Ron:

Excellent post. Typical responses from the GOP/TP. President Obama's proposal is a "Job Killer", where have we heard that before. The facts are the GOP/TP proposal will cuts hundreds of thousands of jobs, increase unemployment, reduce tax revenues, lost benefits, etc. And the lost of important services like food and product safety, medical research, education, fire and police protection, boarder security etc, etc.

Stop saying things that make sense, Ron. No one in Washington wants to hear it anymore.

Enjoy the History Channel. Sounds like guitar playing to me.

You nailed it Ron!

Difficult to dance with some one who has two 'right' feet! ;o)

Wow....How do you type so fast. The article was posted at 9:11 am and your response was at 9:12. I am thinking that you are not taking much time to read the article.

Ron Indiana

We are on the same vibe. I been watching other channels since Sunday. The folks over at Fear Channel aka FOX NOISE the republican/tea bagger Headquarters made me do it in their prediction of President Obama destructive plan to end the world.

I'm so sick of republican's incessant meaningless motions

The perpetually tanned, lachrymose Republican leader plans to debate / gesture/ mock the President today/ everyday with respect to the the peoples business the budget. In other words he is going to to insult the middle and poor working classes of American and hail the virtues of the selfish businesses that are sitting on nearly 2 trillion exploited money

Where are the Jobs or Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, Boobs, Bad Breathe and Poker

Years ago I saw the Woody Allen movie "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex" and it had a vignette about a mad sex researcher whose experiment went wrong and the story culminated in a runaway, giant breast terrorizing the countryside trying to milk everyone. How would the people ever be saved from the Monster Mammary Milking Menace? Fortunately, in the end, Gene Wilder was able to lure the giant boob into a giant bra and the masses were saved.

Decades passed, and now we have globull warming, the Gulf spill and Obama's capitalizing on that crisis by contempt of moratoriums, excessive new regulations, bureaucratic over-reach; coupled with the EPA's war on business in the name of CO2, our very breath and basis of life on the planet - as a toxic gas ....... I had long forgotten about Woody's film....... until I read an article about the big boob in Washington and apparently a new milk menace threatening our lives and country.

Milk Spills.

I guess if you were worried, don't ...... the EPA has decided it has the power to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans, how to train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" to deal with a flood of spilled milk. And don't worry libbies, they are not through writing regs - I'm sure there will be plans to protect everything, including the stray kitties from O.D.'ing.

So America's towns and villages are now safe from being washed away by a flood of milk. Thanks Mr. President.

What does all of this have to do with jobs? ........ Poker.

No, not Feisty's "Dogs Playing Poker" artwork, but real world poker that business plays.

Obama goes to the Chamber of Commerce to tell American business to "get in the game," to quit sitting on their mountains of cash and start hiring. Yet these guys have sat at the table and watched as the dealer has changed the rules for two years; thousands of pages of new HCR rules, taxes, etc,: FinRef with thousands of pages: federal government taking over banking functions; federal government taking over car companies, flaunting bankruptcy law and stock holder rights; destroying the energy industry by fiat which will explode their energy cost, the cost of everything, rising debt and the INCESSANT CALL AND CRY FROM THE LEFT TO TAX THE RICH, TAX CORPORATIONS, PUNISH CORPORATIONS..........

Obama has literally regulated and taxed the same gas as our very breath as a pollutant and has gone to the extreme of regulating MILK as if it was a toxic petro-chemical spill from the Exxon Valdez (which is as crazy, insane and ludicrous as anything even Woody Allen could imagine.)

And the dealer keeps dealing. Wild cards are deuces, then one-eye jacks, then kings, then not -whatever the dealer decides? The deck stacked?

Business will ante up for some small blinds. But even with big stacks of cash and wanting to "get in the game" - you have to be crazy to push it big with this guy dealing, when the rules keep changing?

Maybe the tax payers need to "invest" in another giant bra for the boob still loose in Washington.

Anna Molly:

Big plans, check in with Clara.

As I said below, I don't seem to know how anymore. But thanks.

Obama's budget proposal produced headlines that showcase the need for individual voters to engage in critical thinking.

First Read chose to go with the Obama talking point- that his proposal would reduce the deficit $1.1 trillion over ten years. Not the DEBT, but the deficit.

McClatchy headlined it this way: Obama Proposes Increasing Debt by $13 trillion.

Needless to say, Mclatchy is more factual.

Yesterday, we got a lot of "what is the republican plan?". Wailed sarcastically by the left. Not mentioned was the republican proposal, rolled out on Friday, to cut THIS YEAR'S budget by $60 billion- which would reduce the actual deficit for this year.

No one not on this board is behind this ridiculous, bloated budget plan of Obama's. Even the Washington Post editorialized against it.

Obama's death by drowning in red ink budget proposal is DOA. He is expected to hype the thing at 11 a.m. I think you can watch the amazing dropping poll numbers over the next two weeks or so, and see how well he sells it. Probably about as successfully as HCR.

Anna Molly:

Perhaps Clara or Feisty can find you.

Barack H. Obama: A Profile in Being a Coward.

Apparently Obama missed the message last Nov02/2010. He had a chance to lead on reducing the nations budget deficit, but instead proposes a budget with a record deficit of $1.65 trillion dollars. He talks about "savings" and reductions", 10 years down the road. Obama keeps telling us the economy is improving, but surely a budget that depends on that amount of deficit spending tells a different story. People in Washington DC need to make tough choices regarding federal spending, and we now know that Obama isn't that person. Essentially what Obama is doing is making the budget, the future of the country, a political football, something to play a game of "gotch-a" with, making someone else make the tough choices while he sits there being critical of the people doing the real work.

Obama promised that he would be a different president, one that would make the tough decisions, one that would be bi-partisan, one that would get things done. He lied. He's nothing but a big government liberal partisan hack. The man is useless.

Once again, bob is right on target. Ron is from Mars.

Ron, if you sit down with your own budget, and see that the credit card debt is piling up, pick a number- any number- of dollars you need to quit spending so you can start paying DOWN the debt.

You did not get into that debt over night, you have no rich relatives on the point of leaving this mortal coil who may just leave you enough to start fresh, so your only option is to cut back your spending so you can start chiseling away at the principal, rather than treading water by barely making the interest payments.

$60 billion is a start. Cutting ridiculous regulations, like the ones bob noted, will also help. It will jump start job creation, and then new tax revenues will also help reduce the debt.

It does not take a rocket scientist. It does take fiscal responsibility.

Obama is neither.

JoAnnaSmith1

Barack H. Obama: A Profile in Being a Coward.

Did you see the tan man BOO HOOING on TV?

You can not call the President a coward whew the Boner can't even stand up to the birthers or the Tea Baggers.

The President gets it from both sides and still he has the courage to walk through fire even to the wall.

Below is a report on what the spending cuts are in President’s Obama’s Plan as compared to some that are in the GOP version.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3398&emailView=1

“The President’s budget would take an important step toward addressing the nation’s

long-term fiscal challenge, cutting the deficit enough to stabilize the debt as a share of the

economy for most of this decade. The debt would represent the same share of the

economy in 2019 as in 2013, and be only 0.7 percent of GDP higher in 2021 than in

2013.1 Stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy is the most important fiscal goal for

the decade ahead, as recent high-level fiscal commissions have noted. It would prevent a

debt explosion, thereby substantially reduce the risks of a financial crisis, and give

policymakers the time to address the longer-term deficits that are driven largely by rapidly

rising health costs throughout the U.S. health care system and the aging of the

population”.

This pretty much exposes the current lies and rhetoric I keep seeing here the last 2 days. This exercise in the spending cuts is just starting and will be a while before we really know what is what. We will have to wait and see if both parties can come together and do something.

The GOP was just asked on MSNBC about what is in their version of the Budget. They do not know as they just admitted they have not written it yet and do not know nor do they even have a base line at this point. WTF????

NJ:

You have no credibility and apparently do not know the difference between facts and opinions. You are not a worthy opponent.

Perfect description, Ron. American Pickers sounds like a fun alternative to watching these legislators dance around their promises. I don't like everything the President has proposed but at least he has provided a budget with an eye toward the future and is willing to take the heat for proposing cuts no one else is willing to talk about.

Honest efforts?

Deroy Murdock had a piece talking about this fiscal year's federal budget containing over $700 Billion in "unobligaated balances." Money not spent, not committed by contract or any other binding action.

$12 billion at the Agriculture Department, $16 billion at Labor, $25 billion at HUD, $71 billion at DOD, and Treasury has $309 billion.

Coburn says $82 billion is 6 - 20 yeaqrs old!

What is going on, we printing/borrowing/spending money faster than we can actually spend it?

The Washingtopn Post had a good line this morning that Obama's budget proposal "suggests that the man who once said he would rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-termer is, in fact, very interested in winning that second term."

Yup, just like many of us have been saying all along. The guy is just a political hack. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to cut back on the kool aid.

What drugs is Ron Paul consuming?

Navy - I also have not written my budget for the US. Like the republicans, I don't need to have a written plan to know that the one that Obama submitted sucks.

hdrider-2509204

What drugs is Ron Paul consuming?

I think maybe the ones the doctor prescribes for the 800-pound gorilla that's chasing him around the House.

What I would like to know is.....How in the hell do you post a reply to an article 1 minute after it is posted with a diatribe 1 mile long?

Man do you sit up at night (on Valentines Day at that) and write this BS so that you will be the first to post? I guess that makes you feel like you have some kind of status. It makes you look like you have no life.

Bill Farifax, NJ: The Washingtopn Post had a good line this morning that Obama's budget proposal "suggests that the man who once said he would rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-termer . . . .

Turns out Obama is neither. The very idea that his plan is to cut the deficit 10 years out is absurd. Obama had a chance to be someone, but yet choose to let someone else do the heavy lifting. Now he can have his spokes-liars and Democrats in Congress cry a river when the Republicans propose real budget cuts, THIS year, not on some mythical budget 10 years down the road.

And the Republicans have a challenge too. $100 billion in budget cuts, real budget cuts, is nothing but a small start to the cutting. The challenge is to cut the budget by nearly 40% which is roughly the amount of the budget that is deficit spending. That's means the entitlements must be addressed.

Americans are fed up with Washington's spending. They will support necessary cuts to stop this runaway high speed train (also in the Obama budget - $53 billion to be precise) of the Democrats spending spree.

I have reached out to Anna Molly with the particulars,...thanks, Ron

American Pickers I love that show. I agree with you the budget drama may prove a little to rich for me too. When will they start getting serious about getting things done? Well only time will tell. I expect the GOP will fight any tax increases with more vigour then the Dems will to protect social programs that most of us will need in our retirement.

Sounds like WIC is taking a beating in the rightwing circles with all of the out right lies about WIC being against breast feeding.

Here we go again.

