TO: RealAmericansFirst who wrote:

Here are the riders the GOP put on the continuing resolution bill:

Prohibits funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program.

Prohibits funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program.

Prohibits funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

Prohibits funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program or the State Energy Program.

Prohibits funding for various environmental projects in California.

Prohibits funding for a climate change czar in the White House.

Prohibits funding for EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water.

Prohibits funds for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Prohibits funds for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash residue as hazardous waste.

Prohibits funding for the IRS to implement health care reform.

Prohibits funds for a White House Director of Health Care reform.

Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available (in circumstances of rape or incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman).

Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.

Prohibits funding for sections of the Public Health Service Act.

Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.

Prohibits funds to pay any employee, officer or contractor to implement the provisions of the health care reform law.

Strips funding for any provision of the health care reform law.

Prohibits funding for the US Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation, UN Population Fund, or for foreign NGOs that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That does it! Shut it down until the Tea Bagging Republicans take that crap out of our budget!!!!!

There is NO WAY that the Budget the Republicans are proposing could possibly pass in the Senate, and even if by mistake it did, the President would veto it in its present form.

Republicans are trying to get just a "token" win, but it's not happening and I don't blame the POTUS for pushing his point that the United States Budget is not and will not be used as a playground for Republican extremists.

Never mind the insanity of cutting discretionary spending during a recession, to believe that the government would shut down over women's health is a level of craziness I thought not possible.

You can have their back Disabled! What are you going to do with your funding?

Bob,

It is all in writing and all recorded. Boehner will become the poster child of this shutdown just like Newt before him. Depicted as the devil on the front of Time magazine as "Man of the Year" except without a pigmentation touchup like Newt needed since Boehner is already that shade of orange.

I'm guessing Spider and Disabled are men, so they don't really care if poor women have access to pap smears, birth control or cancer screenings. I'm guessing they are Republicans, so they don't care about the environment or health care for seniors, the poor, or those with pre-existing conditions. And I'm guessing they are greedy, so they really don't care if anybody gets anything as long as they get theirs.

@spider: I think American Girl raises a point in that if the Republican's were serious about getting this done they would've side stepped the ideological nonesense knowing full well that it wouldn't pass.

@ Disabled FR User: "America" does not have the Republican's backs. Republicans and Tea Baggers have the Republican's back. They represent a political ideology in America. They are not "America" despite arrogant, self-proffessed claims.

Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.

Wow... one I actually agree with!

“Joe Biden wasn't flustered, he was damn mad.”

So is the American public. The idea that we can't cut a measley $60 Billion from the more than $1 Trillion of increased spending over the last 2 fiscal years is ridiculous, and no, it's not "Extreme", Chuck Schumer.

How about everyone try this. Put yourself on a news blackout. See if you notice whether or not the federal government was shut down.

Policy Riders in H.R. 1

The following are brief descriptions and locations of provisions included in the continuing resolution (H.R. 1) passed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 19, 2011. These provisions appear in the introduced version of the bill and in subsequently approved amendments. This list is not comprehensive.

Agriculture

Prohibits funding for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Sec. 1285

Consumer Protection

Restricts the ability of the FDA to transfer funds. Sec. 1268

Prohibits the Federal Reserve from transferring more than $80 million to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Sec. 1517

Prohibits funds for a government sponsored “consumer products complaints database.” Sec. 4046

Defense

Prohibits agencies from obligating funds in contravention of parts of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. Sec. 1115

Prohibits funds to take any action to effect or implement the disestablishment, closure or realignment of the US Joint Forces Command. Sec. 4020

Prohibits funds made available to the Department of Defense for official representation purposes. Sec. 4031

Education

Bans funding for the Department of Education regulations on Gainful Employment, as-yet- unpublished rules that would restrict federal student aid to for-profit colleges whose students have high debt-to-income ratios and require the schools to report more information about student outcomes. Sec. 4012

Prohibits funds for implementing a provision specific to the State of Texas in the “Education Job Fund.” Sec. 4051

Environment

Prohibits funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program. Sec. 1281

Prohibits funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program. Sec. 1282

Prohibits funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Sec. 1283

Prohibits funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program or the State Energy Program. Sec. 1434

Prohibits funding for various environmental projects in California. Sec. 1475

Prohibits funding for a climate change czar in the White House. Sec. 1535

Prohibits funding for EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. Sec. 1746

Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water. Sec. 1747

Prohibits funding for enforcing an order by the Secretary of the Interior calling for protecting public natural spaces. Sec. 1778

Puts a moratorium, for the duration of the CR, on the payment of legal fees to citizens and groups who sue the government. Sec. 4007

Prohibits funds to implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants,” published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 9, 2010, which limits the levels of mercury in cement. Sec. 4008

Prohibits funds to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to consider, review, reject remand or other invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic Coast. Sec. 4014

Defines specifically what greenhouse gases are and prohibits the EPA from imposing regulations on those gasses emitted by a stationary source for seven months. Sec. 4015

Prohibits funds to implement the Klamath (California) Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Sec. 4028

Prohibits funds to implement or enforce the Travel Management Rule, which would close roads and trails on National Forest System land. Sec. 4029

Prohibits funds for the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from moving forward with a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, a rule that presently allows surface mining operations with qualified permits to work within 100 feet of a stream. Sec. 4032

Prohibit EPA funding for enforcement of total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Sec. 4033

Prohibits funds for the EPA to impose and enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards. Sec. 4035

Prohibits funds from being used to construct ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities. Sec. 4037

Prohibits funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service, part of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. Sec. 4038

Prohibits the EPA, Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from implementing coordination procedures that have served to extend and delay the review of coal mining permits. Sec. 4039

Prohibits funds from being used to develop or approve a new limited access privilege program – “catch-shares” – for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Sec. 4040

Prohibits funds for the study of the Missouri River projects. Sec. 4041

Prohibits funds for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Sec. 4042

Blocks funds for the EPA to implement a waiver to increase the ethanol content in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent. Sec. 4043

Prohibits funds for the EPA to deny proposed and active mining permits under Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act, specifically to revoke retroactively a permit for the Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Sec. 4044

Prohibits funds for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash reside as hazardous waste. Sec. 4045

Prohibits funds for EPA to modify the national primary ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter (dust). Sec. 4048

Federal Elections

Restricts funds from being used for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund or political party conventions. Sec. 4004

Health Care

Prohibits funding for the IRS to implement health care reform. Sec. 1516

Prohibits funds for a White House Director of Health Care reform. Sec. 1536

Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available (in circumstances of rape or incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman). Sec. 1590

Prohibits the District of Columbia from using federal funds for syringe exchange programs. Sec. 1591

Prohibits funding for sections of the Public Health Service Act. Sec. 1820

Prohibits states from using federal funds for syringe exchange programs. Sec. 1847

Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates. Sec. 4013

Prohibits funds to pay any employee, officer or contractor to implement the provisions of the health care reform law, stopping the Department of Health and Human Services from Sec. 4016

Strips funding for any provision of the health care reform law. Sec. 4017

Prohibits the payment of salaries for any officer or employee of any federal department or agency with respect to carrying out the health care reform law. Sec. 4018

Bars funds to implement the individual mandate and penalties and reporting requirements of the health care reform law. Sec. 4019

Prohibits funds to carry out the medical loss ratio restrictions in the health care reform law. These provisions require insurers to spend at least a certain percent of their premium revenues on medical care. Sec. 4027

Blocks funds for Health Insurance Exchanges, a set of state-regulated health care plans offered under the health care reform law. Sec. 4034

Prohibits funds for employee and officer salaries at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services, created by the health care reform law. Sec. 4047

Prohibits funds for salaries for any officer or employee of the government to issue regulations on essential benefits under section 1302 of the health care reform law. Sec. 4049

Prohibits funds for the independent payment advisory board. Sec. 4050

Homeland Security

Prohibits transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Sec. 1112

Prohibits transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Sec. 1113

Prohibits constructing facilities to house detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Sec. 1114

Prohibits funding for hiring new TSA employees. Sec. 1614

Prohibits funding for immigrant integration programs. Sec. 1635

Prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from collecting information on multiple sales of rifles or shotguns to the same person. Sec. 4030

Housing

Prohibits funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. Sec. 2226

Prohibits funding for capital advances or rental assistance contracts for HUD Housing for the Elderly projects. Sec. 2237

Prohibits funding for renewing tenant-based assistance contracts. Sec. 2238

Prohibits funds for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs to provide grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative. Sec. 4002

International

Prohibits funding for the US Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation, UN Population Fund, or for foreign NGOs that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. Sec. 2122

Places various restrictions on Afghanistan funding. Sec. 2124

Prohibits U.S. military assistance to Chad, due to its continued use of child conscription, consistent with the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2007. Sec. 4011

Prohibits funds for the Overseas Comparability Pay Adjustment, an increase in pay for overseas Foreign Service Officers approved by President Obama under the supplemental appropriations Sec. 4021

Bans foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. Sec. 4023

Prohibits funds for UN construction within the US. Sec. 4036

Internet & Communications

Blocks funds for the Federal Communications Commission to institute Net Neutrality rules. Sec. 4006

Prohibits funds for the Community Connect broadband grant program administered by the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture. Sec. 4022

Job Training

Prohibits funding for competitions for new Job Corps centers. Sec. 1802

Legislative Branch

Prohibits funding for upgrading Congressional committee rooms. Sec. 1904

Nutrition

Prohibits funding for carrying out section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Sec. 1284

Recovery Act

Prohibits Recovery Act funding for Department of Energy employees employed through the Recovery Act. Sec. 1474

Rescinds unobligated Recovery Act funds. Sec. 3001

Prohibits Recovery Act funds for signage. Sec. 3002

Trade

Prohibits NASA from collaborating with China. Sec. 1339

Prohibits Export-Import Bank funding for anyone subject to sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. Sec. 2123

Prohibits funds to provide nonrecourse marketing assistance loans to mohair farmers. Sec. 4026

White House

Prohibits funds to pay the salaries and expenses of the following “czars,” or special presidential advisers who are not required to go through the Senate confirmation process: Obama Care Czar, Climate Change Czar, Global Warming Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Car Czar, Guantanamo Bay Closure Czar, Pay Czar and Fairness Doctrine Czar. Sec. 4009

It's funny how all the "Budget Saving" is being done in programs that coincide with the GOP Social Wedge issues, isn't it?

Touch defense? Hell no. Despite the fact that we spend more on Defense then the next 10 nations COMBINED.

Raise Taxes? Not a chance. We're still sticking to that whole Trickle Down thing. Doesn't matter how much it's been proven not to work.

Kill oil subsidies since the oil companies are racking in record profits? LOL Yeah right.

The fact of the matter is that the GOP is trying to drive it's social issues by disguising them as Budget cuts.

So instead of stopping Oil Subsidies for companies making record profits, instead of stopping the "temporary" tax cuts on American Citizens who had record income levels (The ultra rich), instead of cutting some funding from Defense spending even though we spend more then any set of nations in the world combined...

... the GOP wants to stop things like Needle Exchange programs, funding for Planned Parenthood (which provides TONS of Womens services OUTSIDE of Abortions - And Federal Funding CANNOT BE USED FOR ABORTIONS), Defund the EPA to keep them from enforcing measures that give us clean air...

And they are confident (apparantly rightly so) that the sheep in their party will only see them as doing their best to save the country money. <sigh>.

Not sure really what there is to say.

Disabled, you are entitled to speak for yourself. You are NOT entitled to speak for me. And I am as much a part of America as you. Please stop with the generalities.

TO: Disabled FR User – True who wrote:

“American Girl,

THANK YOU....I didn't know about all of the things the Republicans were going to save us money on!”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must have missed the part where it says it will never happen?

It will never pass in the Senate, and it will never be signed by the POTUS.

Most amusing. Where were the Democrats last year when it was their RESPONSIBILITY and when they had a super majority in both houses to pass the annual budget? Where were all your liberal complaints in whining when your leaders couldn't/wouldn't do their job.

They abdicated their responsibility to the next congress and you libs think it is OK to blame this situation on the current Republican controlled congress. Well, as the mighty Barack once said, elections have consequences - here they are - not so fun when the other side is benefiting from that, is it?

I don't want the government to shut down, but I have to agree with American Girl - Shut it down!! I think the libs will be mighty surprised to find out that nobody really cares - and even more surprised when the DEMOCRAT SENATE forced shutdown of the government further reveals how bloated the government is.

Well - maybe the military is going to feel the affect. It amazes me though, that Barack calls the military funding rider a 'distraction' - HE is willing to use the military as a tool in the Democrat cat and mouse game. Even more amusing, well sad really, is that the Extreme liberals are willing to hurt our nations national defense because they ideologically believe that it is important to kill babies, but not protect the country.

its funny JAY that you say the American people do not have Republicans backs. Explain to me then why We pushed a large amount to DEMOS out of office this last election and the poll taken yesterday blames the DEMOS for this mess more than the Republicans.

I say cut it, I am all for pro-choice but you want to choose than go head and pay out of your pockets for baby killing. My taxes shouldn’t go to fund this. It was a choice to have sex, and it is a choice to abort so pay up. If the PP wants funding than they can eliminate abortions from their menu. I am not a religious person by no means but killing a life because you want to have a life is insane and selfish. Now there are exceptions like rape but not because you couldn’t use birth control which coincidently they can get from PP. so no excuses.

We are in the middle of a recession and they want to send money to ever tom dick and harry around and that my friend is Fiscal irresponsibility

Many of the programs the GOP wants to cut actually save the country money in the future. Sure it's irresponsible for people to get tax payer funded abortions, but it's better to pay that small fee instead of a lifetime of welfare to yet another disadvantaged mother and child. The needle exchange program represents nickels compared to the hundreds of thousand in treatment required for treating AIDS at taxpayers expense. People need to think long-term, and the GOP is trying to shove its agenda down America's throat (do not be fooled) as it is the only way they can due to their limited control in government. While they say Americans sent a message with their election, I believe the message was that the younger generation, independents, and liberals did not realize how serious that vote was and failed to turn out. Trust me, they will now in the next election. Budget cuts without pushing agenda should look more something like cutting at least one B2 bomber from being built (savings 2.2 billion), perhaps some Tomahawk missles at a million a pop, and other war machine toys as no country will threaten us for decades to come where we are now. Also reduce redundant government agencies/workers through consolidation and controlled attrition (retirement, etc), introduce modern lean management practices, stop subsidizing oil companies, put a higher tax on junk food (which increase healthcare costs almost as bad as smoking), and perhaps hold those people who did get abortions (amongst other things)responsible for paying the government back when they are able down the road (like I have to do with student loans). We Americans are a family and it's time that we stop acting like bickering siblings, and start acting like adults who also happen to represent the leading nation of the world.

