The economy was in nearly as bad shape after 8 years of Republican rule then, too.

there has been no budget approved in the last 18 months, the country is flying blind in a storm, with no end in sight; what the heck is wrong with Congress !

Actually, Reid's move has some merit. Present a plan and let Boehner reject it. The Republicans are rejecting any compromise and it is their fault the government is closing down. John Boehner, meet Newt Gingrich: Newt's already been down this path.

100% True. The GOP/TP does not want to compromise wither at the State of Federal level. They are going to push this to the hilt until something bad happens and then they will blame President Obama. This has been their agenda all along. To tank the Middle Class and blame our President.

'Compromise' is now a 'four' letter word with the right...

Who will ever forget Boehner blubbering on 60 Minutes while refusing the even utter the word?

Give em hell Harry! ;o)

Americans want compromise, if a shut down happens they will blame those not compromising.

Republicans were never been against spending when they were in charge with Reagan and Bush. Republicans are fiscal conservatives only when there is a Democrat in the White House, Clinton and Obama.

Republicans were against compromise before they were against compromise.

Jerry - That's right....compromise is what won President Obama high poll numbers after December. The American people want to see compromise and they will punish the Republicans for being like spoiled children stamping their feet and holding their breath until their faces turn blue. Reid is doing the right thing. Pass the CR while negotiations are going forward to find "compromise" on the spending cuts. It's not a zero sum game. The Republicans don't get to have it all their way. Too bad for you if you think that's a winning hand because it ain't.....

Navy,

100% True. The GOP/TP does not want to compromise wither at the State of Federal level.

I read your post, but don't quite understand the GOP/TP portion. Can you connect the dots for me? And while you are connecting, connect the Koch guys to the senario so I may further understand this issue.

Great comments Feisty, they dont equate to anything pertinent, but keep the humor coming.

There are always to sides to an argument you know? You say "so it's official the Republicans will shut down the government," I say it is a double edged knife that cuts both ways. Neither party wants to truly negotiate nor compromise, so in the end it is the collective failure of both the Democrats and Republicans that "may" shut down the Federal government. The Republicans want to actually keep their campaign promise to reduce government spending. The Democrats want to make sure that does not happen and help Obama maintain his failed "spend our way out of debt" policy. Two things you can be certain of during this so called "shut down" are these" (1) The IRS will continue to function. (2) Obama, his staff and Congress will continue to get their pay checks.

In the end it will be the Average American Taxpayer who will suffer for this. The rich don't care and would not have been adversely effected to any great extent if they had to pay an additional 3% income taxes. Most would simply have found loopholes in the law to protect their money from this increase anyway. Those who worked for and earned their money and became what we call "rich" did not do so by being stupid and paying a dime more than they have to. That is and always has been and always will be a fact of life. Obama and the Democrats say they are protecting the average income Americans? I say they are bald face liars. My wife makes $27K a year. Beginning January 2011 the federal income taxes taken out of her monthly check went from $88 to $137 a month. That is an increase of nearly $600 a year and she claims the same deductions this year as she did last year so she has changed nothing, but now we are being penalized for being legally married! We must face reality America! Our Washington Politicians collectively help no one but themselves, except when it come time to get re-elected, then, they are suddenly concerned about the American Voters needs!

Well, it's official, like we didn't know it all ready. The Democrats are against spending cuts, they are against balancing the budget, they are against reducing the deficit. The Democrats want the status quo, they love to spend money, they love to borrow money, and they love to buy votes. And the taxpayers? Who cares about them?

Haven't the Democrats told us they understand that the massive debt of the country is a problem? Haven't the Democrats told us something needs to be done about it? Hasn't President Obama commissioned a Debt Panel that has made solid recommendations on how to cut spending?

So what's going on with Reid proposing another Continuing Resolution, the same one we have now? Reid is just punting, just like Obama has done with his $1.65 trillion dollar budget. Reid can't make the tough choices, the man is weak, just like Obama is weak. Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate have had plenty of time to come up with at least some cuts, and not ones from a phony baseline budget that was never enacted. Maybe it's almost time Harry bailed out and took his Democrats across the boarder, you know, just like the Democratic cowards in Wisconsin and Indiana have done.

The Senate has not even put a budget up for vote and they have had 75% of the same people sitting in the same chairs over the last year. People instead want to demonize a House that has went through a massive change, but still manages to get bills out. If Reid has a budget it is up to him to get it through the Senate first, then reconciliation with the House bill can be done.

Instead the Democrats who had several months of super majorities in the house and senate kicked the budget can down the road for political reasons. If Reid and the rest of them really didn't want the government to shut down you think they would have taken care of the 2011 budget before the years spending actually began.

I don't see that the Dems are refusing to compromise. The Repubs present their slash and burn bill that cuts everything that affects the middle class. The Dems say no lets cut a bit less and cut some other things that won't hurt the middle class so much and maybe ask the corporations and the rich to "share some of the sacrifice", and lets keep going as we are for another month to give us time to work out the details. The Repubs say no, we will shut down the gov't if you don't give us everything we want. Who is refusing to compromise?

In Wisconsin, the Gov and the Repubs say unions should pay more for their pensions and health insurance to help balance the budget, and give up their collective bargaining rights forever. The Dems and unions say we will pay more for our pensions and health insurance to help balance the budget, but we want to keep our collective bargaining rights. The Gov and Repubs say no way, we will fire you if you don't give us everything we want. Who is refusing to compromise?

In my world, compromise means I give a little and you give a little. None of us will get everything we want, but we will each get something and then we can move on. I don't see that happening here, and it looks like it's the Repubs that are refusing to do it. Am I wrong?

The reason we are even discussing this right now has to do with the fact that the last Congress did not even pass a spending bill. They were afraid to before the election.

JoAnnaSmith1

Well, it's official, like we didn't know it all ready. The Democrats are against spending cuts, they are against balancing the budget, they are against reducing the deficit. The Democrats want the status quo, they love to spend money, they love to borrow money, and they love to buy votes. And the taxpayers? Who cares about them?

Joanna the last time we had a balance Budget was 1829 under Andrew Jackson. don't act like the last republican or democratic president balanced the budget. every time we go in a recession we blot the deficits. but you would not know that because your against any thing that teaches people about HISTORY!!!!!

every president in our history has had defects, and every president in modern history was a socialist.

i learned that watching History channel. the ran a special on Andrew Jackson for presidents day.

Joanna.

Joanna the last time we had a balance Budget was 1829 under Andrew Jackson. don't act like the last republican or democratic president balanced the budget. every time we go in a recession we blot the deficits. but you would not know that because your against any thing that teaches people about HISTORY!!!!!

