unlimited), we'll all lose in the end. (and I think that's why a large number of fiscal conservatives are against any tax increase)"

Exactly! The issue isn't going to be resolved by cutting taxes or raising taxes as long as the Government continues to spend $$$ it doesn't have. The "Rich" didn't force the government to go on these wild (democratic & republican) spending sprees. I just don't understand how liberals think sometimes. There isn't a ONE of you who doesn't make the tough decisions when you have more money going out than coming in (you cut back your spending until you can make more money) Why, Why, Why is it SO difficult for you to demand of your government the same fiscal responsibility YOU exercise yourself every day? What is to be cut and how much is negotiable. THAT there MUST be cuts is not.

peel layer - I see you found feisty's stash of "hate-or-aide". LATWTTB!

Regarding "infrastructure", as a young son of a single mom living in a tent in AZ, we had no electricity, hauled in our water, etc. and did our "duty" in the woods. One day some guys came along and built a beautiful 2 holer outhouse for us. It was forever imprinted in my mind and I can see the letters WPA stamped into the concrete covering the hole. Later I saw many of the good works of the WPA and CCC around the country.

The only $ this will end up costing is the extended unemployment benefits, which is what the Dems want. Keeping taxes like they are costs nothing more.

If that's the case why did existing law at the time force them to expire the cuts now or include them in projections that the deficit would explode going forward?

John B;

How true. Every day we hear that the Democrats do not listen to the people. Who the he!! is the republican party listening to?? Majority of the people do not want the Tax Cuts for the richest 2%, over 70% of those in the Military do not have a major problem with DADT being repealed, etc., etc.

Unless it comes from Wall Street, Big Business or the Millionaires and Billionaires that funded their campaigns they are not interested.

Remember the lie about “Death Panels” in President Obama’s HCR? Well we have a real life scenario playing out in Arizona.

Death by budget cut.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/376312/death_by_budget_cut%3A_poor_people_denied_organ_transplants_in_arizona/#paragraph5

“Effective at the beginning of October, Arizona stopped financing certain transplant operations under the state's version of Medicaid. Many doctors say the decision amounts to a death sentence for some low-income patients, who have little chance of survival without transplants and lack the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to pay for them”.

"The most difficult discussions are those that involve patients who had been on the donor list for a year or more and now we have to tell them they're not on the list anymore," said Dr. Rainer Gruessner, a transplant specialist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. "The frustration is tremendous. It's more than frustration."

“Patients who were in line for transplants have been ruled ineligible -- because they don't have enough money. Arizona's Medicaid program was helping, and now it's not, leaving those facing death to scramble to try to somehow raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As for the politics of this, Arizona's right-wing governor, Jan Brewer (R), said the transplant cuts are necessary because of "Obamacare," the conservative description of the Affordable Care Act”.

“But this literally adds insult to injury. Brewer signed these health care cuts into law on March 18. President Obama signed health care reform into law on March 23”.

“If Brewer wants to support a policy that leaves sick, innocent Arizonans facing impossible, life-threatening choices, she can try to defend it. But lying about her own misdeeds, hoping the public is so easily fooled that she can blame the White House for a policy that came after her own, is pretty disgusting”.

"We made it very clear at the time of the vote that this was a death sentence," said state Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor (D). Republicans didn't listen, and now they're blaming Obama. It's pathetic”.

“Pathetic” does not even come close on this one. It is an outright lie, the Bill this repugnant governor is trying to blame her decision on was not even law (signed) when se made her decision. Here again, we have another example of a republican doing something (in this case it is going to kill people, literally) and then trying to blame somebody else for what they just did. We see this with the deficit as an example, that is as big as it is due in a large part due to the mismanagement of the previous administration that we are STILL PAYING FOR.

Really, John? The only people who voted last month were the wealthy?

No matter how you deny it, Obama is a failure, the electorate recognizes that, and reject his destructive agenda.

no joe, no bo, nj

Really, John? The only people who voted last month were the wealthy?

No matter how you deny it, Obama is a failure, the electorate recognizes that, and reject his destructive agenda.

No Jo Remember i said you have no place to call anybody a falure, your state is suing the federal government in order to not re-pay funds given to New Jersey, for a construction project that would have giwven a real boom to the new jersey economy, No Jo, the word falure is spelled New jersey,

I still can't believe that all this fiscal responsiblilys you preach, and your state can't even given back $ thats not theirs and you going to spend more money suing to not pay. that the good fiscal thinking that has us where we are at now.

So true, USN. They made sympathetic noises and spent vast amounts of anonymous cash to get votes from average Americans, already Conservatives are turning their backs on the folks that elected them and are bowing to their wealthy masters. On multiple points the opinion of Americans is of no importance.

Now, at least in Arizona people are dying because Conservatives believe life and death is a class issue. The "party of personal responsibility" is unwilling to take responsibility, they're trying to sell a bill of goods to the people and blame it all on HCR. We live in a sad world when people are able to lie with impunity just because they're politicians and allowed to label it "spin."

