Louis J:

Great post to start the week.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/09/shutdown-deal-bush-tax-cuts/

“Late last night, just minutes from an impending government shutdown, congressional negotiators and President Obama reached a deal to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, cutting $38.5 billion under current funding levels, per Republican demands. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans hailed the deal as an important step to reining in the deficit. In a speech addressing the deal, Obama compared the compromise to the one he helped broker late last year on extending the Bush tax cuts for two years”.

But a look at those two deals suggests Republicans are not as interested in cutting the deficit as they claim. In both cases, Democrats made big concessions on key Republican agenda items — tax and spending cuts — in the face of intransigent opposition from the GOP. But while the appropriations deal from last night cuts $38.5 billion in spending over the next six months (through the end of the fiscal year in September), the tax cut deal deprives the government of roughly $150 billion in revenue over a similar period of time”.

“Extending the Bush tax cuts “would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected” in one year — or $100 to $150 billion in six months. So while they very nearly shut down the government to extract painful spending cuts, Republicans had already wiped out those spending cuts many times over with the revenue lost from extending the Bush tax cuts”.

This is the old bait and switch. The GOP/TP talks about reform to the people while they really mean huge tax cuts for the richest 2%, which by the way is totally funded by the spending cuts. In other words these spending cuts (reform) and paying for the Tax Cuts to the top 2%. What ever is left over reduces the deficit.

I saw a report over the weekend where the economic divide is again a new record. The tax cuts to the rich now cost the government in lost revenues about $200 Billion per year and growing in total (income, capital gains and estate taxes). The effective income tax rate for the richest 400 people in the US was 16.7% a far cry from 35%. The middle class was approaching 14% effective Income Tax Rate.

Over the weekend there was much gloating about how the prevention of a Government Shut Down was a victory for John Boehner.

If this is your characterization of a ‘WIN’, I can’t wait to see how you describe a ‘loss’! lol

Various leaders of various Tea Party organizations are starting to talk openly about fielding a candidate to challenge House Speaker John Boehner (R) in next year’s Ohio Republican primaries. John Heilemann of New York magazine reports: “Already Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, has called for a primary challenge to the speaker in 2012. (“Charlie Sheen is now making more sense than John Boehner,” Phillips wrote in a recent blog post.) And that threat was echoed at last week’s tea-party rally.”

Such a challenge probably wouldn’t amount to much (Mr. Boehner’s constituents aren’t stupid). But it’s indicative of how quickly (and how much) the Establishment GOP-Tea Party alliance has soured that such a scheme would even be mentioned.

The more immediate threat to Speaker Boehner is a Tea Party-led insurrection within the GOP House caucus. Heilemann again:

On that last CR (continuing resolution) vote, 54 Republicans defected. About as many would be likely to do so again. And one of them, according to Republicans on the Hill, might well be (House Majority Leader) Eric Cantor—a turn of events that would be highly interesting, to say the least, and also potentially portentous.

Indeed, the specter of a Boehner-­Cantor split over a budget deal was the talk of Washington last week, fueled by the majority leader’s conspicuous efforts to put space between himself and the speaker. At a moment when Boehner was leaving open the possibility of another CR, Cantor loudly slammed his foot down: “Time is up here,” he said. And even as Boehner was privately moving toward agreeing to the $33 billion figure being offered by the other side, Cantor firmly insisted that $61 billion “is the House position—that is what we are driving for.”

Now, it’s not inconceivable that what was happening here was a classic bit of good cop, bad cop. But given the overt pressure already coming from the tea party and the freshmen, it’s not as if another snarling law dog was needed on the beat. A more Machiavellian—and, to my mind, more plausible—explanation is that Cantor is seeking to bolster his credentials with the tea party as a replacement for Boehner should an insurrection arise against him.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.findingoutabout.com%2F%3Fp%3D16344&ei=rPuiTeDuKq6y0QHup4ScBQ&usg=AFQjCNFfk1--YrZQaxxZ-52uArjZNluWnA

Only in conservative land does the sun set in the east!

Houston, we have a problem.

Think Progress: … From Saturday

AS SERVICES FOR MAIN STREET ARE GUTTED, RICHEST PAY LOWEST TAXES IN A GENERATION.

... as the Republicans and Democrats continue to battle over the deficit within a political framing that includes taking aim at Pell Grants for low-income students — which Obama preemptively proposed to cut, calling summer grants "too expensive," while Republicans want far deeper cuts than that — Head Start funding, and other programs from Main Street Americans, there is one group of Americans that seems to be getting away without having any sacrifices demanded of them: the very richest.

As this chart from Wealth for the Common Good shows, the top 400 taxpayers — who have more wealth than half of all Americans combined — are paying lower taxes than they have in a generation, as their tax responsibilities have slowly collapsed since the New Deal era as working families have been asked to pay more and more…

There have been a handful of proposals by congressional progressives to once again put requiring more sacrifice from the luckiest among us back on the table. The Congressional Progressive Caucus recently unveiled a "People's Budget" that would boost taxes on the wealthiest Americans, returning them to levels closer to where they were under Ronald Reagan's first term — hardly socialism.

Yet these proposals have yet to gain steam, and the budget debate in Washington appears to revolve completely around cutting spending for Main Street Americans who've already been asked to pay too much during the recession. That's why there's a Main Street Movement demanding fair sacrifice and standing up for the great American middle class. Whether it succeeds may determine the fate of most hard-working Americans for a generation to come.

______________________________________

Please ALL Democrats. Put pressure on President Obama to DEMAND that the wealthiest in this country "compromise". This does not mean you don't support President Obama, this does not mean you are stabbing him in the back like so many progressives out there are.

It just means that you're a Democrat and you will not stand for this any longer. Please. He needs to hear from us. Your Senators and Congressperson need to hear from you.

This is not about the 2012 election. It's about the future. It's about our children and our parents and grandparents.

DEMAND that the wealthy in this country "cave" – for once in their selfish lives. Make the Democrats in DC do their jobs.

We have a Democratic President and Senate. We did not elect Democrats so we can see Main Street gutted. That's the job, that's the goal - of the Republican Party.

____________________

Think Progress - From this morning -

This week, President Obama will unveil a plan to reduce the nation's debt that includes tax increases on the rich and spending reductions. He will push for savings in Medicare and Medicaid and to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Obama will look for cuts in "all corners of government," according to senior adviser David Plouffe.

________________________

We ALL need to pressure on Congress.

Quite a week for Obama. He gets shellacked on the spending cuts battle with the Republicans, loses the war in Libya, gas prices exceed $4 in many places of the country, his unions and all of their money couldn’t defeat the Republican Wisconsin supreme court justice, he saved the Republicans a lot of time by throwing his own 2012 budget proposal in the trash, and he missed out on going on a family vacation to Williamsburg VA. Kind of a washout of a week for you Mr. President.

Things will get better though for you Mr. President, what with the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget debates, I’m certain you will do well with both.

Feisty, how can this be a win for John Boehner? He's on a crusade to demean women and the poor and our grandparents. It was President Obama who stopped this nonsense.

Not John Boehner.

Feisty & Pat:

Great posts to start another week. The real fun now begins with the Debt Ceiling and 2012 Budget talks. On Wednesday our President is going to give his proposal for 2012 and he is going to talked about entitlements and tax reform. It should be interesting to compare the two after he is done.

We all pretty much agree that we need spending cuts and increases to revenues. I am interested in how President Obama is going to spread the sacrifice around and put everybody into the game instead of just the middle class and the poor.

Changing the OLD GOP/TP requires too much thought and they are not prepared to change. The youth of the Republican party need to step up and make the change. I'm all for working together, but these guys that only want to cling to power will never change.

If the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers from the GOP continue to misguide the youth, they will undoubtedly destablilize that party to drink more TEA. And we all know what kind of problems they have caused.

Giggidy

(:^\/)

Good Morning

In 2 Deep (Blockin Reform)

THE KOCH BROTHERS CLEARLY HAVE A FINANCIAL STAKE IN BLOCKING REFORM

The Koch brothers were not very well known a few years ago, although they are the 5^th richest prople in America. They liked it like that. They could pour money into politics and climate science disinformation campaigns without any notice. The Koch brothers don’t care about the fools who can manipulate their organizations. They care more about the money; even if it kills people and the planet.