Wow, sounds great. I'll have 2, please.

@Dennis-816242 (Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.)

"Wow... one I actually agree with!"

I'm not sure. I assume this is HIV prevention. I haven't seen the trade offs of providing

free HIV drugs to addicts, possible additional spread of HIV vs cost of needle exchanges.

Does anybody know the numbers off hand?

Spanky:

For your info, and please do more researching, the budget didn't get passed when the Dems had control is because your leaders of the GOP filibustered and said "NO" to everything that was in the budget. How's that payback working for you? This is nothing but a political game with these politicians who don't give a toot about you, me, or anyone else. That's all they do is lie, lie, and lie especially the repubcons. They ran on the platform of creating jobs back in Nov., 2010 during the election while all the time deceiving their followers into believing that. Well, where are the damn jobs? Answer that. They have not pushed towards anything for job creation in this country. All they have constantly done is slander and hammer President Obama anyway they can from the day of his candidacy into the moment of his presidency. And now they have the galls to blame this shutdown on the Democrats should it happen? Oh, please spare me the frickin drama. This will be on the heads of the repubcons and the blood of the people will be on their hands. I thank God that He sits high and looks low and sees exactly what is going on with whom and what is in the hearts of each and everyone involved in this mess. And I can tell you now, God doesn't take lightly to people who are against and take away from the needy and the poor in this country in order to give to the rich. And the repubcons are doing just that. They are still lying even while in the midst of the Dems trying to work out a budget agreement with them. There has to be a divine intervention in this matter. Because, otherwise, the Greedy Old Party is not relenting unless they get their extremely ridiculous way. And I don't see that happening. This is just unbelievable what is happening. God, please have mercy on the U.S.A. because we will need it when all is said and done.

The budget should have been passed prior to the 'change-over' in January.

Oh wait, that's right, they were too busy campaigning to bother with budget issues. 'Balancing the Budget for America' wouldn't have been a popular campaign slogan.

They shut down the government because they were too inept to complete the task when required and blame it on someone else.

If you can not afford to pay for services. Why should the Government FORCE me to pay for YOU...

I support MY FAMILY, maybe YOUR FAMILY should still be supporting YOU...

When your INCOME is dropping, you cut your expenses... Eating and the ability to maintain INCOME are the last to go... NONE of these things listed by American Girl-724855 are on this short list...

If I had not completed my budget LAST YEAR - I would be down to the short list... The US Voter - FIRED some of these DEAD BEATS last year. The remainder need to go next year...

THANK YOU....I didn't know about all of the things the Republicans were going to save us money on! I'm for saving ALL of that money! All of those issues require funding, which makes them budget issues!

Defund All of those things!

Then you don't have any problem with de-funding the following, then, RIGHT?:

- Cut Tax Exemption for Churches (Could bring in Billions from tax-evading evangelicals)

- Cut Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies (6 Billion Annually)

- Cut Tax Subsidies for Farmers (25 Billion Annually)

- Cut subsidy for NASCAR Military Recruitment Program (32 Billion Annually for sponsoring race cars)

- Cut the Pentagon Budget (Uneccessary Weapons Programs and waste costing (80 Billion Annually)

- Cut Aid to Israel (and all foreign countries 128 Billion Annually)

- Withdraw from Iraq (70 Billion Annually)

- Withdraw from Afghanistan (60 Billion Annually)

- Close tax loopholes (costs tax payers 300 Billion annually)

-Get rid of Homeland Security (40 Billion Annually)

Thats approximately 750 Billion Dollars.

Thank you, Nekophoto.

There is not one thing on that list I am opposed to- so, do you think Democrats are FOR military aid to Chad, given the child conscription rampant in that country?

Between this and American Girl, you have done a real service to the public- now we know what each party is for, and against.

A simple proposal to solve all this mess. Why don't we just close the Environmental Protection Agency? It isn't in the constitution. We really don't need clean air, water, and soil standards. Corporations will take care of the problem because it is economically lucrative to clean up recalcitrant, toxic, compounds. After all, America never had rivers catch fire due to contamination or have air conditions that drastically reduce life expectancy. I mean, those who live in large cities, the majority of Americans, should all have years shaved off of their life because industrial sectors do not have an ally to ensure that they dispose and play fairly in the neighborhood.

How about we go further? Close the Food and Drug Administration. I don't want the government telling me what I can and cannot eat. If I want to eat salmonella and potentially die, that is my choice. And if I accidentally ingest some from tainted meat or spinach, I should not have a recourse to recoop my medical bills.

Let's save more, close OSHA. My employer has my best interest in heart and will never threaten my physical well being with occupational or work-place dangers.

Get rid of NIST, we do not need to keep track of time or standard units of measure.

Do away with all DOT, private industry will take care of that. I mean, we haven't had to bail out every form of private transportation in this country, right?

This list gets much longer when we start looking at all those national parks a pesky Republican Teddy Roosevelt created. Not to mention useless museums trying to preserve an American culture (we have internet trash for that these days) or public broadcasting trying to communicate science (science is worthless with all its facts, I have my beliefs and don't want anything challenging them, besides, Fox News and the soon retired Beck has told me everything about this world of ours).

Let's fund the military, give tax-breaks to wealthy (I'm one of the rich elite, right? They don't sit there and figure out ways to manipulate me and then laugh at my poor ass, right?), and fund every I Love Jesus essay contest. Science, education, public health, and infrastructure are useless.

New York Rep. Charles Rangel says his fellow Democrats failed to pass the 2011 budget bill when they were in the congressional majority because it was “a political hot potato.” see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread685896/pg3#pid11025671

Jul 2010 - Senate Democrats are hanging this one on the House. "It was our intent in a budget resolution to include those instructions," Sen. Debbie Stabenow told me. "And we passed such a resolution out of committee." House aides retort that they were told Senate Democrats didn't have the 51 votes necessary to pass the budget on the floor, and in any case, it's not their fault that the Senate is paralyzed by the filibuster. In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called just today for an end to the filibuster. see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/are_democrats_setting_themselv_1.html

Jun 2010 - Democrats once called passing a budget “the most basic responsibility of governing,” intoning that “if you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Yet House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced today that Washington Democrats are cancelling the budget this year, making it the first time in the modern era that the House has not passed a budget. That is the ideology of Washington Democrats: just keep spending taxpayers’ money - with no plan, no discipline, and no accountability. see http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2296390&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Jun 2010 - Refusing to Budget for Political Cover: House Democrat Leader Steny Hoyer has finally admitted the sad truth that Democrats had been avoiding since the April 15 statutory deadline to pass a federal budget

Failing to produce a budget signals instability to investors and businesses and costs Americans jobs. Congress and the public won’t be told how much our $1.4 trillion deficit will continue to grow. It means that we will not know how much more Democrats plan to add to our $13 trillion national debt. It means that record spending will continue to skyrocket, unchecked as Democrats use future generations as collateral to borrow from China. If our spending and debt crisis is not addressed lower economic growth ensues and Americans will see a much a lower standard of living. Higher taxes, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, less opportunity, and exploding borrowing all threaten to take their toll if spending and deficits are not curbed. In addition, countries with too much debt lose credibility on the international stage and extreme borrowing on the part of nations is a direct threat to their national security. The House Democrats failure to address our national fiscal crisis by refusing to pass a budget because of political calculations is an appalling abdication of duty. see http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/06/24/democrats-refuse-to-pass-a

How quickly the DEMOCRATS - FORGET their past...

nekophoto and american girl - cut it all, it is all descretionary

tim in seattle, cut them too but mind your p's and q's as some deal with national security and treaty agreements while others deal with tax codes.While we are at it change over all government pension and healthcare plans to reflect what the private sector has.

Naturally you want these cuts made over 10 - 20 years so not to be detremnetal to our economy, right?

I don't know how people keep missing the memo that NO federal funding can be used for abortions. NONE. Planned Parenthood uses federal funding to provide for women's health care services, which a vast number of women cannot afford because many insurance plans don't cover it. Abortion is legal in this country and until it isn't, there shouldn't even be a debate on this specific issue, because there is nothing to debate. Republicans have twisted this to make people believe its about abortion. It isn't. It's about Republicans trying to cut funding for programs they don't support. Here is a section of an article from the NY Times explaining the foolishness of Republican actions right now:

“Our generation’s greatest challenge,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican, declared in an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal the other day, “is an economy that isn’t growing, alongside a national debt that is.”

A fair number of Republicans share that sentiment, so let’s take a closer look. To nitpick, it’s factually wrong. The economy has been growing since the third quarter of 2009. The larger point is true. The economy is still sputtering, unemployment is too high and debt is growing.

But one of the most basic principles of economics is that when an economy is anemic, governments should use deficit spending as a fiscal stimulus, even though that means an increase in debt. If Senator Rubio believes that the response to a weak economy is to slash spending, he is embracing the approach that Herbert Hoover discredited 80 years ago.

Republicans are correct that debt matters and that we need to address America’s long-term deficits. That means trimming entitlement programs and reducing the rise in health care spending that is eroding their viability; we also probably need some tax increases. But while our long-term need is to rein in deficit spending, our short-term need is to boost it. That’s why sensible budget plans involve a short-term stimulus combined with long-term trims that take effect when the economy is healthy again.

The Republican plan to address debt right now, in an economic trough, echoes the horrendous mistake Japan made in the mid-1990s just as it was emerging from its own deep recession. Japan collapsed right back into what became its “lost decade” and now realizes that it should have nurtured a recovery before addressing its debt problem." (Nicholas D. Kristof, Why Pay Congress? NY Times, April 6, 2011)

I never agreed with the Tea partiers viewpoint of "shut it down" but after seeing American girls list I'm reconsidering. Maybe shutting the Government down is the only way we will be able to see what is really neccesary and essential for running the Country.

Look, the Democrats did not need one more thing - like a wildly inflated budget- hanging over their heads during the mid term campaign. They reasoned that they could pass an omnibus spending bill after the election, because, no matter what, they would have the majorities until January.

What they did not factor in to their thinking was how shocked democratic senators would be by the election results.

They did, in fact, introduce an Omnibus bill- and it failed in the senate. Surely, all you liberals remember that? You had an issue with McCain's and Kirk's reaction? Called it crowing?

Democrats gambled, and lost. Deal with the consequences.

As you can well see from the list of "prevents", the Reps are NOT in this for the "cut spending" process or they would have cut something from THEIR pet areas. Instead, they have totally gone after social programs that don't agree with their side. HCR passed. Now they are unfunding everything. For it or against, until it is repealed, it was a law the MAJORITY passed. They also go after Obama's right to have "czars" to advise him UNLESS they go through confirmation. Did they ever do this to Bushie? HELL to the NO. This is pure politics, nothing else. They aren't even touching the areas that are really causing all the trouble like Medicare, Defense, SS, etc. The teabaggers think they have a mandate. Oh REALLY??? did you win by over 55%? NO. That is no mandate in my book and like has happened in the past, you guys will also get the boot once people see what you really want to cut. Hopefully the Dems will be smart enough to turn around and screw the Reps just like they are screwing the Dems. I will agree on ONE thing.. I have no idea why the dems didn't pass the budget last year, unless the party of NO kept them from doing so. You guys keep saying they had super majority, but after the first of 2010, Brown had won, besides the fact they always had to be able to get the indies and at least one rep to vote with them.. which of course the party of NO never did. Hell, they even voted NO on bills they actually sponsored just to make sure Obama didn't get a "win". I PROMISE you the public will only hear that govt shut down because the Reps wanted to kill PP AND the Reps using the troops as cover. Pretty transparent move.

How to resolve the budget crisis 101...

Tax the 2% of the wealthiest Americans (including corporations) at 60% (that will still leave the "poor" bastards with millions, if not billions to live on), no loopholes, no exceptions. Tax the next 3%-5% at 40%...same thing...no loopholes, no exceptions. Tax the other 95% of hard working Americans and those not so fortunate on a graduated scale as to maintain and existing wage and let the middle class once again drive the economy. Oh...and you wealthy 5% (and corporations)...if you decide to leave the country...ALL of your assets will be taxed at 75%...and good riddance! Pay your share or get the Hell out! There's always somebody else to take your place greed mongers. Is this income redistribution...well...YES! Do I care...NO!!! We are sick and tired of the middle class Americans having to bear the brunt of recession recovery in a capitalist economy that is forever skewed in favor of wealth and power. No wonder we're in trouble, when 2% own 50% of the GNP...thats way too much money to hide!

Tim,

Cut it all! I don't understand why it is so hard for everyone to understand the need for a balanced budget. Your list of cuts isn't necessarily reasonable because they are too broad, i.e. closing tax loopholes. I would love to see tax reform but sadly this isn't something that can be done right now, it will take years. I don't think people quite understand all the money in aid and tax breaks the US Government puts out there. I know a farmer who gets paid to NOT grow crops.

Totally ridiculous. The whole system is broken. I fear its too late to truly fix it. I think November was a start. We need to continue to dump the incumbents and put young qualified people into office. Don't get me started on the need for term limits....

mucker87 - go for it. Many wealthy individuals have left states that wanted to tax them more, now those tax greedy states have less revenue to redistribute.

increase business taxes as well, we don't need jobs here in the USA. We will all relocate to canada, mexico, china or wherever to find employment

America has the worlds largest economy with china coming on strong. Your plan will send us so far down the list no one will be laughing except you in your insanity.

American girl, you say...

That does it! Shut it down until the Tea Bagging Republicans take that crap out of our budget!!!!!

Quite right, a lot of it does sound like crap and needs to go and your republican buddies are trying to take it out of the budget.