It keeps in line with the republican agenda to create a society based on class. The sad thing is that now people may die and those responsible will not take ownership for their part in this. In fact they even lie and shift the blame. This goes beyond just being repugnant. As far as I am concerned, anybody who dies in AZ because of this denial of Medical Coverage that they were previously promised is laid at the feet of that governor and her party.

I hope that people like Keith and others that are trying to raise the appropriate funds for these people is successful.

This is not the American way.

navy - an old saying states that their are only two truths... "Death and taxes". Let the family members decide on prolonging life at their expense rather than have the government dictating by how long and at what expense life should be extended. Seems that liberals always think that throwing $$$ at something makes it the right thing to do. My dad died of a rapidly growing brain tumer. Doctors gave us a choice, operate and have him die in the OR, operate and have a vegetable to live with or let him die in peace and pain free. We took the peace and pain free option even though insurance was available. He had death with dignity and not some government plan to prolong life till the cows came home.

Screw the liberal "cradle to the grave mentality" of government control!

Yeah cause heathcare should only be available to the rich I mean they are the only ones who have EARNED it right?

...and there it is, folks. In "no joe's World":

Unfunded Tax Cut for Super Rich = Good

Unfunded extension of unemployment = Bad

Lets see how this Bush Tax issue has worked out for Obama. He and the Democrats have been whining about the so-called Bush tax issue for years now. Obama and the Democrats have complained long and hard about how "unfair" those tax cuts were and how much they "cost" the federal government. Obama said he would never ever allow the tax cuts for the most wealthy. And now, when the rubber meets the road, Obama is going to sell out on all those taxes, and for what, a few months of unemployment benefits? To top it off, he's going to agree to just a temporary extension? So that means the very issue he and his Democrats got clobbered over in the 2010 elections will now also come up again in the 2012 elections? This tax issue is the gift that keeps on giving, to the Republicans.

America was sending a very clear message to Obama with last months elections. No one expected him to roll over and play dead like he has since that time. but we'll take it.

JoAnnaSmith1

Lets see how this Bush Tax issue has worked out for Obama.

Let forget about how its worked for Obama, lets see who it has Not worked for Americans. the cuts given 10 years ago were suppose to prevent what we are going through right now joanna, this is what liberal can't understand, 10-years of cuts that lead to near collaspe, and simpeltons like your self wants to keep them.

The overspending by this current administration and the passing of Obamacare is what has done Obama in. Hey, we do not need to keep adding government programs to the table. Bureaucrats are terrible business-people. Just visit your local Department of Motoer Vehicles.

Did the deficit numbers include the cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars? I know the Federal Budget did not at that time.

Another BALD FACED nojo LIE:

"...despite funding two wars, the federal deficit in 2006 was $247.7billion, the lowest it had been in four years;"

Come on NoJo, you know damn good and well the cost of those wars were not IN THE BUDGET and therefore the deficits were not recorded, as such.

Once I catch you in revisionist distortion, I really can't stomach to read the rest of what you have to spin. It nauseates me too much.

What BS. The republicans are holding over 400 Bills, including the Unemployment Extensions, DADT, START hostage unless they get a Tax BONUS for the richest 2%. They then claim that the democrats are attaching the strings???

What a bunch of unmitigated Hypocrits.

People it is the republicans that will not do anything to move this country forward UNLESS the richest 2% that funded their campaigns get a Tax Bonus over ad above what the middle class will receive. Once again they will get over 50% of the benefits, just like the last time. This is the facts. President Obama is tryin to salvage something (in my opinion not near enough) out of this mess. The so called new deal is going to cost more than the ARRA Bill did.

Yes, in fact, they did.

The wars were funded separately from the budget, so there has been a deliberate misstating of what that means. It is similar to your own budget- if your furnace goes, and you have to replace it, it is not in your budget. However, at year end, that expenditure goes into your year end accounting.

So, yes, those deficit numbers DO reflect the cost of the wars. The reason the deficits were so low is that tax revenues were so high. In fact, CBO was projecting a surplus for 2008. It is one reason that Bush pushed Medicare Part D- with which I disagreed, by the way. Any surplus generated should have gone to debt reduction, not increased spending. Moreover, projected deficits or surpluses often come to naught- wait for the actual numbers, then figure out where the funds should go. CBO over estimated the deficit number for fiscal 2007- and really blew it for 2008. Those are the dangers of projection- they rely on all things remaining equal.

Jeff, the Bush tax cuts did produce jobs, just not in this country... We have been hemorrhaging jobs for years. My question to you is the Democrats have been running the show in DC for almost 4 years, they have had a first hand look at this outsourcing and still have not made any amendments to NAFTA or the US tax laws to punish the offender's.

I'm not saying that all of their collective a$$es aren't on the line for this but the Democratic party brags about being the "compassionate" party.

Politico is a conservative sham. No one takes anything seriously from that site. And No Jo, you need to perhaps move out of a state where the governor decided to cut education a lot.