The Republicans' imminent threat to shut down the government, the right's assault on public workers, its spending- and tax-cap proposals, the successful campaign to shut down ACORN and attempts now underway to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR and, most prominently, Paul Ryan's plan to dismantle Medicare all have one thing in common: they're about entrenching conservative ideological preferences in the law in ways that future legislators will have a hard time undoing.

All of these efforts are ultimately about subverting democracy, which is, for the right, sincethey're non-negotiable.

The Cato Institute -- founded by Charles -- as well as other Koch-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, produced a blizzard of reports distorting the stimulus and calling for a return to Bush-style tax cuts to combat the recession

STOPPING CLEAN ENERGY: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, funded in part by Koch foundations, has waged an underhanded campaign to falsely charge that a set of hacked e-mails somehow unravels the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring.

http://www.alternet.org/story/144455/meet_the_billionaire_brothers_funding_the_right-wing_hate_machine?page=entire

Koch Industries won massive government contracts using their close relationship with the Bush administration.

Now we know why we had to invade Iraq and kill thousands of innocent people, the Koch brothers wanted that OIL.

The Bush administration handed Koch Industries a lucrative contract to supply the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 8 million barrels of crude oil. During the occupation of Iraq, Koch won significant contracts to buy Iraqi crude oil.

Get this…

a) Koch Industries applied for health reform subsidies made possible by the Obama administration; despite campaigning vigorously against health reform.

b) Koch also benefits directly from billions in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and ethanol production.

c) Koch Industries has been the recipient of about $85 million in federal government contracts mostly from the Department of Defense

I think the United States citizens better start standing up and taking our country back from the super rich politicians and people like the Koch brothers before it’s too late.

http://planetsave.com/2011/03/08/koch-industries-makes-billions-corrupting-government/

If the Koch Brothers name gets out into the open more, it will show how insidiously they sabotage our democracy with their dirty money, hopefully that could change someday soon. We can make the United States and the world a better place.

United We Stand Collapsed We Fall

As usual, the Democrats go for the bait, this time with Planned Parenthood, and "win" the battle where they "preserved" $300 MILLION in funding for PP, but lose the spending war with the Republicans. It's not that $38 billion is saving much money, but now spending rules are in place that will prevent hundreds of billions from being spent in future budgets, all because the Democrats had to save their sacred abortion funding.

There is no question about it, Obama and the Democrats got rolled, big time.

Feisty, how can this be a win for John Boehner?

It's NOT, unless you inhabit Conservative Land!

You know the place, land of the mediocre & home of the afraid!

That little 'world' is void of LOGIC! lol

There is no question about it, Obama and the Democrats got rolled, big time.

L@@k there's one now! ;o)

It was President Obama who stopped this nonsense

Didn't stop the spin-miesters from shifting into over-drive... attempting to take ALL the credit!

First Thoughts:

And a final loser was Washington, DC (that the deal bars even local money from covering abortions is a reminder how DC's 500,000-plus residents remain subject to Congress' whims; the city, as it has been in the past, was tossed under the bus).

_________________________

Yup. ENOUGH.

I'm not sure anyone gets all the facts .We need not be so set in lock step with our party. Pay attention people both sides won it's that third side that los,.....t our side. We lose again! Dream on repubs if you think you won, and we dems are losres too. We will not be on track after this budget gets done or when the debt ceiling is determined. we are still going down the same path. High unemployment,high gas prices ,higher debt, higher defict, it will be the same.

Each side is blaming the other both are liars. WAKE UP!

"But this was still a compromise made on their terms — and a sign of their power. Inside a few months, an ascendant Republican Party has managed to impose its small-government agenda on a town still largely controlled by Democrats."

So said the Washington Post after the deal to avoid a government shutdown. Yeah baby, I luv the smell of crumbling leftist ideology in the morning. And to all the loons who were drooling in anticipation that those evil Tea Party folks would lead the Republicans to implode, how are ya liking us now? Turns out the Speaker knows a thing or two about how to navigate potentially treacherous waters. And he did it with an inclusive openness that Nancy would never even have considered.

But put this one in the books, now on to the bigger battles ahead. The president sent one of his flacks out to the Sunday talk shows to express the president's intent to do some budget cutting – with a scalpel. HA, these people are too funny.

First, in typical Obama fashion he checks out which way the political wind is blowing then adjusts his position accordingly. So in the face of this newly ascendant Republican party, he suddenly gets religion on the budget and debt issue and decides to position himself on the side of fiscal responsibility. Glad you could see your way to join us Mr President, what the hell took you so long?

But then CreamPlouffe steps all over that message by using a term like "scalpel." Scalpel you say? Scalpel? The budget doesn't need a dainty little scalpel it needs to be blown up completely and redone with an entirely different mindset. A mindset that acknowledges the HUGE problem we have and that further acknowledges that surgical cuts here and there aren't nearly enough to fix that problem.

So the president still needs some schooling on this stuff and I'd bet many Republicans would be more than happy to provide him with a teaching moment. Heck, maybe Paul Ryan would agree to tutor the president some evening this week. Yup, after a hard day at the office the prez could kick back with a beverage and soak up a few reality lessons from someone who actually understands these issues.

But a word to the wise, Mr President: when Mr Ryan comes over make sure you keep the kool aid in the cupboard. It's important for the future of the country that you absorb the material he presents, and you'll be needing a clear head.

Bill Fairfax, VA: But then CreamPlouffe steps all over that message by using a term like "scalpel." Scalpel you say? Scalpel? The budget doesn't need a dainty little scalpel it needs to be blown up completely and redone with an entirely different mindset.

Interesting choice by Obama, to send his political spin doctor (David Plouffe) out on all the talk shows, and not one person from his economic team was sent anywhere. That indicates Obama still doesn’t understand what happened on Nov02/2010.

It was amusing to see Republicans declare a victory in the shut-down battle when they got only a third of the cuts they promised their constituency, even after threatening to nuke the place. Rather than out-negotiating the President, the President started at zero and allowed himself to be nickel-and-dimed upward to where he was no doubt comfortable to end up. He avoided the most draconian of social engineering cuts, and most of all, he lived to fight another day. He earned a day off, and that's for sure.

Anna Molly's prediction: When the average person begins to see what Paul Ryan's plan is all about, public sentiment will quickly turn away from it.

Far from losing the war in Libya, I understand this morning that Khaddafi has agreed to a cease-fire.

In Wisconsin, our congresswoman has asked the US attorney to get involved in the Supreme Court election situation. Something is surely rotten in the County of Waukesha. I was skeptical at first, as it seemed just too preposterous not to be true, but the more I hear, the more I suspect. So, even David Prosser knows better than to declare victory at this point.

And good morning to everyone.

Navy Disabled: The real fun now begins with the Debt Ceiling and 2012 Budget talks. On Wednesday our President is going to give his proposal for 2012 and he is going to talked about entitlements and tax reform. It should be interesting to compare the two after he is done.

Compare which two? The budget plan Obama submitted on February 15th with the one he's resubmitting now?

Anna Molly's prediction: When the average person begins to see what Paul Ryan's plan is all about, public sentiment will quickly turn away from it.

Well then by all means Obama should just declare victory, cancel that budget speech on Wednesday, and keep spending trillions we don't have.

It's a strange world in which "winning" is defined as getting less than half the budget concessions you promised your base while losing the battle completely on funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR, and gutting the EPA.

Then again Conservativeland is a strange place, one where a Republican-forced government shut down becomes an evil spectre of a black man making slaves of our brave soldiers and sailors. http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rush-limbaugh-asks-if-troops-arent-paid

JoAnnaSmith1

As usual, the Democrats go for the bait, this time with Planned Parenthood, and "win" the battle where they "preserved" $300 MILLION in funding for PP, but lose the spending war with the Republicans

Joanna the president and the democrats did won the ideology war against republicans that used this potental shut down to fight for what the uLtra right wanted and that was to strip womens rights. Peroid. the next fight will come with Mr. Ryans redistribution of healthcare rights for seniors.

I found it funny that yesterday on meet the press, He was asked point blank that does his plan redirects the health benifets from those that can least afford to those who can, he changed the subject facter than Bush ever did. he knows his great plan is DOA, because it puts the burdon on those who can't afford the republican policys any more.

but joanna its monday, smile. also don't ever call me a liar ever again.

president Obama its time to re-lease the oil reserves,

Anna Molly's prediction: When the average person begins to see what Paul Ryan's plan is all about, public sentiment will quickly turn away from it.