My mistake, the last time we were debt free was in 1829 under Andrew Jackson. a democrate

No problem Jeff. We'll just call it even with the "Blue Flue" deal.

The Democrats in Congress have increased spending by $1,280 Billion in the two years since Bush's last fiscal year in office (2008), but Harry Reid says that there is not $60 Billion to be cut from current spending?????

Talk about a "Tax and Spend" politician.

Oh heck Roy, just blame it on Obama - unless you're a libby then blame it on Bush.

Dems did not bother with a budget, know people want something done and their "compormise" is to do nothing, gotta go with Boenher on this one, and please get your facts straight, the recession of 1991 ended well before the election GWH Bush got not credit for his compromise with Dems, and the recession of 2000, with the dot.com debacle, happened under Clinton, think people, don't be parrots for either party, they are relying on your lack of thinking

We're broke. We have to borrow money constantly from the Chinese. What part of that do Democrats not get? STOP SPENDING MONEY!!! STOP!!!

I don't have a dime to spend on dinners out, nor on my son's college education, nor on car repairs. If I were still a Democrat, I'd just get another credit card and run up the debt. Well, having done bankruptcy once, I've figured out that that is NOT the way to live. If I have to live within my means, then so does the Nation.

LAURIE----------- Cooperate my fannie.

You libbies apparently all suffer from attention deficit disorder.

You had your fannies handed to you in the last election.

The republicans were awarded the largest electoral victory in 70 years.

Today here you are spouting exactly the same drive, threatening to vote the republicans out.

I can only assume you folks are functionally, delusional..

We have no intention of cooperating, allowing the inept lying quasi socialist in the white house to continue to borrow and spend.

If we have to shut the government down to stop the totally unacceptable bs gping on, do it.

We will see how the voters feel about it.

Jerry - The republicans got their fannies handed to them in '06 AND '08. What does that tell you? It tells me that neither party has a clue how to fix any of this mess, all they know how to do is defer the blame to the other party. You are nothing but a partisan hack. A talking point regurgitator, if you will.

Compromise, compromise, compromise. You cant compromise with crap. Compromise to me is "if you get this, then I get that." All that does is bury us under more debt.

What part of $15 trillion doesnt the left understand?? I dont care what the GOP did with Bush and Reagan. This is now and the voters got rid of alot of those leftover RINOs from that era and put some actual conservatives in office in November. The spending should be cut NOW, not some time in the future.

Do you liberals run your households the way you advocate your Democrat Party to run the government?? If the government expects Americans to live within their means, shouldnt you expect the same from the government? And NO tax increases until the government an prove it can handle our money first. Or else we'd be giving more liquor to the alcoholic! Stop the insanity!

The only ones who want a government shut-down is the Democrats. They and the news media are the ones promoting, not the Republicans.

What the House Republicans are interested in is returning in 2012. They ran on cutting severely and know that if they don't try, then they will not be returned.

About the balanced budget - the last one was 2000 - IF you ignore that the US actually Borrowed 18 Billion in that year. How did we get that close? Well for the record, Republicans cut 67.5 Billion in Deficit out per year from 1996 - 2000 compared to Democrats who cutting only 36 Billion per year in 1994 & 1995. Before 2000 and 1999 the last time a on-budget was in surplus was 1960. Historically Republicans own a few more of these than Democrats.

One other thing that I see misquoted is who was supposed to cooperate with whom. The poll that democrats are using is a misnomer. The internals showed that the democrats were to cooperate with the republicans in cutting spending not the other way around.

This 60 Billion in budget cuts put forth by the Republican controlled House is 3.6% of Obama's budget.

Just 3.6%

If we can"t or just won't trim the budget by just 3.6%, What hope is there for any of us???

Harry Reid is an Idiot. I'm from Nevada and I understand that. But he is not the entire Senate. The Democrats only have about a three vote advantage in the Senate, and there are 22 Democratic senators coming up for re-election in 2012. Let's watch the voting in the Senate and decide who needs to leave.

If the republicans in office are so interested in cutting spending and reducing the deficit why then did they push for continued tax cuts for the rich? Why was it more important that those who aren't in need or any danger of going without be given more, when those put out of work are in danger of going hungry?

Have the rich pay their far share. Have the oil companies pay dividends for drilling on public lands. Take away tax breaks for corporations. Imprison those responsible for the meltdown of '08 and have their ill gotten gains put to use rebuilding America. Bring our troops home so they can see their familes and stop these expensive wars.

Why should the little guy be the only one to have to tighten his belt and go without? Enough with the conservative hatred for the middle class. Just because a person doesn't make over $100k doesn't mean they want to scam the government. People want to work and take care of their families.

Jerub,

So you want to redistribute the wealth, a socialistic agenda. Taking more from the haves to give to the have nots. Also did you realize that those tax cuts got extended with a super majority of democrats in the Senate and house along with having a Democrat as the president with the ability to use a little thing called a Veto?

Charge the oil companies more, so they charge their customers more. (remember they are a business, they know how to pass costs on to the end consumer which is you and I. If they do that not only does our pump price go up, but anything made using oil including the cost of a windmill since most use composite light weight plastics which are made using oil.)

If we imprisoned those responsible not only would wall street, Bush, and Clinton be in prison, but all the senators and house of representatives we have had over the last 16 years as well, which would include our current president.

It is easy to claim the middle class is the little guy that is going to get hit by these cuts, but in reality it saves the middle class in the long run. The middle class are not the people that need to be subsidized by the social programs on the cutting block.

And Republicans are the party of NO:

No government, no services, no police, fire department, no garbage pick up, no......no.....no!

So, Fastmover, what you're saying is that when we, the taxpayers are getting raped, we should just lie back and COMPROMISE? Sometimes NO is the only legitimate response to stupidity

"Sometimes NO is the only legitimate response to stupidity"

True. SO my response to you is.... NO.

another tea bager

Add $600 billion to the deficit giving taxcuts to the rich and then steal the WIC milk from babies mouths to pay for those taxcuts,,,,,,,,,,Yup, Typical Republican BS

Fastmovingcloud,

The way that you scream and whine you sound exactly like an "entitlement for all" Democrat. Just continue spending forever, we can do it. Who cares if the dollar is only worth the same a s single sheet of Charmin? That is the belief of the Progressive movement. Just keep spending. If you do it long enough, you'll spend yourself out of debt.