Obviously you missed out on New Jersey's finest education. I would advise you to read more than one internet site for information. Maybe talk to someone who can explain things to you slowly.

Let forget about how its worked for Obama, lets see who it has Not worked for Americans. the cuts given 10 years ago were suppose to prevent what we are going through right now joanna, this is what liberal can't understand, 10-years of cuts that lead to near collaspe, and simpeltons like your self wants to keep them.

If the tax cuts were so evil, why is Obama supporting them today?

Clara,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

Pay particular attention to the first two lines of the story.

I would send you to CBO, but I doubt very much you would understand it.

You do misunderstand what keeping the wars off budget, and tallying the yearly deficit means, right? I mean, you are not deliberately misstating this, are you?

See, it makes no sense to set a budget number for a war. You have no concept of what it would cost, so it is done separately. However, at year end, those costs are added to all the budgeted costs, and subtracted from the revenue. That is where the deficit numbers come from. I guess you did not know that, because, otherwise, you would not continue to spew that the wars are not counted in the deficit.

Because, theynare.

The usual NoJoe daily anti-Obama rant, empty words saying nothing with each passing day.

I'm going to call Mike Rowe @ Dirty Jobs...

I'm sure he would love to spend a day with NJNB and find out first hand what a manure spreader does...

"America was sending a very clear message to Obama with last months elections. No one expected him to roll over and play dead like he has since that time. but we'll take it."

Anyone who reads these posts regularly knows I NEVER agree with JoANNA aobut anything. But, sadly, this last line of hers speaks much. She has a winner with this one.

no joe, no bo, nj

Yes, in fact, they did.

The wars were funded separately from the budget, so there has been a deliberate misstating of what that means. It is similar to your own budget- if your furnace goes, and you have to replace it, it is not in your budget. However, at year end, that expenditure goes into your year end accounting.

Wrong. Emergency appropriations (such as funding both wars) are not included in the budget. Look at the deficit from 2001-2008 - no war funding.

All of a sudden - in 2009 - the deficit jumps 3 trillion. this was even before Obama produced his first budget.

Nice try but stop falsifying information.

And tedious on top of it, right Jody? I rarely read what she writes since it is SO predictable, but I really am amused at her excuse making for the Cheney/Bush administration keeping the wars off budget so they could hide the damage.

I take greater exception with the MATH and the manner, njnb! I recall some numbnut saying he couldn't imagine it costing more than $30-$40 Billion,...and give me a break - you are attempting to use TECHNICAL speak for the over arching LIE that you now claim was never intended to be the whole picture.

Supplementals are NOT part of the current year's deficit. But it does go toward explaining the BALLOON deficit over the sum of the parts.

One last time-

There is a difference between the budget, and the deficit.

One is projected spending for an upcoming year. That is a budget.

One is the actual spending for the prior year- that would be your deficit number.

The wars were not in the BUDGET, they were in the DEFICIT numbers.

Good lord, are you deliberately ignorant?

NJ-

Plus you always forget that the Medicare D was not funded. So that would be 2 tax cuts, 2 wars and Medicare part D not funded.

But of course the Republicans keep saying to themselves.....We don't need money for those because we are the ones that create the bills. But oh for shame if the Democrats decide to do something for the Middle Class.

"America was sending a very clear message to Obama with last months elections. No one expected him to roll over and play dead like he has since that time. but we'll take it."

Obama has not exactly rolled over and played dead. He went to Asia to negotiate with other countries on trade and the START treaty. He has been negotiating with congress on taxes and unemployment, except when they stood him up. He has sought compromise even when the Republicans blatantly stated they would never compromise. All of this for middle class America. THAT is the message WE sent him. And we will take his efforts on our behalf.

In contrast, the new congress that you say America voted for, both Lame Duck and the new 2011 congress, have shown us nothing except that they would refuse to compromise, would obfuscate every administration effort, and would neglect to fight for Americans as they had promised.

And yet Republicans managed to put a number on what the war was going to cost and paint Democrats with a brush of "treason" if they dared vote against it...EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Lies are still lies, no matter how you try to explain them away.

The deal is almost done, all that is left is to call Communist China and see if we can borrow enough money to keep the lights on for a few more months. I hope they accept our children as collateral.

No jo:

The budget and the deficit are much the same calculation. The wars were off budget. They added to the debt, the national DEBT number, without adding to the annual deficit.

Off budget expenditures are added to the debt and are not reflected in the budget deficit figures. That is the accounting scam.

As one astute observer said on this board some time ago. NoJo is a FRAUD. Enough said.

Funny thing about those deficit #s you are using.....they DON'T include the cost of the wars.

The tax issue was an easily winnable fight for Obama and the Dem's, but they chose once again not to fight, the rich run the whole show in D.C. and the people go without representation, this Congress and the Obama administration are a terrible disappointment and a failure for the people that put them in office.

Michael, I hear your frustration and sympathize, but where are the Democrats standing with him? As LBJ said before pushing the Civil Rights Act, "make me do the right thing." Being the only person to stand on a political issue is suicide. Where are Democrats who are willing to make a tough stand on principle? Where are Democrats who are willing to call Rush, Glenn, and Drudge on their lies?