I have long ago stopped watching the Sunday morning programs, but the word was out that David Plouffe was going to be on Meet The Press yesterday morning, so I tuned in. He said Ryan's plan isn't going to pass in the Senate. It's not a popular plan, except with the you know who in the House.

JoAnna:

Well then by all means Obama should just declare victory, cancel that budget speech on Wednesday, and keep spending trillions we don't have.

I don't remember that being anything like what I said, which was only that Ryan's plan will fail, whether it is adopted or not. That plan is a very bad, dark-humor sort of joke. Chuck Todd just said that a majority in polling do NOT think Medicare needs complete overhaul. Ryan's plan is dead in the water.

Pat:

He said Ryan's plan isn't going to pass in the Senate. It's not a popular plan, except with the you know who in the House.

Would that be Tea Partiers? They need to bring back the grape kool-aid.

Pat, Boston, MA: Thanks for the facts on what the wealthiest are getting away with in this country. It was timely, and I hope that the "teabaggers" spend time studying it, or having someone explain it to them. I hear lots of references to household budgets from those on the right, and they constantly preach that in our own households, we cut back spending in times of crisis. While that is true, they leave out always the other truism about family budgets. When households are in the red, the people involved, generally get second or (in our area) third jobs. The United States cannot do that, so what they must do is get revenue from those who think they are entitled to live in this country, supported by the rest of the nation,specifically, the middle class and working poor. If it is not class warfare to steal from those citizens, how did it become less patriotic for the entitled to continue on robbing the rest? Those on the right who cling to the chains that bind them are blind. That blindness will continue to drive this nation into the ditch.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Good Morning Navy Have a WONDERFUL DAY

This is the old bait and switch. The GOP/TP talks about reform to the people while they really mean huge tax cuts for the richest 2%, which by the way is totally funded by the spending cuts. In other words these spending cuts (reform) and paying for the Tax Cuts to the top 2%.

Great point. And the nerve of them to rephrase Paul Ryan's draconian plan a "Roadmap to the Future.

Really, it is greedy Republicans vying to privatize SS, medicare, and tax cuts for the rich since Reagan. Notice it is phrased differently Reagan's plan was--Reagan's road to recover-- really Paul Ryan's plan should be called the "Road to serfdom"

AM: That plan is a very bad, dark-humor sort of joke.

So why is Obama jumping around like a circus clown trying to get his Do-Over budget plan out in public? Why doesn't he just stick with his first proposal?

No matter how you try to spin it, Ryan's plan will be a serious bill that the the Democrats and Obama better capitulate to.

Or do you think spending $1.65 trillion in deficit spending and ignoring the cost rises of the entitlements is the way to go? That would be the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" approach to governing.

Everybody getting ready to watch new Tea Party recruit President Barack Obama address the nation on Thursday?

I understand he'll be talking about how to get a handle on the nation's debt crisis.

It's a brave new world, isn't it?

I assume everyone here at First Read will fall into line...

As usual?

Bev--- I don't understand why I have to pay for PP if it was just check-ups I would probably be ok with it. You can hide your head in the sand if you wish but every 95 secs. PP kills a baby. You can sleep at nite knowing your are fighting to kill babies, well you are some kind of wonderful. I'm from Chicago too I don't like people who kill babies. Why don't they encourage these women to put these children up for adoption rather than having their brains sucked out and then thrown in garbage.

Koch = Soros we both have our rich idiot

Good morning, Progressive Friends.

These Republican Tea Baggers are trying to put some kind of spin on the 11 th hour compromise, like they won something and that things are going to get tough for the President. Well, he is a heck of a lot smarter than those people. So, we will just have to see.

Let's just say an avoided shut down was a win for the American People.

I love the time-lines from the first few writers this morning, it does seem that the libbie group coordinates the MSNBC work well.

LouisJ, you apparently received an op ed from MSNBC to post, for you writing was much different from your ranting offered in previous posts. Still the racist, but everyone has come to discover you may be overtaking Bev in this category.

And speaking of Bev, again she elaborates over her Koch fixation. She's so Koch-sure she is correct to the point of potentially having an ejectulation over her own post.

How's that Obama War coming along for your guys? Or would you perfer to discuss $4+ a gallon of gas or the Obama energy policy.

Bag Boy:

It's a brave new world, isn't it?

Been reading Shakespeare over the weekend? I thought you didn't do that. Or was it just Huxley? Right-wingers use that as a manual, don't they?

JoAnnaSmith1

No matter how you try to spin it, Ryan's plan will be a serious bill that the the Democrats and Obama better capitulate to.

If they don't want to get re-elected, Joanna, this plan is political suicide for a liberals and moderate republicans, you knowthere are still some out there that have voters that depend on Medicaid and to indorse this plan is stupid.

the reason why intitlement have goan up in the past 3 years is because we were in a freaken recession. us normal people used these plans in time of recession, or are you recession proof Joanna.

I was thinking this weekend that i feel very sorry for Bohnor and Obama, they have to please the untra wings of there parties, Obama the Ultra liberals and Bohnor the tea party, after this DEAL i feel for them both to explain to there ultra wings how this will be a good deal in the end. my moderate republicans and liberal friends were happy with this, but the others were mad, the tea partys fold mad the government did not shut down and the untral liberals that any cuts were made.

time 4truth

Please get your facts from a better source. Why, can't you mind your own business. A woman's reproductive right is her own business, and not yours.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Good Morning Feisty Have a WONDERFUL DAY ***BIG HUG**

Over the weekend there was much gloating about how the prevention of a Government Shut Down was a victory for John Boehner.

If this is your characterization of a ‘WIN’, I can’t wait to see how you describe a ‘loss’! lol

When liars like Karl Rove, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gringhich come out to ask the T-baggers to cool it, you know the republi/clowns are losing it.

They haven't forgot 1995 and how the shut down went against them. Today it's much more obvious to the masses of people that these greedy republi/clowns are scrambling to conjure a win when there is none for them. The Koch brothers have been exposed.

We the people are demanding these clowns to take their heads out of the Koch brother's posterior and work for the middle and poor working class or else be gone.

safecracker: How's that Obama War coming along for your guys? Or would you perfer to discuss $4+ a gallon of gas or the Obama energy policy.

I think the libbies want to talk about war trials at Gitmo.

I watched Meet The Press on Sunday. (Thank God, another Peggy Noonan-free week.)

Mr. Todd got it right when he called out Mr. Plouffle from saying this government shut-down crisis resulted in "trust building" between the White House and the House Republicans. What a whopper. But, it's clear that President Obama is playing off the Republicans like Shaq O'Neill bounding into a game and stealing the opposition's ball. (OK, I've only seen a couple of basketball games in my life, but I'm pretty sure this is the analogy I want.)

time 4truth,

@ 1.26 Planned Parenthood gets $300 million from government funding (30%) of their $1 billion budget. Abortions account for only 3% of their entire budget and come from private funds (contributions) in the other 70% of their budget.

The way Conservatives look at abortions is that no funds should be provided to any individual or business that can be connected, even indirectly, to abortions. This is how they went after abortion in the Health Care debate. Their premise was that if a woman received any government funds from any source for any reason that woman would not be allowed to purchase any health insurance plan that covered abortion even if she were barren and would never have a need for that part of the plan.

I though Conservatives were for a less intrusive government.

Oh goodie, more name calling from the Right. I love the usual, -if you don't have anything to add, add nothing at all- attitude the Right has. This is a common practice the TEA Drinkers have, get liquored up on the morning swill, choke the conversation with drunk breath and then collapse the comment.

Look forward to the TEA Drinkers other insightful and colorful comments such as Obammy, Kenyan Boy, Libbies, Mau Mau, dumb, stoopid (stupid for first graders and beyond) blah blah blah blahhhhhhhhhh...

Giggidy

(:^/)

JoAnnaSmith1

safecracker: How's that Obama War coming along for your guys? Or would you perfer to discuss $4+ a gallon of gas or the Obama energy policy.

I think the libbies want to talk about war trials at Gitmo.

this is the problem with americans and Joanna is prime example, everything is us or them, its like when i was in highschool playing football, when our team won our class mates would say we won, and when we lost it was you lost.