Did you make bad choices in your life? Did you make bad decisions along the way? Because you chose poorly, does everyone else owe you another chance over and over again because you can't be responsible and accountable for your actions? That is, after all, the typical entitlement mentality: "You owe this to me because I exist." "Someone will always catch me if I fall (or Jump) no matter how many times I do it." No consequences, no responsibility, and no accountability: I can do as I want and someone will always be there to pick up the tab. That is exactly what you sound like.

Notice how all the people on this thread who obviously support the Democrats haven't offered up a single solution to reducing the debt or the deficit. For them, it's still business as usual: spend, spend, spend. Who cares if we don't have the money? We can just print more!!

And where was all this talk of "compromise" when the Democrats ran the show from 2006 until just a few months ago? I don't recall them compromising on a single damn thing with the exception of the tax cut extensions AFTER the Republicans handed them their ass in November. Nope, no compromise when they're in power... it was just "you lost, get over it and ride in the back of the bus." Now that the tables have turned, the whole country can see them for the whining, sissy cowards who want to put democracy on "hold" while they run away to other states to avoid a vote. Democrats are the MASTERS of the Double Standard.

SHut it down, that is the only way to keep the inept lying quasi socialist in the white house from spending money.

Actually Sean, President Obama's budget will reduce the deficit by One Trillion (with a "T") dollars over 10 years. I haven't seen any Democrats suggesting print more money. I believe that was the Federal Reserve.

If I'm wrong, and I may be, please post a source.

Sean - you got that right, all FR liberals want is for someone else to think for them, to hold their hands so they won't get lost crossing the street! Very few of them are willing to engage in debate.

And the minority attempts to rule the majority! The Spending Party chooses to spend money it doesn't have.....oh, that's right, when you need money, the Democratic way is to either borrow it or print it and spend, spend, spend......

Or, to run away and hide from responsibility! Go WI Dems, hide out with the rest in IL.

Whats apparent here is that there are a lot of liberals either not working or being paid to blog bad and wrong information. Its ok you need to do it .....there are not enough of you to get things done your way with out us independents. And right now we are siding with the Republicans which we voted in ....in November. I know you hate it..... but you know what shyt happens.

So why can't the Democrats be like the Republicans and pass the bills but don't put them on the books...ya know like 2 wars, Medicare D and two tax cuts for the weathly.

Because Democrats and both morals and consciouses whereas both of those traits are foreign concepts to teapugs.

The fallacy in your argument sjm, is that the taxpayers are NOT getting raped. Taxes are lower than they have been in all but 9 of the last 94 years. Tax rates in this country are at historically LOW levels. The idea that taxes are unreasonably high is a lie that is being perpetuated by Republicans in order to get people like you so upset that you will willingly allow the destruction of the middle class. You appear to be falling for it.

Oh we are not getting raped? The choice either higher taxes, or more borrowed spending? But let's not cut spending because it buys votes. Well we have 14 trillion in bought votes not including the other 113 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Yes SS, Medicare, and Drug Benefits are unfunded liabilities. The Congress has seen in their infinite wisdom it was alright to take that money and spend it buying votes from their constituents. Masking the true size of their expenditures, our deficits. Leaving who to pay for it? That's right........ the fukn taxpayer. I do not know about you, but I sure feel like I have been fukd!

I am a gov't worker and for some of you ass wipes out there who only goal in your lily white world is to think that you can hide your klan mentality and think you are doing justice by supporting the tea party (they don't deserve to be capitalized) how u jerks forget how we got into this mess.. by you jerks supporting crazy behind George W Bush. he spent and spent and gave out stimulas money when we did not have any and of course it was a great move and you alll supported this jerk with a smile. he took us into a war in 2003with the words (" I feel deep in my heart they have weapons of mass distruction"} Where are the weapons Georgie? we are still trying to bail out of that one. know we have a President which I know one of you will slip up one day and call him the "N" word in public and when that happens I hope he kick your lilly white A##. The morale to all this is if you take guys furlough your selves we will save a heap of money I think if you want to cut spending it needs to start at your house.

Sean #2.7 posting:

Solutions:

1. Increase the deduction ceiling for Medicare and Social Security to $175,000. Both then solvent until 2075.

2. Eliminate the oil depletion allowance for the oil industry. That would add $150 Billion to the budget from corporations who have record-breaking profits - the Koch family made $11 BILLION more just this year. Yes - they do suffer... right?

3. Cut defense spending by ONE HALF TRILLION $$ (Clinton was $300 billion, now it's $800 billion) to get us to the spending levels when we won the Cold War.

4. Reverse the tax cuts from the past 15 years. The most prosperity was during the Clinton years - and taxes were higher. That would add another $HALF TRILLION.

So - all together this would reduce the deficit $1.3 TRILLION just doing the 4 things above ALONE. No need to cut off the heat for the poor, or non-political news broadcasting, or employees earning less that poverty level wages.

See it's simple. Just do what we did during the Clinton budget, and we'd be fine.

These GOP governors want to cut tax revenues to give to corporations, then blame shortfalls created by the giveaway on government employees - then cut their wages AND take away their rights to collectively bargain.

The GOP/TP said they didn't like big government telling people what to do. They are meddling right now - so they are lying about thier intentions.

The unions already agreed to accept lower benefits and wages. Why does the Gov want to take away their right to bargain? This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET IN WISCONSIN, OR OHIO, OR INDIANA. It's an attempt to force union busting. The public voted for fiscal conservatism - not government ramming union busting down the public's throats.... The governor never said during the campaign he was going to take away collective bargaining.... And if collective bargaining is so bad - why doesn't he hold the unions that pandered to him to the same standards as the teachers???? Nope - this is retribution for not getting their votes....

Walker is not honest with the people of Wisconsin. Ask the Koch brothers how much they donated to his campaign to get what they want....... He's a puppet

Wisconsin - you voted against your own best interests.

OK, I thought the Republicans got elected to the House in 2010 to create jobs, jobs, jobs? If the government shuts down, then tax refunds don't get processed, then people don't have cash in hand to spend on consumer goods, then demand goes down, then companies lay off, then tax revenues go down, then the deficit gets bigger....the Republican cycle of destroying the economy goes on!

No one listening libbie, no one.

Shut it down.

Jerry - What's that??? I can't hear you!!! What you say??......LOL!!!

Someone, ANYONE? How is slashing the budget supposed to create jobs? Anyone....

The Govt doesn't Create Jobs.. well. Only more lifesucking Govt jobs that put the Taxpayer more on the Hook........... The Democrats want to shut down the Govt..

SO BE IT........... WTF................. Make it so...... WTF.. thats Winning the Futrue. Its a book that was Written by newt Gingrich.............. So Be it...