John the Dem's and Obama had the people behind them, got them elected, the Dem voters done their part, they expected to see some results, I continued to support Obama and the Dem's after they sold out on health care, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and so on, but this tax issue which the Dem's refused to put up a fight on that's the last straw, they could have won the issue but they said piss on it, well I say piss on them.

So Obama never campaigned on only keeping the tax rates stable for those earning under $250,000? Axelrod's line that "republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage" was never used? Is somebody out there IMPERSONATING Obama?

Face facts: the electorate rejected the whole class warfare idea. Deal with it.

I hear your frustration but you have you forgotten the many campaign stops from Sep until the 2010 election where Pres Obama spoke about allowing tax cuts for the rich to expire to cheers. He's been out there, he's been talking about this for 4 years. Where have the Congressional democrats been? Where was the DNC, the DCCC, the DSC? Blue dog dems voted NO on Saturday so who had the President's back when his own party members vote republican.

A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx

Deal with it.

The Democrats are willing to trade over $400 billion dollars in yearly tax cuts, the so called Bush tax cuts, for about $40 billion in unemployment benefits.

No one ever said Obama and the Democrats were any good at this.

Oh, and, . . . . deal with it.

The Republicans will have it both ways they got their tax cut, and the democrats will still pay the political price for not being fiscally responsible.

FG - I think what you say is correct. I do not believe Obama and Democrats could have played this Bush tax thing any more badly than they have.

It has far less to do with how it was played than the basic dishonesty of republican voters concern for the deficit.

Feel free to move to Bangladesh. I hear their personal tax rate is lower than that of the U.S.

Feel free to move to Sweden...I hear the personal tax rate is higher than in the U.S.

It's not just the tax rate. It's what you get in return. Things like health care, education...

I kind of like it here. My friends and family are all here, my job...you could say I've put down roots. That doesn't mean I won't always work for a better society. In this case it would be nice if the United States among the 20 most affluent nations in terms of income inequality.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/01/22/inequality-among-affluent-nations/

Because the GOP/Tea Party supports elimination of the working class by any means necessary - non-living wage, no healthcare, lynching in disguise, death penalty, etc. (BTW how many millionaires with blood on their hands are on death row?)

Rick, WS, NC

Because Jan is one of their own. So Sarah keeps her mouth shut!

Rick, WS, NC

Why isn't stupid sarah rampaging about Jan Brewers death panels in Arizona?

Right now she's busy clubbing halibuts, running away from being eaten by grizzly bears, lying on FOX NOISE and signing books.

But, trust me the moment this becomes more of a national story she will. She loves death panels.

Check out this picture

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/12/iron-sky/?pid=2145

ranmarie-

Of course! The Rethugs knew they would get their way if they held the umemployed hostage. They have no shame!!!!

New study reveals that being laid off makes you lazy, when there are 5 people for every job that creates a lazy attitude. This attitude is catching, first it was 2 million lazy people, then 4 million, now it might be as many as 6 million people who will decide to be lazy before next year. You see your neighbor living on 20% of what he used to make, laying around all day sucking the government teat, selling all those possessions that he had been a slave to, and it makes you think "he has got it made". I wish I would get laid off and me and the wife and the kids could live the easy life on 300 bucks a week. It is so cool, even rich people envy me.

You have no idea what you are talking about

Hooked on Phonics can be purchased at a very low price, Dude.

My comment was expressly for whatzit2u!

Okay I made the whole thing about the study up. I was trying to make some selfish rich greedy bastards feel better about being selfish rich greedy bastards. Everyone should feel good during the holiday season.

Seriously....two years of unemployement and they deserve more? I am a single mother with 3 kids working 3 jobs and these people can't find one legitimate job? Too many are lazy expecting to be taken care of!! I know someone who is getting unemployment while going to school full-time...how does that work? I wish I had gotten paid while going to school.

Holding the unemployed hostage- how ignorant!!! Since when is it someone (the rich) elses responsibility to take care of other people???? How about taking care of yourself!!!

So, anyone know where a guy can find 12 million jobs? That's all it'll take to get us to full employment.

Theres more than 12 million jobs out there. But the question is, If it doesn't pay what you want and its not an easy job, would you take it. or would you just sit around until someone knocks on you door and gives you your dream job. I would like to have the benefits of being unemployed. $300 a week, $98 in food assistance, free medical, and thats just a few. I think everyone should get layed off and start claiming these benefits, they would shut the program down in three to four weeks.

Free medical? Where do you go for that? Again, certainly not where I live. I went through a bout of unemployment 6 years ago, and have been on the employer side of the transaction since that time. If there were free medical with your unemployment I'd know.

There are not twelve million jobs of any kind out there. You are overcharging, that was not even worth two cents.

Ever heard of Indegent care. As for the jobs, how is it that any illegal immigrant can walk accross the border and have a job within the first week their here. Bu someone that has been on unemployment for two years can't find a job. If you can't get hired by walmart, then its not the economy - it's you.