Obama's war is our war, Just like Iraq was not Bush's war it was our war. trying to put things you don't like on 1 person is wrong Joanna!!! this country is called the united states of america, united we stand, united we fall. or do you understand that.

In a surly mood this AM, eh AM?

No Shakespeare for me.

Huxley, indeed...not a manual, just a good read and a nice turn of a phrase.

Perfectly applicable, given last Friday night's events and President Obama's upcoming address on Thursday, wouldn't you say?

Anyway...

I'll assume that you meant "Right wingers" in the nicest possible way.

Safecracker-I see more blame the other guy than blame thyself. PP more important than the military. I'm glad Obama thought the the military was non-essential. Why Bev wants to post what people on Fox says, yet she thinks what MSNBC says is warranted. I think the Progressive are worried because their free ride is about to end and they might have to go to work.

The major entitlement programs that seem to remain untouched by the rabid Teabaggers:

Big Oil Subsidies!

Tax Loopholes for the wealthiest!

Tax rates for the wealthiest!

Big Bank Subsidies!

Defense Spending!

Get serious on those 'Entitlement Programs'!

Boehner did indeed snag a victory, and if we could put the partisanship aside, we would see that we all came out winners. We actually learned that cuts can be made and the world will not end. This was a good start.

Unfortunately, partisan hackery will take the day, and Boehner's "victory" will prove to be Pyrrhic in nature. The blissfully ignorant and self-centered Tea Partiers want more cuts. They will insist on this insanity until it becomes clear that ANY meaningful cuts will hurt them too. Too many Democrats continue to cater to the dependency mentality, which is exceedingly costly and by virtually any measure appears to actually encourage dependency.

Although there is not a single shred of proof that the tax cuts have produced new jobs within U.S. borders, nether party has guts enough to tax the wealthy and put serious estate taxes in place. There are mountains of evidence that show that wealth continues to concentrate in the upper stratum of our nation.

All righty then. Let's get back to the very serious and totally unproductive business of blaming one party or the other and collapsing posts.

By the way, I'm still hoping that some how, some way, Mike Pence gets pregnant.

time4truth:

You can hide your head in the sand if you wish but every 95 secs. PP kills a baby. You can sleep at nite knowing your are fighting to kill babies, well you are some kind of wonderful. I'm from Chicago too I don't like people who kill babies. Why don't they encourage these women to put these children up for adoption rather than having their brains sucked out and then thrown in garbage.

You're right about one thing. It IS time for truth. Like what happens in a country like Brazil, where abortion is illegal, and yet abortion is still common.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1993205,00.html

Indeed, the ban on abortion is an immovable plank in the campaign platforms of the two main candidates in Brazil's upcoming presidential election. Yet a recent study revealed that 1 in 5 Brazilian women of child-bearing age has terminated a pregnancy, and statistics by the Health Ministry show that 200,000 women each year are hospitalized because of complications arising from unsafe abortions.

The study has shocked doctors, who were surprised at just how common the illegal procedures are. "I think the big conclusion we draw from this is that the woman who has an abortion is a typical Brazilian woman," says Marcelo Medeiros, the economist and sociologist who coordinated the government-funded study. "She could be your cousin, your mother, your sister or your neighbor. All the evidence shows this is a serious problem and one that is not being debated openly."

In Brazil, abortion is also grounds for excommunication. In Brazil, they even excommunicate the mother and physician of a 9-year-old girl raped and impregnated by her stepfather, even after her physician certifies that she could not survive the pregnancy.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."

In Brazil, the rape of a 9-year-old "innocent" girl is acceptable to the Church, but abortion of the "innocent" byproduct is not.

And if that's YOUR belief, too, time4truth, I'll take Planned Parenthood, and thanks very much.

Bag Boy:

In a surly mood this AM, eh AM?

Don't call me Surly.

I'll assume that you meant "Right wingers" in the nicest possible way.

Is there any other way?

Job1, Dennis & others.

I agree with you both and your position is very well documented if the right would read instead of listening to Rush and FOX.

Only 3% of what PP does involves abortion's. Not all PP outlets do abortions. NO FEDERAL MONEY has been paid to fund those abortion's that PP does do. It is against the Federal law as stated in the Hyde Amendment, President Obama Executive Order to clear up any misconceptions and the HHS communication as well.. The right is lying again joust like Kyl and Pence who still claim the majority of what PP does is abortions. People, the right is lying through their teeth again and again. The spending cuts they call reform is paying for the huge tax cuts they are rewarding their "sugar Daddy's" with. Pure and Simple. Ryan's bill has very little real support except from the far right. It is not going to become law.

This whole exercise was another attempt by the right to assault women's reproductive rights and those agencies that take Title X money.

What women do with their own bodies is none of our business - PERIOD so finds another topic. If anybody is killing people it will be the GOP when they take Health Care away from millions and millions of citizens. Take away their jobs etc.

Navy,

The tax cuts to the rich now cost the government in lost revenues about $200 Billion per year and growing in total (income, capital gains and estate taxes). The effective income tax rate for the richest 400 people in the US was 16.7% a far cry from 35%. The middle class was approaching 14% effective Income Tax Rate.

And this is the reason that the American people should be calling our representatives and telling to reform the tax codes or not get re-elected. I email each and everyone of my congressmen and promise them if they do not reform the tax code to make it "fair" to everyone, I will not vote for them again. If everyone would do this, they would listen. We don't need to raise taxes, we need to cut back on deductions & loopholes that allow Warren Buffet to pay less than his administrative assistant in income taxes.

On this point, Navy I actually agree with you. The rich shouldn't be paying less than me, because I am a poor broke down individual. IMO, even if we raise taxes on the rich, the congress will put in another 1000 loopholes and deductions and they will still pay less than everyone else. We all need to work together to bring about tax reform, ending the loopholes and deductions.

chilled: The major entitlement programs that seem to remain untouched by the rabid Teabaggers: Big Oil Subsidies! Tax Loopholes for the wealthiest! Tax rates for the wealthiest! Big Bank Subsidies!Defense Spending! Get serious on those 'Entitlement Programs'!

Obama had a chance to address all these items, and more, in is first 2012 budget. Think he'll address them in his second attempt?

safecracker

.

LouisJ, you apparently received an op ed from MSNBC to post, for you writing was much different from your ranting offered in previous posts. Still the racist, but everyone has come to discover you may be overtaking Bev in this category.

That's right cracker LouisJ and I are racist because you the "slave catcher" has a diversity intolerance since you are poster child for white entitlement!!!

And speaking of Bev, again she elaborates over her Koch fixation. She's so Koch-sure she is correct to the point of potentially having an ejectulation over her own post.

See freak can't get none of facts straight NOT even the ones about bodily functions. I'm a female.

Get this…

The darker side of me thinks you need to get you head out of the FOX NOOSE.

Oh, and for all those republi-clowns and older Americans like you who voted for them last year; I have just one word suckers!

Everyone wants to know more of the Koch suckers; not just me.

How's that Obama War coming along for your guys? Or would you perfer to discuss $4+ a gallon of gas or the Obama energy policy.

African Union mediators arrive in rebel stronghold in a bid to negotiate a ceasefire between Gaddafi and opposition

Africa: AU Mediators Want Libya Truce, Says Zuma Aide VIDEO: Gaddafi Accepts Roadmap to Peace

http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00013011.html

JAS1...."Obama had a chance to address all these items, and more, in is first 2012 budget. Think he'll address them in his second attempt?"

He needs to, and I think he will try, unless he (to use your terms) gets "rolled" by Teabaggers!

Sure, Louis is the racist. Certainly not his spokesman for the Conservative Movement;

LIMBAUGH: Theo, thanks for the call. If the troops are not paid by their commander in chief -- I have a question. If the troops still engage in battle, if they go to war and they execute the orders issued by their commanders, if the troops are thus not paid by their commander in chief, are they his slaves? What would you call it? Can those serving in the military just walk off the job? I don't think so. So if Obama does not sign the bill to pay his troops, then it sounds sort of like forced labor to me. I mean, it's one thing, folks -- and we can all agree on this -- it's one thing to have to pick cotton. But to be forced to risk your life overseas without being paid, that's the worst kind of forced labor to me.

http://fangaroo.org/rush-limbaugh-asks-if-the-troops-arent-paid-because-of-the-government-shutdown-are-they-obamas-slaves/

Big Bear:

I agree

time 4truth

Bev--- I don't understand why I have to pay for PP if it was just check-ups I would probably be ok with it. You can hide your head in the sand if you wish but every 95 secs. PP kills a baby. You can sleep at nite knowing your are fighting to kill babies, well you are some kind of wonderful. I'm from Chicago too I don't like people who kill babies. Why don't they encourage these women to put these children up for adoption rather than having their brains sucked out and then thrown in garbage.