The Gov is not the solution, the Gov is the problem. Get the Gov and Debt out of the way, and jobs will be created. Strike down the Health care Law, cut taxes on businesses, and let the businesses flourish without the Gov meddling. The Gov does not create jobs, just a welfare society and leeches. As far as manufacturing, the Unions and the EPA have ruined our ability to compete in the world; they made it too expensive to build anything here. And Public Employees should not be in a union, they serve at the pleasure of the people who pay taxes; they create no wealth, just union thugs.

and allow jesse jackson to extort money from organizations without having to work for it or for sharing it with anyone other than himself!

It is truly amazing. People quote Ronald Reagan (... Gov is the problem) but they forget that this same 'conservative' increased our debt by a factor of 3. That means that he grew government to a massive extent.

In fact - every republican administration for the past 100 years has grown government massively. Remember that Bush senior had to back down on his 'read my lips - no new taxes' pledge when he raised taxes to pay for Reagan's massive government growth.

But it is easier to forget the truth and go with the Fox News lies about democrats breaking the budgets.

Wake up, for most of the last decade, taxes were cut on businesses and the businesses were let flourish. How did that work out for us? The businesses did fine, but what happened to the workforce?

you repukes act as if your party hasn't got one thing to do with this debt this nation has built up since clinton left office with a huge surplus left to bush. the next 8 miserable years of the repukes trying to get a grasp on managing this country (but never could get the hang of it) left 75% ot this debt we now have. what obama has spent was to dig this nation out of the hole it was left in. i don't care how you repukes try and spin it you can't change the truth.!!!!!!!

Wake Up.... My My My, you are an angry littel man....

The EPA has helped us progress from a time in our history when the Environment was the trash heap of business. There are whole towns that were contaminated from chemicals and asbestos to the point of having to close them. Then there was that river that caught on fire.... So no, I dont think the EPA ruined America, because without environmental protection we would all be worse off, suffering and dieing.

Unions really created the modern work environment, Paid Vacation, Medical Coverage, 8 Hour work days, Child Labor restictions... so no, I don't think that Unions ruied America either.

And try to remember that this has been the most profitable decade for big business ...EVER!!!! even with the melt down.....

WTF is pretty simple, really. They want Obama to look bad. Period. Republicans don't want jobs created because that would help Obama in 2012; they don't want his budget to pass, again, it would help him in 2012. If Obama managed to lop 200billion off of the budget, they would say it wasn't enough or in the wrong places (not enough poor people are effected).

It's in Republicans self interest to make sure nothing gets better over the next 2 years or they lose the Presidency (so much for "Country First"). Problem is, if they are seen as obstructing progress (what they do best), they will not be helping themselves in the long run.

Fast: The GOP does not need any help making Obama look bad. He cornered the market on worthless leadership 2 years ago.

Apparently the cuts were never voted on if reid say they will be included for FY 2011.

"This bill will include the $41 billion in budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans agreed to in December, and will keep the government running for 30 days while both sides can negotiate a common-sense, long-term solution," Reid said in a written statement.

Makes one wonder on if $41 billion will last only 30 days the republicans $61 billion can't last that much longer.

They are cuts out of Obama's bloated budget -- Monopoly money cuts, not REAL long-term cuts in what we are currently spending. They do nothing to stop the growth of government or the growth in Federal pensions. We simply can't sustain this level of spending, and the Republicans were voted in in November by those of us who understand that. They are doing what WE told them to do, not because they are Republicans, but because they answer to the American people. Reid is a bitchy, bitter old man who can't get over playing power games and actually work for the good of this country.

Becky-2120568

I don't think Americans told Republicans to go in and destroy the recovering economy, which is what this unsettled atmosphere is doing. Any economist will tell you, a crucial component of recovering prosperity is psychological, and depends on increasing consumer confidence, which is why Obama has always been so upbeat and positive in his speeches. Republicans are hurting the country, hurting the economy, by threatening a government shut down.

Quite right, Amy. I would also add that cutting the budget right now, just as the economy is slowly beginning to improve, would reverse course and send us spiraling back into another recession. Until private business is spending enough money to be self-sustaining, the government cannot cut massive amounts of spending. It would destroy the fragile economy.

Ah, Clotho, that's what the gop wants, spiral into another depression. Then they can blame President Obama... they don't care about jobs, the teabaggers have been played for fools by the gop

Amy -I don't think Americans told Republicans to go in and destroy the recovering economy, which is what this unsettled atmosphere is doing. Any economist will tell you, a crucial component of recovering prosperity is psychological, and depends on increasing consumer confidence

This is the exact same thing that the Republicans have been saying about the Administration policies for the last two years. I guess they are both guilty.

You're comments lack understanding. Future growth depends on less taxes, more freedom to invent, and the ability to outcompete our rivals. The bloated budget and debt burden any long lasting recovery. Both parties have consistantly shot for shortterm gains over the last 14yrs. Finally, a party is willing to take short term pain for long term gain. Cuts deep and wide are the only solution to our longterm health. We may have another recession, but our children will be way better off for it. Obama's policies have been shortsighted and now has placed the country's financial situation at terrible risk!!

Obama and the Dems are proposing cutting spending over the long term. That's what Obama's 2012 budget does. We seem to have forgotten that the great depression was prolonged by President Hoover trying to cut too much spending too fast which inhibited the recovery and caused a "double dip" depression. That is what the President is trying to avoid. Amy is right.

When I found myself over my head in debt, it was a long term debt reduction plan of spending less over time and increasing my income that pulled me out, not selling everything I owned to try to pay it all off at once. That strategy caused much less disruption than putting myself on the streets would have. You can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs, but that doesn't really solve the problem. It just creates different problems.

Heartlight -

The 'proposed' cuts that Obama has made are in the form of 'freezing' pay at current bloated levels(which we know only holds for a portion of the government and does not include merit raises) - which turns out to be doubletalk when you look at the pay structure of federal employees- and cutting programs that do not affect his 'base'. When analyzed, his reductions amount to a lot of nothing as they depend on some pretty far-fetched numbers for growth, which most reputable economists admit will probably not happen. So, no, they are not really cutting spending when they grew the government by about 24% in just 2 years and want to continue at those levels.

If Obama and the democrats - and yes the republicans too - are truly serious about cutting deficit spending and reducing the debt, then EVERYTHING - and I do mean everything - has to be on the table for cuts.