It's amazing the GOP'ERS on this board and I'd guess everywhere else keeps buying the republicans BS about we'll cut 100 billion out of the budget, but they never give any specifics, all they say is we will make the cuts just believe us. When their ask for specifics they tell their followers we're working on them. Folks this has been going on for over a year now and the GOP'ERS just keep buying into their BS. Come on guys wise up their not going to give you anything, they'll just keep saying trust us till they can change the subject to something else, they've already tried to change the subject to abortion or rape or HCR and several other subjects but they haven't worked so now all they can say is just believe us we'll tell you something soon, unless we can change the subject.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Wimpy from Popeye cartoons

"I'll spend like mad today and repay the money over ten years" -- Barack Obama from liberal land

______________________________________________________________________________________
Of course, "Tuesday" would never come, so Wimpy constantly secured himself a free lunch on Popeye

How is Obama ANY different from Wimpy except he is RIPPING OFF not Popeye but hard working citizens?

no jo no bo and JoAnna....WTF did GWB do about the deficit for 8 years in office? All I ever heard was 'deficits don't matter' and 'we are at war, either you support the troops or you are against us'. Anything about Medicare part D or his wars attributing to the deficit...NO. So stop being hypocrites republicans, the next time you have the WH....do something about the deficit or STFU!

Why do you libs always think raising taxes is the answer? Please look at the breakdown on who pays income taxes in this county and the percentage of them? I know, fact suck, but the top 10% pay the vast majority of income taxes and now you want to charge more?

Bottom line, the government is broke. Right, wrong or indifferent, they made too many promises to too many people. Obama's deficit for this year only is about $5000 per person or $20,000 per family. And, this is just the deficit for this year!!!!!! Government should run like a business. They have a certain amount of revenue, like they do know, and they fund based on the priorities of the people. This can swing depending on what's going on in the world, but they deal with it.

So, no, throwing more money (i.e. taxes) at a system that already waste's billions, is assinine. First, let's cut spending like the private sector does. We cut every program 20 to 30% with NO reduction to services. The Health Care law MANDATES that 80% of all insurance premiums collected MUST go to services. Let's have the same mandate on the governement. You can't tell me the Department of Education can't do what they do now in terms of services (which, frankly, I couldn't telll you and considering how poorly our schools are anyway, they aren't doing a good job anyway), by working smarter and cutting 20 to 30% of the fat. If the leaders of those departments, can't figure out how to do that, fire them. There are plenty of private sector managers now that are out of work that would do it.

Might include layoffs, might include salary reductions, etc. I personally know of NASA employees that spend money at the end of the year they don't really need to to make sure their budget isn't cut the next year. How stupid is that? Do you think this NASA program would be hurt by a 10 to 15% cut? No. They just don't waste money at the end of the fiscal year. You CANNOT tell me there isn't that type of waste.

But, if I run a business, I can't just increase my prices because I am operating at a loss. If the market won't pay the new prices, I either cut costs or go out of business. The American taxpayer...yes, this means ONLY the ones that are paying taxes, are tapped out. They don't want to pay anymore for the product they are getting.

So, let's see the government go through the pain we have in the private sector. Streamline spending. Once that's in order, if there still isn't enough revenue, THEN consider raising taxes. Why is that so freakin hard to understand. We are saddling our kids/grandkids with ridiculous debt (do the math if you can....) just for short-term gain or pandering for votes. Frankly, it's truly sad.

devie:

Good to see we can agree on a couple of things. I was serious, I'm an "American Pickers" fan.

Madison what a crock,

the Republicans from 2000-2008 ate their way through not just hamburgers; but the entire buffet AND they claimed they'd pay for it at a date uncertain,...

but do continue to rewrite the immediate past like no one was watching or paying attention,...very entertaining.

PS. Ron, my husband LOVES that show! Interesting what people will put in a barn,...too bad they don't hold more elephants,...

hypocrisy1776: WTF did GWB do about the deficit for 8 years in office?

Little, and that's why he left office with an approval rating in 20's or so.

And now Obama and the Democrats have super-sized the deficit. And by the looks of things, you approve of that action because you don't appear to be critical of that. So, who's the hypocrite now?

The first step should be for the republicans to explain why it's ok to have deep cuts in programs to help the poor and the unemployed but we just HAVE to keep tax cuts for billionaires.

Republicans have absolutely no right to say anything about budget deficits when their tax cuts for the very rich increase the deficit by 200 BILLION dollars.

bob-1805084

... the Woody Allen movie "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex" ... had a vignette about a mad sex researcher whose experiment went wrong and the story culminated in a runaway, giant breast terrorizing the countryside trying to milk everyone. Fortunately, in the end, Gene Wilder was able to lure the giant boob into a giant bra and the masses were saved.

Speaking of giant boobs, would this method work to contain Glenn Beck?

No bra big enough.

That's funny!!

Do as I say, Navy, not as I do.

The Republican Party of Expediency lost its way along about Richard Nixon.

Same thing with this post as well. The original article was posted at 9:11 am and your lengthy response was at 9:12 am. 674 words per minute....quite impressive, but not really believable.

674 words per minute....quite impressive

What's even more impressive is YOU took the time to count them! lol

Get out much?

What's even more impressive is YOU took the time to count them! lol

It is called word count, you should check it out sometime.

It is more believable that I could have counted the words in about 20 minutes than that someone actually typed the first post in 1 minute.

Hi Anna Molly

Do as I say, Navy, not as I do.

So true, except the GOP/TP do nothing outside of lying and exploiting the middle and poor classes.

Navy, before your next racist attack on a conservative African American justice, I suggest you do a little googling of what constitutes unethical behavior for a justice.

Seems there is nothing wrong with their being reimbursed for travel, food and lodging. It also seems that they can be awarded an honorarium- just needs to be sent to the non- profit of their choice.

I disagree most of the time with the four liberal justices on the bench. So do many republicans.

Now, why is it I never see any personal attacks on them?

It is more believable that I could have counted the words in about 20 minutes than that someone actually typed the first post in 1 minute.

If there's a substantive point here, it's pretty well hidden under the junior high school one-upsmanship.

Who knows? Maybe he spoke it into one of those software programs that types what you say. That's about as fast as I talk, and only a little faster than I type. But, of course, much faster than I think.

I disagree most of the time with the four liberal justices on the bench. So do many republicans.

Now, why is it I never see any personal attacks on them?

Some days it's just too easy, no joe. Could it be because there are no ethical violations to accuse them of?

Well - I did a little 'googling' on Clarence Thomas and his wifes finances and *snap* this is what I found:

It looks like Justice Clarence Thomas has a bit of a memory problem, and when combined with Ginni Thomas' lobbying efforts, a picture emerges of a deep ethical problem corrupting the highest court in the country.

The video above outlines Virginia "Ginni" Thomas' relationship to Liberty Central and Liberty Consulting. They suggest that Liberty Consulting is a front for Liberty Central, but I'm not sure about that, since the two organizations still keep separate websites, and one is for-profit while the other isn't.

What is clear, however, is that there is direct intent to cloak both operations behind a veil of secrecy while one of our Supreme Court justices takes up questions that deal directly with the very same issue. That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is a little stickier. While we knew that Justice Thomas did not disclose his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central for the past six years, as was required, it seems that non-disclosure stretches back farther than that.

For twenty years, Clarence Thomas has not disclosed his wife's income, nor the source of that income. Twenty years

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/clarence-thomas-forgot-20-years-disclosure-

The funniest part of all this is the clown is claiming 'ignorance' for a defense!

If you want to to these defend this kind of 'over sights', well it makes you as ignorant is he is!

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

You are giving really good comments today. I think the 3 stooges on the Supreme Court should be impeached. I also think Clarence Thomas should be in jail for not paying his taxes.

Wesley Snipes is in jail for not paying his income taxes. Why is there a double standard there?

Frankly speaking, I'm really tired of the double standards of tax cuts for the rich and jobs, housing, and educational cuts for the rich.

Hopefully, once this budget which I'm not happy about goes to Congress the kinks will be ironed out.

The funniest part of all this is the clown is claiming 'ignorance' for a defense!

LoL Feisty -- he IS ignorant, but not about this. About this he's dumb as a fox.

Great post, US Navy. Justice Thomas and his friends are finally being investigated and their escapades being reported. Their political ideology is not my concern but their refusal to recuse themselves when there are obvious conflicts of interest, their open attendance and support of business like Koch Brothers at political events is. Jonathan Turley commented not long ago that the size of the Supreme Court should be increased because the Court is becoming increasingly partisan and the 5-4 votes prove it; the country needs more Justices in order to provide a more diverse and varied opinion.

If there's a substantive point here, it's pretty well hidden under the junior high school one-upsmanship.

Who knows? Maybe he spoke it into one of those software programs that types what you say. That's about as fast as I talk, and only a little faster than I type. But, of course, much faster than I think.

So the original poster happened to catch the article right when it was posted, then read the entire article and finally spoke all those words in all in a period of 1 minute. You must be far more gullible than I am.

I don't believe it at all. I am not trying to one up anyone, I just think there are some weird things going on here.

mbeaty and no jo are obviously paid trolls. Their post were nothing but attacks on other posters and blatantly trying to pick fights.

Ignore these idiots for they will only pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

About this he's dumb as a fox.

You KNOW it Anna Molly!

Which is why I find a sitting SC Justice actions all the more culpable!

Oh and, you mean to tell me he's BLACK? Who knew? lol

I don't believe it at all. I am not trying to one up anyone, I just think there are some weird things going on here.

Oh, like maybe people prepare a few comments before the first post goes up? How many years at Leavenworth would you say that's worth?

Find something important to talk about because your 15 minutes are just about up.

Hi Feisty, Bev, AM;

Funny how when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar we have our resident FRAUD and liar call me a racist for pointing out that Justice THOMAS lied on federal disclosure forms about his wife's finances, the fact that there appears to be a difference in a stop by and 4 days, and the fact that his wife is a registered lobbyist for a firm that opposes the HCR. How is that being a racists?? I mentioned no race in my post at all.

Typical lying from the same individual(s) putting false words in my mouth to defend the indefensible. What a repugnant life form. Nothing in my post mention race PERIOD, if you say I did you lie and thereby are a liar.

It's not ignorance, it's contempt. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas have all demonstrated through words and deeds that appearance of impropriety is of no issue to them. They have their lifetime appointments and they feel free to soil the image of impartiality so carefully cultivated by generations of Justices from the Right and Left.

Matthew, Houston, TX

mbeaty and no jo are obviously paid trolls. Their post were nothing but attacks on other posters and blatantly trying to pick fights.

Ignore these idiots for they will only pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So I am a paid troll because I find it strange that a poster can almost miraculously seem to post long relies each day at basically the same time that the articles are posted?

I am not setting out to attack someone and I am not trying to sling insults, such as you calling me a "troll" and "idiot."

I just think it would be nice if Navy could explain to everyone here how they are able to post these replies so quickly, something is strange there.

"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is"

"Now, why is it I never see any personal attacks on them?"

Because the four liberal judges don't spend their free time raising money for the Democratic Party?

Of all the issues of the day, poor MBeaty is focused on how Ron or Navy post so fast. Simple answer: they are smarter than you. There is plenty of time during the day to post on FR, I can't imagine why, when we have the budget problems, we have a Supreme Court Justice engaging in questionable behavior, the people in the middle East are on a quest for freedom, and we have a state governor threatening state employees (takes deep breath) THAT THIS IS YOUR ONLY CONCERN! Really, catch up with the rest of us.