You just make this stuff up as you go? Any illegal can walk across the border and have a job? First of all it is so bad the Mexicans are going home! Second hiring illegals is illegal, and the people that hire them know this, they are criminals, they don't collect taxes, or pay payroll taxes, they skirt the law in a variety of ways, they will never hire anybody but illegal aliens, because that is how they operate, they have no intention of hiring anybody legally, they make out like the thieves they are, by preying on the defenseless. If you are trying to make a virtue out of breaking the law then at least tell the unemployed there is decent money to be made in the carjacking business. Whats the matter are you unemployed people to lazy for crime now.

Homeland security doesn't care if your here illegally or not. Have seen many BP officers drive by illegals and not even stop. The only time they stop is if the person is carrying a burlap backpack. As for the jobs, it's called networking. They have a friend or family member who gets them a job or tells them where to get a job. They pay taxes just like everyone else. The SS administration has accounts of $212 billion of payed taxes that have not been claimed because these illegals used someone elses SS number. Which by the way is not illegal. As for the hiring of illegals, You have 90 days, in which you send off their proof of citizenship and wait for a confirmation, so most businesses fire these people a few days before the 90 days are up. Then it doesn’t matter if they are legal or illegal.

Thanks for proving my point, these employers have no intention of doing the right thing, they play the system.

Please I am not an insomniac in need of relief.

So true ranmarie, and they aren't afraid to make that decision, either. They're bought and paid for by the wealthy Conservative elites and know they'd better deliver.

Hey - learn to spell names correctly - or no one should take anything you say seriously.

Dysfunctional Senate where the tyranny of the minority rules the majority. Sad state for democracy. Write your senators and demand new filibuster rules, rules that allow debate but do not allow the minority to hold any legislation, demand those filibustering be forced to hold the floor only with debate not a simple no to hold the majority hostage. If we want change, WE must demand it because it will not happen without the grassroots yelling loudly.

Chandler, W. It doesn't matter how something is spelled as long as the point is made.

It doesn't matter to you. And in truth it shouldn't matter much to the point you are trying to make. But it can rankle the reader, and if they are uninclined to be receptive to your position they will focus on the spelling errors to refute your point.

Well if spelling doesn't matter can you tell my english professor to regrade my paper? No, you can't. If you want people to take you seriously spell correctly.

Actually there will be a loser. Obama has been preaching against extending these tax cuts since his election in 2008. He cites them as a major reason for our economic decline. If they stay in place and the economy recovers, as I believe it will. It makes him, and the rest of his Soicialst pals, wrong. That will cost them dearly, and they know it.

He didn't claim the tax cuts were the cause of our economic decline. He saw them as a major contributor to the DEFICIT. These are not the same thing.

Keep trying to sell that narrative, but the economy has been in recovery for 19 months now. We aren't hemorraging jobs at 700,000/month as we were when a Republican was last President. The economic recovery WILL recover, my business plan is written around that, unless Conservatives crash it...again.

robert as long as they can get unemployment for doing nothing some people will not look for work. it should be , in order to get unemployment you either have to go for retraining or work for the govt doing something, anything. to pay people to sit on their butts accomplishes nothing except to create a larger welfare state. also welfare and unemployment recepients should have random drug testing. that would sure cut the rolls.

Well Said, mrwood, well said. There should be a distiction made between those who would work if only someone was hiring and those who are not even making the attempt to find work.

How come these companies didn't hire in the last eight years? I mean Bush gave two big tax cuts. Why didn't businesses expand and hire? Why did our whole financial system get pushed off a cliff?

It is getting harder and harder to deal with such stupidity.

It is getting harder and harder to deal with such stupidity.

Someone could make a FORTUNE if they came up with a vaccine!

I can't say how this works in every state, but in my state a person needs to submit a report weekly indicating where he/she applied for work and the nature of that work. No contacts, no unemployment. There goes that "those who are not even making the attempt to find work" line.

The wisdom of conservative thinking--business will hire now that all this tax uncertainty goes away. Too bad that wisdom is just GOP talking points since the rate of taxes has no impact on hiring. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's Jim Nunns--"the incentive to hire doesn't turn on the tax rate because if you pay an employee, it's tax deductible regardless of your tax rate."

Jody, you are unaware that companies are sitting on hoards of cash. Why? Because they are uncertain how much the cost of doing business will be under this administration. You have never ran a business before or you wouldn't have made such a statement, because the costs are very high to retain an employee. BTW, the word nonpartisan doesn't exist anywhere in this administration.

Keep saying it Robert, still doesn't make it true.

Robert-777154

Did companies just become uncertain in 2009/2010?

They have been enjoying tax cuts for five years now. Where are the jobs?

These people who justify the Republicans stance on tax cuts as the answer to ALL of our economic woes apparently never made it pass grade school. The numbers just don't add up.

Here is how the stupid argument goes:

"We cannot impose a tax increase during a recession because it will stifle job creation. BTW, we must stop this runaway spending in Washington so pardon us while we increase the deficit with our runaway spending"

Seriously?