One of the easiest thing to cut presently is Obamacare, much as liberals want it, as it is still largely unstarted and is unconstitutional anyway due to the mandate (and yes the democrats realized this when they and their buddies at the Apollo Alliance wrote it but figured that the ends justified the means). The simple truth is that we cannot afford it at this point in time and at its price. It makes absolutely no sense to go further into debt for another entitlement program when we can't afford the ones we already have.

Additionally, we need to cut ALL government spending to 50% of what it has been - this is the only way we will even begin to be able to pay the debt down. I know this cannot be done all at once (though I wish it could), so it would have to be phased in. This means social security and medicare will take major hits as well as the military. Welfare needs to be done away with for those who are able-bodied except as a very temporary measure. Let's face it, Johnson's "War on Poverty" is a dismal failure when we still have the same percentages living in poverty now as we did in the 1960's (and it never really changed much at all in all that time).

It's time to stop throwing good money after bad.

I know it will be painful for the country as a whole, but perhaps some of the kids in school now will be thankful in the future when they start to see that the hardship pays off in the long run.

And you have some facts about how a 50% spending cut will effect the country. Are you an economist?

How much did you pay in taxes last year?

and the bloated SSI budget, welfare rolls, medicaid and the fire Obama's czars.

You got that right, I'm still upset about the second skeet range for the Commanders on the Marine base in NC.

bloated SSI budget??? SS revenues still exceed outgo. SS got screwed up by the politicians using it like an ATM machine since the late 60's. Everything else up for grabs!

Social Security and Medicare are really the elephants in the room. It costs the government a substantial percentage of its budget to fund them.

For some reason every estimate I read of their percentages is different. Some say they're as much as 30% of the budget by themselves. I don't know if that's true or not.

But a 10% reduction in spending, across the board? That shouldn't be that hard to do, honestly. I mean really. And it would be sufficient to solve all the budget problems.

MSpielman - You're misinformed my friend. It doesn't cost the government anything with Social Security. There are enough funds to pay benefits through 2037. Those that demagogue SS are just trying to eliminate the program for the middle class.

Any of you d*ckheads ever talk to your parents about cutting medicare? What do they say?

When people start dying for lack of care, what the f*ck will you say?

There are REAL CONSEQUENCES to ANY cuts. So let's THINK about what we're doing, shall we?

nresq- jan brewer...

laurie-480643

MSpielman - You're misinformed my friend. It doesn't cost the government anything with Social Security. There are enough funds to pay benefits through 2037. Those that demagogue SS are just trying to eliminate the program for the middle class.

No Laurie, it you who is misinformed. Those funds you say they have enough for until 2037, have been spent and replaced with bonds backed by the faith and credit of the US Government. For the last two years the expenditures on SS have outweighed what SS has brought in and that cycle is going to continue. So where do they get the money to pay SS recipients? From those working today, and borrowing the rest. Look up unfunded liabilities and they will state SS, Medicare, Medicare Drug Prescription, and my favorite of all.........Federal Government Employees Pension. I guess Congress could not keep their hands out of that pot either. That and the fact they just do not fund it. All backed by the faith and credit of the USA. I'm not sure about you, but I do not have much faith in thieves doing the right thing.

You are 100% right Rick - there is no money left in SS. SS payments have exceeded SS income for the past 2 years and the first baby boomers just hit 65 on Jan 1, 2011 and there will be 10,000 per day retiring for the next 15 or 20 years - depending on when you say the baby boom generation ended. We need to protect people 50 and above with SS but need to start raising the retirement age on those below 50 soon.

Everyone I know wanted "Obamacare" (the name is growing on me) but with a Public Option.

You must have a close circle of friends. The only people I know that wanted OBamacare were the ones that also expected free housing, free food, free wifi and free money.

Dang it! Missed out on the free stuff again!

Don't worry about, very soon now, there are going to be a lot of parasites/parasite enablers missing out on the freebies.

What about the OVER $1 TRILLION DOLLARS the Health Care Bill will SAVE, morons?

You guys got ANY CLUE, or just like to orally ejaculate?

"What about the OVER $1 TRILLION DOLLARS the Health Care Bill will SAVE, morons?"

What!? If you believe that we can add 20 million people to the rolls of Gov health care and save money you are clue-less. Everything the Gov does costs ten times as much as it should, and is filled with fraud, waist and abuse. The Health Care Law is a disaster, as is evident in Europe. If it isn't repealed, you can expect our taxes to go from 20 and 30%, to 60 and 70% like in Europe; that is what Dems call "free" health care.

It's not "Gov health care". Did you miss the part where they took single payer and the public option out and just made it so that we have to buy it from insurance companies? If we are buying health insurance from insurance companies it is not government health care. It's like saying your car insurance is government car care.

0bamacare is unconstitutional and SCOTUS will eventually rule that way. It would actually be to 0bama's benefit for it to happen sooner rather than later. I am hoping SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional in Sept 2012 just to remind the American people what a power grab that 0bama and the Dems tried to pull.

The last thing we want is a Single Payer and Universal Healthcare. We don't want govt in charge of 1/6th of the economy. Look at the mess they have made of SS, Medicare & Medicaid. Anything the govt runs costs too much money and doesn't work very well. The only exception is the military which works well but still costs too much.

The Swiss Healthcare system is what we should institute here. Its 100% private - Google it and learn a few things. Its the only European system I would want to see here.

Wakeup

I guess you do not have college kids. You probably do not have children that are graduated but working for companies that do no offer benefits. You have no clue how "Obamacare" saved my children. No, they cannot be on my insurance - thanks to insurance company.

Shawn Most intelligent post I have seen in quite a while.

You don't understand things. The Democrats want to put more debt in this country. The Rebublicans are trying to stop this from happening. That's why the Democrats are 'killing' this country as you put it.

John, I like what the Republicans are trying to do but they to are at fault. You see no one wants to cut the things that will upset the people and the people need to get rid of the "ME" mentality and get with the "WE".

Shawn, john, et al - without serious revenue growth, hard times are a coming!

american, I believe you mean harder times are coming, most of us are in hard times now.

More like the Dems want to keep as many government-dependent voters happy by redistributing our money so they can stay in office! This revolt against the public unions by those of us who pay their salaries and yet do not have unions to protect us may save this country from ruination.

Becky-2120568

I would think you'd be in favor of public sector unions, if you are so convinced government is the enemy, since unions hold government accoutable to teachers, firefighters and the police, you know, working people!

The Tea Party is so twisted in ideolgical knots, it can't see the hypocricy of bashing the right of public sector unions to bargain with the government. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

Becky the only redistributing that's been going on is money from the middle classes going to the rich. Just where have you been the last 30 years. Sorry but you're another misinformed ideologue.