You DON'T pay for abortions!!!

I don't know if you stats are correct about how many babies are aborted every second; but it would seem to me it's another white lie from the rabid right. If you look at this pie chart you will see only 3% of their patient care actually goes to abortion services. And, according to federal law, Planned Parenthood … CANNOT ACTUALLY USE GOVERNMENT FUNDS ON ABORTION PROCEDURES. So, if Planned Parenthood gets defunded, it’ll hurt poor people who are in need of cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing.

As usual, , Republi-CLOWNS, LIE. So take your head out of their @aaes.

http://front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Planned-Parenthood-Patient-Care.jpg

Koch = Soros we both have our rich idiot

Because Soros uses his money to help rather than destroy the planet and kill people unlike the Kochs, I don't consider him an idiot.

According to an August 30, 2010 article in The New Yorker magazine, "In 1999, a jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in the DEATHS of two Texas teen-agers in an explosion that resulted from a leaky underground butane pipeline. (In 2001, the company paid an undisclosed settlement.) And in the final months of the Clinton Presidency the Justice Department levelled a ninety-seven-count indictment against the company, for covering up the discharge of ninety-one tons of benzene, a carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. The company was liable for three hundred and fifty million dollars in fines, and four Koch employees faced up to thirty-five years in prison. The Koch Petroleum Group eventually pleaded guilty to one criminal charge of covering up environmental violations, including the falsification of documents, and paid a twenty-million-dollar fine. David Uhlmann, a career prosecutor who, at the time, headed the environmental-crimes section at the Justice Department, described the suit as “one of the most significant cases ever brought under the Clean Air Act.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#Actions_against_Koch

Oh look, President Obama is STILL more popular than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their presidencies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

The President's popularity numbers remain rock steady for the last year, but I don't expect Conservatives to change stop claiming otherwise anytime soon.

2012 budget and debt ceiling increase are going to make last week's battles look like a walk in the park. I, personally, think the Planned Parenthood controversy was a hook that Obama and the democrats swallowed, along with the line and sinker. It certainly exposed
their priorities- PP vs. Service men and women- and democrats chose PP. Way to go, there!

I saw Plouffe, and was immediately reminded of the son-in-law in the old BBC series The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin.

His sentences all went along the lines of : we will Win the Future for the American people, because it All Begins With Us. The American people have a choice, and they will choose to Win the Future. The American people wanted a budget compromise because they know that Together We Thrive- that is the way to Win the Future, and it Begins With Us.

This is the brain behind the Obama re election campaign? Really explains his results for Britain's Labour Party last year.

Big Bear, I agree with you.

What about a flat tax? Everyone pays into the system. I would also like an assurance that this increase goes directly toward our debt. I really don't trust them to do the right thing.

totas,

using a spreadsheet, which many of our elected politicians must not know how to, I have figured out, using the 2009 taxpayer numbers. That if we taxed everyone at 17%, without deductions, using the amount paid by individuals at the lowest amount of each tax bracket, that the federal government would have brought in $15 billion dollars more than it did. That is at the lowest $ figure of each tax bracket, meaning that the feds could have brought in more than that.

Our problem with the tax system isn't that the rich don't pay enough, because even though they get away with paying a lower percentage--the top 5% paid more in tax dollars than the other 95% did total. The rich could pay 17% without deductions and still pay more than they do today. And the feds would still have more money. But with that increase in dollars, there has to be cutting also.

No joe,

it was NEVER really about Planned Parenthood and you know it, This argument was about Ultra right wing destruction of the American people. The disagreement was about the effort to De-fund EPA, De-fund HCR, De-fund any program that helps the poor in this country even a little bit, while holding the troops pay hostage. I hope you never need these programs and if you do I hope it happens after you get rid of them. I just hope you NEVER succeed in your campaign to destroy the bottom 98%. By the way are you extremely rich. If not, have you heard the term shooting yourself in the foot. By you I mean the GOP/TP.

LouisJ,

I would respectably disagree with you.... on that Notion that we are not broke.... America's budget crisis is spiraling out of control and needs to be taken very very seriously. And you also mentioned that we can pay off our debt if we wanted to. Where do you get your information from? because I don't think America has $14 trillion in disposable cash to pay off our debt.

And you know what's worse, the debt crises will only get worse.. it's kinda like we are bought a house we can not afford on an ARM mortgage (house that we can not afford is government providing SS/medicare benefits for little insurance collected from its citizens.... and I say it's an ARM mortgage because of faulty projections on how much these entitlements will cost the federal government)....

Now the debt ceiling is analogous to your credit card max limit. We've pretty much hit our max limit - which I think you'll agree is not good. Yes, our congress can vote to increase our credit card max..and our debtors may still be OK with that because America still has a good name. But when it's starts becoming really apparent that we can not keep up with our debt load... they revoke that credit card and send us to the collections agency (as a nation)... I bet you that will be the end of US as we all know it. So I completely disagree with the notion that we are not broke. WE ARE BROKE.

I wish the dems have started talking about this issue before the republicans high-jacked it. Republicans claim to be conservatives but rarely do anything about debt/deficit, if anything they spend like drunken sailors (tax cuts for the rich and corporations - and then complain at the likes of GE) - as my republican pal (HW Bush) calls it - voodoo economics. They take us to two wars not considering cost/debt; and now we are supposed to listen to them on this issue??? HE*L NO WE WONT~!!! But we can't let them pass off all their social agenda's as deficit reduction efforts because they are.... they are just passing of responsibilities from the rich/corporations to middle class under the guise of reducing the deficit (Ryan's plan). We know the only presidents who did anything seriously about the deficits are the dems... and they need to step up again - for this country's sake.

Although, I disliked both Boehner and Reid, but I was impressed with their poise and resilience this last 2wks... even though they had their ideology.. they were able to come together and make lemonade out of lemons; the speaker got his cuts.... and Reid made sure it was not draconian (EPA, NPR, Planned parenthood defunding) . This is what America deserves and i hope they continue to work on the behalf of the people - form what America is made off i.e. a lil bit of liberalism mixed with conservatism... although I'm liberal in most of my thinking.... it's quite obvious that it took both sides working together to make this nation become great.

Batman85:

You are 100% on the money. This was no more about spending cuts than collective bargaining was in WI. Just another backdoor assualt on the reporductive rights of women and those agencies that accept Title X funding.

Tunde Akins - Intersting analogy about the ARM mortgage and debt ceiling.

You called it right that Ryan's plan for reduction focused on programs that the conservatives have been eyeing to defund for decades.

Personally, I was more concerned about the cuts that would have hamstrung the EPA to do its job vs. the idealogical (albeit my idealogy that PP and NPR shouldn't be cut) battles. Speaking in purely monetary terms, the PP and NPR funding was such a small amount that cutting or not cutting them would make no financial difference one way or the other.

Tunde Akins-

Great post. As a conservative, I'll tell you this. I don't know what President Obama's proposal to address the debt crisis is going to look like, but if he wanted to outflank Ryan, he would simply adopt the plan submitted by his own debt commission.

The debt commission Plan already has support from prominent, respected conservatives like Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), plus 64 U.S. Senators (32 Democrats and 32 Republicans) have put themselves on the record supporting entitlement and tax reform, which are both addressed in the Plan from the debt commission.

If President Obama could get enough Democrats to support the debt commission's plan, he would get a significant number of Republican votes as well...and any proposal that lacks solid bipartisan support is doomed to failure.

BigBear, the totas... part of the problem is that the average tax collected by the federal government has been falling since the late 90's (thanks to Bush)... see the numbers below... that's the effective tax rate from 1995 to 2010

18.0 17.4 18.4 18.3 18.1 19.2 18.2 16.9 15.8 15.5 17.4 16.8 17.3 14.5 12.2 14.8

The tax rate for 2009 was especially low because corporations were very smart about writing off the recession into their books... not the actual recession itself, afterall the GDP was $14.1trillion that year - which aint bad.