Feisty

About this he's dumb as a fox.

Which is why I find a sitting SC Justice actions all the more culpable!

Oh and, you mean to tell me he's BLACK? Who knew? lol

Well, GF since he is afraid to open his mouth you won't get an argument from me. LOL

Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html

I already told ya'll that Black Robe is like a strait jacket for our Uncle Thomas.

I just think it would be nice if Navy could explain to everyone here how they are able to post these replies so quickly, something is strange there

Oh BROTHER! Another conspiracy theory nut!

Okay - I'll give you the low down!

You see, Navy's wife's sisters husband 3rd cousin works for MSNBC, thus he has an advantage and of course being a really fast typist doesn't hurt either!

Seriously, with everything going on in this country, this is what you're worried about? How quickly someone posts and how many words are in it?

Guess you really don't get out much! lol

As we watch this deficit reduction scenario play out I want to see both parties address the major issues facing this country that are putting us at financial risk. Cutting social programs alone is not the answer in the long run as the GPO/TP would lead us to believe and it puts an undo burden on the Middle Class that we cannot afford. Spending cuts alone have never worked. Until both parties get serious about what to cut, this right now is just more political ping pong and a stall to get the peoples minds off of creating jobs and keeping our economy on track to recovery.

Back to the discussion at hand.

I agree with this part to an extent. Both parties seem to be running around trying to act like there is 1 magic bullet to get rid of the deficit issue, but as any common sense should tell, it is going to take an increase in revenue (not necessarily increasing tax rates) and cuts in spending to achieve any meaningful reductions. We already have tax codes, but there are way too many loopholes in them.

Right now though, it is going to be have to be painful. If both sides keep bickering about where the "first" cuts should be made, nothing will be accomplished.

I just come from the school of thought that the easiest way to save money is to not spend it.

Dear Mbeaty

You've made your point (ad nauseum) so move on. Obviously no one is taking your concern seriously and you're wasting valuable blog space repeatedly whining, over and over again about a non-issue.

Hey, I know what, why don't you tell us all how YOU propose to trim the deficit. Go on. Just give us a percentage. 10%? 20%? 75%?

Hey, I know what, why don't you tell us all how YOU propose to trim the deficit. Go on. Just give us a percentage. 10%? 20%? 75%?

Ok, here is a starter.

I don't feel that very many programs in this country should be free from scrutiny or the ability to face cuts.

Here are a few ideas to get things started. There needs to be a limit placed on the size of bill that are made in congress. If strict limits were followed, then it would be much more difficult to put pork spending into a bill because there would be less places to hide it and the bills would be more focused at only one topic, so there would not have to be as many compromises (bribe money and pet projects)

I know that in the grand scheme of things, the pork cuts are minor so here are some more cuts that can be made.

We have far too large of a military footprint, especially in areas that are stable and low risk. many foreign bases need to be closed.

The government, under the GSA should cut their per diem rates. I have worked a job that followed per diem rates as guide lined by the GSA and was blown away how much they would pay employees for per diems. Again, this is a small cut, but think how many small cuts like this one could be made. If you can easily make many small cuts, it adds up quickly.

We need to stop trying to be the moral and economic police of the world. Some foreign aid in the case of emergencies and disasters is fine, but until we can balance our own expenses, we need drastic cuts in foreign aid.

So far I have ignored many of the large culprits in social programs. I don't have good sweeping answers for these, but I would gladly agree to let the gov have all the money I have paid to SS up to this point, if I could be exempt from paying any more.

So now, please tell me your ideas. I am not trying to be a smart ass here, I just want to hear different ideas. I bet you would be surprised how much common ground could be made here if people would refrain from words like "Teabaggers", "libs"...etc.

skip

Obviously no one is taking your concern seriously

True

and you're wasting valuable blog space

So is navy. Every week he posts the same tedious drivel, just prefaces it with "On Monday I posted all this crap, nothing has changed, I hate republicans"

Hey, I know what, why don't you tell us all how YOU propose to trim the deficit. Go on. Just give us a percentage. 10%? 20%? 75%?

100%. Live on what you bring in. Beyond that, institute the fair tax at 23% and a 1% tax on derivatives contracts.Deficit and debt solved. What's your bright idea?

MBeaty. Finally, you decided to discuss the topic of FT and the posters opinions rather than spend time wondering how fast people can type and counting words. Anyone giving some pre-thought would have realized that today's FT topic would continue to be the budget; the NY Times had breaking news last night regarding Justice Thomas so why not discuss it. Taking time early in the morning or the previous evening to prepare a comment about the previous day's news and probable Thoughts topics, left or right, should be commended not chided as somehow cheating. It really is quite easy to do, try it. I put my thoughts together for a comment nearly every morning while enjoying a cup of freshly brewed coffee.

mbeaty,

So I am a paid troll because I find it strange that a poster can almost miraculously seem to post long relies each day at basically the same time that the articles are posted?

So what? We know that people are asked to comment on the article but who cares? Many of the veteran posters have been doing this for years. Why are you letting this bother you? Did Ron or Navy hurt your feelings by posting here first? You don't need to play follow the leader with ITM. Please drop it already. Anna is right your fifteen minutes are up. Move on to something new and please start thinking for yourself.

So what? We know that people are asked to comment on the article but who cares? Many of the veteran posters have been doing this for years. Why are you letting this bother you? Did Ron or Navy hurt your feelings by posting here first? You don't need to play follow the leader with ITM. Please drop it already. Anna is right your fifteen minutes are up. Move on to something new and please start thinking for yourself.

Thank you for the insulting post. Please refer to post 2.25 and 2.27, the writing is already on the wall.

So now please share your original thoughts and I bet we will be able to agree on some things.

Mbeaty,

Thank you very much for responding to my request. I appreciate your civil response and I think you have some very good ideas. We should close some overseas military bases (I'd start with Quantanamo simply because we grabbed it in 1898 and we really shouldn't be there). Cut military spending. Bring the troops home. You are right, we do not need to be the worlds police force.

Cut farm subsidies and other hand-out programs. Cut the pork altogether. Cut the congresional budget. Cut the handouts to corporations and tax breaks that are sending our jobs overseas. Bring those jobs home.

Chef Darrel, half baked as usual. 100% cut? So, that's your recipe for trimming the deficit. OOOOO sounds very ambitious. So, I propose a little experiment. Cut YOUR budget by 100% for one year. Let's see how you do.

What? You can't do that? You'd starve? You'd loose your health insurance, your car, your home, and everything else? You'd have to go on public assistance? Nope, can't do that we're cutting it.

And that's exactly the point. You can't do it and neither can the President or either party. You couldn't do it if the percentage was only 25% and neither can they.

So, why don't you give us a good recipe for meat loaf or chicken fried steak instead. Stay with something you know and leave the economy to the people we've elected to handle it.

I also think Clarence Thomas should be in jail for not paying his taxes.

Jody, does that also apply to just about everyone in Obama's cabinet? He appointed a bunch of tax cheats, including the man in charge of the Treasury, Geithner. Should they be in jail too? Or just Republicans that dont pay taxes? If paying taxes is patriotic, according to Joe Biden, then apparently most of Obama's cabinet would not qualify as patriotic.

So far I have ignored many of the large culprits in social programs. I don't have good sweeping answers for these, but I would gladly agree to let the gov have all the money I have paid to SS up to this point, if I could be exempt from paying any more.

The only "culprits" here are the people in Washington (Congress and the White House) that participated in the budget debt swapping that brought these programs into danger. They are both culprits and cowards because they refuse to own up to their own culpability, and instead blame it on inherent "insolvency" in the system. Insolvency, my eye.

As far as letting the government have all the money you have paid into SS up till now, have you considered that's like submitting to a 15 percent tax increase -- 7.5 percent yours, and 7.5 percent paid by your employer -- for all those years? I thought that was what fiscal conservatives are against. Besides, if you can afford to submit to that, then you can also afford to submit to a tax increase now to prevent the looming disaster caused by the past years of mismanagment. I'm willing. Why aren't you?

By the way, most people need their Social Security, even if you do not. Gauging everything by your own situation is the height of Ayn Rand-induced oblivion.

If you live in my state, the governor has just asked public employees -- except for himself, of course, and the ones in the unions that supported HIM -- to pay more for health care and most of their retirement costs, effectively decreasing the disposable income for the average teacher, which is already capped by statute, by about eight to ten percent, while at the same time taking away their right to bargain over it. All of this while giving more tax breaks to his business cronies. If you agree that this is a good move, too, then I think I have your number.

1-800-selfish.

Cut farm subsidies and other hand-out programs. Cut the pork altogether. Cut the congresional budget. Cut the handouts to corporations and tax breaks that are sending our jobs overseas. Bring those jobs home.

Yes, this one is a biggie. There are some farm subsidy's that are essential for ensuring safe and ample food supplies, but others, such as ethanol are damaging.

I also agree that just like in the populace of people, certain companies are not paying their share of taxes. In general, for the companies who do pay their taxes, they are quite high, but as I have said before there are far too many loopholes that allow companies to avoid taxes. This issue has two sides to it though. Part of the reason why some companies are leaving or outsourcing are the tax rates and some of the regulation.

I also think we need to look at all of our trade rules. Our setup makes it far to easy for companies to import goods from foreign countries that are not even close to being reciprocal in their trade agreements.

As far as letting the government have all the money you have paid into SS up till now, have you considered that's like submitting to a 15 percent tax increase -- 7.5 percent yours, and 7.5 percent paid by your employer -- for all those years? I thought that was what fiscal conservatives are against. Besides, if you can afford to submit to that, then you can also afford to submit to a tax increase now to prevent the looming disaster caused by the past years of mismanagment. I'm willing. Why aren't you?

By the way, most people need their Social Security, even if you do not. Gauging everything by your own situation is the height of Ayn Rand-induced oblivion.

Sure, they can have it all, even the back taxes, as long as I don't have to pay into it anymore. I am fine with that. But I hate the idea of giving the government more, when they can not manage the amount they have now.

How is what I am saying being selfish...I said no where that I think everyone should be forced to do that. I merely said that I would take up that offer if it was allowed. So basically that is not greedy, because I am would be giving them all of that money and not expecting anything back from it.

Everyone here with their idea of cuts is exposing their "not-in-my-backyard" syndrome. Cuts are great as long as they dont affect me.

If I were to play this game, I would agree with the poster who wants to be exempt from paying SS since I am paying into it with very little chance of seeing a dime. I would rather the $4,000 a year I pay into it go into my own 401k. At least this way, when I die, my family gets the rest of it.

I agree with Anna (this is a first) who says the government should put that SS money back where it belongs in its own fund. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a terrible way to run the government and thats what Lyndon Johnson and every subsequent Presidential administration did since then.

I agree with Chef about the fair or flat tax although 23% is a bit high. I would cap it at 15%. That would eliminate cheating and get the other half of this country in the game.