Moving the goal post to the right again. I say, call their bluff. The GOP and the TeaParty politicians seem to think they can run the gov better, well prove it. Shutting the gov down will cost more $ than it will save.

Bunch of political idiots grand standing. Thanks for listing out the HR1 riders. What I think is funny is where are the saving that GOP promised? According to several accounting sources, the GOP proposed savings will actually cost the tax payers more $ in the long run. But do the GOP tell you this? I think not. Where are the clauses that prohibits hand outs to the Corporations? I guess their million $ campaign contribution is now billion $ savings. Makes me sick....

If Speaker Boehner was really "damn serious", would he be adding contentious political issues onto this federal budget bill?

GOP/TP are creating a crisis in order to quickly push through unpopular legislation which has no chance of passing under normal circumstances.

This tactic is being used across the country at the State level, so don't be hypnotized.

Mucker - why don't we just tax everyone 100%? Then nobody has anything (can't get more FAIR than that) and the government then can redistribute to everyone!

You know, you could double the 'tax' on the rich, it still wouldn't pay for what the deficit is! Problem! Government spends more money that it has - and adding more taxes only does one thing, covers up the spending problem. IF they could ever raise enough tax revenue to pay for what the owe now, they would immediately add more spending.

Why are you and your liberal alikes such absolute extremists? Why do you hate the country so much that you would want to bankrupt it? Why do you hate women so much that you would want to fund pimp loving abortion clinics who see no moral indignity in providing confidential abortions to enslaved girls so they can keep generating money for their abusive pimps? How extreme and radical can you be? Why do you hate people so much that the only way you can be happy is when everybody is indebted to the government and can no longer pursue freedom?

Joey B is AWESOME! What entertainment!

New York Rep. Charles Rangel says his fellow Democrats failed to pass the 2011 budget bill when they were in the congressional majority because it was “a political hot potato.” see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread685896/pg3#pid11025671

Jul 2010 - Senate Democrats are hanging this one on the House. "It was our intent in a budget resolution to include those instructions," Sen. Debbie Stabenow told me. "And we passed such a resolution out of committee." House aides retort that they were told Senate Democrats didn't have the 51 votes necessary to pass the budget on the floor, and in any case, it's not their fault that the Senate is paralyzed by the filibuster. In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called just today for an end to the filibuster. see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/are_democrats_setting_themselv_1.html

Jun 2010 - Democrats once called passing a budget “the most basic responsibility of governing,” intoning that “if you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Yet House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced today that Washington Democrats are cancelling the budget this year, making it the first time in the modern era that the House has not passed a budget. That is the ideology of Washington Democrats: just keep spending taxpayers’ money - with no plan, no discipline, and no accountability. see http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2296390&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Jun 2010 - Refusing to Budget for Political Cover: House Democrat Leader Steny Hoyer has finally admitted the sad truth that Democrats had been avoiding since the April 15 statutory deadline to pass a federal budget

Failing to produce a budget signals instability to investors and businesses and costs Americans jobs. Congress and the public won’t be told how much our $1.4 trillion deficit will continue to grow. It means that we will not know how much more Democrats plan to add to our $13 trillion national debt. It means that record spending will continue to skyrocket, unchecked as Democrats use future generations as collateral to borrow from China. If our spending and debt crisis is not addressed lower economic growth ensues and Americans will see a much a lower standard of living. Higher taxes, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, less opportunity, and exploding borrowing all threaten to take their toll if spending and deficits are not curbed. In addition, countries with too much debt lose credibility on the international stage and extreme borrowing on the part of nations is a direct threat to their national security. The House Democrats failure to address our national fiscal crisis by refusing to pass a budget because of political calculations is an appalling abdication of duty. see http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/06/24/democrats-refuse-to-pass-a

How quickly the DEMOCRATS - FORGET their past...

What does the past have to do with now? Republicans have owned the house for 4 months and haven't passed a budget that will make it through the Senate either. The fact of the matter, this is not about dollars and about and end around on social issues by the Repubs to tie them to budget matters as a way to get them passed since they won't get passed any other way. Same plan as WI, OH governors. America deserves better.

Are you deliberately forgetting that the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress last year, when they were suppose to get the budget done and now the Republicans, with a majority only in the House of Representative have to deal with the remaining Tax and Spend Democratically controlled Senate and White House? Yeah, America deserves better that left wing spin on this budget impasse issue.

To add to that I believe the Democrats didn't pass a budget in November is because they wanted a fairer playing field. They bent to the Republicans then and have now. What the Neocons don't realize is that they are in power only in the House of Representatives. Their answer is to block any progress in Government so they can try to sweep in 2012. I am scared as hell that the Pubs will again start the process of taking away our Constitutional Rights and giving the Wealthy more CONTROL in the world. If you don't know it's the truth then You are either wealthy or ignorant.

America deserves better than Obama yes I agree 100%

Are you deliberately forgetting that the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress last year, when they were suppose to get the budget done and now the Republicans

So are you saying you are unhappy that Dems allowed a fully bipartisan contribution to the budget debate, exactly as they said they would?

You would have preferred that Repubs have no say on this budget at all?

rarabird,

Because the DEMOCRATS want to blame the Republicans for this mess.

When they CAUSED IT... Washington Democrats canceled the 2011 budget last year, making it the first time in the modern era that the House has not passed a budget.

Obama has submitted the 2012 budget and AGAIN little action from the House...

BTY - The House is suppose to have their budget ready by 15 Apr... We will see if the Republicans will have one ready to submit to the Senate...

Washington POLITICS is dysfunctional and needs to be CHANGED... And keep CHANGING them until they understand, they were ELECTED to represent the PEOPLE and do their JOB...

This is now all about Pap Smears for Cervical Cancer! W T F! Title 1 (Planed Parenthood) was proposed and implemented by a Republican President (Richard Nixon) and co-sponsored by George Herbert Bush. This is not about the numbers - this is about not providing woman with Birth Control. Now if I was more inclined to a cynical mind set maybe this is actually about intentionally tanking the economy (further) and blaming it own Obama in 2012. These idiots will put your daughters, sisters and wives at risk and even your job and the economy to pander to their far right base. Again W T F!

Lets think about this a bit here. The Senate majority leader want the House majority leader to sell his party members on the Democratic partys approach to running the government. It seems like the Democrats tried that back in early November with the American voters and they were soundly rejected. Are Mr. Reid and his cronies really that stupid that they haven't got the message yet? I guess they are like drug additcs and need to be forced into a rehab facility of some sort.

Let's think about this some more. As usual, the Republicans think that winning one chamber entitles them to get on their pulpit once again and lecture women about what the can and cannot do, constitution be damned. If you believe this is about "fiscal responsibility" --when even they don't claim this does anything--ANYTHING--to reduce the deficit since you've got more going to tax breaks than you have to budget cuts---I've got a bridge to sell you.

What part of "American GDP and corporate profits are at their highest levels ever" don't you understand?

The truth is that there is the same or more money in the American economy as there ever was. The difference is where it's going:

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

There's a class war on, all right, and people like you are fighting like mercenaries for those who are decimating America. The difference is, mercenaries usually get paid.

(If you like those charts, here's a whole article full of them: It's the Inequality, Stupid. Read it and weep.)

This is about party lines and the political children in Washington. The true cost is no longer the issue of whats best for Americans but what is best for the party the politician belongs to.

I dont understand how the govt. can just shut down. my son is fighting in Iraq along with several thousand men and women all over the world. he just told me the military took almost 2/3 of his paycheck due to budget cuts. i think these men and women have enough stress to deal with without somebody taking food from their families. if anyone have their pay cut it should be the ones in washington and not the ones who put their lives on the line everyday to protect the idiots that cant agree and run this country

The "big, bad Democrat supermajority" was a myth, or rather, right-wing corporate-funded propaganda to hide their actions.

Remember the GOP threw up every roadblock, filibuster, dirty trick and secret hold they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass.

So let's take a look at that "super-majority", shall we:

January 3, 2009 - 111th Congress sworn in. 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

July 7, 2009 – Al Franken seated. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY.

August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

September 25, 2009 – Paul Kirk appointed to Teddy Kennedy's seat. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY.

February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.

June 28, 2010 – Robert Byrd dies. Byrd had missed over 90% of the votes in 2010 and almost 50% in 2009 due to illness. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

November 29, 2010 - Mark Kirk sworn in to replace Roland Burris. 56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents.

So that "huge, overwhelming super-majority"? It existed only for a total of 6 months AND only during two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote AND required them to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.

Let's put the blame for this mess where it's due.

AP if you feel personally responsible for paying for other peoples abortions and other problems I suggest that you give directly to thos instutions providing those services. This is not my responsibility and the government has no right to tax me or spend the resources of the US population in this persuit. This government has and continues to persue fiscal policies that have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. This is not like you running away from your credit card debt or defaulting on your mortage, but will improvrish the entire nation. The results will not only remove any hope of any type of clinical help for the poor, but will result in total colapse of the society including in the lack of food distribution. Think a bit futher than your political retoric and the results of not being able to aquire oil on the open market because of worthless money. We will no longer be able to grow or distribute food to our cities resulting in tens of millions starving to death. Are your social feel good policies worth that to you?

Seriously rarabird? "What does the past have to do with now?" That is the most asinine comment. Yeah, history shouldn't be learned from at all in your opinion it seems.

What I don't understand is how our armed forces don't get paid because these politicians can't make an agreement. Has nothing to do with the armed men and women! I'd like to see their butts in Iraq or Afghanistan and getting THAT news.

It is simple to understand how the government can shut down, you just have to be old enough to remember the mid 90s, when republicans held hostage the house of representatives, and forced the senate to wait for a budget to be passed. In our political structure the house must submit a budget to the senate as well as the senate must submit a budget too. If the house does not submit a budget this holds the senate back from passing a resolution to submit to the president for approval or veto. Now john boehner has proven to weak and unable to lead his party in the house. He is a cry baby and scared to stand up to extremist within the house of representatives, aka tea party idiots. I remember when newt gingrich shut down the government before. His actions are the exact same as john crybaby boehner!

Looking at the tactics used by the democrats during Obama's administration, it would truly be naive to think that the democrats did not pass a budget just to make it fair. They used every trick in the book to force the health care bill on us, even bribing Senators and then reneging on their own bribes.

The deficit spending during Obama's term is right at $4 trillion. If you add in Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, we are going in debt way over a trillion dollars a year. The exact numbers can be argued because some of the deficit spending has to do with the health care bill which effects Medicare and Medicaid, etc. You can't argue the fact that regardless of the numbers the amount of spending during Obama's term was unheard of and unimaginable before now.

The democrats could have passed this budget last year as it should have been. They had the House, Senate, and President. No excuses!

They did not pass it because they know their spending is out of this world and it will sink America. It seems like another democrat end round on the American people. They have been spending the money with out voting on it (the budget). Now we have to vote on the budget after it is already being spent. Instead of voting on what we will spend, we are voting on what we can't spend but have already spent.

It seems obvious they did not pass the budget for one of three reasons. One, it is so high, they could not even pass it through a Democrat house, democrat Senate, and democrat President. Second, it is so high, they didn't want to take the blame for what is clearly their own spending. Now they can pass a budget that is already being spent and call it bipartisan. Last, They could never have gotten a budget like this passed without spending it first. It would have been a tremendous increase to the budget but will now be looked at as budget cuts.

Thank You RealAmericansFirst for getting the facts out there! The Republicans gain control of the House in an midterm election with poor turnout with 19% of the electorate voting for them and immediately want to dictate the terms of the budget debate. From the get go the Rebublicans have wanted maximum damage that they could try and paint Obama and the Democrats with. It's not about anything to do with the American people only the Republicans kind of people.

Hey Oldpilot, newsflash: You aren't ever going to have a 100% Public agreement on where Gov funds should go. You're asking people to directly donate to causes like PP that they support? Well why the hell are MY tax dollars goign to Big Oil Subsidies when they're making record profits? Why did GE get a 3.2 Billion dollar return? I don't want my tax dollars going to those places, but it's funny how I don't hear the Repubs (You included, whatever affiliation you are) complaining about those.

If Speaker Boehner was really "damn serious", would he be adding contentious political issues onto this federal budget bill?

GOP/TP are creating a crisis in order to quickly push through unpopular legislation which has no chance of passing under normal circumstances.

This tactic is being used across the country at the State level, so don't be hypnotized.

Ed

A favorite tactic for people like yourself is to make an argument against
something as if the other party stated it in their own position. This is as blatantly
dishonest as our politicians in Washington. I personally believe that our
entire tax and welfare system for
individuals as well as corporations will destroy this nation unless it is
fixed. Wrong is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

Wow. It is amazing how many people can't or wont look at the facts. Even when we have the best life style on the planet and its not enough for them. Their greed makes them say spend more. They want even more entitlements. Even if their children and grandchildren become poppers trying to scratch a living out of the dirt.

Ed your tax money does not go to "big oil". No matter how many times you say it a tax cut is not the same as a subsidy. To say your taxes go to them, means they pay no taxes and receive money from the government. This is just not true. As far as GE goes, as just a personal preference, they should go bankrupt for their part in playing up to government and their part in the health care bill.

Don't forget we would not even be talking about this if the democrats had just passed their budget. I guess they just couldn't though. Also, the republicans tried to pass a measure to insure that the military would be paid even in the case of a government shut down. It was the democrats that said no to this. To blame this on republicans is ridiculous. All they had to do is pass it last year, as it should have been done.

Backhouse

In answer to your question "If Speaker Boehner was really "damn serious", would he be adding contentious political issues onto this federal budget bill?" Of course he would. He infact has to. Those are the only things that can be cut. Nobody can cut programs that every one agrees too.

This is absolutely about the deficit. It is not about womens health or abortions. That is just how the democrats chose to upset you.

Paying Attention, I see your take but you're a bit jumbled up.

You're right when you say "it is not about ...abortions", for example, among other big topics. Yes, this is not the time to try and resolve political issues which have been debated and have not been resolved for the past 30 plus years.

Now is not the time to try and hurry contentious legislation through the budget process and point fingers at those 'pesky Democrats' who want to stick to the core goal of keeping Government doors open.