Last year, the effective tax rate was 15%, when our country is in dire stress. And people want Obama to pull a rabbit out of a hat - and somehow balance the budget; or even lower taxes... can we be that dumb in this nation??? We pay less in taxes today than we pay 10years ago or any other time in the last 50yrs. And people still complain they pay too much taxes and call Obama Socialist. LOL.

You guys know that we can not institute a fair/flat tax of 17% because the people hit hardest will be the folks making less than 50k... the majority pay little to no tax as it is, and can simply not afford it. The wealthy (minority) currently pay a majority of the taxes... because after-all, they have more disposable income. The poor folks dont have this... .so if your proposal is on disposable income, then I may ("may") be on board... but a flat tax on someone making $15k with a family is not only sensely, heartless, but dumb.

I'm tired of analysts telling who won a political battle. We can't see? For a party that constantly accuses the left of attaching riders, Republicans had more contingencies and riders than any piece of work that has ever come out of Congress. I was waiting to read the "na na boo boo" clause. I don't think mainstream American is too happy right now.

Lost in all this is the fact that the Republican plan simply doesn't work! As usual, when Conservatives start to talk about balancing the budget it's really sleight of hand to reduce services while giving away all the savings and more to those at the peak of the economic pyramid. Paul Ryan's plan is no exception;

But if you look at the actual CBO forecasts, and you compare what would happen under current law to what would happen under Ryan’s proposal, you find something extraordinary: under current law, public debt would be lower as a percentage of GDP in 2021 than under the Ryan plan. The reason? Under current law, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire in two years. Ryan wants to extend them, and when you cut taxes, you grow the deficit.

Ryan and the GOP like to pretend their the only serious ones in the room, but when they are proposing a plan that would create more public debt than would current law, serious is the last thing that they are.

http://www.favstocks.com/ryan-budget-plans-economic-forecasts-dismissed-as-pure-fantasy/0742524/

At this rate we'd better stop referring to Mike Huckabee as 'the Huckster.' It does nothing to differentiate him from the rest of Conservative leaders.

Yellow-dog, I'm in agreement with your post. NPR and PP were like drop in the bucket, and even though our idealogy on the left is to support these programs - I think it's money well spent because the services they provide in my opinion make them deficit neutral. Imagine the cost savings we have with breast cancer detection early enough that it's cheaper to treat. It's also just moral.

And you are definitely right, it's a drop in the bucket.... I was initially wondering what all the squabble was about when they were discussing the $40billion dollar cuts... I thought it was insignificant w.r.t to the $1.6trillion we are dealing with this year... but as time went on, I realize this had more to do with how both parties work together and been able to get a deal done... and also enlightening the American public about the issues. I don't know of any other time when the public has been so aware of what's going on - some are just mis-informed... but the lot actually are aware. So the debate was good a prelude to showdown expected with the debt ceiling and "true" budget reduction efforts. I for one am glad, they came up with concrete cuts, that were honest.

If nothing else, it is quite clear the English Language took a beating.

The issue of funding Planned Parenthood had nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - to do with funding abortion. Federal funding of abortion has been prohibited by the Hyde Amendment for more than 30 years. If the right wing ever plans to engage in an honest debate, this would be a good place to begin.

The fight to take federal dollars away from Planned Parenthood - led by Mike "The Misogynist" Pence - is to put women back where they belong.....in the Stone Age. The issue, as always, with the witch burning crowd is to subjugate women - no less and no more. Actually no jo, the fact is the G.O.P. showed their cards when they demonstrated that the rights being defended by our troops mean nothing to your crowd.

BigBear and Totas: You are not talking about a flat tax, you are talking about a flat-RATE tax. There is a huge difference. Neither of them will work. Big Bear, we've been through this before. You want exceptions/exemptions/credits for people with kids. Why? What kind of logic says people who make babies - "Oh wow, look what I've done. Worship me!" - think it is fair to expect their childless neighbors to subsidize their fecundity? That's not enough of course. We should pay for the schooling of their children, their day care, ad nauseum.

Then of course, there's the crowd that wants their neighbors to subsidize their belief in some sort of vague, but omniscient power.

How do you deal with taxing those who benefit far out of proportion to their contribution, and NO, I am most assuredly NOT talking about the poor. (That's a subject for another day.) I am talking about the rich and the filthy rich who use specially created loopholes and our crumbling infrastructure to continue to facilitate their stranglehold on America at the expense of the very people who have built it?

Very, very few people in this country want an honest debate on the issue of balancing the budget.

Mixed Bag,

Thanks I appreciate it; I bet you the president's plan will be more in line with the debt commissions plan. Which after reading, I also like... it will be painful, but it is needed. The only way we can truly balance the budget is to tax a lil more.... and then reduce spending (health-care and SS restructuring - raising age for both etc)....

I know we probably strongly disagree here, but I think the best thing for the budget is Universal Health Care... but American's like their choices and don't like the government, so I doubt this will ever pass. I'm now in the health care field and most (at least 90%) physician's I've talked to agree... and they understand that they'll make less... but it's aligned with the idealistic intentions they sort when they became doctors. Our current system makes them business-men - which is also an hindrance on health care deliverance in itself. But I know we'll disagree here, but I think when we talk budget, this is the largest portion of it (Health Care) - 25% of US budget i.e. almost $1trillion/year.

Tunde Akins-

We do disagree on the health care thing, but...we largely agree on the Plan proposed by the debt commission.

Speaking purely on the politics involved, you have Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), both debt commission members, urging the implementation of the debt commission's Plan. It's hard for me to imagine two members of the Senate with more different political views than Coburn and Durbin.

If they can agree, then I believe it's possible to craft bipartisan legislation to address the debt crisis.

Will it happen?

I hope so.

JoAnna: Quite a week for Obama. He gets shellacked on the spending cuts battle with the Republicans, loses the war in Libya, gas prices exceed $4 in many places of the country, his unions and all of their money couldn’t defeat the Republican Wisconsin supreme court justice, he saved the Republicans a lot of time by throwing his own 2012 budget proposal in the trash, and he missed out on going on a family vacation to Williamsburg VA.

Wow, JoAnna! One hardly knows where to begin to respond to this barrage of distortion, half-truth and outright lies.

Shellacked on the spending cuts battle? The COMPROMISE the parties reached was much closer to Obama's end than Boehner's.

Loses the war in Libya? There never was a war. And there are reports that a cease fiere may have been reached.

Gas prices? Still have not reached the last high point, which was in 2008. Before Obama was President.

Couldn't defeat the Wisconsin judge? Because his buddy the secretary "found" a bunch of votes. A recount is in progress.

Threw his budget in the trach? Hardly. And he is restating his budget proposal later this week.

Cancelled his vacation? I thought you wanted him to pay attention to the problems of the country? Something he does more often and in more detail and with more skill thatn any of us.

But go on, Joanna, repeat these points a few hundred more times so you can convince yourself (wrongly) that they are true...

David,

I think if you read my latest posts, I have gone away from any deductions, I have in the past wanted and in the thought of compromise, that allowing base "credits" would be a simple way to keep those who make less from paying as much. You cannot get every tax deduction that you want taken away. I would prefer that we all just have to report our income, pay 17% and be done. I don't care what you make, you get to pay. That is the only "fair" way to do it.

Because right now, I am paying for 47% of the people to sit idly by and not pay taxes on their income. And we expect those who make more to pay even more. They aren't the ones using government services--it's those that don't make as much that take from the system and never return to it. Maybe we should limit the number of children a couple can have, but then how would we be entertained by "John & Kate--plus 8"--even though they aren't together anymore.

Tunde - nice to see you understand the depth of our debt problem and that you also believe that LoiusJ is mistaken in his conclusions about our debt.

Yellowdog - greetings! Thought about replying last friday to your comment on mine with respect to continual efforts by republicans since 1980 to change entitlements. Regardless of motives or arguments, I would say that they saw something wrong with the system, and have wanted change since then. I am enough of a realist to realize that whatever the republicans want it will be tempered by democrat concerns, if it is to pass.

It is now 30 years latter and most everyone knows that problems exist within the entitlement system. The debt commision pointed to it and rep. ryan made a written and public proposal. I believe it is time to address it. it will be interesting to see what obama proposes, but I do wonder why pelosi hasn't made any proposals for the FY 2012 budget or debt reduction?