The Dept of Education, the Federal Reserve, the UN, Homeland Security, IRS... all needs to be jettisoned. Education should be left to the states.

MB

I'm with you on most everything except Social Security. I am 60 years old, my wife is 63. We've paid into Social Security all our working lives which amounts to 80 years of employment between the two of us. That money is ours. If we are not going to received the promised benefit then I want the cash back with interest.

Likewise, I am counting on Medicare to replace my Medical Insurance when I retire. Without Medicare I cannot afford to retire, EVER! Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if Medicare were repealed or drastically reduced?

MILLIONS of elderly Americans will be without insurance and virtually condemned to death and MILLIONS more will be forced into the insurance market. OOOOOHHHH, now I understand why the GOP wants to hit Medicare so hard and repeal the HCR. So they can herd more customers to their constituency, the big insurance companies.

Well, I think I starting to see the big picture.

Thanks again for the civil response, I have enjoyed sharing ideas with you.

Skip,

You're being obtuse. you asked about the deficit, not the budget. I say eliminate 100% of the deficit, live on what you make. But I do enjoy your attempt at witty banter while insulting me. Learn to spell genius.

Skip....Obama wants to fund his behemoth Obamacare with massive cuts to Medicare. Why are you upset with the Republicans trying to end Obamacare then? The AARP supports Obamacare since it takes people off Medicare and puts them into private insurers. Obamacare is what you should be aiming your anger at, not the GOP. Obamacare will rob Peter (Medicare) to pay Paul (Obamacare).

I understand why you want SS to stick around. But what about the people like me in our 30s that are paying 6.2% of our paychecks into SS with no guarantee it will bear fruit? We can get the shaft so the baby boomers can get theirs? And liberals complain that the Republicans are all about getting theirs and screw the rest?? Wow, just WOW!

Arizona Cheesehead,

Take a look at www.fairtax.org. That's where I get 23%

Except, of course, that 23% won't get the job done. Fair Tax is a massive tax increase on the middle class with much of upper class income totally exempt from taxation, corporate and inheritance taxes abolished completely.

MBeaty, thanks for trying to make an effort at your considered budeget cuts. I don't think you did very well explaining what you would cut but i can go along with the programs as a start. I have to challange you on your perdiem cost first off because normally for the DOD it's not significant. It is used based on a geological area anyway and it pretty much falls in line with the cost of living in that area.

i would begin with the weapon systems. We don't need to build a new carrier every two years and new submarines every two years. if you have ever served and work in the field you know that our trained warfighters keep these systems viable 10 20 years after the 10 20 years they were supposed to last. Each new nuke ship we build is 3 to 5 bil each. With that being said i would eliminate $25Bil in weapon systems integration design every other year. I would b egin a drawdown in personnel since our technology is advanced enough that what took 5 men to do a few years ago 1 or 2 men can complete now. I also would close every foreign base that didn't support our countries national defense, therefor probably saving another 60 70 billion each year.

$100 bil cut in defense spending each year easily.

a lot of people would say that we need to raise taxes but i believe that is a lie! I believe we need to do a complete overhaul of this countries tax code and hole each individual and corporation accountable for their percentage. between jan and april every year this country gives back probably moare than they have collected in the previous year and though i can agree most people deserve their tax breaks not every business does or individual does.

fix health care (medicaid/care/ss) these are not entitlement programs and should not be treated as such, each and everyone of us who works pays into these programs for our twilight years. Instead of attacking these programs lets attack the true culprits which are the companies that use their for profit markets to force doctors and insurance companies to accelerate thier cost and pass them on to the consumer. we need to really put some kind of cap on this industry because the one thing we know that we all will eventually need is health providers, reward them richly enough so they are encouraged to continue in the profession but make it known that thre are also limitations. Fraud waste and abuse in the health care industry probably a hald a trillion each year.

In my humble opinion there are some industries that just should not be for profit and health care is one of them.

i think I just proposed about $700 billion a year in savings alone.

Chef

What the matter, the souffle fall again? Sorry.

Dang it, I was trying to go for obfuscation, not obtuse.

I'm the victim of a public school education. Never learned to spell, but my enunciation is flawless.

Oh, BTW, if the GOP has their way there won't be an HCR so I'm going to need my medicare thank you very much for your concern.

John,

Except, of course, that 23% won't get the job done. Fair Tax is a massive tax increase on the middle class with much of upper class income totally exempt from taxation, corporate and inheritance taxes abolished completely.

Fair tax, not flat tax. There is a difference.

skip,

I hate to break it to you, but I am a data analyst by trade.

Well then, you should be able to analyze it well enough to determine that;

Corporate taxes are eliminated, that revenue has to come from somewhere.

Inheritance taxes are eliminated, that revenue has to come from somewhere.

Dividend, interest and investment taxes are eliminated (the main income source of the wealthy) and that revenue has to come from somewhere.

The wealthy get a really BIG cut in their taxes, that has to be made up as well.

Because it's a consumption tax it automatically falls more heavily on middle and lower income earners, who have to spend most of what they make just to get by.

The "Prebate" takes most of that burden off the poor, so that squeezes things a little tighter.

So, who ends up paying the lion's share of government expenses? Middle income taxpayers.

Plus 23% tax actually lowers revenue by $7T over 10 years.

The thing simply doesn't work.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/

Then shouldn't you be "Data Analyst Darrel/" Sheesh, masquerading as a culinary specialist. You ought to be ashamed for giving real chefs such a bad name and all.

John,

The wealthy spend more, ergo they pay more. Also, essentials aren't taxed, so that argument is out. Poorer people and college students shop at thrift stores, those items aren't taxed.

It also costs close to the $700B in collection efforts and uncollected monies (about $620B or so with old numbers), so find $80B and theres your $7T. Shouldn't be too hard.

Next?

skippy

If you must know, and apparently you do with your ceaseless hounding, I am using my GI bill to go to culinary school. 20K tax free and the school isn't costing me a dime. Yay Jim Webb (D-VA).

Is that all right with you skipperoo? Is it? GFY.

Oh, you do your analysis with imaginary numbers!

Pretty much the same way Conservatives since Reagan have done their accounting.

Ow, ouch, oh the agony of your jibe. Using the diminuative of my name as an insult. Gosh, I've never seen that before. Oh the pain. I'll be scarred for life.

But seriously Chef, good for you. I"ve never said I cared one way or the other what you do or what your are training for. Good for you. My future son in law is also a chef and working very hard at it. Go for it, follow you dream. I'm all for that.

Is that OK with you?

John,

Got a plan other than complaining about non liberals? I'd like to hear it.

Skip,

Interesting retort considering all you do is insult people then complain they aren't "civil". Pretty childish for a 60 year old.

For starters;

Roll back the tax rates for those making $500,000+ to the levels of the last time we had a surplus. (Clinton-era rates)

Pass the small business tax credits Republicans filibustered in the last Congress.

Wrap up the war in Afghanistan, get the rest of the soldiers out of Iraq, then roll back the "base rate" for the Pentagon by 15%. Much of that can come out of unwanted/unneeded weapons programs and just plain waste.

Remove the income cap on Social Security deductions.

Don't renew any spending included in the stimulous as it expires.

Examine every program and make it justify its existence. Example: Paying crop support for tobacco while spending millions to fight smoking. Another: Having a program to promote eating more cheese while having another program that urges you to eat less cheese in order to cut fat in your diet.

End corporate welfare.

Well Chef, what can I say, damned if I do and damned if I don't. I wish you luck in your new profession and applaud your choice, mention that my daughter's fiance is a chef and then parrot your request for approval of my response and you call me childish. Sort of a no-win situation we've cooked up here isn't it?

Me? Moi? Yo? Ich? Insult people? No, I politely point out where they have erred in their thinking when they make foolish or ignorant or boorish statements. I'm especially offended when they make a personal attack on another blogger without reason. When they change their tone, I do as well. I enjoy civil discussion. We all have opinions, a civil discussion allows us to share those opinions in a non-confrontational atmosphere which is my preference. Please note my exchanges with Mbeaty above. But when someone is insulting or belligerent then I turn up the heat and saute them a little bit.

You have chosen a blog moniker implying that you are a culinary professional, so I like to work cooking terms into my responses. It's harmless and fun for me and amuses the other bloggers.

You, my friend, like to "dish it up" but I'm afraid you can't take it as well. I'd strongly suggest that if you can't stand the heat you get out of the kitchen.

And, sincerely, good luck in your chosen profession.

John,

Holy cow, an actual plan, not some diatribe of complaint about the republican led House. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

Question 1: Why didn't the president, in his promise of bipartisanship, do anything to fix those? Understandably, a filibuster is a beast of a different color, but where is the effort of compromise (and not the rhetoric of "I'm the president, I know best", et al)

I agree about examining programs for their efficacy. I wonder how many billions could be saved there.

Speaking of surplus...now who is using "imaginary" numbers?

Skip,

Your attempt at humor is lost somewhere in the electron stream. I don't seek approval, least of all yours.

With ad hominems like:

Then shouldn't you be "Data Analyst Darrel/" Sheesh, masquerading as a culinary specialist. You ought to be ashamed for giving real chefs such a bad name and all.

and then admissions such as:

I'm especially offended when they make a personal attack on another blogger without reason

.

But when someone is insulting or belligerent then I turn up the heat and saute them a little bit

it is hard to take you seriously, especially when you can't seem to take a critical look at yourself.



.

Umm, CD? The President HAS proposed;

Rolling back tax rates on the top 2%--Republicans filibustered

Ending the wars

Reducing the defense budget--Conservatives blustered

Has not proposed continuing stimulous spending beyond limits in the existing law

Small business tax breaks--Conservatives filibustered

Examining all programs for efficiency and desirability

So pretending that the President is ignoring these matters is disingenuous. Blame the GOPTP for these things not already being in motion.

Chef,

Buy yourself a mirror, amigo.

Hasta la Vista!

John,

Ending the wars? This administration escalated Afghanistan.

Rollbacks on taxes? This administration could have let them expire.

Reducing the defense budget? SecDef announced the need for a savings of $100B in August of 2010

Calling me disingenuous is ignoring this administrations shortcomings.

Skip,

You have to be the poster child for public school education. *I* was not the one making those claims. That would be you, skiparoo.

Then you misunderstand why I call you disingenuous. It's more for things like ignoring the fact that Republicans held tax cuts for 98% of Americans hostage to make sure the rich got a bigger share.

I won't make that mistake again.

Good Morning IR:

You are right: Pretty pictures win every time. Perhaps in about 2 weeks the politicians will get serious about the budget.

IR:

Too funny but true. I do not think these guys are really being serious yet. Just playing political chicken to see who will flinch. We all know we need some serious spending cuts. One party is trying to take a more across the board approach, they other thinks it is totally the responsibility of the Middle Class and they should pay the total bill.

Let's see how this plays out, spending cuts alone (especially those targeted to Social Programs only) will not work in the long haul. They never have.