The bare bones was agreed to some time ago. No need to shut the government down and hurt millions of people. Plenty of time to address such political agendas later.

BOOM.........................

I like Seeing big Balls of Fire.. i dont care what president approves it..

BOOM

But that isn't President Obama's responsibility, is it?

What...?

Really...?

You don't say.

But...what do Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have to say about it?

Really?

OK.

Maybe you're right.

Maybe it is.

let's send bev and fiesty to duke it out with reid, the three of them would have been good candidates for starring in the new 3 stooges movie.

Does no one find it offensive that the republican's "budget cuts" primarily take the form of cuts to programs that help individuals and the environment. It seems shocking to me that they are somehow able to frame this as "We're damn serious [about not selling out the American people]." Does anyone really buy that? Where are the cuts to expenditures that limit expenditures go to large corporations and the military industrial complex?

Coupled with the recent tax break fight, it seems the republican's agenda is (i) maintain lower taxes for the wealthy and (ii) fund said lower taxes on the wealthy by cutting benefits to average individuals, not large corporations.

Pretty cynical...but wouldn't expect anything else from politicians.

Disabled FR User - True

Geraldo Rivera, just back from Libya after being embedded with the "rebels" says...

"Those rebels are so disorganized they couldn't take a Wal-Mart"

You don't think Geraldo drew a line in the sand for Gadhiff troops like he did in Iraq; do you?

That could be confusing.

Amazing, huh........ now Obama's innocent civilian rebel are calling us dogs.

Obama jumps in and Gadghafi puts his guys in white Toyota pick-ups. How do you pick out which with pick-up truck to shoot when yo're cranking along at 575 MPH above the hard deck? Then the rebels hop into Gadhafi tanks start driving around and get blown up!

Who is running this war ....... Admiral Abbott and Colonel Costello?

Funny that you don't hear a word it either. Did Obama end the war and is going on vacation to announce it later to us?

On the not so funny part, there are reports that the rebels sold 2,000 mustard gas shells and 1,200 nerve gas shells to Iran. (They have also looted surface-to-air missiles for al-Qaeda.) Iranian Gaurd agents as well as the Hizbo and Hamas boys have been trying to get them to Lebanon through the Sudan.

Good news is that a white Hydundai Sinai spontaneously blew up somewhere between Atbara and Khartoum. Apparently a missile came out of nowhere and accidently struck the poor terrorist's leaders. There were reports of evidence of helecopter wash and some vessel in the Red Sea. (At least the Israelis still have a pair) An Iranian ID was found on one of the crispy corpses. No word on the 3,200 shells.

Another good job Obama - time to take a vacation?

I like Seeing big Balls of Fire

What a guy!

Bob,

Boom.. My motto has always been. If it moves Blow it up.. I think Obama and i finally agree on soemthing...

Look, I've been playing a lot of Pokémon lately and trying my damnedest to not pay attention to the eternal @!$%#-storm, but didn't the French sucker us into this Libyan shin-dig?

Have I got that right, or was this another balls-to-the-wall charge we took the lead on?

One eyed Undertaker. The government shutdown will help in stopping the military machine, because WE WON'T GET PAID. But will be expected to work for free and find other ways to pay our bills. So who out there thinks we should be forced to work for free. Sounds a bit like slavery to me.

Geraldo Rivera, just back from Libya after being embedded with the "rebels" says...

Good thing nobody listens to that turd anymore. What a has been ....lol

So who out there thinks we should be forced to work for free. Sounds a bit like slavery to me.

The Christ of the GOP (The Corporation) would love nothing more than to make you work for free or at least minimum wage (if they have to). No OSHA, no safety, no benefits, no accountability, no taxes.....etc etc etc

dragon - based on the rhetoric obama and company used on how must go, I would say that obama and company were more than happy to help with little persuasion by sarkozy. 120 + tomahawk missles launched and marines standing by must mean something.

Just wish America would get a foreign policy plan together for the middle east. All we got was a peace treaty brokered by carter.

Exodite Dragon-

"It's time for Gaddafi to go."

Closely followed by President Obama's announcement that the U.S. would intervene militarily.

Closely followed by actual U.S. military intervention.

Have you listened to what Secretary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice have said about Gaddafi's future?

What game are they playing, E.D.?

What am I missing?

The French?

What about what the U.S. has said and done?

Welcome back, by the way.

:-]

This political spinning is making me nauseaus....This is all about fiscal responsibility and cuts need to be made to help reduce the deficit...What an irony, people bitch because we are so far in debt, but when proposals for cuts against discretionary programs are presented, those same people hit the roof...Stop this crap...we need to curb spending period.

I agree with ctdad. The photos on the front of this article, please. MSN makes Boehner look goofy and lost, while Reid is suppose to look in control. Shut her down is all I have to say and cut the spending until it bleeds.

Hey guys, you can cut all of discretionary spending and we would still be spending more than we take in. It is time to figure a responsible tax policy. Something is wrong when large corporations make record profits by shipping jobs over seas and also get huge tax RETURNS at the end of year. Wake up folks, "America is for sale, and you can get a good deal on it, and make a healthy profit"-Bad Religion.

What about abolishing the federal reserve bank and establishing a national bank like... oh... i don't know... the rest of the industrialized world.

How much is our interest debt to them these days? Anybody know off hand? Who owns all those "reserve notes" anyway...?

Ha ha. What a crock. These budget cuts don't even address the crust that solidified on the top of the icing on the cake.

@ Zach: That's right, but have no fear. We too can be the new cheap labor force... for Germany... for China...

Claudia - I agree. All we have to do is look at the bills the Republican House put forward immediately after they were sworn in and we can see clearly they had a bullseye on women and abortion/reproductive rights. It's all about the ideology and not about the jobs. Shame, shame on the Republicans and their Teabagger constiuents.

Makes you wish the Dems had passed a budget back in August when they controlled both Congress and the White House doesn't it? I guess they were busy then.

Hmm, let's take a look. The President presented his budget roughly 450 days ago. The current fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2010. You mean to tell me the democrats aren't playing politics? Give me a break. These guys moved heaven and earth to pass the health care bill. They could have found negotiating room with the three republican senators in the northeast to get this done before the fiscal year started. Same deal with tax situation. If the democrats were so sure that the American people were on their side regarding budget and tax policy, they should have got it done when they had overwhelming command of congress. But no, they chose to hide behind party of no rhetoric and play political games. I am not here supporting republicans. I simply can't believe any reasonable person would come up with post #4.

I'm quite appalled that politicians on BOTH sides let things get this bad. What kind of )*@#% morons wait till the last freaking minute to decide on stuff this important?? Fire ALL of them I say! Democrats, republicans, independants, WHOEVER! They don't wanna do their jobs, we'll find someone that DOES!

Inthemiddle (hardly): the world Claudia lives on is called Earth you know, the one that looks like a big blue marble... You can see it from where you live, outer space.

That's funny. Every time I've heard a republican speak on ANY news organization, they constantly start every sentence with "The American people realize ..." or "The people in America see that ...". It's as if they think when they start each thought out with phrases like that, people will actually start to "realize" and "see" what they want them to see. Perhaps these Jedi mind tricks work on people from Texas.

It's also funny how republicans say they stand for small government and keeping the governments hands out of our pockets, yet it doesn't ring true when they consistently want to intervene with a woman's right to choose. Sure, feel free to take my God given rights, but don't lay a hand on my money!

The current mess is the result of one party controlling the executive and legislative branches.

The Democrats passed health care reform instead of a Budget which should have been done before Oct 1 2010. BTW 70% of Americans did not want health care reform.

Republicans a poor job during President's Bush's second term as a result democrats gained control.

A monopoly by either party is bad.

If the Democrats weren't such wusses, the would have passed a budget before the Republicans took office last November after the election. Since they didn't why don't you Demos hush.

The 'intervention' you're upset about is people not willing to fund it.

I don't think all these organizations have any sort of god-given-right to tax dollars, and would prefer not to finance them with my hard-earned paycheck.

Tax me for my troops, my social security (not a tax as much as enforced savings) and my medicare (same thing as SS, more like forced savings).

But don't tax me for those things i don't, and will never, need.

I am not my brother's keeper.

Ups - dear extreme liberal Claudia Bess - I'm afraid you are confused. The congress has put forward a budget plan - if the Democrat controlled congress rejects it and the President vetoes it, it shall be the extreme liberal party who shall deal with the outcome. Though, I'm sure all the pimps who use Planned Parenthood to keep their girls pregnancy free (read: abortions) will be bummed out. Oh, and now people can't see the cherry blossoms either - I guess they won't bloom if they don't get paid!

You extreme liberals will sell out the country to any murderous group such as Planned Parenthood rather than support our troops. Sickening that Obama considers the separate budget component to fund the military to be a distraction. What kind of Commander-in-Chief would sell out his military just because he is dead set on giving away free abortions to enslaved under-aged prostitutes in order to keep their pimps in business? That was a rhetorical question - the answer is: An extreme liberal. What kind of people support that kind of Commander-in-Chief? Extreme liberals?

I think the majority of Americans, and now a growing majority, are realizing how extreme the liberal party can be. They refuse to balance a budget - which means they accept openly that they want this country to go bankrupt.

Jay and American:

What many Americans believe is that we can't fund everything, anymore.

What conservatives (most Republican, some Democtratic (though fewer), Tea Party ("Tea Baggers" I love how you have to denigrate that which with you disagree) say is that social programs, which have previously grown largely unchecked, now have to be cut, too.

I have no problem with health care for the poor (regardless of gender), but to say that funded abortions are part of that is simply not true. I don't want to restrict birth control or PAP smears, or even abortions in the case of health of the mother (up to 15 weeks or so), but I don't think that the EPA should receive a funding increase (and that's what it was) to create new bueracracy for regulating greenhouse gasses. Do that within the budget that already exists (probably by cutting something that isn't as important).

The real problem with government programs is they become little funded kingdoms, and we've come to the point where there has to be a stand. Now, we can partially fund 10 programs (a hypothetical number) to total ineffectiveness OR we can fully fund 4 and they will work. We'd love to have the time to rate the relative merits of all, but hopefully the managers of those entities has already done that, because they've got less coming in now, and what's there needs to be distributed properly.

If we don't do this my eventual grandchildren will be living in a United States that resembles Eastern Europe or worse economically. When thing return to normal and our fiscal house is in order we can fund our wants and our needs.

Until then, we just need to suffer through this until it is fixed. I don't care who makes the stand, I'm just happy someone is doing it.

Laurie,

As a taxpayer, I am not willing to pay anybody to murder babies. If Planned Parenthood wants my money, all that they need to do is STOP KILLING BABIES. The rest of their services seem honorable.

jbr-- The republicans are not interfering with a womans right to choose, the can choose all the like they just have to pay for it. Why should the gov't pay for them just because they get pregnant and get buyers remorse. All this about 1/3 of PP's budget. All those concerned could do a fundraiser and recoup the money. I'm also for cuts in defense and restructuring ss and medicare, cutting subsidies to oil companies, chambers and aid to all these countries that hate us.

Pondering - you extreme right -wing nut-jobs will sell out the country to any murderous group such as the Koch Bros and Big Oil rather than support our troops. You're a conservative, which means you hate America and only support those fascists who are elected as Republicans. Why do you people hate America as you do? Why don't you Conservatives "man-up" and support our troops? What has America done to you that would make you want to destroy it?

P.S. That's how you people sound. Just pissed off because you can't afford a double-wide...

Bill - What part of the Hyde Amendment don't you understand? Why do you keep insisting that federal dollars are spent by Planned Parenthood on abortions when you know full well that's an outright lie by the extreme right in this country. What you are trying to defund, sir, and I use the term loosely, is health care services for poor and low income women and men around this country. It's easy to demagogue an issue however the rest of the country is on to you and your extreme friends who would rather lie about an issue to get your way instead of doing it the honorable way.....which is bring the bill up on the floor, debate the issue and see if you can get it passed through two houses and signed by the President. No you would rather try to get your way by stealth insertion into a budget bill. Stop the BS lying Bill. Do your homework. Look up the facts and then be quiet if you still want to lie to yourself and the rest of the country.

So... if you don't agree with abortion... you should get to choose not to pay taxes? If I don't agree with the way our military is being used, do I get the same "right"? Is there a checklist somewhere so that I can sign up for only those programs that each of I personally approve of?

greg shep- you see the bigger picture, when revenues were bountiful everyone had an idea of how to enrich americans lives and their was $$$ to do so. Unfortunately no one looked down the road to see the dangers of such legislation or to see that continuing to reduce taxes and increasing deductions would lead to our present dilema.

The american taxpayer had certain expectations on government services but failed to understand its future cost, the government workers had certain expectations on wages and bennies but failed to understand its future cost and state and federal government just kept on spending and borrowing, made no difference what party.

the following explains it quite well.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11559

Please keep in mind that no party has "overwhelming control of congress" without 60+ guaranteed votes in the senate! There is tremendous power in the filibuster and similar manuevers.

We have become a nation of politically self-absorbed zealots...It's actually tragic...It's the my way or the highway attitude...Some people don't give a damn about anything except for the own political ideology. Anyone brave enough to express a viewpoint that differs is immediately presumed left or right and vilified...It's disgusting...I truly fear for my kids' future and based upon this sad reality has me seriously considering leaving this country....You fail to realize that this childish attitude will systemically destroy this country. I can only hope, thru attrition, that those suffering this disease will soon leave this Earth.

Paul Ryan's Tax Plan [and his numbers] Based On Discredited Heritage Foundation Analysis That Forecast Bush Boom

Excerpts:

One particular laugh line from Paul Ryan's budget proposal is his citation of the Heritage Foundation as the analytic basis for his claim that it will boost growth.

I wonder if the Heritage Foundation has ever looked at the myriad benefits of tax cuts for the rich before.

It turns out they have!

Specifically, they promised us that George W Bush's tax policies would lead the country into a brave new era of prosperity.

In fact by the end of 2009, payroll employment in the United States was back down to 2001 levels despite population growth.

Heritage also claimed Bush's tax cuts would boost tax revenue ("the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010?) when in fact it led to record deficits, and they promised a surge in personal income when in fact we got the worst income performance ever.