I know that is not the case in Tennessee. My wife was unemployed for 4 months over the summer, she was getting unemployment benefits for 2 of those months. Never was she asked to prove she was looking for work. She had to answer 7 or eight questions but no one ever asked for proof.

She was looking, almost 30 resumes a week, but no one asked, so obviously either they did not care if she was or not, or they were just too damn busy cranking out checks.

Good luck Americans, daily it is proven we need all the luck we can get.

Geesh!

That's YOUR state. Talk to YOUR Legislators!

Robert-777154

"Jody, you are unaware that companies are sitting on hoards of cash. Why? Because they are uncertain how much the cost of doing business will be under this administration"

The people that keep saying this are full of it clear up to their eyebrows. If I make and sell witdgets, and demand for them goes up, I'm NOT going to make and sell them? What a complete crock. I guess making NO money is better than making SOME money, even if I don't know how much will be paid in taxes on it?

C'mon, people- you know better than that. Why the hell doesn't the media and interview hosts point this out every time some idot says it????

mrwood3 - years ago Erie county & Buffalo, NY were having financial problems with many people on welfare and unemployment. It was suggested that these people be required to do community work to return value to the community for the communities support of them. The city workers (union) killed the idea. Instead, Buffalo and Erie county voted to enact a temporary sales tax increase to 7 1/2 %(?). I visited there in august 2010. They still have financial problems and the sales tax is now over 8%.

Yea right, why haven't they hired up to now? the tax cuts have been in place for ten years!

This is just an extension for two more years, nothing has changed and nothing will change.

At least we got unemployment for those that are the victims here.

Who are the victims? Those that lost their jobs? Who hasn't lost a job? Some of your victims have chosen not to look for another job and are happy collecting unemployment and hoping that they can recieve extension after extension. I understand that those that worked payed into this program, but the point of it was not for people to live off of it and to create a career out of it, it was only to give them temporary funds while they looke for and acquired another job.

The uncertainty argument is BS, are you really saying companies won't hire because they don't want to pay taxes on the extra income they would make. They hire if the demand is there, they lay off when it isn't. Im sure the people who try to make that argument would turn down a raise because they don't want to pay the taxes on the extra income. If you think taxes are to high then ask for a reduction in wages, same logic. It's BS.

blah, blah,blah...

Dumb FUX NEWS nation won't last long, we'll be voting out the GOP in 2012...

New hope for America! Hope millions are not out in the streets starving. Hope another 800 billion dollars borrowed from communist China creates a couple of part time jobs at Wal-Mart. Hope our kids don't mind competing for 25 cent an hour jobs in the Global economy.

No, this is the beginning of the end for America. The robber barons and their Republican stooges in the Congress are trying to continue the failed trickle-down agenda, which has been shown beyond any doubt to have failed miserably. The re-direction of revenues from the government to the high end of the economic spectrum has been a spectacurlarly successful fpolicy for those already at or near the top. What has happened is money is trickling up from the many to the few.

More than 400 billionaires have been minted since 1980, while income has remained flat for the middle class and has decreased for the poor. That's because the beneficiaries of these tax policies have kept the money for themselves rather than hire people.

This is not just my opinion. This is cold, hard, reality. To continue running up the national debt while coddling the rich and super rich and makeing them even richer at everybody else's expense will be (and is being) our downfall. Our infrastructure is third rate - our society is imploding.

Call me a class warroir if you want - you're probavly right. The rich, by way of their puppets in Congress are raping this country to its death. That is cold, hard, FACT! Those who call me a class warrior are probably in tha rarified upper crust that has been the beneficiary of these STUPID policies.

Five unemployed for every available job. That's fact. Five unemployed for every job. Those are the numbers, wishing them away won't change them. Five unemployed for every job. Your FYIGM attitude is wishing incredible hardship on four of them. Five unemployed for every job. That's the legacy from 30 years of deregulation and trickle down economics.

And you'd keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

Obama talked about "shovel ready" jobs ad-nauseum in 2009. Every time there was even a glimmer of a data point of hope in any job report, Obama was out front and center proclaiming "We've turned the corner, America!" Biden told us in 2010 that "The economy will soon be producing 500,000 jobs a month". Biden also proclaimed the summer of 2010 "The Summer of Recovery". Turns out, all of this was nonsense.

Obama/Biden and the Democrats have failed. And they have failed to the point that they've given up on all the nonsense they've been putting out about them improving the economy. They're now reduced to appealing to American of their great compassion by making unemployment benefits an entitlement.

Frankly Obama, we expected more.

We got more than Conservatives are willing to admit.

But it was a historic transfusion of cash in a global system that was bleeding to death. We asked Bernanke what would have happened if the Fed hadn't acted.

Pelley: What would unemployment be today?