Today the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition hits the Newsstands

If history is any indication - Teapublican men don't have much interest in SI! ;o)

'Airport Bathrooms' Illustrated is more their cup of tea!

IR: In answer to your last question...I'm not going to lie...YES!!!

i could take the republicans seriously...but this the group...that stood pat...to make sure the tax cuts for the rich remained in place...

Well IR...surpriiiise surpriiiise...just checked the MOST READ articles on Fox....low and behold the #1 item is about the SI edition you mention....followed by Miley Cyrus.

OK...I'm not really surprised...but those 2 words together make me chuckle thinking of Gomer P...

Feisty – I resemble that remark. Speaking for myself, I can't wait until lunch time rolls around so I can go out and get my grubby little hands on that SI issue and peruse all that young talent. But if there's any left wing redheads in that spread I will surely toss it aside, as any good Republican would. And go back to studying the Paul Ryan plan, as all good Republicans should.

Bill Glad to see that your sense of humor is still intact. Since Mr. Ryan is a Jack Kemp Disciple ( and we all know how well Mr Kemp's Voodoo economics has worked out) I think I'll save my S.I. for the living room and Mr Ryan for the bathroom if it's all the same to you. Kind of helps me keep everything in it's proper place there doncha know.

Sorry Grimey & Bill!

Forgot all about you two! lol

Enjoy guys! ;o)

Wish you were wrong, IR, but sadly Sports Illustrated will win. More people know what's happening on Jersey Shores than know who the current Vice President is.

Anna Molly:

I've been looking for you. Please check in with Clara. You know how to reach her.

Actually, I don't, Ron. I seem to have lost track of how to do that.

Anna Molly:

I agree. I suspect the GOP/TP is stalling again trying to keep the American People from asking where are the Jobs and what is the GOP/TP doing to help the economy. No answer from the GOP/TP yet on what their plans are on these.

Its Feb 15th. They were sworn in Jan 5th? Okay, I am pretty sure the Republicans can't "create" jobs as fast as you allegedly type, US Navy. No answer from what their plans are? Uh, they've been clear what their plans are....rolling back all the Democrats garbage legislation in the past 2 years. That will open the door to job creation. Give them a few months to take the garbage out first.

"Its Feb 15th. They were sworn in Jan 5th"

They have spent their first month attempting to re-define rape, and trying to pass a bill permitting hospitals to let women die rather than perform emergency abortions OR even transfer those women to hospitals that would perform the surgery.

Pardon me if I'm not all that impressed that Republicans consider imperilling women's lives as "taking out the garbage."

I've sent you the particulars, AM - and I've put a link to the Dew Drop in there, as well. Happy Day!

The GOP/TP has NO PLANS to create jobs or keep this already improving economy improving. All the cuts (repeals) that the GOP/TP is proposing will have the opposite effect according to most leading economists. Their cuts on Social Programs will cost jobs NOT create them. It will increase unemployment NOT decrease it. It will reduce revenues NOT increase them. All this will make the deficit bigger and hence the National Debt in the long run. Exactly the opposite of their rhetoric.

Also these spending cuts will further serve to stall the economy NOT continue the improvements we are seeing now.

None of this is good for this country in the long run. Typical GOP/TP short term outlook for those that have versus those that do not.

Aunt Clara: I've sent you the particulars, AM - and I've put a link to the Dew Drop in there, as well. Happy Day!

Looks like the Secret Treehouse Society has gone into Executive Session. Someones mom is probably making brownies.

Amy,

You will never get a response from the Republicans on this subject. They all agree that women are second class citizens. It's a mans world in the Republican party:

1.....It's not rape unless the woman is beaten to a pulp.

2.....Let the woman die. There are a lot of them anyway.

3.....We are ok with incest and statuary rape. Everyone else should be as well.

4.....We stand on the shoulders of women, their rights, their uterus and their children.

5.....We take care of the most important things first. Dehumanize women, protect men and everything else will fall into place. Including jobs.

Fletch,

Can you site a source for that? I'm taking a class in critical thinking and wish to use all that for a paper titled "Why republicans are bad and democrats are the bestest ever".

Thanks.

CD,

Why is it that the usual come back is asking for a source? Is it that you can't think for yourself so you depend on someone else to think for you? You won't find what you are looking for. The Republicans wrote the bills. They all supported them. I know you would like to blame someone else, but there isn't anyone else to blame. Sorry.

They said they would focus on jobs and cut spending. They focused on women. If that makes Democrats the "bestest ever", it is what it is.

Amy B...Taking out the garbage is in reference to all Democrat-passed legislation while they were on the big stage all by themselves. I dont know much about that rape issue so I cant comment on it. But if thats the case, then yes I agree thats not a very good use of their time. I will check it out and read into to see what the motive is with this issue before I pass judgment. Just because I am a conservative and a registered Republican doesnt mean I heart Republicans with everything they do.

Looks like Joanna is jealous.

Fletch2:

Touche', They (GOP/TP) do not like it when you remind people they think of women as second class citizens as demonstrated by the position on reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work.

They do not like it when they are exposed for the bigots they are against the gay community as demonstrated by their opposition to the DADT repeal act, their position on Gay marriage, adopting children etc.

They do not like it when they are called out on their postion of repealing the 14th Amendment (Dream Act) or how they claim that all Muslims are terrorists.

And the list goes on and they have the nerve to call themselves Americans and Patriots. Not in this lifetime.

These people are just intolerant of anything or anyone that does not agree with their DRACONIAN ideology, period.

AZChzhd

I appreciate your civility.

Amy...I try to be. I wont ever see eye to eye with liberals on most things. But they way we were raised and brought up makes us all different and both liberal and conservative ideas made this country the best on the world.

US Navy...I am tired of you painting everyone on the right with such a broad brush. Not all of us agree with the actions of the leaders. I appreciate the TP trying to engage this country in real discussions on the future of our debt problems. You appear to be the intolerant one with ones that do not conform to your leftist views. For the record, there are Democrats in the TP.

Jody, You mentioned Johnathan Turly calling for an increase in members of the court. I have to tell you that sounds alot like somebody wanting to put a fix in on a game. You shouldn't just rig things to get your way. Or buy votes to get HCR, or use the EPA to implement cap & trade .

Fletch,

When you make blanket generalizations, I would like to know from whence you receive the data. Are you saying that all republicans think that way? Or the tea party types? Which is it?

Navy,

Seriously? Is draconian your new favorite word? You like to tout the "they are this way" and "they are that way" as well as "they all believe this". Well I hate to break it to you, not all non-democrats are like that. I personally have no problem with women. My mother is one, my wife is one, and my daughter will become one (assuming you idiot liberals don't ruin the world before then). I also have no problem with gays. I served with several open and out gays during my 16 years in the navy. Didn't bother me one bit.

As far as your narrow minded definitions, both my parents are citizens, ergo I am a citizen. I served in the defense of this country, ergo I am a patriot. To assume otherwise is to expose your own narrow-minded bigotry towards non-democrats.

Chef,

Ok. The source......Republicans drafted the bills.....Voted for it.....They claimed they will focus on jobs, instead they focused on women. They preached smaller government and keeping government out of our lives to get elected. I suppose those things do not apply to women.

They did nothing regarding jobs. They won't either, considering the comment made by Mr. Boehnor.

Like I said the Republicans who are the ones drafting and supporting these bills are standing on the shoulders of women.

If you need data, read the bills. It will tell you who drafted them.

The House of Representative is now Republican held. If a bill is presented and cosponsored by Republicans who should we hold responsible for it? I know you would like to blame someone else but whether they are Tea Party Republicans or just Republicans, they own it.

The Republicans promised that if they were elected in November they would repeal HCR, work on jobs and the economy.

They started on their repeal and the next most important thing, dehumanizing women. Jobs and the economy are the last thing on their mind right now. They are more focused on changing the laws for rape, incest and statuary rape. They are certainly looking out for the rights of men whereas women have no rights.

In their repeal of HCR, they claim the government should not come between you and your doctor. I suppose this only applies to men. At this rate, women are not even considered "citizens".

Bill, Fairfax VA: You FR guys have absolutely no scruples whatsoever when it comes to spinning the news your way. Apparently, the fact that Ryan objected to the debt commission's proposals because it included some tax increases he couldn't support doesn't matter to you

FR is just setting up the conflict, they really aren't doing a firm analysis of the problem. Their narrative is: "Oh, but Ryan is just as bad!". That's all they're capable of coming up with. It certainly is good politics for Obama to just ignore his own Debt Commission and keep spending away. You can't go wrong politically spending money you don't have to buy votes you'll need next year. But this much is clear, Obama isn't interested in getting the country on good economical footing. He couldn't care less.

Two governors, two Democratic governors, Cuomo in NY, Brown in California, apparently are getting it. They know their states are total messes when it comes to their budgets. They know more spending and more taxing is not the answer. They know they need to make massive cuts in government spending. Same with Republican Christie in New Jersey. Those governors get it, and the people in their states support them. But Obama doesn't, he doesn't care, and he doesn't have a clue. He's got an election to win next year, and cutting the budget so that future generations don't have to pay for the mores of today just doesn't fit Obama's narrative.

In 2008, we needed a hero, and got a total zero, the Big "0", Obama.

Bill ~ Paul Ryan comes from the district right next to mine, and our media are his media. I suspect I've seen a lot more of him over the years than you have. He's not the man behind the curtain, Bill, and he's not up to the job. Period.

He's just the republican drone clone du jour.

So, Ryan can't back the informal thinking of the debt commission (no formal list of recommendations was EVER approved by the commission) but feels free to criticize the President for not accepting what he himself cannont. Further, we have Conservatives here on the board defending Ryan for exactly that.

Hypocrisy thy name is Conservative.

Bill- and bob and Joanna:

Interesting read here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/14/our_new_jeffersonian_era_108884.html

Coupled with the new CBS poll, it tells the story of a political party stuck in a delusional state. One of the questions CBS asked was whether programs that benefitted "people like you" would need to be cut in order to cut the deficit. 49% said yes, 41% said no.

Here is the interesting part: the vast majority of republicans and independents said yes, while the overwheliming majority of democrats said no. ( that, by the way, was the characterization of CBS. I have not yet seen the actual poll numbers).

Kind of tells you all you need to know about the inhabitants of Obamaland, where the sky is plaid, the rich are evil, and their idol is always right.

AM: Bill ~ Paul Ryan comes from the district right next to mine, and our media are his media. I suspect I've seen a lot more of him over the years than you have. He's not the man behind the curtain, Bill, and he's not up to the job. Period

Well, I guess that makes you such an expert, living next to the guy and all.

If you think Ryan isn't up to the job, you must really think Obama has totally failed on the job. Obama had a chance to exhibit some leadership yesterday, first time ever in fact, and he failed. His budget is nothing more than business as usual - spend, spend, and spend some more. In fact for this year, it's another world record of deficit spending.

And, you're judging Ryan for not being up to the job, and ignoring doing the same for Obama. Seeing that was good for a laugh.

Still no answer as to how Conservatives will balance the budget.

Imagine that.

Still no answer as to how Conservatives will balance the budget.