So keep in mind that this is the metric by which Paul Ryan wants you to judge him. If you believe George W Bush unleashed an unprecedented economic boom with great jobs performance, rising incomes, and the paying off of the national debt then you'll find a lot to like about Rep Ryan's plan.

After this story broke, the Heritage Foundation scrubbed their website of the numbers that Rep. Ryan based his House Republican "Path to Property" Budget Plan on, and the Foundation suggested that they would have to take a look at their numbers again.

The Heritage Foundation has since refused to return phone calls to anyone in the Press.

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

And here's a re-post to the House Republican's controversial list of RIDERS that they keep demanding that they remain in all versions of the HR1 Budget Bill. If the below link isn't visible for some of our readers, you can do a Google search on: " OMB Watch HR1 Policy Riders "

Policy Riders in H.R.1

The following are brief descriptions and locations of provisions included in the continuing resolution (H.R. 1) passed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 19, 2011.

These provisions appear in the introduced version of the bill and in subsequently approved amendments. This list is not comprehensive.

www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf

I think the whole thing is a joke and a "ploy", so that Obama can get back involved and "save the day" and get the gov't back running again. Election ratings?

Kostonian - Wait, I thought republicans were supposed to be the rich guys in favor of no taxes for the rich and only tax the poor, now you attempt an insult saying I am mad that I can't buy a double-wide?

You are demonstrative of a left-wing-nut extremist wack-job.

What is most amusing though is to see the Libs come apart at the seems when their LIES and demagoguery no longer working. The extreme left-wing-nut fringe, which is screaming in the left ear of Dingy Harry, are keeping the Democrat party from making choices that will help bring the country back from certain bankruptcy.

sure - both parties have spent their share - one party, the Republican party, is finally 'manning-up' to stop that trend. But the extreme wing-nuts who want to bankrupt the country won't budge an inch. Hey - when we have NO MORE MONEY - who is going to pay for the abortions at planned parent hood then? Who will pay for health care, social security... You pretend to be lovers of people - but you HATE people - you will sell them out for power.

The Democrat party and the Government do have one thing in common - they need each other to survive. It is clear and undeniable. Without the Democrats, the Fed Gov gets smaller. With the bloated and ever growing Fed Goverment, the Democrat party is USELESS. The only way that the Democrats can win votes these days is to BUY them. Let's create "SOCIAL JUSTICE" programs that enslave Americans - who ultimately can longer fend for themselves, become completely dependent upon the government (i.e. Democrats) - and then when they uprise, we'll let them know that if they get out of line, it was the Democrats who enslaves them...errrr....are giving them their free ride in the first place.

Oh yeah - you extreme wack-job liberals sure do love America and Americans. Everything you do revolves around making people dependent upon the government. Gosh - that really sounds like love to me!

Drive by - I'm thinking that if you locked up obama, biden and congress in one room, gave a baseball bat to a blind man or women for an hour, that every politician hit could claim responsibility.

BTW - why did obama and company abandon private sector job creation??

Nope DBO - Obama's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% have been effective, don't you know?

The old employment figures are up, don't you know?

At least try to keep up, would you?

american, we're waiting for the first inkling of Boehner's jobs jobs jobs program. Now he's being pulled around by the nose by the tea baggers. Leadership you just have to laugh at.

why should boehner and company be concerned about legislating job creation. The republican plan to create jobs has always been to be more business friendly and to crete an environment that had clarity in allowing business to see down the road.

The democrats ignored business concerns until obama realized after the nov 2010 elections that maybe he needed to become more business friendly. just looking at his lame duck individual and business tax plan last december and his creation of a business consortium 1st quarter 2011. Obama did what the republicans knew on how to create private sector jobs.

"american-2051576" and "Spanky"

Do you want to talk about which party creates jobs and which one doesn't? Do you want to talk about the effect of extending Bush's Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and reducing them ten percent more, as is the proposal of the House Republicans?

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

FACTCHECK.ORG

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.

January 7, 2011

Summary

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

¦Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

¦The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
¦The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.

¦The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.

Here’s what the NFIB report said about job gains, on page 20:

NFIB Research Foundation, Jan. 26, 2009: The employer mandate would boost demand for healthcare goods and services, thereby increasing employment in healthcare-related sectors. The number of ambulatory healthcare professionals (physicians, dentists, and other healthcare practitioners) needed will increase by 330,000. An additional 327,000 staff will be required to work in hospitals. Some 157,000 more nurses (net of retirements) will be needed to staff doctors’ offices, outpatient clinics, and other provider locations. And payrolls at insurance companies will expand by 76,000 workers.

That comes to 890,000 new jobs.

Although the new law relies more on an individual mandate — requiring nearly everybody to obtain coverage on their own if their employers don’t provide it — the resulting increase in demand for health care services, prescription drugs and other goods would be the same. To repeat, CBO estimates that the law will result in 32 million additional persons with health coverage.

The NFIB study cautioned that some of those 890,000 new jobs might not be filled right away if the increased demand outstrips the health care system’s ability to meet it. But even so, it amounts to a sizeable offset to the jobs likely to be lost due to the employer mandate.

--------

Sources:

Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update." Aug 2010.
Republican House leadership. "Obamacare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law." 6 Jan 2011.
Chow, Michael J. and Bruce D. Phillips. "Small Business Effects of a National Employer Healthcare Mandate." NFIB Research Foundation. 26 Jan 2009.
Sheils, John, senior vice president, The Lewin Group. Interview with FactCheck.org. 7 Jan 2011.
U.S. House. H.R. 2. Introduced 5 Jan 2011.
Congressional Budget Office. "Effects of Changes to the Health Insurance System on Labor Markets." 14 Jul 2009.
Novak, Viveca and Lori Robertson. "Health Care and the Economy." FactCheck.org. 17 Nov 2009.
"Small Business Looks to the New Congress to Repeal the Healthcare Law." NFIB website, accessed 7 Jan 2011.
Cutter, Stephanie. "Repealing the Affordable Care Act will Hurt the Economy." WhiteHouse.gov. 7 Jan 2011.
House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, GOP staff. "The Budgetary Consequences of the President’s Health Care Overhaul." accessed 7 Jan 2011.
Congressional Budget Office. "Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." 6 Jan 2011.
Foster, Richard. "Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ as Amended." Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 22 Apr 2010.

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

Homer S.

Two greatest economic myths of the Republican platform:

1. The recession will be solved by cutting spending... WRONG - every recession has been reversed by increased spending on things that have lasting value NOT by cutting every program they can get their hands on.

2. Tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate the economy... WRONG - they stimulate the luxury economy and leave the remainder in shambles. (survey released today said that 1/3 of small business owners are considering getting out of their chosen business - see how great those tax cuts are trickling down ?)

#5.2 - Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:26 AM HST

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

Extending Bush Tax Cuts [or tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy] WON'T CREATE JOBS, Says Leading Economist

Excerpts:

"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GOP, by contrast, is aiming to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board, and has tried to block the billions in deficit spending to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Blinder said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would only exacerbate an ever-increasing income gap.

"One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were...adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy tht was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality," he said. "I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top."

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

Why was the GDP 4 times higher, (with half the unemployment), in the 1950's with a 92% top tax rate, than it is now with a 35% top tax rate?

Or to put it another way:

Why was the middle class growing so fast in the 1950's with a top tax rate of 92%, when it is shrinking today with a 35% top tax rate on the rich?

rradiko - you are way too easy to disprove most of what you try to conclude from the sources you site.

The biggest falsehood you proclaim "factual" deals with any studies you site concerning any aspect of the "obamacare" health plans done prior to the writing of the government regs required to impliment the plan. Since all regs have not been written yet, or for that matter won't take effect until 2014 - 2016. Any privatre and government financial costs or job projections are just that, an estimate of what MAY happen

from your fact check source you state...

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.

Really? From your sources, it seems that no one knows what the job gains/losses will be. Hard to misrepresent facts that are not known.

regardless the known facts about obamacare are that McDonalds is seeking a waiver from it and that many states are also seeking waivers from it as well. Care to elaborate?

The NFIB report has no value since it was published in Jan 26, 2009. Within a week of obama inauguration.

As for Blimders statement or even those of economists Mark Zandi stating a multiplier effect of 1.6 to 1.7 for those budgetary $$$ for food stamps and unemployment as being true, think about this "with such a high stimulas effect why would the government ever take anyone off unemployment or food stamps?"

I am thinking that Bloombergs earlier analysis really puts the multiplier effect at just over 1. But hey, we are talking theory, not fact since economics is not an exact science like math or physics.

Tax cuts for the rich doen't stimulate the economy? Hogwash! It may not be just the US economy but on a global basis stimulation occurs. How many wealthy individuals do you know that lets their excess cash just sit around? They invest it or they spend it, and every $ spent trickles thru the economy just like anyone elses $ does

Blinder was right that tax cuts may widen income gaps. Regardless, why didn't the democrats address this earlier, say in 2007?

Why did obama start following the republican plan of being more business friendly with business tax cuts, credits and incentives in Dec 2010?

Why did the FED institute QE2 and still maintains a very low interest rate for borrowing if not to encourage business growth and thereby jobs? You know increase the money supply like tax cuts do.

Rather telling on your gullibilty when you state...

Tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate the economy... WRONG - they stimulate the luxury economy and leave the remainder in shambles. (survey released today said that 1/3 of small business owners are considering getting out of their chosen business - see how great those tax cuts are trickling down ?)

As mentioned above, perhaps not always in the US, But don't the wealthy eat? Buy shelter? Buy/pay for transportation? I know I do and I am not even close to being monetarily wealthy. Don't the rich pay others for legal and financial services? Pay for homecare and maintenace? Travel? That is all trickle down just as every $ spent by anyone is trickle down.

Your concept of "trickle down" correlating with business owners is false. Just ask the guy that got out of the buggy whip business if it was due to "trickle down"

Better yet why don't you open up a small business of your own and hire your own employees??

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

Why was the GDP 4 times higher, (with half the unemployment), in the 1950's with a 92% top tax rate, than it is now with a 35% top tax rate?

Or to put it another way:

Why was the middle class growing so fast in the 1950's with a top tax rate of 92%, when it is shrinking today with a 35% top tax rate on the rich?

I do so like these questions (even if they really aren't the same) but you need to put it within the context of the following.

We had the manufacturing capacity and manpower to rebuild europe and asia after WWll whereas they didn't.

The cold war and space race stimulated our economy to keep pace with the soviets.

Eisenhower saw the strategic advantages of creating the interstate highway system from both a military as well as private point of view.

High tax rates paid of our war debt faster and increased worker productivity increased GDP.

Increased productivity also led to more free time and the ability to buy more consumer goods to increase our standard of living and with decreasing government debt came decreasing taxes

Increasing availability of credit. You know... you can take your toy home today if you just make these easy monthly payment. Housing was understandable and maybe even the first car, but the rest?

Other than the current effects of the great recession who says that the middle class won't come back? After all, we have a recession here in the US every 7-12 years. And after everyone the required skill sets to be productive increases.

What are your answers to your questions above?

Thanks for playing the game, I suggest you read up on US history since WWll and take coursework in micro and macro economics

Steve - Ignorance is no excuse on your part. 90% of the services Planned Parenthood provides are health care services including cancer screenings for cervical and breast as well as STD screenings, infertility counseling, HIV testing, contraceptive information, diabetes testing, etc. Millions of women of limited means use Planned Parenthood for their health services. Only 10% of Planned Parenthood's services are as an abortion provider and those funds are from private sources. So get yourself educated on the facts, sir.

Seems to me the democrats had plenty of time to get the ball rolling on this budget and chose not to. I blame both sides for playing pathetic political games instead of doing their freaking jobs! Fire them all!

Laurie: And it is working too, note the reduction of population in the U. S. ,not from abortion but from birth control.

laurie - planned parenthood can't survive without federal funding?? Why not? we are talking about cuts to discretionary spending, you know optional programs! programs really not critical to government operations.

Nice

american-2051576

laurie - planned parenthood can't survive without federal funding?? Why not? we are talking about cuts to discretionary spending, you know optional programs! programs really not critical to government operations.

• !

#6.5 - Fri Apr 8, 2011 12:41 PM PDT
Dont you know Abortion is Critical to Government Operations

Planned parent hood does NOT provide cancer screening....so stop with the BS talking point.

Laurie, If Planned Parenthood is so helpful, then why don't they simply STOP killing babies? If they do, the funding will continue. Why should taxpayers pay for murder? Most of us do not support abortion but we do support the other services.

Laurie - BUT WAIT - won't Obama care take care of all these poor deprived republican-battered women? Isn't planned parenthood now a redundant waste of tax payer money?

Paul,

Planned parenthood DOES provide cancer screening...so stop with the BS.

Maybe Paul doesn't know what a pap smear is:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/pap-tests-hpv-tests-19875.htm

I guess that wouldn't be the first righty to argue in disregard of the facts.

• The Hyde amendment prevents public funds going to abortions.
• PP uses PRIVATE donations to fund any abortion activities.
• What Republicans are doing is trying to use the funding PP gets to provide NON - abortion health services as a means to impose their social agenda.
• Your tax dollars do not now, nor will they ever, pay for abortions so stop living in your Fox induced delusion.

This is the man getting in your business plain and simple so how does that mesh with limited govt?

Behind The Assault On Planned Parenthood

WASHINGTON -- The House Republican move to strip federal funds from the nation's most well-known reproductive health care provider as part of its budget last week was the culmination of a multi-year effort that involved parallel action by top Republicans and conservative media operatives playing up the work of a California college student who has been creating surreptitious videos of Planned Parenthood employees for years.

Planned Parenthood does not use federal money to pay for abortions, which make up a sliver of its operations; its opponents argue that money is fundible and that any tax dollars going to the organization indirectly subsidize abortions.

The student, Lila Rose, is the president of an organization called Live Action that pays actors to walk into Planned Parenthood offices with hidden cameras, much as James O'Keefe did to undermine the community-organizing group ACORN. The Live Action stars pretend to be a pimp and a prostitute engaged in human trafficking and looking for birth control, STD testing and abortions.