Where were all you DEFICIT HAWKS during the 8 years that GW Bush ran up HUGE DEFICITS on the books, and 2 unfunded wars OFF THE BOOKS?

nresq, I was screaming at the top of my lungs. I have never belonged to a party or group, I think this is un-American, I am a US citizen first and foremost. From some of the comments the "ME" mentality is still holding on.

Shawn - Who do you see stepping up that would be an improvement?

HEartlight-------- A rock would be an improvement over the inept lying quasi socialist , we have in the white house now.

jerry194283,

You're STILL calling Obama a socialist? How socialist can he possibly be when he approved the extension of the Bush era tax cuts?

Amazing how teabaggers love to hold on to their ideological labels....and their guns.....

Amy -- I guess I don't understand why only union members are "working people." Those of us who are not in unions work too! Like many people, I live paycheck to paycheck. Before you all jump all over me, I'm using myself as an example, not complaining! The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of us live paycheck to paycheck, have no benefits and no pension, can't afford to save much for retirement, and have no automatic increase in pay simply for showing up at work for another year. If the public employee unions -- those people you all seem to think are the only "working people" who should be protected -- are paid through higher taxes on those of us who are privately employed, both State, Federal and property taxes, how long can we survive? We've paid into Social Security as diligently as anyone has paid into a pension, but there is no guarantee that it will be there when we retire. And if that sounds like "me, me, me!" then let me put it another way ... if I lose my job and my home and can't pay those taxes any more, who do you think is going to pay the public employees?

YOU libbies are incredible you have the advantange of watching the farce going on in Europe, and you are still trying to push us into it.

The country looked at the parasites/parasite enablers and declined.

If you are living off of the backs of tax payers, get ready for hard times.

When you think "entitlements," please think UNIONS. I work for a union; they are the most entitled people around.

Becky-2120568

"I work for a union; they are the most entitled people around"

I worked for a major catalog company for six years and never "qualified" for health insurance because they would cut my hours for a few weeks to keep me at part time status. Employees rejected an effort to form a union while I was there, because the company culture was so "nice."

At least, when you work in a unionized company you can put some pressure on the higher ups to get a decent wage and benefits before they spend it all on bonuses for the top few. Try working for a non-union firm and find out what it's like.

There you go again with the "ME" mentality.

So what....entitlements include social security, medicare and medicaid. Do you want to cut off medical and retirement benefits to to poor and elderly?

Amy -- I don't believe I said anything about "poor me" in my post. It's simply that my eyes were opened when I took this job. As a matter of fact, I did it after working in advertising for 20 years, and frankly, I just wanted to see the light of day for once in my life! I know exactly what it's like to work in an industry where HR departments and workers rights are non-existent, because, like you, I did it for many years. What I was pointing out was that once I had the opportunity to work for union people -- teachers in this case -- I found out how hard they work at their negotiations. When we have a seminar about an educational topic, we get maybe 20 teachers (out of 900) to come; when it's about retirement or an update on their latest contract negotiation, we get about 100. And yes, it's a difficult job, but as I may have also mentioned, most of my friends are teachers, and they managed to do it for 30-36 years before retiring. They are the first ones to admit that, as tough as it is, those weeks off at Christmas, in February, in April, and from the middle of June until the end of August make it bearable. As you know, working in a field like you did or as I can tell you, working in advertising where the mantra is "If you don't come in on Saturday, don't even think if coming in on Sunday!", where you get maybe 3 weeks off after 5-10 years and work from 8A until 8P -- tough for you if your client is in CA and you're in CT! -- and where you must work each day until all your work is done with no overtime, is also and extremely difficult job and THERE ARE NO WEEKS OFF!

What? With no viable alternative available? (sarcasm)

But I thought the DEMS were about going green, bottled water is not the way.LOL

Libs talk a good game but don't you dare take away their limo's and private jets. And if you are like John Kerry - move your boat to the next state that doesn't have a sales tax on yachts.

You are right about one thing, Molly, Obama should have been focused on "jobs" back in 2009. He could have balanced our trade deficit so American companies wouldn't have to outsource jobs to compete with foreign companies paying workers pennies a day.

But no, mandating everyone to purchase healthcare was much more important to him and the democrats.

And I fully support calling out any republican hypocrisy -- we can deal with them as well in 2012.

Pay for it, or do without, leech, we are through paying.

jerry194283:

I knew of a boy named Jerry back when I was in high school that was mentally challenged. He would be in his fifties today. Is that you Jerry?

I am a fiscally conservative, social moderate type of guy. The very first thing I would do if I had the power would be to shut down most of our foreign bases. Bring those troops home and do some nation building on our southern border. Why guard Korea's border and not our own? The troops would not be unemployed in my proposal as they would be manning our borders, North and South, and the Navy and Coast guard would be guarding our water ways. Next item I would stop two wars, as now we have our borders guarded no one can get in unless we allow them. Time for Dept. of Defense cuts. Yes cuts, as we will now be minding our own damn business. Let Europe handle Europe's problems, let Asia handle Asia's problems, The ME handle the ME's problems. We have our own problems here to deal with. Next there are going to be cuts across the board..........10% to start, and up 3% a year until we get our own financial house in order. Funny I said 10%......because that is your new Federal tax bill, no matter your financial standing. Everyone has an iron in this fire, including the poor.

just makes sure that you don't make your intentions public while you are running for office because every single company that is on military welfare, i mean gets contracted for service, equipment, materials, private personnel, would pay BILLIONS in lobbying, advertising and contributions to make sure you or anyone with the same mentality would never get ellected. but I like your dream..

SNK---------- Not sure are you the guy named Steve that got mad at me not allowing you to eat what you picked out of your nose?

Ask Harry... He made them stay and work while he was drilling us for more taxes and the Health Care Law.

I am glad they are on vacation - take 0bama with them - they spend more money when they are in town.

Let's see, Aaron --- uhhh, you got one right, then wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

You can't just repeat what your liberal professor told you in college, you have to actually think about what you're saying...

We quit listening, Nov. 2nd, last year, parasite, you want it, buy it, you don't want to buy it, do without.

I think these responses state the GOP/ TP philosophy best: "If you're not rich, you're a parasite."

Yes, Clotho, and "If you're a teacher, cop or firefighter you're a parasite."

and "If you expect healh insurance, you're a leech." (Unless you're an executive or an elected official, then it's your due compensation for being so successful.)

CLOTHO/AMY--------- Nope, the only ones we call parasites are the life forms, that want to steal our wages and use them for their own ends or give them to the vampires.