Bernanke: Unemployment would be much, much higher. It might be something like it was in the Depression. Twenty-five percent. We saw what happened when one or two large financial firms came close to failure or to failure. Imagine if ten or 12 or 15 firms had failed, which is where we almost were in the fall of 2008. It would have brought down the entire global financial system and it would have had enormous implications, very long-lasting implications for the global economy, not just the U.S. economy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/03/60minutes/main7114229_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Bernanke: Unemployment would be much, much higher. It might be something like it was in the Depression. Twenty-five percent. [And on, and on , it goes]

Be careful of government officials cheer-leading themselves over what a great job they are doing. It's always best to take an independent and critical look at them before jumping on their band-wagon.

I guess next we'll get another CBO report about how wonderful things are going.

Sounds just like the conservatives on Capitol Hill--cold hearts, empty souls and the inability to know what it is like to be unemployed during a Great Recession.

Can't help it if facts get in the way of some peoples preferred reality. That's how I choose to live.

puhleeze johnb - no disputing 1 in 5 (although I think that is low) What about new workers entering the job market and those trying to re-enter? But....

That's the legacy from 30 years of deregulation and trickle down economics.

At least you you have acknowledged that the democrats have been as much to blame for the economy as republicans. thank you.

Jody, iowa - I can emphasize with the poor and unemployed as well as any liberal can, however it WILL TAKE A COLD HEART and yes perhaps even an empty soul to resolve todays economic challenges and wastefull spending habits. But then again, I am sure that you give all of your available discretionary income to food banks and homeless shelters.

How does the old saying go... "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach the man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

Republicans have been in the WH 20 of the last 30 years. They push deregulation and tax cuts to a mindless level. Sure, Democrats deserve criticism for not taking a principled stand against Conservative idiocy, but it's deregulation and trickle down economics are primarily Conservative Republican gimmicks. This latest go around is hardly unusual...Republicans are going to get their way thanks to the fake filibuster, but when it goes bad you'll want Democrats to take the blame. It's the Conservative way.

Then again I don't blame you for trying to push half the blame for Conservative policies off on Democrats, there's a lot of failure there.

The issue over job creation relative to the tax cut is nothing but a cover, a heartless one at that.

We should not fall for it.

These tax cuts will in no way have a significant effect on employment. The Republican leadership is just exploiting the down turn, and its attendant suffering as a tactic for securing the Wall Street take over of Social Security...and after that one can only guess.

On the 27th of October the 'Congressional Research Service (CRS) revised the total cost of permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts to $5.048 trillion over the next ten years. The republican leadership is staying on course, the same course they have been on, at least since 2005, putting in place all the pieces for the master move.

In 10 years as a result of this continuing Republican program we will have an unsustainable deficit, coupled with an ever more influential oligarch class (not unlike that of our cold war rival). The deficit will be at least 5 trillion more than it currently is, plus interest, and there will be no way to pay for it except by dissolving social security as we now know it.

This is with out a doubt a line in the sand moment. Being an American I like a good fight and have asked my senators to give me one!

What rebekkah said.

There is one big difference between this great recession, and the depressions of the past, this time the people losing everything are armed to the teeth. The last thing any good American will sell at the pawn shop is his gun(s). Some republicans talk about second amendment remedies, if millions lose their homes and are out in the streets, they just might seek those remedies. In any event I'll bet they don't just quietly let their families starve to death.

johnb - you really need to go back to the 60's to see where our economic troubles and our entitlement attitude started to develope. No doubt you probably think that LBJ's war on poverty and the "great society" is but ancient history. At the time I thought that it was a great policy move, but I was just a k-12 student. Now I see that the poor are still with us and that we now have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families and our k-12 education system is in decline, but still you and your cohorts try to shift the majority of blame unto conservatives, ref post 21.8. Today we see the culmination of what 50+ years of gradual social modification has brought us. The past is past never to be relived but in the form of a lesson learned.

BTW, congress determines the budget and sponsors legislative programs. The president has his own advisors and can either approve congresses actions or veto them. Care to enlighten us on the years of a democratically controlled congress vs republican since eisenhower?

Wow, what a dramatic rewrite of history. Poverty fell by HALF with the Great Society programs and the 50s-60s are unquestionably the best economic time for America. Erosion of the middle class and intense concentration of wealth, on the other hand, began with the Reagan Revolution. That war on the middle class acceleratated through the administration of Bush 43. Those decades of middle class decay and rampant deregulation brought on an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression. Similar Republican policies were in place prior to that collapse.

See a pattern here?

johnb - you are the quintessential revisionist aren't you and a true believer of trickle economics! Tell us oh elitist one that we don't have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare today. How much has the government payroll increased to support the expanding liberal agenda of entitlements?

As we both agree that the tide began (albeit slowly) in the 60's it has been picking up steam ever since and errors were made and continue to be made to this day by the politicians. I say by both parties you say mainly by the republicans Perhaps you need to wipe the liberal crap from your eyes and mouth long enough to dig deep into your proclaimed knowledge to answer the following for prior to 2008...