The videos that the organization puts out can be convincing and disturbing -- and in at least two cases were found by Planned Parenthood to be legitimate cause for dismissals -- but thorough, frame-by-frame reviews of the full-length videos show that what is posted on YouTube often bears little relation to what happened in reality, due to heavy editing that alters the meaning of conversations...and found instances of editing that dramatically alter the meaning of the recorded conversations.

At a Milwaukee clinic, Rose claimed to find an employee pushing a woman to have an abortion, saying in an April 2010 press release that the Planned Parenthood staffer "emphasizes the difficulties of adoption [and] urges the woman to obtain an abortion as soon as possible." In fact (in the complete, unedited version of the video that Rose was reluctant to release), the [Planned Parenthood] staffer repeatedly counseled the woman to give the decision deep thought and reminded her frequently that she could change her mind up until the end.

Last Friday, the day the House moved to defund Planned Parenthood, Glenn Beck devoted the entirety of his hourlong Fox News show to the organization and brought Rose into the studio to narrate some of her videos -- clips that were spliced to create conversations that never happened.

The assault on Planned Parenthood is one part of the movement against abortion rights. House Republicans proposed banning federal funds that cover abortion in cases of rape if the attack was not "forcible," but backed down after a public outcry. In South Dakota, the GOP was pushing legislation that would appear to make it legal to murder an abortion provider; a Georgia law would make miscarriages illegal under certain circumstances; Iowa lawmakers would allow deadly force to protect a fetus; Nebraska, Virginia, Kansas and Pennsylvania lawmakers are all pushing similarly extreme legislation.

( To view this news article, you can run a Google search on: " Behind The Assault On Planned Parenthood ")

Right off Planned Parenthoods website. A list of their services (varies by location)

Our committed, professional staff provides high-quality, affordable sexual and reproductive health care for millions of women, men, and teens.

Planned Parenthood health centers around the country offer you the health care you need. Our caring and knowledgeable staff provide a wide range of services. These services vary by location. They may include

Abortion
Birth Control
Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
General Health Care
HIV Testing
Mens Health Care
Pregnancy Testing & Services
STD Testing, Treatment & Vaccines
Womens Health Care

And what does it really matter, by 2014 everyone is required to have health coverage under the obamacare plan anyways. Planned Parenthoods services will no longer be needed. And, frankly, if you can't afford medical insurance, you probably should not be planning a family... right?

Planned Parenthood's listed services will still be needed so long as women exist, regardless if President Obama's HCR - Health Care Reform, exists or not.

Like it or not, the trend is -- as with the rest of the democratic, industrialized civilized world -- is to a Single Payer insurance, also known as "Socialized Medicine." One day this will come about, no matter how much an ever-farther-to-the right political party will ideologically disagree with its existence. To put it another way, they are trying to swim against the currents of a great river.

Women's medical care in specific services will still be needed. Obstetrics and gynecology, for example. I need not remind you that the assault on Planned Parenthood came primarily from the Religious Right.

Under the Tea Party Agenda, what they want is for the public sector to cease to exist in its current form because they want to reduce it to the point that it is no longer viable save to promote only their arbitrary political agenda, in the form of their extremely altered version of the U.S. Constitution.

One of their ulterior goals is to reduce the authority of the federal and the state governments to the point that no authority acting on the public interest can even tax those that can most afford to pay their fair share, specifically for themselves in the Tea Party (last I checked, they're a definite numerical minority within the nation, but their numbers are growing, thanks to Fox News), and on behalf of their corporate supporters and the wealthy.

But once they face the possibility of financially catastrophic medical care -- especially when they suffer serious physical injuries, get old and/or chronically ill, they demand that the government that they hate so much, help them out.

If essential government services are de-funded and becomes "limited," who shall they turn to for help? Shall they turn to their family, friends and a local church to administer to them the radiation cancer treatments they need to stay alive? Or will the most right-wing amongst their peers dispassionately tell these cancer victims that the reason why they are suffering, and also accuse them of turning to charity, because they weren't responsible enough as individuals to prepare for this unexpected possibility of coming down with cancer?

Shall our maimed troops and veterans that fought in G.W. Bush's Wars in the Middle East, turn to pan-handling out in the streets to scrape together enough money to keep food in their bellies and to replace their broken crutches because they cannot afford the privatized insurance plans the GOP offered to them under their scaled-down version of Medicare or the V.A.?

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

Tea Party Favorite AYN RAND took government assistance while decrying others who did the same

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.

Xenu

I'm sure she also benefited from highways, police, firefighers, etc.
No man is an island, no matter how selfish they are.

lib50

welfare checks will still go out to Democrats,

You mean like THIS welfare queen?

Man, Bachmann's family really know how to use that "socialism" - and she isn't the only republican to suck off the government teat while dissing the poor.

#7.3 - Mon Apr 4, 2011 3:11 PM HST

Ayn Rand as a role model. LMFAO. I think I just peed my pants that's so funny.

They dont want to Reveal they really dont want to cut anything ..

JAS1: unfortunately, the appropriations bills have to originate in the house, the Senate can't originate one. With the current Republicans in the Senate any amendment of an existing bill (eliminating the social issue defunding - i.e. the healthcare law, NPR, FCC, EPA, Planned parenthood, etc.) would not be allowed to come to a vote.

Because the Tea Party controls the House, no Democratic sponsored bill can make it to the floor for a vote. If the Dems did have a budget, I wonder how many Republicans would vote for it.

dirp101: JAS1: unfortunately, the appropriations bills have to originate in the house, the Senate can't originate one.

And those bills have originated in the House. The lastest CR, passed yesterday in the House, what was the vote on it in the Senate? Did Reid even call for a vote? Did he accept any amendments to it? When was the bill debated? HR 1, the bill that created the budget for remaining fiscal 2011, months ago Reid took it up in the Senate, had the right to debate it and amend it as he pleased, pass it, and take to a Conference Committee to negotiate the differences. He never did. Why is that?

So dirp, why isn't the Senate debating, legislating, and voting on the House proposals to end the impasse?

I do know that the Democrats, when they controlled the House and Senate, managed to not cause a government shutdown...

And just to be clear, the Democrats appear to have no problem with the amounts of cuts, since they have agreed to the amount originally demanded by the GOP. They take issue as to where the cuts come from, since they appear to most heavily impact women and the poor. Meanwhile, why does the GOP bill actually increase the Defense budget? Didn't the Pentagon say they don't need all the funding they have?

Clotho,

they also manged to not pass a Budget. thats why we are doing this song and Dance now..

so in Reality it is the Democrats and Presdent Obama that failed to pass a budget that infact are Responsible if the Govt does shut down

If the Republicans are truly serious about passing a budget, why don't they just pass one without all the riders ?

And yea, JAS1, I do blame the Dems. They should have bitten the bullet and put out a budget last year, before the elections. I firmly blame Nancy Pelosi for that.

At this point in time, however, there is enought blame to go around, in each party.

As one sleaveless comedian would say "they need to git 'er done."

Clotho: I do know that the Democrats, when they controlled the House and Senate, managed to not cause a government shutdown...

They caused this one. They neglected to pass the 2011 budget last year. They didn't pass it because they didn't want to go on the record and have to defend their massive deficit spending at election time. How'd that work out them again?

Clotho: And just to be clear, the Democrats appear to have no problem with the amounts of cuts,

The Democrats appear to be a lot of things, but you can never know where they stand. Why doesn't Reid take a vote on any of these bills coming out the of House? Months ago, he and his Senate voted down HR1, but they never amended the bill, passed their version of it, and took it to a Conference Committee. Yesterdays House CR bill, passed in the House, but was never brought up or voted on in the Senate.

So what do the Democrats in the Senate stand for? Think they'll ever take a vote and let us know?

dirp101: If the Republicans are truly serious about passing a budget, why don't they just pass one without all the riders ?

Because elections have consequences. And now that Obama and Reid no longer have their party in control of the House, they'll have to learn how to compromise. Apparently they haven't learned that skill yet.

Hey JoAnnaSmith1

Yea just like the Republicans forgot elections have consequences when they filibustered everything under the sun when the Democrats had full control. Why don't you pull your head out and just follow the money. The Republicans don't work for you they work for the big corporations that's why they want to defund the EPA. I wonder why that is in there? I have an idea since Joanna wants no EPA to keep tabs on big oil, and the Koch Brothers pollution, lets dump all there pollution in her front yard. She can deal with it. In fact everyone that wants to defund the EPA can have the pollution and waste dumped at there house. Sounds good to me.

that was the plan, do nothing and blame the republicans.

I'm so tired of the republicans taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the RICH. If the republicans shut down the goverment they will need to watch the 2012 elections. They will be booted out quick fast and in a hurry.

Why cant any of these elected officials unders stand that this country is not about them, they work for you and me not there special intrest. i say that the next elections is all about getting them out and putting people in that are for the american citizens. its time for the people to speak quit and quit being door mats

Wait a minute. Are you saying the President needs more power? What a turn-about. Why it seems like yesterday "Democratic Soldiers" were complaining that Bush/Cheney have usurped the power of congress by making the executive branch to powerful. You political party people would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

The - Democrat Soldier

This last year's budget (2010-2011)....Be mad at the last Congress, the Democratically controlled one for "NOT DOING THEIR FREAKIN JOB."

The current Congress is doing its' job which became one of oversight and review once it was handed to them.

I was a combat soldier during the 68 Tet aftermath. I distinctly remember two events, one a small article on the back page of a city newspaper. Two of the last corporations to leave Vietnam during the tragic fall in April of 1975 were Mobil and Exon. The other event was the oil shortage scam of 1973-74 (while tankers did figure 8's of off the Jersey coast) just shortly after the US forces pulled out of Vietnam.

What a chosen few will do to maintain their profit margin. Yes, we're in trouble (gas, food) and Nero (Democrats & Republicans alike) fiddle (the budget) while Rome burns (the USA). Young man, Pray ! We need Divine intervention more than ever......

"Greg Shep" said:

"This last year's budget (2010-2011)....Be mad at the last Congress, the Democratically controlled one for "NOT DOING THEIR FREAKIN JOB."

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

Well Greg, consider these posts:

Larry-2260635

Ward, have you had your head up your posterior for the last two and a half years? From the day the election results came in on November 2008 the Republicans set up blocks on EVERYTHING the Democrats have tried to do. They even went so far as to block the release of money for programs that were passed, namely the relief aid to Haiti as one. (Google "republican blocks haiti relief") Even before they took office in 2011 they were already blocking any last minute bills under the previous congress, namely the 2011 budget. You want to know what the Republicans stand for just Google "Republicans block".

#2.6 - Wed Apr 6, 2011 11:41 AM HST

Heartlight3

Ward - The 2011 Budget was deemed passed in the House but it could not be brought to the floor for discussion in the Senate due to Republican filibusters. Some say, they could have used reconciliation, but reconciliation is used on the final vote to pass a bill after debate. Since it never even got to the floor for discussion, it could not be voted on.

Health care was passed through reconciliation only after it had been negotiated for a year and people were so sick of all the holds and filibusters that they finally allowed debate on the floor because it was clear the Dems were going to keep fighting for it. I don't know where you could have been these last two years to have missed hearing about the obstructive tactics employed by the Republicans. The only things that got passed were things the Dems were able to get past the Republican obstruction brigade. That's where all the back room deals that everyone was so upset about came from.

#2.8 - Wed Apr 6, 2011 11:49 AM HST

Lets face it the U.S. Government sucks, Republicans are too old and stuck in the past. They think that policies that worked in the fifties will work now. Democrats are reasonably trying to halt the government shutdown but, obviously they can't seem to compromise. Two-party systems suck. We need to lower the age of people allowed in the House to 18 and 21 in the Senate. The young people need to step up not these old hacks who are to constipated by their own greed. Lobby your old ass congressman!

By "progress forward" you mean spend money we don't have?

Pat, Boston, MA

John Beohner - where are the jobs?

Oh silly me, what was I thinking? You're about to lay hundreds off thousands of people off because of a handful of screwballs in your party.

No you are not silly. It's true they are laying off thousands. Worst, the media is just breathless about their "Wonder Boy" Paul Ryan's budget shenanigans.

In fact, Bill Mayer said--It’s a fantasy document, it’s never going to happen.

[snip]

It irks me to no end that people keep calling him ‘courageous,’ the way the media never really looks into anything very deeply, they hear a buzzword, like ‘courageous’ attached to Paul Ryan, and now it’s conventional wisdom that Paul Ryan is courageous. Really? Courageous would have been going after defense and farm subsidies and corporations and rich people. His budget doesn’t do any of that, it goes after children, the poor, the jobless, the people who had the least and could least defend themselves, who had no lobbyists, this is courageous?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/bill-maher-on-paul-ryans-budget-bs-20110408

bev, at the risk of recognizing anyone from Ill, where is the dem budget?

very surprised

By "progress forward" you mean spend money we don't have?

You act as if we got 14T into debt since President Obama's been in office. That debt is as old as the Country itself and unless your position is that we shouldn't spend ANYTHING we don't have then you really just need to quit. By the way, good luck trying to balance the budget without raising taxes. I guess sacrifice only goes in one direction, huh?

I am not blaming the national debt on Obama...never said that. Just eluding to the fact that we need to trim down spending... common sense tells you that you cant spend more than you have. I merely asked the question.. if the poster thinks Obama is progressing because he is spending a crap load of money. Fair question in my opinion

pat of boston - boehner doesn't have to any more. The republican president obama has switched sides and realized thatbusiness is our friend and that business creates private sector jobs, not government. Republicans and conservatives have known this all along. Obama is just now fqollowing the republican plan of giving business tax credits, incentives and tax breaks.

I guess we all know where your allegiances lie pat, screw the private sector workers in favor of saving government workers jobs. Well sweety when you take away the ability of private sector workers to earn a living so they can pay taxes you have slit the government workers throats and your beloved government funded programs.

It is the private sector that generates the revenues necessary to maintain government jobs and fund programs.

When President Obama first came into the office and people were (ridiculously) asking for immediate results, I sided with Democrats who said, we need to give him time. Now, when it's convenient for them, Democrats try do to the very same things to the new Republican Congress. You can't have it both ways, sir!