Teachers work until they're about 59-62 and then collect their full pensions with benefits. (They also work 184 days vs. an average 230 for the rest of us.) They pay into those pensions, but primarily the money comes from my property and Federal taxes. The police work for 20 years and then retire ... each state is a little different, but I believe overall their pensions are some percentage of what they made in their last 3 years of service. Many of them, however, risk their lives on a daily basis. The same goes for firemen. On the other hand, those of us who work in the private section -- and I make less than $50K, so don't even bother calling me rich -- must work until we are 70 in order to collect (if it's still there!) the full amount of the Social Security we've paid into for close to 50 years. There simply has to be some fairness put into this system ... public employee unions demand more, more, more when those of us who pay them are unemployed or underemployed and are living paycheck to paycheck. We have got to cut the number of people who work for the government or at least make them work the same number of years the rest of us do -- with the exception, of course, of people who are risking their lives, like police and firemen. Teachers not only don't risk their lives, they have an extra 3 months off every year to go to school, work and add to their income, or just vacation. Paper-pushers in State and Federal government who got their jobs because they know someone also aren't risking their lives. They have great benefits, make more than most people performing similar work in the private sector (except that in the private sector, they might be laid off when times are lean), and they are protected from US, their employers by unions. This has got to change; it's unsustainable. BTW, Democrats have run my home state for years, they've run Congress since 2007, but frankly, I can't think of one instance in which any Republicans have left my state or DC and gone into hiding rather than vote! Those legislators in Wisconsin should definitely not be paid for any of their time "on the lam!"

All sectors of our economy need to take pay cuts for our country to be competitive. That means teachers, firemen, police, librarians, etc as well. So far, only the private sector has been correcting for survival. Government must take its turn as well. All of us are part of this country and depend on all of succeeding. In this case, it means all of us take hits for longer term survival. That also means we should all be willing to pay our part of the debt as well.

Becky-So you're advocating the redistribution of wealth from teachers to yourself, because it's not fair they make so much? Isn't that socialism?

Ragster-I agree with you, we all need to sacrifice. The unions in Wisconsin said they are willing to take the pay and benefits cuts, just not the loss of their collective bargaining rights. And why is it, whenever anyone talks about everyone sacrificing for the good of the country, the upper class are never the ones to sacrifice? Governor Walker just got done passing tax cuts for business just before demanding unions make concessions.

Becky-2120568

Your post reeks of jealousy over the "cushy" positon of public school teachers, what a laugh!

I trained as a teacher, but one year as an intern was enough for me. That is one tough job, and the responsibilty is daunting. Yes, public school positions offer some measure of security you don't get in the private sector, but we need to offer teachers something to attract people to enter and stay in what is arguably one of the most difficult and important jobs there is. I'm sorry you feel your life is so hard, but, as the Tea Partiers keep saying, nothing is stopping you from competing for one of those "cushy" teaching positions.

"the money comes from my property and Federal taxes." Well, duh, part of being a citizen is participating in the community, as in contributing money towards public education. Unless, of course, you think it's OK if poor kids are left uneducated, which makes me wonder what kind of world you want to live in. I'm not sure where the Tea Party got the idea that tax evation is "patriotic" but it certainly wasn't the colonists' intent when they threw tea in the Boston Harbor, rather than pay a tax to the English monarch, to give you the right to whine about paying teachers professional wages.

"You are saying that it is all right to rape education, fire departments, police departments as long as tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% keeps on a coming"... heres an idea... we cut all police funding, give a bunch of money to the rich... and see how long they can hold onto it then...

Hillbilly - the top 2% add up to $700 billion over the next 10 years. Everyone else adds up to $3.3 trillion. You have 47% that pay no Fed Inc Tax. Lets go back to the Clinton era tax rates for everyone and we can pay down $4 trillion of the debt that has been run up. If you just take the top 2% you only pay 1/2 of this year's projected deficit and you have to wait 10 years to get it all.

HILLBILLY, does wanting to keep what you earn and not giving it to a life form, kicked back with his hand out make you greedy?

Okay, yep, I'm greedy.

Tim and Amy -- I don't believe I said anything about "poor me" in my post, nor did I say that teachers' jobs are "cushy." It's simply that my eyes were opened when I took this job. As a matter of fact, I did it after working in advertising for 20 years, and frankly, I just wanted to see the light of day for once in my life! I know exactly what it's like to work in an industry where HR departments and workers rights are non-existent, because I did it for many years; again, I'm not complaining because I actually loved going to work. What I was pointing out was that once I had the opportunity to work for a union -- teachers in this case -- I found out how hard they work at their negotiations. When we have a seminar about an educational topic, we get maybe 20 teachers (out of 900) to come; when it's about retirement or an update on their latest contract negotiation, we get closer to 100. And yes, it's a difficult job, but as I may have also mentioned, most of my friends are teachers! They managed to do it for 30-36 years before retiring and are the first ones to admit that, as tough as it is, those weeks off at Christmas, in February, in April, and from the middle of June until the end of August make it bearable. As you know, working in a field like you did or in advertising where the mantra is "If you don't come in on Saturday, don't even bother coming in on Sunday!", where you get maybe 3 weeks vacation after 5-10 years and work from 8A until 8P -- tough for you if your client is in CA and you're in CT! -- and where you must work each day until every single client question is answered, all with no overtime, is just as difficult a job. And you don't get all those weeks off during the year so you can relax and rewind. In terms of education, I needed a master's to advance in my career, just like teachers do; the difference is that I didn't automatically make more money when I got it, AND I had to take all my classes at night, not in the summer or after I got out of school at 2:15 PM.

What are you talking about? They're trying to cut Obamacare, though I wouldn't consider it a benefit...

Observing the stoopid: That is the best option I have seen yet.

If our leaders were compensated and had the same benefits as the people, SS and Medicare problems would be fixed. The money we have paid in needs to be given back to the American people or put back in the fund to be used as it was meant. As for spending cuts, just repealing the outragious lifelong pay and benefits they receive would go a long way to balancing the budget. Our founding fathers never meant for public service to be a way to incredible wealth. The greed they shown for themselves and their "pet Projects" is disgusting!! If all the double dipping in pensions was cut out, many states would not have the problems they have either.

Jim - You are wrong....we are almost bankrupt due to two wars, two big tax cuts (to the rich I might ad) and Medicare Part D not paid for either. All done under a Republican president and Republican Congress and a Democratic Congress without a veto proof majority. Get you facts straight.