We all know we are facing a long term plan here, and that any plan approved will always be subject to exogenous events, trying to wait for "perfect" conditions is just another way of saying "let's kick the can down the road"

Tunde, your last line makes a great segue for this post about budgets, deficits, and the debt:

it's quite obvious that it took both sides working together to make this nation become great.

What the ideological purists, on both sides, reject is any notion of compromise and collaboration. The "my way or the highway" attitude that characterized much of the G.W. Bush Administration caused more than one impasse over his eight years, and is a clear distinction between that failed presidency and the so-far-successful term of President Obama.

But that relative success is now in peril - and so is the nation. Indeed, the coming political combat over the debt ceiling and 2011-2012 budget will include not only attempts from the ideologues of the right to push through their very radical agenda, but also efforts from both sides to unroll some of the successes of 2009-2010.

It will be interesting to see whether or not President Obama will decide to shift the basis of the debate from a relatively narro discussion of fiscal matters to the broader and ultimately far more important matter of policy, and what this country is really about.

Is this a modern nation, with a governing principle that embaraces ALL its members, or is America to revert to a splintered, incoherent assemblage of individuals combatting each other for some tiny sliver of personal advantage in which daily life becomes a zero-sum game - "if I get ahead, it will be at your expense"?

That's the bottom line of the GOP/TP concept of the budget and other fiscal issues - yes, the money matters, but it matters MOST who gives or gets any, and why.

Underlying this all is that old cry, "It's MY money!" In that viewpoint, taxation is practically akin to theft - something a number of Tea Partiers have certainly declared - and if any taxes are to be exacted, they had better not be taken for any ideologically objectionable use.

However, the right wing has succeed in selling you, and much of the nation, the fiction that the real "crisis" is the national debt, the budget deficits increasing that debt, and the end-of-the-world state of the nation's finances. Just as Gov. Scott Walker did in Wisconsin, the GOP/TP is manufacturing a crisis of purpoted titanic proportions and on that excuse pursuing thier Libertarin social goals.

THE ALLEGED FISCAL CRISIS OF THE UNITED STATES IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

THE MERE IDEA OF A "BALANCED BUDGET" SIMILAR TO THAT OUR HOUSEHOLDS MUST FOLLOW IS ENTIRELY MYTHOLOGICAL FOR ANY MAJOR MODERN NATION-STATE. A "BALANCED BUDGET"IS MARGINALLY ATTAINABLE IN PROSPEROUS TIMES - BUT WILL NEVER ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT.

THE NATIONAL DEBT IS OWED PRINCIPALLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - AND IS MANAGEABLE WITHOUT DRACONIAN MEASURES THAT WILL DISRUPT SOCIETY AND CHEAT THOSE TO WHOM IT IS PRINCIPALLY OWED - SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE CONTRIBUTORS.

Now let's discuss those three vital points, and examine how they fail to justify the right-wing extremist attempt to impose revolutionary changes on American government:

1. Why is the U.S. not in a fiscal crisis?

A "crisis," by definition, is a condition or event either producing catastrophic results (as in Japan right now), or promising immediate catastrophic results without any proper effort made to avert those results.

So look at the circumstances: Is the U.S. right now, in terms of budget priorities, deficit spending, or national debt, in a state of collapse?

By way of illustration, consider the U.S. in the last months of 2008 - yes, that was a moment of crisis in progress, although it was not the national fiscal state but rather the widespread events affect the economy that was the crisis.

The U.S. fiscal state - the national Treasury, the country's creditworthiness, the ability of the United States government (not private industry) to conduct its business at home and abroad - is, in fact not only stable and secure, but is in far better state than it was at the beginning of 2009. In relative terms, the U.S. is in far better fiscal shape than the European Union nations.

So, by one measure - is there a crisis NOW occurring with the fiscal condition of the United States of America? NO.

Is the U.S. right now, in terms of budget priorities, deficit spending, or national debt, in a financial condtions that promises immediate catastrophic results without any proper effort made immediately to avert those results?

The question is , simply put, because of fiscal catastrophe, will the U.S. government "go broke" in literal terms - that is, lose its ability to borrow for either short- or long-term puroses, lack the funds to pay any of its bills or make interest payments on outstanding debt owed to entities other than the Social Security and Medicate Trust Funds, or otherwise default on its financial obligations? If this is a potential, is it immediate, such as likely to occure in 2012 or 2013, or is it sometime further in the future?

That's a toughie because some of the answer is, "it all depends:" in absolute terms, eventually such a crisis might take place but not in an immediate sense - so the answer now should be that the U.S. is not in a fiscal crisis condition. However - "it all depends," since the rigid ideological posture, in this instance from the radical right, could block adjustment of the national debt ceiling and force a default crisis - in which case, at that point technically the U.S. would go broke althoughthe country in fact would have a sizeable income.

Now, keep that second part of the issue avaible for further discussion. But, absent an intentional choice to put the United States into a kind of bankruptcy, caused by right-wing extremists blocking extension of the debt ceiling, the United States is also not facing a fiscal crisis in the short-term future.

Thus, except for a problem which would be caused by collapsing the roof onto the Teasury, THERE IS NO CRISIS requiring immediate resolution or hasty measures to avoert a crisis.

A MANUFACTURED CRISIS IS A LIE SOLD TO THE COUNTRY TO JUSTIFY DRACONIAN MEASURES WHEN A MORE THOUGHTFUL, MEASURED APPROACH TO DEFICIT REDUCTION AND DEBT REDUCTION IS BOTH WISER AND SAFER FOR THE COUNTRY.

AS ONE ECONOMIST WROTE LAST WEEK, BY CONTRAST THE GOP/TP BUDGET PROPOSAL IS "A SUICIDE PACT."

2. Why shouldn't the U.S. be required to have a "balanced budget" - and why wouldn't that eliminate the national debt?

Governments are not businesses or households. They all operate on fundamentally different premises. To the extent that there is any parallel between a government and a business, it is that in fact both of them need to borrow for both short- and long-term requirements. Otherwise running a government is entirely different from operating a business. And, oh, by the way, most housejholds also use some forms of borrowing - mortgages, car loans, credit cards ans so forth - and if properly managed that debt does not represent an issue, either.

Of course, the kicker is, "properly managed."

There is only minimal disagreement that over the medium-to-long term, the United States should take steps to reduce existing debt and as much as possible limit acquisition of new debt. A national debt, in modern nation states, is a long-term "revolving credit" arrangement. As old borrowing matures and is paid off, new borrowing usually also is taking place, with a maturation date well into the future.

The evolution of a modern credit system to finance government expenses, especially in himes of war, began in 1694 with the creation of the Bank of Englad - specifically to help the British government stabilize cash flow during a time of war using long-term, revolving loans. This enabled Britain (a few years later to become the United Kingdom) to avoid ruinous taxation during what essentially became a century and a quarter of continuous war. It created the British Empire.

And, in a substantial sense, enabled Britain to endure massive public expenses while both Imperial Spain and France, which used cash-based accounting as well as exceedingly costly private loans, eventually collapsed under the financial burden. Napoleon was in part defeated by the Bank of England. It is lunacy now to demand that the U.S. proceed in the future on a cash basis.

A balanced budget, certainly a desirable objective, will not eliminate some government borrowing simply to fund operations between periods when revenues are not being collected at the same rate that expenditures are taking place. Nor does a balanced budget necessarily mean that the national debt will be retired more quickly than current repayment obligations demand. This is another fiction sold by right-wing ideologues and misunderstood by the average citizen.

Only a budget in which there is substantial surplus dedicated to debt retirement beyond current accounts would possibly eliminate the national debt - and even then, it would require decades to achieve. to have such a budget would require considerable increase in revenues, in particular taxes - something that prior GOP Administrations considered wrong. If there is a budget surplus, in the view of conservtives, then the government is improperly taking the people's money.

Much of the debt now "maturing" arose during the 1980's, when the Reagan Administration intentionally built up the biggest national debt in history to that time, for the purpose of "breaking the bank," and forcing the elimination of social programs and services long despised by the ultra-right. That ploy failed. The Reagan Administration certainly did not "properly manage" the debt, but did in fact mis-manage it for ideological purposes.