And most insulting is the race baiting. Give me a freaking break. If you can't debate something with logic and facts throw in RACE, because that will deflect the argument away....

Grow-up and learn to convince people with your arguments instead of the "red herring" approach. This is about the unabated growth of the American government that, if unchecked, will lead to the decline of the US as a world power and will diminish our children's inheritance of the land I still love. Entitlements cannot be funded A-Z. We need to fund the important ones fully, and let the rest go for now.

"JASON" yes we have to raise taxes - On EVERYONE. Even the 47% who don't pay any (in fact, some actually get paid to live in the United States). They can pay 3% if I have to pay 39%. Everybody needs to be in on the solution so that the pain is distributed (in proportion) to all.

But any increase in revenue MUST be doubled by cuts until we are close to what most of the world considers solvency.

Greg - like your style.

I am fiscally conservative. However, I'm very socially liberal. Quit the wasteful spending NOW. Start with cutting Congress' salary! If the only point stopping passing the budget is funding Planned Parenthood, then fund it! Women will have abortions anyway! There are plenty of women who should not be having children who are---drug addicts, etc. At least let them get birth control. I have always been one who says that you cannot legislate morality--for example-Prohibition. I have voted Republican all my life, but at age 64 I'm seriously considering switching parties because of the Republicans who are in the news right now. I cannot believe the meaness I'm hearing. Anti-abortion; Trying to "cure" the gays--what ignorance. I am truly a woman without a party!

"Greg Shep" and "american-2051576"

Both of you keep calling it "Entitlements." DO you really even know what that word means?

The term "entitleme­nts" is a misnomer.

As "Tom Payned" once posted,

Social Security & Unemployme­nt, are "insurance­s".

If I pay into a insurance account, I'm not paying in to just give the money up, I'm paying so that when the terms are reached, the insurance lives up to it's end of the contract. I pay into it first, they pay out when the terms are reached.

If BagDad Bush had kept his campaign promise to keep his hands out of the "Social Security Lockbox" instead of using it as collateral & offsets for his two tax cuts while waging two off the books wars, that money would still be there.

Now, Washington says we must cut it because its going to cost us to replace what we stole.

Sorry, I don't buy into the big lie.

You should stop repeating it.

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

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

I could not agree with you more rradiko. The idiots on the right got ripped off with the rest of us and are now defending the thief's. wow! Does that make any sense?

Bev You really can't be serious using Bill Maher or Rolling Stone as sources. Don't you have anything better than those 2.

You are correct, "Seattle Ryan".

Amazing how they'll "FLIP-FLOP" on any issue when it's arbitrarily convenient for them to do so at the time. All they need is Fox News commentators and Rush Limbaugh to rewrite history at their convenience.

The very fact that the right-wing will so easily and arrogantly accuse the old, the handicapped, the unemployed and the less fortunate in our nation of their suffering, because they were supposedly not being individually responsible enough in their personal lives, tells us volumes about their mindset lacking in any human compassion or situational understanding of the human dynamics in our lives.

One commenter in this section even stated that "I am not your brother's keeper," and he and his peers said in so many words, why should they pay taxes to help anyone in anything he didn't believe in.

So I find it amazing how these people call themselves "Christians," and/or yet conveniently ignore the fact that taxation is required as it is stated in the U.S. Constitution ...a document they proudly say they defend. Funny how they don't want to comply to specific content within their own belief systems when it doesn't suit them.

Thus, it doesn't surprise me of their hypocrisy and wrongheadedness. That they "defend the thieves" while bashing "entitlements" (a misnomer that they maintain that serves their intent to unwittingly and blindly destroy their own safety nets) and at the same time they collect on these social insurance plans that they rail against, so it doesn't surprise me any more. The conservative right are moralizing hypocrites.

And to their benefit, the Democrats never coined themselves, "The Party of Christian Family Values." The GOP did that, and now they have to live with their unattainable standards that they continue to raise ever so higher that none of them can reach that bar, save within this idealized delusion that they've created in their rigid minds.

So watch what happens when the 2012 Republican campaigns go into full swing... each one of the right-wing candidates will eat each other on accusations of human imperfections that their rivals will discover existing in the skeletons dancing in all of the closets of their private lives.

rradiko - I see by the strictest sense of the definition of "entitlement" any government program that gives money to anyone can be called an "entitlement", planned parenthood, SS, military, etc.

Within the world of government nomenclature there are 3 main areas of budgetary spending. One is discretionary spending, which means optional spending ie. not required, but the government will be nice to you and fund your program or department.

Another area of of budgetary spending is for the military which I am sure can be broken down into both discretionary and what is considered to be mandated spending.

the third area is what government, media and many economists call entitlement programs and include medicaid, medicare, SS and perhaps welfare (not sure on this though)

You may think you have an argument for calling greg and myself ignorant on what entitlements are but it is rather sad that you have no idea yourself. Go up to your US congressman and ask them what entitlement budgets mean and then ask him about what insurance budgets mean. They will likely scratch their head on the latter but not the former.

As for unemployment insurance, you do realize that if you say that it is a federally insured program you would be wrong, right? Perhaps you can explain to us what "unemployment insurance" really is.

Since it appears that you and seattle ryan have been born yesterday, perhaps the following history lesson would be helpful...

In the mid to late 60's LBJ took the SS trustfund (a completely seperate monetary item) and merged it into the general fund to either pay for the vietnam war or his war on poverty or perhaps both. Politicians have been using it like an ATM machine ever since and have even expanded it to fund additional programs beyond its original intent.

Whatever the paperwork said was in the SS trust fund in 2001, it was nothing but treasury IOU's. As long as the US debt remains negative, the ss trust fund will always be nothing but a bunch of IOU's. SS is paid out to our seniors today because the government is using what it collects from all of us on our current payroll contributions into the SS plan.

The lie you choose to believe is that SS was solvent in 2000 or at any time after LBJ added it to the general fund and the US carried debt.

It is obvious that you have access to the internet so research SS, what entitlements means WRT to government budgets, etc.

If you don't research it and confirm via the congressional record, you and seattle ryan are just dupes of whoever you get your info from, I don't really care if you choose to be stupid and practise siasd.

where is the budget, budget, budget the dems were constitutionally required to pass?

Wow, mitch, you guys keep repeating this lie, and it STILL is not true.

madison: We cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 - anything trickled down to you yet?

Obama bombed Libya a month go. Price of a barrel crude is now $112.30. Do'ya think those two facts are somehow related?

If the Democrats weren't such wusses, the would have passed a budget before the Republicans to office last November after the election. Since they didn't why don't you Demos hush.

JoAnnaSmith1

madison: We cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 - anything trickled down to you yet?

Obama bombed Libya a month go. Price of a barrel crude is now $112.30. Do'ya think those two facts are somehow related?

Yea, that's right ever since “mad dog of the Middle East” , Qhadiffi has been asked to leave and speculators stated their racket

No, give it two weeks and we should have a budget reduced by the paychecks of 800,000 people.

The government should never have employed that many people in the first place.

Good thing the government will give them free resume-writing services. If they are so gung-ho about getting back to work, one month should do it. When I left the government it only took me a month.

Joanna, you just keep giving such good ammunition. Now you blame Obama bombing Libya for oil going up??? Wow... you have GOT to be one of the dumber teabaggers on here... Did you check oil prices after Egypt collapsed??? Tunisia??? We did't get involved with those and oil was already breaking $100. Then Libya rebels rose up and oil went even higher. Even YOU can't believe our bombing caused the whole increase. The increase is mostly due to wealthy speculators (I know, I know... but after the last oil bubble, the reports came back that speculation by people who aren't even going to take delivery, caused the majority of the price spikes). There was talk last time of making buyers take possession at least 24 hours before they could sell. Sure sounded like a great idea then.. maybe it needs to be revisited.... ok.. going to take an advil now to get over the stupidity of Joanna... and say a little prayer for her brain to start working again.

Madison and Chris,

Actually the Republican controlled HoR did pass a one week waiver to continue negotiations and delay those effects on the economy. Unfortunately, President Obama has promised to veto that resolution, stating that the situation wouldn't change that much in a week.

Of course, he neglects to say that he has penned many extensions prior to and post-election because it benefited his party's position in the election, by not having to defend the bloated monster. When that didn't work, the lame-duck Congress didn't want anything to do with it, so they passed the buck.

Just another reminder - They're currently voting on a budget that is 8 months overdue thanks to a non-vote in the Democratically controlled Congress (both Houses). You could have had your (agenda) cake and eaten it, too - But you didn't want to have to defend it in front of voters!

So don't blame the Republicans - They're doing their job as it was left to them. The Democratic Party decided when the issue was going to be voted upon and abdicated its' role in the legislative process. Be mad at them, not the Republicans.

I'm reposting up what one reader called the: "Simple Scripted Re-enactment of the Government Shut Down," by "Cincinnati Slim":

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

Cincinnati Slim

GOP:" "you have to agree to 33 billion in cuts or we'll shut down the guv'ment!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

Dems:"wow, are you serious...well, OK 33 billion it is OK?"

GOP: "you have to agree to 65 billion in cuts or we'll shut down the guv'ment!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

Dems: "Hey we already compromised, we can't do 65 billion! no way!"

GOP: "you have to agree to 65 billion in cuts plus defund every agency we find distasteful or inconvienent or we'll shut down the guv'ment!"

Dems: "this is getting worse and worse, I though we had a deal!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

Pres Obama: "Hey why am I the only adult in the room here? work out a deal and make this thing work!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

GOP: "now we want everything our way all the time or we'll shut down the guv'ment!"

Dems: "Jeez! there's no pleasing you people, you are totally unreasonable and we're running out of time!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

Pres Obama: "OK you knuckleheads the economy is going to tank again if you can't figure this out NOW!"

Tea Party: "Shut it down, shut it down"

BOOM! times out...

GOP:"waaaa BoooHo...the Dems are so unreasonable, they are totally to blame for the shutdown"

Tea Party: "HooRay we Shut it down, shut it down"

#3.1 - Wed Apr 6, 2011 11:00 AM HST

ILMAO THAT'S PERFECT! The Dems should hold their ground let the Republiturds shut it down. They just lost most of the Independents and well get swept big time in the next elections, keep overreaching sounds good to me. Goodbye Teabagers!

Wolf, couldn't agree more. Except, when will Americans going to wake up and realize we are being PLAYED like a bunch of idiots. Those in office realize that if they can keep us (Americans) fighting with each other, they are basically off the hook - it reinforced their notion that its always someone else's fault. Until we as Americans understand this and take action, then, agreed, idiots all.

I agree 100%. Most of our politicians are bought and paid for by Big corporations. We are being robbed and half of the county is defending them. The rich are laughing all the way to the bank. Here is an article

JPMorgan CEO's pay jumps 1,500 percent

Where is the outrage on the right about this kind of stuff?

Although it is said that God doesn't make mistakes, I think he had reached the bottom of the gene pool when he created the ignorant Tea Party hoard and their robot politicians. They look like humans, most of them have plenty of fat on them , they certainly have big enough mouths and human features in general but that round object sitting on top of their shoulders has absolutely no brains in it. Too bad there's no actual proof of alien abduction, it would be so nice to see a spaceship swoop down, suck up all these creatures and drop them on some other planet very far away where they could have everything their way with no resistance from anyone with actual brains.

grampa - trickle down is alive and well and works everyday, every time someone spends $$$ it trickles thru the economy, foreign or domestic, it doesn't matter.

Maybe if Obama would stay home and take care of busihess

things would get done

Thing get hot he gose on vaction and he is a leader???????

american - Incorrect. We've had 30 years to analyze the effects of Reagan's trickle-down, voodoo economics. The rich kept the money. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Trickle-Down Economics: The 4th Conservative Failure

The Reagan Revolution was radical, imprudent, and arrogant. It defied the settled consensus of professional politicians and economists on its two central assumptions. It mistakenly presumed that a handful of ideologue were right and all the politicians were wrong about what the American people wanted from government.

Trickle-down was a disaster for everyone in the country except the top 10% of “earners”, seeing as how they made damn sure “trickle” was the operative word. Although the 80′s were a productive and highly profitable time for Wall Street, the rest of us were struggling just to get by. The “trickle” was just that: a mean, tiny drip of the money-pot like a leak in your roof so small you might not notice it for years. The pool stayed at the top, so deep you could have set up a diving board.

"The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the time-honored belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less, as trickle-down theorists claim. As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.

If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal. If lower real wages induce people to work shorter hours, then the opposite should be true when real wages increase. According to trickle-down theory, then, the cumulative effect of the last century’s sharp rise in real wages should have been a significant increase in hours worked. In fact, however, the workweek is much shorter now than in 1900.

Trickle-down theory also predicts shorter workweeks in countries with lower real after-tax pay rates. Yet here, too, the numbers tell a different story. For example, even though chief executives in Japan earn less than one-fifth what their American counterparts do and face substantially higher marginal tax rates, Japanese executives do not log shorter hours.

Trickle-down theory also predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet when researchers track the data within individual countries over time, they find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising.

The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. For example, using data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

The trickle-down theorist’s view of the world is nicely captured by a Donald Reilly cartoon depicting two well-fed executives nursing cocktails on a summer afternoon as they lounge on flotation devices in a pool. Pointing to himself, one says angrily to the other, “If those soak-the-rich birds get their way, I can tell you here’s one coolie who’ll stop” working so hard.

This portrait bears little resemblance to reality. In the 1950s, American executives earned far lower salaries and faced substantially higher marginal tax rates than they do today. Yet most of them competed energetically for higher rungs on the corporate ladder. The claim that slightly higher tax rates would cause today’s executives to abandon that quest is simply not credible.

In other words, the major rationales for trickle-down – all of them – have proved to be a crock, not just here but across the planet. It’s all what my mother used to call “moonshine” – it looks pretty but there’s no substance to it.

It’s way past time to call this what it is: a deliberate scam to justify the investor class’ wholesale looting of our national resources while dodging any responsibility to the community or even their own employees. Like oligarchs everywhere and in all ages, the leaders of the US corporatocracy want it all. Trickle-down is nothing but the patter a snake-oil salesman uses to fleece the suckers. It was never intended to work the way they claimed it would, that was misdirection and manipulation. It was intended to do exactly what it did both times: put as much money as possible in the hands of the oligarchs and as little as possible in everyone else’s. In that sense and in that sense only, it was a huge success.