And the answer from Obama was to add another $1.65 trillion to the National Credit Card.

Imagine that.

Deflections don't count as answers.

Still no answer as to how Conservatives will balance the budget.

It's almost as if there's no intention to even try.

John B:

They (GOP) was asked the same question this AM on MSNBC. Their response, they did not know and no plan has been written up yet.

Just like the GOP/TP when they tried to repeal the HCR Law but had nothing to replace it with other than the 7-8 Provisions already in the HCR Law as signed by President Obama. They run on a campaign of creating Jobs, Improving the Economy and do not have any plans for those either. The spending cuts so far are all targeted toward Social Programs ignoring DOD, Subsidies to Big Oil, Coal and Gas, Tax loopholes to Corporations, especially those that promote farming out jobs to overseas, etc, etc.

Currently I think they are using the spending cuts to draw attention away from the facts that they have no new ideas nor do they plan to have any in the near future. The longer they can mis-direct the American people the better for them.

Now with that being said, sooner or later they are going to have to start supplying some ideas and answer to the people on what they he!! is it that they are going to do.

I have not seen them talk about DOD, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. but complain about the other side. They cannot keep trying to sit on opposite sides of the fence at the same time. It does not work that way.

What is wrong with the Democrats? They have the opportunity to actually make a difference but are too cowardly to just do what needs to be done. Dems never get the blame for anything they do, so make the tough choices. Cut the stupid things, put the breaks on the entitlements. Stop mortgaging our kids & grandkids futures. You do these thing and you will get bi-partisinship support.

The Republicans know that if they start cutting the Dems will demonize them and the all too willing press will carry their water. It's up to the Democrats to make the first move and it has to be the BIG entitlement programs.

JoAnna

If you think Ryan isn't up to the job, you must really think Obama has totally failed on the job. Obama had a chance to exhibit some leadership yesterday, first time ever in fact, and he failed. His budget is nothing more than business as usual - spend, spend, and spend some more. In fact for this year, it's another world record of deficit spending.

And, you're judging Ryan for not being up to the job, and ignoring doing the same for Obama. Seeing that was good for a laugh.

And seeing you pretend to be a mind reader was doubly good for a laugh. So far this morning, I haven't said word one about President Obama, and you have no idea what I think about him.

But don't let a little thing like that get in the way of your snark.

No Joe -- nice article, thanks for the link. It reminds me of one of my favorite Jefferson quotes:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

We've surely come a long way from that bedrock concept, led in no small part by the left wing elitists who share Hamilton's view that humans are inherently flawed, and left to their own devices will make poor choices.

BTW, I always enjoy your material and JoAnna as well. Don't let Ron's diversionary jabs dissuade you from continuing to spread the truth.

Speaking of truth, or lack thereof, I see the idiot John B. is lurking around here again. Are you ready to acknowledge that if the Democrats hadn't resorted to using reconciliation, the HCR law as we know it would not exist today?

Bill, thanks for the kind words. Rest assured, their bullying has no impact, ( much to their chagrin, no doubt).

I actually take it as a compliment- I must be much more persuasive than I gave myself credit for being, if they are so anxious to shut me up!

Hypocrisy is republicans claiming they are the party of fiscal responsibility. We got into this debt mess thanks to the GOP and voo doo economics but where were the Tea Party protests throughout the GW Bush and GOP House and Senate's unfunded spending, unfunded wars and their deficit spending. Hypocrisy belongs to those GOPTPers who now claim it was the democrats who did it.

AM: So far this morning, I haven't said word one about President Obama,

And what is there to say? When it got to crunch time, a time when Obama had a golden opportunity to lead on the budget, he punted. He voted "Present". He told the country "Let someone else figure it out, let someone else lead". Obama flinched, he ducked the issue. Some leader Obama has turned out be, correct? In fact, Obama came up with a budget that includes a $1.65 trillion deficit. How absurd is that? Ryan really doesn't have much competition on improving that absurdity.

And you're telling us Ryan isn't up to the job? Funny.

So what do the Libs do? Complain about the Republicans.

Now that golden opportunity is with Ryan and the Republicans. And all of us better hope they do come with something better than a $1.65 trillion dollar deficit for the year AM.

No Joe, interesting article you linked to. Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes.

But I got a different slant from the article than you. I see Jefferson as more populist and Hamilton as more elitist, centrist and for big government.

Jefferson's quote from the article is interesting as well, addressing as it does change and progress...:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."

Speaking of truth, or lack thereof, I see the idiot John B. is lurking around here again. Are you ready to acknowledge that if the Democrats hadn't resorted to using reconciliation, the HCR law as we know it would not exist today?

You still haven't answered the question, Bill.

If the HCR Bill was passed through reconciliation, there is a sunset clause, just like we saw the Bush Tax Cuts.

So, Bill, when does the HCR Bill sunset?

x

Pietro – that's a fair question but before I try to answer it I will point out that I never stated that HCR would sunset. What I said was that without the amendments enabled by the reconciliation bill, the HCR law as we know it wouldn't exist today. That statement is 100% accurate and I stand by it.

The distinction is important because the reconciliation rules are very complicated and in all honesty I'm not sure I completely understand them. As best as I can determine though, both HCR and the student loan bill it was packaged with complied with reconciliation instructions from the perspective of reducing the budget deficit over a 10 year period. See the article in this link to get some insight into that. I've not come across any material that speaks to any sunset issues. And even if there are sunset provisions, they would only apply to the HCR amendments included in the reconciliation bill and not to the main HCR law.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/politico?p_id=1804

And this link is useful too. While you might think it's from a biased source, if you can get passed that then you'll get a good feel for the lengths to which Democrats went to jump through the proper procedural hoops to make the reconciliation approach viable. And the reconciliation approach was crucial to House passage of HCR because with Scott Brown in town and the Democrats losing their filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the lower 51 vote hurdle with reconciliation was just about the only way the Senate HCR bill could be amended to satisfy the House.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/15/the-health-care-shell-game-beg

That's the best I can do for you, hope that helps.

And even if there are sunset provisions, they would only apply to the HCR amendments included in the reconciliation bill and not to the main HCR law.

Bill, thanks for the info. I will delve into your citations and get back to you in a bit.

D-Mann;

Thank you. The GOP/TP has no intentions of creating Jobs in this country, they still have no plans that we know of. Same is true for the economy, they have no intentions of doing anything that will make the economy stronger either. In fact eeverything they are trying to do now will costs America hundreds of thousands of jobs, increase unemployment, put more people on food stamps, medicaid etc, reduce revenues and have a negative effect on the economy. In 2012, they will then blame this on President Obama ignoring the fact they are the ones responsible just like they did with the previous administration ignoring (even denying) that they are the ones that put this country on the brink of bankruptcy.

They keep on this spending cuts as the answer to all our problems. It is not by a long shot. Spending Cuts alone cannot achieve the results we need. We also need to increase revenues which the GOP/TP is trying to reduce with the DRACONIAN attempt at total control.

ANd this ignores all the pain and suufering and lost lives that will result form the loss of many of the Social Programs they want to cut. What a party, the GOP - the "Great Oligarchy Party".

Well written, Jody. Ryan's answer is nonsensical...if the budget is tight, cut taxes!! Certainly less revenue will bring things right into balance.

I see a lot of criticism from the folks who wanted to run the budget process, but no budget.

What would Conservatives propose to do with the budget? It's their responsibility, but I don't see any action.

Here, here; I second John B's comments. Jody, a very well written post.

Good post Jody.

"Mr. Ryan and his fellow GOPers also fail to recognize this: the needs of the country have grown...."

Wow, truer words were never spoken. The needs of our country have grown...exponentially as compared to the 1940/50's...you know, that era the GOP thinks was so great...well, unless you were a woman, or a minority, or old, or disabled, or ....

"It was the GOP who took a budget surplus and turned it into massive debt in one short year and then added to that debt every year they were in control of the House, Senate and White House. Short memories are part of the GOPTP DNA."

Get a clue Judy. The Democrats were in control of the House & Senete when the "Big Hole" was dug.

VermontGirl:

Nice to see you again. Kudos on your post.

Thanks, John B, Ron, Vermont Girl.

Rick in the burgh. I suggest you check the facts before telling me to get a clue. The GOP started digging the big hole in 2001 and continued digging through 2006. When you dig a hole of debt that deep, and the economy collapses, the hole must grow bigger per every economist left and right. Get a clue, Rick: "it is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink at facts because they are not to our taste." The facts are out there for those willing to look at them.

The Democrats were in control of the House & Senete when the "Big Hole" was dug.

Ummmm, no.

Republicans controlled the Presidency and House (and therefore the budgetary process) during the 107th Congress, 2001-2002.

Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress during the 108th AND 109th Congress, 2003-2006.

Republicans controlled the Presidency and therefore said President had the ability to veto any bill during the 110th Congress, 2007-2008.

Sorry Rick, Republican fingerprints are all over those shovels.

Hey USN...back at ya!

Cher said it better than I could....

"If you're black in this country, if you're a woman in this country, if you are any minority in this country at all, what could possibly possess you to vote Republican?"

No, it's because Massachussetts is on the border of N.H., and even though most native NewHampshirites cannot stand ther folks from Mass., they will stay within the New England arena.

You keep posting this, Amy, and I am sure nit is your opinion, but I have tried to find polling on your governor, and can find none.

Do you have any, or is this just what you believe to be true?

I seem to be having problems posting a link, so I apologize for the massive cut and past. This article will give you an idea how moderate Republicans are reacting to LePage's proposals to repeal environmental protections:

Ernie Hilton is a lifelong Republican, an attorney and civil engineer from Madison who previously chaired Maine's Board of Environmental Protection, and whose wife chairs the Land Use Regulation Commission, or LURC.

Hilton says he's worried Maine's quality of place may be threatened as the new administration and Legislature look to relax environmental permitting and reuglations and do away with agencies such as LURC, which governs zoning and planning in Maine's North Woods.

"I'm concerned when I see, as I did yesterday, a list of some of the statutes which are pending before the Legislature dealing with shoreland zoning and with LURC, and it strikes me as being a race to the bottom approach to our environment," Hilton said.

Hilton says it's not environmental rules or regulations that are the biggest impediments to job creation in Maine but rather the high cost of health care. He points out that over the last eight years more than 10,000 permits by rule were issued for small projects, and $5 billion dollars worth of major projects permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection alone.

William Bennett, president and CEO of Oakhurst Dairy, says Maine's pristine image is an integral part of the Oakhurst brand and business. And Bennett says he sees investing in a clean environment as a corporate/ social responsibility.

"We've converted our commercial delivery fleet to biodiesel fuel, we've put the U.S. dairy industry's first hybrid delivery truck on the road and we've invested in large solar installations to generate our electricity and heat our water," Bennett said.

Bennett says "if it's good for the environment, it's good for business." And that's something Horace Hildreth, a former Repubican state senator and congressional candidate agrees with. Hildreth is chairman of Diversified Communications, which employs more than 200 people in Maine.