Forget it, Laurie, facts don't matter to the right wingers posting here. They have no clue how national and macro economics work and anyone who does not agree with their ignorance is a 'leech', 'lazy', 'communist', 'anti-American', 'hates America', etc. The stupidity and hate shown by the right on this blog is staggering to behold. Just watch how they respond to this, it will only show their ignorance.

Bwaaaaahhhhhhhhhh Matthew. Why don't you tell us just how it works? It should be an interesting short paragraph.

That's your problem, safecracker, anything more than a simple, short paragraph is beyond your comprehension abilities. It is why your posts are so filled with ignorance. Thank you for proving my point.

You continue to make my "be a libbie for a day" experienc amazing. To paraphrase other libbie posters, can you please explain how this works for us Matthew. Microeconomics is such a dynamic subject that I would like to be more informed in.

"Microeconomics is such a dynamic subject . . ."

So stupid he can't even use the correct term, too stupid to realize he just keeps proving his ignorance and too stupid to even pay any more attention to.

Bye, bye, fool.

Hey, it is "be a libbie day" I can emulate you very well. But I refuse to take it down to your school yard taunt level Bub.

And the fool is you Tex - is that school yard enough for ya?

I know, I know, why bother...

But, could I please see some graphs, charts, paragraphs, anything--that contradicts that Republicanism has dominated this country from Reagan on, and aside from a few blips on the radar, mainly when Pres. Clinton was in office and left with a surplus, any Republican rule at all where economics have improved, deficits gotten smaller and finances didn't crash during a Republican Presidency.

(Rule: You're not allowed to go earlier than Nixon in your citations for Republican label-- because the parties reversed their political platforms entirely--a total 180-- after Linden Johnson.)

BTW Just as a handicap, the vast majority of economists agree (worldwide) that the US/Global Financial Recession began in October of 2007.

Oh, and don't forget the illegal, pre-emptive invasion and subsequent war in Iraq, and the "leave-it-on-simmer" war in Afghanistan... which one is winding down, and one is who knows?

All that bottled water? Probably alot of it is going to our troops in the Middle East. Just a guess...what company sells the government their bottled water? They sure as heck don't bottle it themselves. Who is fleecing whom?

There's your mulligan.

Go for it.

Yet again no facts just BullSh................T The republicans in the past 3 decades have increased the deficit

much more than Clinton and Obama

The republicans are doing exactly what they campaigned on , repealing the insurance farce, cutting spending, opposing Obama.

That is what they told us, we gave them the largest electoral victory in 70 years. Now, they are keeping their promise.

You don't like it, too bad.

I like it, if the government is shut down, the inept lying quasi socialist in the white house isn't spending money.

That may be the only way top keep him from ruining us.

I'm with ya Mike, Let the taxcuts DROP, Drop all subsidies to corporations, oil companies, etc POOF budget deficit solved

After Reagan's "Worst Recession since the Great Depression" I planted a garden

After Bush Sr's "Worst Recession since the Great Depression" I bought my chickens

After Clinton balanced the budget, I bought into Democrat economic policies

After Bush Jr's "Worst Recession since the Great Depression"..........I bought pigs

The garden, chicken pen, pig pen, rabbit pen, are all within 100 yards of my house,,,,I owe no one and no one owes me,,,,,,,,I can close my gates anytime

Agreed shut it down, leave it down until the election in 2012, by that time most of the welfare types should have starved to death, then we can restart.

Bully for you... (and I mean that in the nicest way possible--) but I stayed in society. I even work for it. So, I not only am not going to turn my back on it...

I'm going to say, fine Republicans, Tea Parties, Conservative Xtians, Billionaires, sociopaths--

You're going to do it anyway!

So, we might as well resist!

Heck--I've even stuck my neck out for you people, defending freedom of speech and right to read for your stupid books, including those that come from Paladin Press (for whom I have great respect)...

Why? Because I am on the side of freedom, even the freedom to publish and have in a public library a book that Totally Insults Me, My Friends, and Everybody I Know! But that's ok. It's how I roll.

It's just being well... liberal.

Bo: I've heard that arguement before. I'm not saying you are wrong however, it is a bit decieving to say carrying the existing tax rate forward is costing us money. If you di not collect it you never had it. If that's the democratic's budget plan "Take more money". That does not solve the underlying issue. "Spending". You can't spend what you don't have.

Go away liar, no one is listening.

Simple facts Jim,,,,,,,Clinton left office with the budget balanced and a tax plan, Bush revised that tax plan, Gave hundreds of billions in cuts to the rich (To the point that someone working and making $100,000 a year quite possibly pays more in taxes than someone making millions) If Bush had never enacted the taxcuts (even WITH 2 VERY expensive and reasonless wars) the budget would still be balanced and Republicans would be our American heros,,,,,,,As it stands,,,,,,,,There may not even be a Republican Party within the next decade

Bo: Meaningless wars? You do see where the whole middle east is demanding goverment change and an implementation of democracy. If in fact that happens we will be able to cut our military budget drastically. That is not meaningless. As I stated earlier if you take the 385 richest people in the USA and take everything they have that's only about 1.2 trillion. How do we cover the other 12 trillion? Clintons budget was not balanced. It was a projected surplus. There's a big difference. GW Bush has caught alot of flack by not including the war funding in his budget. He should have caught that flack. However, Clinton did not add in the money going out in SS to get that projection. Goverment has to be trimmed. Spending has to come in-line and yes we are going to have to raise taxes on the rich. But, even so, it is going to take years to get us out of this mess. The basic laws of economics say you cannot spend your way out of debt. Obama's spending was nothing more than a band-aid to keep a number of people employeed. We have reached the end of that rope. Now it is time to cut spending.

AMEN

So take your point further... Why then when the Democrats were in control of both houses of congress did they not stop the funding for the wars? Everyone complains about the cost of the wars, but from 2006 until just late last year, the Democrats had every chance to cut the funding to zero. No funds, no war... So tell me why didn't they want to save money then?

because it has always been known or perceived that Dems have no love for the military. it was a political decision to spend on Iraq and Afganistan. Obama and Hilary both campaigned on bringing a stop to Iraq (slowly) and spend more money and service personel in Afganistan.

These guys do not stop war spending because there is State money for all the businesses who make war toys and government DEPOTS that employ people in those same states where there is not companies making war toys. FOLKS this is all about the government representatives TAKING LEGAL BRIBES to keep their constituency at work so they can vote for the people who keep them working All the while the big companies get richer along with those elected officials. You think money does not override an enlisted persons risk of life? Wrong! MONEY TALKS We could have killed Bin Laden with in 24 months and yet we are still there and oh goodie the whole region is turning into Armageddon we will be really making money now!!