Are the poor still with us? Despite constantly increasing $$$ why is k-12 education still in decline? What is the number of years that democrats controlled the senate, the house, the presidency vs the republicans since 1964? Do you understand that it takes years for attitudes to change and develop into government policy unless there is an abrupt change in world political or economic conditions? What is your spin on reagan inheriting the soaring inflation and subsequent recession of 1980? Come on razzle-dazzle boy, tell us some more stories of the bad boy conservatives vs the holier than thou liberals. And please do brush up on your reading comprehension.

You're still accusing me of believing in "trickle down" economics even though I wiped the floor with you on that one last time. Then you say we BOTH believe it began in the 60's even though I said nothing of the sort. After that you claim that you believe both parties are to blame but follow up with a spiteful, venomous personal attack on "liberal crap." You want to make a case, make it. Othwerwise

siasd

Who is we and where is my $$$$. I make middle class money and all I do is pay. I don't get any of mine back. Because Im self employed I pay twice as much taxes as employed folks. This money doesn't go back into the economy. It goes to Wallmart and to China. You are confused. For this money to get into the economy it would have to impact people by employing them not giving them more crap to have in thier house. This country needs jobs not tax dollars to buy more things. Think more long term.

daniel. you cant grow the economy with tax money it doesnt work. you need people to go earn work in the private sector. and paying them to sit home doesnt do that.

Every year the government is borrowing 1.5 trillion more than it collects in taxes and spends it to sustain our unsustainable life style. Folks, this is a dead end. Borrowing and spending on consumer products will not make a recovery. Consumer economy is a myth. Consumers consume. Consumers go into debt and they become poor. Only producers prosper. We are not investing the borrowed money to create value that there is a demand for. Borrowing from China to buy Chinese products is not going to fix anything. We already have excess industrial capacity. The problem is that the world demand has saturated. Even if we increase our capacity to produce more, there is nobody who can afford to buy the products! The world needs time to rest and reduce debt levels so that we can start a phase of expansion again!

We are going into Kondratieff Winter and Spring is still far away! Deflationary depression is near:

http://www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/kondratieff-wave

Keynesian spending will only postpone it but will make it worse when it finally arrives!

That is a long term concern harrolds, but actually the number is $1.2T. That's down from $1.4T in the last year for which GW Bush was responsible, 2009.

Only concentration on the needs and health of the middle class will make our economy strong again.

I think it's rather funny when the left wingers make comments about their self declared superior intelligence to tea baggers. Many liberals may be book smart, but do not have common sense. Most left wing nut jobs went to college for liberal art degrees and have no sense whatsoever when it comes to business, economics, or simple math. So when the math doesn't add up and go their way they cry "IT'S NOT FAIR" that my art history job doesn't pay as much as a business,or engineering degree where someone actually runs a business. If the so called "Republithugs" are truly a party of rich, and the rich are 2 to5% of the population, how is it that the GOP have 47% of the seats in the Senate and a clear majority in the House? The GOP may be good at convincing and manipulating "teabaggers" into voting for them, but if you do the math (tea baggers + 2-5% rich) it does not add up to what what we have in Congress right now. There are many other moderate people who also voted for the GOP who are just as smart as you.

Johnb - congress sets the budget, the president can only approve or veto it. With a burst housing bubble and runaway commodity prices what choice was there? I am sure that when it comes to greed that democrats are just as proficient in holding out for more as any republican.

In the 50s the republican president and congress had the wealthy mega rich pay well over 50%. So shut up and know a great deal when you see one.

mike-454625

to all the Comrads in the Progressive Democrat Party, how can you figure the Socialist Gov't is losing 1 trillion dollars by not raising taxes when it is not Hussein Obama's money to beging with

To mike and the rest of you prevaricators,

The President lowered the debt by 1.2 trillion the lowest in history

(Reuters) - The budget deficit for fiscal 2010 narrowed to $1.294 trillion from last year's record $1.416 trillion as tax collections started to recover and bailout spending fell sharply.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E54M20101016

=============================================================

That's nearly $122 billion less than Bush's 2009 budget deficit. Actually, it's one of the largest one year reductions in the budget deficit in the history of the nation.

The GOP attack hounds Rush Limpballs, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Sarah Palin want to tar President Obama as a stealthy Red president out to socialize medicine, snatch wealth from the rich and middle class, impose a Joe Stalin-style big and repressive government on America, and reorder capitalism. Isn't this a cunning, calculated delusion ploy that's working?

Don't forget during the 60’s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was routinely smeared similarly as a communist and socialist due to his leadership and advocacy for civil liberties; especially civil rights.

You people really don't what socialism is or how the government works either.

Either you're duped or just enjoy repeating lies.

MY,my. Where were you during the Bush-era with your it's not his money attitude? I guess if you don't care as long as it is a Republican spending it is ok. I would also like for you to check your facts about media control. If you REALLY care which I doubt, you may be surprised at what you find.

Good job recognizing the patter, RM. During Republican administrations they hand out tax breaks and expand the government like no tomorrow. As soon as a Democrat takes over the only thing that matters is the deficit...the deficit that Republicans created.