But as a member of the Legislature, he drafted and sponsored some of the state's most significant environmental laws at a time when pollution caused massive fish kills in Maine rivers, lakes and ponds faced uncontrolled development in the unorganized territories and industrial projects were proposed, Hildreth says, without the slightest consideration of their impact on their surroundings.

"Laws like the site law of the Land Use Regulation Commission, the Shoreland Zoning Law and the Natural Resource Protection Act were passed in order to strike a balance between private interests and the public interest, to guide development and to protect wildlife habitat," Hildreth said.

Republican have forgotten the actual definition of Conservative.

you want to invest in crap?

For what? More of the same? We will never have change as long as the two partys run the show.

If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. Just look at all the very same "conservatives" here that were just crowing back in November at how they controlled the purse strings now and things were going to be fixed. Fast forward a month after swearing in and suddenly they have done a complete about face and now are claiming it's the democrats job to put out a budget that will fix this mess. What's the matter guys, can't do the job? You wanted it, you got it. Time to actually do something and stop whining.

Salt

That assumes that the president will sign whatever comes out of Congress

Is that how you see it

If that is why would he even make a proposal

This is a negotiation and he could have been more fiscally responsible in his first proposal to the negotiating table

The Republicans are goign to come out with their plan and hte gap will be huge

We will end up with a CR for the rest fo this year and continue the uncertainty on next year for months of debate, name calling, blaming and little progress.

What a country eh?

Who do you think created this mess? CONGRESS! The bozos who support the status quo (both party's) would vote for a chimp in a tuxedo if they had an R or D after their name and they have been for generations.

Salt Grass

The president's budget is a proposal. Congress will write the actual budget and bear full responsibility for the out come.

You'd think all the flag waving patriots on the right who just so happen to carry a copy Constitution with them would know that.

Maybe they don't because they are mistaking the Declaration of Independence like the Boner did.

Wow, maybe they need to take off those red, white and blue blinders. They really need to thank you.

Bev and Salt

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the President and the Democrats, when the Republican proposal calls for cuts much more sweeping and deep into programs, departments and infrastructure in the 2012 budget.

The Investments (read new spending) that the President wants (and some of which I think is a good idea) will also be pared back considerably.

I think that compromise would have been easier if the President's proposal had been a little more realistic (to the opposition); this proposal starts negotiations at a giant chasm rather than a small divide.

I as very hopeful that the President would lead and propose looks at social security, medicare, medicaid and defense spending in order to get the discussion going. But to quote MSNBC this morning, the President punted that critical issue back to Congress.

I am hoping for the best in the compromise process, but bracing for a long bitter battle.

but if the Repubs won't cut Defense spending,...the duplicitous stuff like second engines that weren't ordered and are not needed,...everything else is WINDOW DRESSING,...if the Repubs won't put a single DEFENSE item on the chopping block,...well, we know where their priorities lie.

You can consider the presidential budget a wish list. It has been that way since day one under Washington. Washington had to beg for money to pay his army. What is clear is the president is obligated to ask for funding and congress is obligated to fund the government. I do not know if any president has ever vetoed a budget bill.

That says it. That's why it's called a proposal. He puts it on the table, and can sit back for at least a little while as it's dissected over time and handed back. The budget news today will be very different later. It is kind of funny that our Washington servants know that, but instead of keeping cool, it turns into media nonsense fed from the table of idleness.

ARealist: Number one, Social Security is paid in and for

Well, except for the fact that the government will run a $45 billion deficit for SS in 2011. That sound like the program is solvent to you?

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-social-security-run-45-billion-defic#

JoAnnaSmith...these people just don't get it.

I don't know if they live in a bubble or they believe everything the "media" tells them to believe. Not one of them seem to be able to do their own research and face the truth.

Seriously, it's not that hard, if they can find this blog, they should be able to do some googling of their own to find the truth about this country's fiscal health (or lack there of)

Social security will run a deficit in 2011 because "it's the economy, stupid." If people aren't employed, they do not pay into the system.

A very glib explanation, and a poor one at that. It goes much, much deeper.

Jody, Iowa: Social security will run a deficit in 2011 because "it's the economy, stupid." If people aren't employed, they do not pay into the system.

So we're in agreement that Social Security is a ponzi scheme?

Now isn't that something, all that money paid in for all those years, by all those people, and now for the ones that are collecting, there is a $45 billion dollar deficit in the funds because there isn't enough people at the bottom of ponzi pyramid that are paying in. That's what got Madoff in the end too.

So now the Social Security systems solvency is dependent on the economy for that particular year. Does that sound like a well run entitlement program to anyone?

remove the salary cap on SS. problem solved.

Thanks for pointing that out, Ed. That one, simple change resolves half the solvency gap for SS over the next 75 years.

I would be in favor raising the cap. The American people paid into SS and should receive it when they retire. We should also raise the retirement age.

JoAnnaSmith1:

There isn't a 45 billion dollar deficit in Social Security Funds. There is a 45 billion dollar deficit FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. There are TRILLIONS that are on the books as in the Social Security Fund.

When the jobs market picks up, there will be more people contributing to the SS Trust Fund and the current deficit will disappear.

And ANY fund (insurance, your family bank account etc...) is always dependent on how well the economy. How else do you think it can be run.

I hadn't heard, it's good news about a worthy man.

Pat, thanks for stopping by to let us know.

Seriously. Bill Russell was always my favorite player back in the day. Richly deserved. Thanks, Pat.

Pat. That's terrific news. I've missed your sports history posts. I was a big Celtics fan way back when and Russell was a favorite. Congratulations to Bill Russell, this is a well deserved award.

Thanks guys. It is terrific news about Russell. Jody, my sports history posts will be back during the 2012 re-election campaign. Of course. Lol.

maggie, ACORN filed bankruptcy and liquidated. There is no ACORN.

Yea John, that's right...now they have reorganized under a NEW NAME... COI or Community Organizations International

TA: Yea John, that's right...now they have reorganized under a NEW NAME...

"Pea-Brains" seems to be gaining momentum for them.

"WTF" seems to be a contender too.

Shall we use this as an opportunity to discuss the deceptive, fraudulent video that Breitbart used to bring ACORN to public attention? The doctored video, the deceptive costuming after the fact, attempted wiretapping of a member of Congress?

I'd be more than happy to reopen the subject of just how bereft of ethics he is, as are all who repeat his frauds.

Here's a place to start--Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity and other groups; they are the conservative version of ACORN. ACORN is gone, liquidated, bankrupt but apparently FOX and conservative media like to keep feeding their sheep with falsehoods. The President's budget decreases funding for community organizations. While a disagree, I recognize the fact that trimming the unessentials is necessary.

I am waiting for some conservative to explain why organizing communities within cities and towns is such a crime; much of it is done through churches. We have Neighborhood Watch programs which is community organizing. The Chamber of Commerce organizes business into a giant special interest lobby yet empowering people to improve where they live is egregious.

The original ACORN is gone but they just changed names and Wade Rathke and Bertha Lewis are still at the helm. I have voted Democratic most of my life and have no problem with honest community action groups. There were several members of ACORN indicted and convicted just last year. It ticks me off when some groups give the good groups a bad name. I just don't think you should be able to change names and continue on and all is forgiven. I am interested to know if this is in fact what happened.

That is exactly what happened Maggie. ACORN backrupted themselves, so they didn't have to pay the debt they incurred for all their fraudulent voter registration etc. and then the SAME PEOPLE became COI, Community Organization International.

So TA, please produce documentation with names of those prosecuted for voter fraud as a result of ACORN activities.

Don't become too discouraged when you can't produce any names because you won't find any.

I'd hate to let facts get in the way of your Conservative stock story, though.

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK JOHN!!! I've done mine.

Thanks for admitting that NO ONE has been prosecuted for committing voter fraud on behalf of ACORN.

It's just another Conservative fairy tale.

NO ONE admitted anything.......I guess doing your own research is too much to ask. So, you're a supporter of ACORN, John......good to know.

Not my argument TA, it's yours.

If you can't support your own argument then obviously it's bogus.

You nailed it True American.

Why can't the left figure out that raising taxes does not get you more revenue? The reason companies are sitting on trillions of dollars is because they can't plan for the future. They don't know how much they are going to have to pay in taxes, Health care, regulations, etc. This is also why they are not hiring

The issue I have is this- Congress spends regardless of it's income and has for decades. There is no responsibility (from Either side- Bush was a social conservative but spent like a drunken democrat- exactly the OPPOSITE of what this country needs!) and as long as we ignore this, it will carry on un-checked. I have grudgingly accepted that taxes will likely need to increase but I don't believe it is the first step in a long process- the way congress treats our tax dollars, any increase will be seen as a license to spend more, not to pay down debt. And because all things are intertwined when it comes to taxes, jobs, the economy, etc, there need to be well thought out steps to keep things moving forward instead of upsetting the apple cart.

Raising taxes first will threaten the economic recovery we're finally seeing- you can't give the private sector less money and expect them to increase demand in the market place. Start with spending cuts across the board- yes, military/defense spending as well as entitlements. All of it needs a trim. And you can do a whole lot of streamlining on the administrative side before you need to worry about benefits. Stop playing the fear card over starving granny and children and face reality- our bloated government machine can be trimmed.

Next revise the tax code. I will happily surrender my deduction for mortgage interest if those who have a zero liability stop getting refunds of more than they paid in. At least let the tax dollars due and owing to the feds go toward actual government expenses, not windfall checks to people who have a zero federal liability. Close the loopholes for both ends of the income scale and offer up a truly fair tax rate that applies to all. In the end I suspect we could lower tax rates while increasing revenue (a larger tax base means higher receipts).

After steps one and 2 have been done , if we still need to increase tax rates to pay down our debt and reduce our deficit, THEN we can discuss tax increases. At the snails pace DC moves at on things that truly matter to the American people, this should give us plenty of time for the economic recovery to truly have taken hold, more people will be working again, etc, so we might be able to better afford a tax increase. Lets face it, there aren't enough wealthy people in this country to tax our way out of the hole we are in so instead of forcing more of them to head for greener pastures, lets start at the beginning and once and for all fix what's broken!

True American and the Rick in the burgh win today’s prize for most enthusiastic corporate cheerleaders. “Raising taxes does not equal more revenue?” Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a true American kid? I’d like to know how you think the govt gets revenue? Hang on let me put on my tin foil hat…

Ed, You obviously never run a business. I have and still do. I would like to grow my business and even hire some more people but I don't know what this wacky administration is going to throw at me next.

This is how it works Ed. If you commit to keeping my taxes where they are or lower them I have an incentive to grow my business. I hire more people who pay taxes rather than collect unemployment. I grow my business providing goods & services for people and business who pay more taxes. Is this getting through your tin foil hat. I know "Business Bad, Government Good" right?

To Jody, I'm sorry for the "get a clue" comment. I never said the Republicans didn't spend like drunken sailors, but since the Democrats took over the House & Senate they have doubled down on everything and when this congress says they want to cut, Oh no, can't do that.

Rick, you're never going to get ED to understand. He is wrapped so tightly in his liberal cocoon that he won't even listen to reason.