But the embezzlement of the public weal has a price.

Low- and middle-income families are not the only ones who have been harmed by our inability to provide valued public services. For example, rich and poor alike would benefit from an expansion of the Energy Department’s program to secure stockpiles of nuclear materials that remain poorly guarded in the former Soviet Union. Instead, the Bush administration has cut this program, even as terrorists actively seek to acquire nuclear weaponry.

The rich are where the money is. Many top earners would willingly pay higher taxes for public services that promise high value. Yet trickle-down theory, which is supported neither by theory nor evidence, continues to stand in the way. This theory is ripe for abandonment.

This, too, was deliberate, this sucking-up of the funds that were supposed to be going to improve life for the American public by private interests unconcerned about the deleterious effect on the very taxpayers who provided the money. Remember The Toad’s famous “bathtub” remark? Trickle-down was about shifting the wealth to the top and the responsibility for paying to the bottom.

There’s a famous scene in the 1987 movie Wall Street in which Gordon Gekko, the corporate predator played by Michael Douglas, tells a meeting of stunned shareholders that greed is good, that the unbridled pursuit of individual wealth serves the interests of the company and the nation. In the movie, Gekko gets his comeuppance; in real life, the Gordon Gekkos took over both corporate America and, eventually, our political system.

Oliver Stone didn’t conjure Gekko’s “greed” line out of thin air. It was based on a real speech given by corporate raider Ivan Boesky — and it reflected what many corporate executives, conservative intellectuals and right-wing politicians were saying at the time.

It’s no coincidence that ringing endorsements of greed began to be heard at the same time that the actual incomes of America’s rich began to soar. In part, the new pro-greed ideology was a way of rationalizing what was already happening. But it was also, to an important extent, a cause of the phenomenon. In the past thirty years, right-wing foundations have devoted enormous resources to promoting this agenda, building a far-reaching network of think tanks, media outlets and conservative scholars to legitimize higher levels of inequality.

“On average, corporate America pays its most important leaders like bureaucrats,” the Harvard Business Review lamented in 1990, calling for higher pay for top executives. “Is it any wonder then that so many CEOs act like bureaucrats?”

( If you would like to read this online article, just run a Google search on: "

Trickle-Down Economics: The 4th Conservative Failure ")

Nice try!

Teabaggers and the Republicans made the mess, now the Democrats have to clean it up...AGAIN.

harbinger, are you saying that barry pelosi and reid passed a budget?

If the Democrats weren't such wusses, the would have passed a budget before the Republicans took office last November after the election. Since they didn't why don't you Demos hush.

Democrats tried to get a lot accomplished but the republicans filibustered and blocked in any way they could just about every bill that was put to the floor. The only reason health care passed was via reconciliation. I mean look at the dream act that failed, that had huge public support but the repubs wanted to make it look like the democrats couldn't get anything done instead of doing their jobs. They hurt this country by doing that and all you who voted for them were plain stupid to give them even more power.

maybe its because a budget couldn't be passed because of the repugnant ones filibustering everything the dems try to pass through there. This is going to go bad for the Republican/TeaParty in the 2012 elections. It's been totally obstructionist for the last 2 years.

Senate Repubs fillibustered 'everything', including the budget.

The Democrats did not have the 60 votes needed to stop the fillibustering Repubs!

The Party of NO is at fault!

realsick...heard you the first time, buddy

I love how some in the depths of their ignorance apparently believe that because Congress never approved a budget resolution that a budget doesn't exist at all.

There is a budget, and Congress approved the spending.

If anything, the fact that Congress did not pass a resolution is a generous gift to the Republicans, allowing them some consideration in shaping expenditures in the second half of the fiscal year, exactly as Dems planned and stated, expenditures that they would have had no say over if Dems had not honored their stated goal of having a full and fair conversation about the budget.

Of course, now the GOTea wants to talk NPR, Abortion, Rape, and the EPA, because what we absolutely need is more unpunished assaults on women, unwanted children, and industrial pollution, as well as a lack of straight news so that we don't live in fear of the cesspool they are constructing.

Biden showed up at Congress for budget talks for about what, the amount of time it took for the his golf clubs to be cleaned? After that, he was off to Europe. The media just forgets about these little things, like Pelosi and Reid never getting around to passing the 2011 budget when they were supposed to. Did anyone in the press ask Reid about this while he was pontificating to them?

I know, details.

The democratic solution is to not allow giant corporations and millionaires to pay such ridiculously low (or zero) taxes. Why is that such a problem? Because the country is controlled by the money, not the people.

Glad you're not in love with you're Medicare and social security, Democratic policies, 'cause WE can't afford you!!

TO: Fed up Senior who wrote:

"Biden is probably so mad that he is planning another trip overseas instead of working real budget issues..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's not the Vice President's job to wrangle with Tea Bagging Whackos over the Budget.

That's Congress's job.

nothing gets by joe!

TO: theuser-2161031 who wrote:

"Glad you're not in love with you're Medicare and social security, Democratic policies, 'cause WE can't afford you!!..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^

What you're saying is, Republicans borrowed all of the money from our Social Security Trust Fund and now you don't want to pay us back?

How would YOU love it for the Republicans to borrow every penny you've saved over 40 years of your life and then told you that you're out of luck, they can't pay you back? Would YOU love that?

Social Security money DOES NOT belong to the government, and THAT'S NOT where that money came from. The Social Security money came from my paycheck and every working American's paycheck for our entire working lives, and I could care LESS WHAT you say you can't afford. You'd better print more money or something, because there's no way you'll be allowed to steal from us.

I'd like to remind you that President Bill Clinton replenished the Social Security Trust Fund and made it solvent for 40 years into the future. Republicans then took office and snatched ever penny from the Social Security Trust Fund and replaced OUR money with an "IOU" signed by George W. Bush.

and what was your definition of "is"

"...run for the problem and demagogue!"

This makes no sense, unless Fed up Senior believes a "demogogue" is where Jewish people go to pray... :-)

Joanna, you as big a dumb ass as some of others on here. In brief, the Dems never had the super majority last year to pass the budget unless they got all indies and one rep. The reps voted party line NO on every budget bill. So when every Dem voted YES, who do YOU think didn't pass a budget? Hell, that was before the teabaggers got hold of the party... what is YOUR excuse???? I'll go ahead and answer for you, since your response will probably be more bile, but your excuse is you didn't want Obama to get a "win" in his column... at all costs. Your guys even voted against bills they originally sponsored!!!!

American girl - LBJ took the SS trust fund and put it into the general fund, by the time reagan and O'neil got done with it it was still a pile of treasury IOU's. Of course if you want to provide the specific piece of legislation proving your point about clinton and SS I'm here. most days.

Bottom line is Social Security Trust Fund is our money that we put in and it should be there when we need it, Period!! It would be like your bank telling you they put your savings account money in their bank operating account and they spent it and now you don't get your money back.

"american-2051576"

Dr. Allen W. Smith, is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Eastern Illinois University, and he wrote this piece:

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

The news media had given extensive coverage to the Social Security debate in the 2000 election campaign, and to President Bush's early promises to not raid the trust fund. However, Bush's failure to honor his promises, with regard to Social Security, just never seemed to get much news coverage, leaving most Americans to believe that the raiding of the trust fund ended after George W. Bush took office. On the contrary, Bush raided and spent a total of $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus during his eight years as president. In his last year, he spent $192.2 billion, which averages out to more than $526 million per day.

During a speech on April 5, 2005 in Parkersburg, West Virginia, Bush openly admitted to the fact that all of the Social Security surplus revenue had been spent. He said, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs."

Bush's words in this speech bore little resemblance to what he had said about Social Security during the 2000 campaign. But his motives were different in 2005. He was trying to sell his privatization plan, and he thought that by spilling the truth he might further his effort to privatize Social Security.

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

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

Apparently, the Dems are also willing to shut down the govt over planned parenthood

How is Planned Parenthood a budget issue? Do you know?

James - Good question, it is part of the discretionary (optional) spending programs receiving federal taxpayer funds. It is not considered to be mandated spending in the same light as military, medicare or SS.

My point being, is this an expenditure that should disrupt any budget agreement? Are these funds at all significant? What percentage of the agreement are we talking about? And why won't Boehner give specifics on the sticking points?

Yes my wife asked that today. They shouldn't be getting any dollars at all. NOTHING. But again we are in this debate. Let them fail like everyone else including our system of government is about to do. Nobody should be getting money from our government unless it is directly paid to the people who vote. NO company should be paid unless it is defense or needed because of completing a project for a voter. We would be able to fund education and we would be sitting on Trillions of dollars right now if we could do this. Imagine if one school system was given the funds that planned parenthood was given. It would change the world for them. But our kids aren't important.

Harbinger - you've got that backwards - Democrats would shutdown government over planned parenthood - Republicans have a bill ready for the Democrat Senate and president to sign - seems as though they are not willing to sign it because of their extreme views. So, it is the Democrats who would shut down the government rather than allow one baby to miss his untimely death sentence at the abortion clinic. How extreme is that? We must kill babies!!! And if we can't kill babies, then we will shut down the government!!! Wow Democrats!! How freaking extreme is that??

Pondering? Until the law is changes, abortion is still legal. You don't agree so it is called "extreme". Well, I happen to disagree about a LOT of what you and the tea baggers do so that makes YOU "extreme" in my book. You guys won the election, but not by a huge plurality. Barely over 50% so by your tought process (if there is one), ALMOST half the nation is "extreme"... Wow.. what an enlightened brain you have...

All of that being said, In 2008, audited reports stated that contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; and other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%;^[30] less than 2% of visits involve abortions. So please tell me again how ALL the FED money is going to "killing babies"???? Lastly, and I think this is SO ironic, Richard Nixon signed the law that provided the money for PP. No veto, just signed it....

One could only hope.

Truth be told, the GOP has done very well in this process. They've gotten some significant cuts. They aren't about to screw the pooch over Planned Parenthood. They are too close to a deal to blow it up now.

The Republicans will be able to claim victory on the cuts. The Democrats will be able to claim they protected family planning and other "critical" funding. Blah, blah, blah, and the world keeps turning.

Of course, this is our Congress I'm talking about. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

I would normally agree with you, but these aren't normal times.

We have a new variable to the equation. We used to have Repub * Dem = Budget, we now have,

Repub * Dem divided by TeaBagger = maybe yes, maybe no. I'm thinking they don't have that kind of weight to pull around just yet, so my bet is we'll have a budget by the timeline.

Unfortunately, people like Boehner see compromise and negotiation as weakness. Last year he said that he would not compromise his values. Good talking point, but successfully achieving a compromise does not mean compromising your values, it means giving up something you want to get something you want...for the good of the country rather than your ego.

They have officially done that to everyone's LES.... nothing like having the government tell our soldiers that its a great thing to give your life for your country but we never really did care if you can live day to day, if your family's ok, or that you are in a sound state of mind.... but here, we'll send you over seas give you a gun, and if you die.... well then, oh well.....

Excellent idea. The legislators seem to have lost sight of the fact that they work for the American Public! IF we, the American Public, were ever able to do what Mr. Hersh suggests, perhaps legislators would do a better job of actually representing the interests of the people that elected them.

If the Democrats weren't such wusses, the would have passed a budget before the Republicans to office last November after the election. Since they didn't why don't you Demos hush.

How can you pass a budget without knowing what the income is. The tax cuts extensions were not passed until late December as The republicans held the unemployed hostage until they got their tax cut extensions. Starting in January when the teabaggers got control the budget is again being held hostage for their social adgenda.

realsickofit? your such a dumbass and Im not even going to tell you why! you gotta lot to learn is all I can say!

Nice try, Realsicko ~ but in order to bring up a bill for voting in the Senate, at least 60 members must vote in the affirmative. Democrats haven't been close to 60 votes and Republicans blocked consideration of the budget on every occasion. Don't listen to the bull@!$%# artists who post here or vomit their bile on rightwing radio and TV. Read the Congressional Record ~ it is an undisputed chronicle of what happens in congress. Every Senate attempt to vote on the bill failed to muster the required super majority vote even when the majority party voted en bloc ~ but didn't have 60 votes. Now I simply have to wonder ~ since all Democrats voted for the bill, what party totally refused and killed its consideration? Please. Give us a clue.

realsickofit, how many times have you repeated this here? And it STILL isn't true.

I think they ALL should go. We need something that works and this doesn't. If they can't work together. In your next election vote them OUT. Republican or Democratic they should all go including the president. They are playing politics with Americans. We can't have this. We should all vote them out. If you see someone that is incumbent vote them OUT. They all must go. We need a clean slate of people that don't play with peoples lives based on ideology. But rather on what works. We all know that the budget must be cut. That is a fact. But if we can't work it then they all must GO.

NOBODY is ever given a mandate to do anything. Nobody gives you the right as a politician to do anything BUT what we want you to do. You can't take an election win and turn it into this. We MUST stop and think about what we are doing here. We need to cut the budget. If we can't do that in a cival manner then all of them have failed. An old political ploy is that the Republicans sent up a resolution saying that armed forces would get paid if there is a shut down. While bundling other cuts in that extension. This is nothing but politics. Both sides are doing it all the time and it GOT to stop NOW. We need leadership here and nobody on both sides is doing their job. I say we cut them. VOTE THEM OUT. IMPEACH if you can. This can't be that we shut down the government. I don't care whose in power.

Actually, the riders that the House Republicans kept attaching to HR1 is in fact, a reflection of their ideology, in the sense that these are the things that give support tor progressive concepts as well as current, centrist and liberal principles that they want to see disappear from the face of the nation because they find it offensive to their Tea Party beliefs.

The analogy I draw is very much like what Gov. Walker of Wisconsin did with his overreaching demand to eliminate labor rights collective bargaining in his state ...it was later proven to have NOTHING to do with the budget cuts he and his GOP Senator friends, proposed.

Regardless, here's the list of the riders in the House Republicans' proposed budget bill:

www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf

And if some of the readers cannot see this link, then you can run a Google search for: " OMB Watch HR1 Policy Riders "