I also work for a small busines and we have seen our healthcare premiums rise by 20% this year already. We have laid off two people and business is tight! When you say "this wacky administration", you're being kind. This administration is KILLING small business. We know what they're going to throw at us next, HIGHER CORPORATE TAX RATES; it's in Obama's "budget" plan. Thankfully, there is only 19 more months of this Administration to go and then maybe we can get America back on track by THROWING OUT Jimmy Carter Jr. and putting someone who embraces Capitalism and the American way back in office. Did you notice that the Social Security "tax break" for the individual DIDN"T do anything for American business; but it looks great to everyone who doesn't have to actually make MAKE PAYROLL!!!

Well Rick, if you don't have what it takes to step in and take a little risk in an already improving economy there are people willing to take the gains that could have been yours.

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=26120&utm_source=express&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=26122&utm_source=express&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=26123&utm_source=express&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter

John, did you really just throw UNION garbage at us?

You must either be a union member or a government worker; which is it?

No wonder you couldn't care less about the fiscal health of this country; as long as private citizens are funding your paycheck, what do you care.

JohnB, DesMoines, IA...............................COWARD.

I am neither a union member nor a government worker, and if you'd made any effort at all to check it out you'd realize that my source was the newspaper of the American Trucking Association. ATA gets their support from business owners, and Thomas J. Donahue, current President of the US Chamber of Commerce is a former President.

Can't argue the facts so you just turn to a personal attack instead.

My work here is done.

Does that mean we don't have to be subjected to your "evidence" anymore?........I'll just assume that you work for ACORN, LMAO!

call me anything you like. everyone owns a small business on this board. you're both full of crap. i've seen this before throw out a few unproven isolated incidents that favor your talking points under the banner of small business and pretend its a nationwide fact. if you listen to the news you see some small business people in favor of it and some against. u guys are funny though. u like to pretend that every small business person is curled up in some corner shaking like a leaf so afriad of what the big bad obama will do next. embracing full blown capitalism is what got is into the healthcare mess to begin with and i know because i am the creator of small business healthcare plans.

and u still didn't answer my question how does the govt get its money mr. all american? kind of off topic but do you wear red, white, and blue tighty whities and sleep with your flag? is that what makes YOU a TRUE AMERICAN? are the rest of us fake americans?

TA runs a small business in Beckinstand. All business owners in Hantitystand, Limpenburg and Beckinstand hold that theory.

Then why did Justice Thomas go back and revise 6 years worth of financial disclosure forms after watchdogs started putting the pieces together independently?

That's the trouble with people who are trying to hide things...they just start piling lies on top of lies in a futile effort to hide their malfeasance.

Jim

I don't believe that the issue with Thomas has to do with Taxes, because that would just be a number. The issue is that Thomas wasn't reporting WHERE his wife was receiving income from and that is important because if she is being paid by an entity that could cause people to wonder if a judicial decision is truly independent, then that is a concern for judicial integrity.

The odd thing about that is that the supreme court justices are left to monitor conflicts of interest to themselves, with no oversight, which kind of puts a big question in the integrity of the supreme court in my mind.

Rick...

We DID NOT have a balanced budget in 2001. Clinton used Social Security funds to fudge the budget...do some research.

What happened?....Ever heard of September 11th? I guess you think we should have done nothing? As for the housing collapse, you DO realize that the Democrats in Congress were the ones who deregulated that market don't you? ....and where exactly did you get that only 3% of the people want Social Security cut? Did you just make that up? You've either been listening to TOO MUCH lamestream media or you're just dumb.

Sen Phil Graham (R) Texas Deregulated the Banks FYI. Everything I posted is a fact. Since you are obviously mentally challenged I will not attempt to insult you as you have me. In fact, I am an Engineer and a College Graduate and normally I do not debate with Fox Watching knuckle draggers like you but if you care to I will. Please see graph of who spent what!

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Everything you posted is not a FACT.

Do you want to discuss Clinton using Social Security funds to "balance" the budget?

Sept. 11th? no thoughts on that?....weak minds think alike.

So, True ~ Is THAT why Social Security is underfunded today? I read JoAnna's article and I think you may just be on to something. Congressional debt swapping. Just another variation on the same game.

My question for you is whether the fact that government defrauded Americans by raiding Social Security is a reason why people who trusted in the system should now be punished.

Let's cut a few weapons programs instead. I saw Clare McCaskill last night lamely try to defend Congress's support for one airplane that the military does not want. Since when is Congress in the business of making military hardware decisions? The only possible reason for it is military-industrial patronage. Why is it that you Republicans never talk about that?

As for September 11. George Bush led us right into the trap Osama bin Laden set for us. The idea was to destroy us economically, and Bush bit big time, even more than Bin Laden could have hoped for, by taking us into a war we didn't need and ignoring the only war that had anything to do with Al Qaeda.

As for Democrats in Congress and the housing collapse. No argument about Democrats, in general, but exactly when do you think this de-regulation occurred? Except for one term, in 2001-2003, the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1995 through 2006, and by then, most of the damage was done. And if the Democrats screwed things up so badly when they did have control of the Senate, then why didn't Republicans fix it when they did?

Never mind, that one's just too easy.

By the way, who exactly, besides the super wealthy, which accounts for about two percent out of that three percent, do YOU think would like to see their Social Security cut? Do YOU?

You did get one thing right, True. Weak minds do think alike. That's why all Republicans seem to sound the same.

I agree with you, but the entitlement programs MUST be reformed. Assuming an annual GDP increase of 3.6 percent a year (which is generous these days) Social Security, Medicare and Medicade will consume all federal tax revenue by 2050. That means unless we continue to borrow money, nothing will be left for Military spending, discretionary spending, etc etc. Simply put, we can't 'TAX' our way out of this. Nore can we simply cut the budget around the edges- i.e. discretionary spending- which is only about 20% of the budget, anyway. So far, no one- Repubican or Democrat- has been willing to actually DEAL with the problem. The Republicans keep talking about cutting the budget, but from where? Not the Military, which accounts for 20% of spending, or social Security, which accounts for another 20%, or Medicare and Medicaid, which account for 23%. Cuts need to be made accross the board, and taxes need to be raised, if we're ever going to get out of this and regain a stable footing. This country has been living on borrowed time since Reagan took office and began ballooning the deficit, and the people we elect are too concerned about getting reelected to do anything about it.

Since everyone on here seems hell bent on blaming the other side, here are some fun facts:

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congression Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

• Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
• Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
• Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
• New policies from President Obama (10%).

So based on this: 1/3 is Bush's Fault, 1/3 is Obama's Fault, and 1/3 is the fault of the economy tanking.

Rick in Vegas, good points, well said. Contrary to the naysayers, we had a balanced budget under Clinton. I give credit to Newt Gingrich and Clinton for making the necessary decision to raise taxes. We were paying down the debt. No one borrowed from social security to balance the budget and decrease the debt, it was done by increasing government revenues. That disappeared with Bush 43 and the GOP tax cuts for 10 years WITHOUT paying for it, without cutting spending.

Medicare and medicaid are the programs that need the attention. The reason those costs are so high is that medical care, technology have outpaced the revenues generated for these programs. People are living longer and as a result of technology for hip, knee replacements, transplants, heart surgeries all add to the longevity, improved the quality of life but also adds to the increased costs. Social security is a savings account, a 401K and it is solvent. The fact that it represents a good portion of government revenues is irrelevant.

My idea to fix medicare, medicaid--single payer, medicare for all--it spreads the costs over young and old alike; takes the administrative dollars, TV ad dollars for private insurance and adds those savings to actual health care benefits. My idea to fix social security, get rid of public sector pensions--everyone contributes to social security for their pension but allow state and local governments to set up 401K's for workers to invest some of their own income and do as companies do, provide a match up to a maximum amount. Obviously, it would be necessary to grandfather clause all those who have been paying into these public pension plans; transfer money paid for those under say age 40 into social security and all new employees are part of social security completely. I'm sure there are many who can pick my ideas apart but at least I put something out there to discuss beyond generalities.

Don't any of you get it?

AnnaMolly...so, you think defending this country is less important than your MANDATORY ENTITLEMENT program? You say let's cut military spending....do you even understand the concept that is America? There is waste in the military budget, but it PALES in comparison to your beloved entitlement programs. Do you want to keep blaming Bush for spending tax payer money on defending the REPUBLIC (btw...that is what taxes are for) or do you want to reform these ponzi scheme programs? If you don't want to reform them then just admit it; you're not interested in fixing this country.

As to your question about social security....Yes, I would like to see it cut. I do not want or need the government to "Save" for me, but I am forced to let them. I don't even have an opt out option. I KNOW I can save for my future better than the government can. I am a proponent of self reliance, not big brother.

Is there some reason why we need to spend more on our military than the rest of the top 25 largest military spender combined -- when 22 or 23 of them are our allies?

We budget nearly HALF the world's combined military spending -- this doesn't strike you as possibly excessive?

We spend more on the military than the other top 25 military spenders combined so that you can FREELY post your drival on this thread.

You do know that taxes were DESIGNED to pay for our PROTECTION from foreign ENEMIES don't you?

Sooo....the entire rest of the world are enemies of the United States? Must be, we're spending enough to fight everyone else at the same time.

No wonder you're a little highly strung...paranoia will do that.

What are you suggesting?

Our current system can work but is in need of a good dose of medication. It would be greatly improved if the Senate filibuster, which is NOT in the Constitution, was eliminated. That reduces the amount of influence by lobbyists--right now, special interests can snag a half dozen legislators to place holds on legislation, nominees, and to block the will of the majority. Next, government funded campaigns--no need for private lobbyists, private special interests, and big money donors--and that frees legislators to actually do the work of the people. That doesn't mean that conservative and liberal organizations cannot continue informing the public and raising money--just that none of that money can be directly tied to candidates.

There is ONE thing that the Dems/Repubs agree on. They do NOT want a third party. It's a total swindle from both sides without checks and balances. Taking a party side at this point in our culture is no more meaningful than being an American league supporter or a National league supporter. It's ALL baseball, and in their interests to keep the fan base occupied with unimportance.

Job1, I did. Cheers to Lawrence O'Donnell, his comment was terrific.

Huffington Post:

"dozens of guys I grew up with who were just like him. Overbearing, argumentative, Irish guys who think they know everything and can back up nothing. Those guys have always been a joke to me, which is why O'Reilly almost never has the capacity to outrage me, because he is just a joke to me most of the time."

_____________

Job1, wasn't it terrific how Lawrence made Bill O'Reilly out to be the fool he is? I can certainly understand where Lawrence is coming from with the above passage - I knew the same type of guys all too well. Still do. I hope Lawrence talks about Bill Russell tonite. He grew up here in Boston and knows exactly what Russell had to deal with.

O'Donnell said those things on his own show without any challenge. It is easy to say something without being in the person's face.

O'Reilly laughs all the way to the bank at tricks like O'Donnell.

I bet O'Reilly will still be on T.V. when O'Donnell and Shultze are both cancelled. Who will be the joke then?......