Most of the G.W. Bush Administration debt was not piled on for the same ideological reason, but rather accumulated due to war, unfunded spending mandates, and an attempt to pursue a "guns and butter" policy underwitten by middle- and lower-class taxpayers. The luncacy of that Bush Administration's fiscal policies, with tax cuts and rebates aimed at buying votes, is an example of how a national debt is not "properly managed."

Comes now the Obama Administration with the challenge of creating a program of debt management. At the same time, the nation is still recovering from the devastation of the Bush Recession. The Administration has already proposed a method for debt management - and concurrent deficit reduction - which is much more measured and reflects the desires of the nation far better than the drastic, urgent Tea Party proposals which are forwarded on the basis of a lie about a "crisis."

3. A great portion of the national debt is owed to the people who have been paying into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds - so why not recognize that those "entitlements" have to be changed since the money is gone?

Social Security and Medicare are NOT "entitlements, they are essentially an annuity and medical insurance program paid for entirely by the trust fund contributions. The general tax fund is not liable for the programs' costs, and neither of these programs is part of the budget deficit.

To now say that both Social Security and Medicare should be reduced, or even privatized as the Libertarian wing of the Tea Party wishes, is to "blame the victim" for the deeds of the perpetrators. It is unjust and unwise to now demand that the lenders, the American people, be punished for their decades of grace in helping not only finance the nation, but also finance the tax cuts and preferences given to the wealthy and massive corporations.

Again, the claims that either of these programs is in "crisis" - as defined and discussed above - is a LIE. Indeed, means of addressing the share of national debt owed to the trust funds is absolutely necessary, but not as the Tea Party backers would have the country believe. Only on the justification of a "crisis" does the Libertarian wing, which has never supported even the existence of either Social Security or Medicare, dare make its drastic proposals. There is no reason to accept any of the draconian measures offered by the right wing Tea Partiers.

There is need to develop appropriate means of repaying this share of debt - an obligation of the entire nation to those who have paid into the programs for yers and years. There is no need to punish Social Security adn Medicate beneficiaries, however - and it is a brutual crime to even suggest it.

BigBear:

It is untrue to state that 47% do not pay tax. Our system is such that anyone who spends money buying goods or services is paying the taxes of the entity from whom he bought it.

The fact is there is no "simple way" to construct a tax code such that all agree to its fairness. If there is a certainty in this whole mess, it appears to me it is that we must stop allowing budgets that call for more expenditures than income. The only way to deal with that issue is to submit a proposed budget and then find ways to fund it. The Keynesian model will work. We can borrow during the lean years, but we must pay that debt back as soon as possible.

I would submit that you are quite wrong about who is using government services. The rich use inordinately more. They use the infrastructure a great deal. As one example, consider the use of airports for private jets. I can show you millions of dollars in expenditures on a single airport in a small Kansas town that benefits ONLY the wealthy.

I'm also going to throw in the military here, because it is most assuredly NOT used on behalf of the poor. Those "national security interests", they're always talking about? They sure don't benefit the poor. Indeed it is the poor who wind up as G.I.'s in service to the rich. That's not cynical BigBear, that's the way it is.

You do not recognize the reach of government when you say the poor pay no taxes. Of course they do. When they buy a loaf of bread, they touch a government subsidized farmer. When they buy gasoline, they touch BP or Exxon. Again, ALL the available evidence shows that the wealthiest slice of America continues to concentrate wealth. Taxation is not hurting them at all.

Nothing about this is simple.

Great post John A, very informational and well thought out. It seems to me the model for debt retirement should be based on the post WWII period here in the United States. Through Republican and Democratic administrations alike basically the same pattern was followed. Deficit spend briefly during recessions as required for economic stimulus. Put money toward the deficit during the good times, paying it down gradually. At the same time the economy grows, making the payoff quicker over time while making the national debt a much, much smaller percentage of GDP.

If not for the Supply Side hoax perpetrated by Reagan our national debt would have been paid off years ago. Under that scenario the last recession would have been much more mild, a bigger economic stimulus would have been feasible, and what we would spend on stimulus would have been more effective.

Quite the contrary to being good stewards of the economy, Conservatives have destroyed a good share of our economic strength as a nation. It's time to admit that while Supply Side tools have their place in the toolbox, their ideological devotion as the sole tool of economic management has been a dismal failure.

John A.... very well written and I'm in 97.85% agreement with most of what you've said. We are not at this point in time in crises, but we seem to be heading there - mainly because we don't fully understand our economy or the proper projections of our spending. So we seem to headed dead on to a crisis... the republicans like the politicians they are will of course no let a good impending crisis go to waste.... and of course the media will be along for the ride - after all that's how they make money - make the crises seem worse than what it is.

The only problem I with taking the US budget situation lightly is that we can not use past models to understand where we are headed. During the 50s to 70s, we passed great programs like social security and medicare to serve the noble purposes they hold today, and they do it quite well. We didn't project that people would live to 80 coupled with health care cost rising to the rates they are today; also with our unstable economy of bubbles and recession, we can not wait to hit another perfect storm like the one we averted in the fall of 2008.

We can all agree that we see the problem coming, and we can not get out of it right away..but at the rate we are going, we are headed for a disaster. Imagine congress saved $38 billion of the budget, that's no where even close to what we pay as interest. Our total debt is now 94% of our total GDP $15.5trillion (for 2010). While we agree that managing the federal governments expenses is not the same as managing our personal expenses, in terms of complexity; I would surmise that they are the same when you boil it down to its simplicities. Afterall, the reason for the 2008 crisis was that people bought homes they couldn't afford and the banks made loans they shouldnt have all because they made the system too complex and people forgot to look at the simple facts of economics. And now the simple facts of economics says that our deficits are increasing at an exponential rate while our GDP seems to grow at a linear percentage rate - it doesn't add up, and needs to be addressed immediately; if not now, it will never happen.

JoAnnaSmith1

chilled: The major entitlement programs that seem to remain untouched by the rabid Teabaggers: Big Oil Subsidies! Tax Loopholes for the wealthiest! Tax rates for the wealthiest! Big Bank Subsidies!Defense Spending! Get serious on those 'Entitlement Programs'!

Obama had a chance to address all these items, and more, in is first 2012 budget. Think he'll address them in his second attempt?

Obama is not the one obsessed with cutting entitlements, it's the Republicans/Tea party. But they won't touch their friends, just women and children.

No abortions, cut education and schools, more money for prisons. In other words, make sure all the kids are born, deprive them of an education or anything else, and make sure there is a privately owned prison to send them. We should also spend more on foster care, where foster parents can be paid to abuse them.

You are so adept at pointing the finger.

GOP/TP Economics:

Now economics is not my strongest suit, but I can do simple math. As I watched the two parties negotiate to avoid a government shutdown, one thing was very apparent. Saving 38 billion dollars does not equal costing the government 150 billion dollars in revenue. Yes, that's right; allowing the wealthy to keep their tax breaks costs the government 150 billion dollars. Now if the Tea Partiers really wanted to do something about the debt, they could have allowed the tax rate for the wealthy to return to what it was during the Clinton administration. So, the conclusion is: either they really don't care about the debt, or they are being hypocrites. Take your pick.

The Democrats want to get spending under control also. In the later stages of the negations the differences between GOP/TP and Democrats were not about money at all. They were about Planned Parenthood, abortion, and National Public Radio. Thus we have a great example of Speaker Boehner pandering to his base, arguing for what is really important to the Tea Party base. Bottom line, it was more about the social agenda than debt.

This week GOP/TP representative Paul Ryan will be presenting the GOP budget that includes massive cuts. I expect a lot of shouting, posturing, and finger-pointing; but quite frankly we are more likely to see Mr. Ryan's hard work in the circular file. The Senate will not buy it and neither will the President.

This all leads to a huge debate on the debt ceiling. My bet is the debt ceiling will be raised and the Tea Partiers will be very unhappy. Watch out John Boehner, Eric Cantor wants your job.

Ron:

I agree.

Bottom line is that the current $40 Billion will do nothing to really reduce a budget of 3.8 Trillion Dollars and the National Debt will continue to increase. The only way to reduce the National Debt is to create a surplus. Any real budget proposal must include:

1. DOD

2. Medicare and Medicaid

3. Tax Reform

4. And a Job Creation Program

Just cutting Spending will not work, especially when you offset the cuts with increased tax cuts to the rich in effect lower the deficit reduction (bait and switch). We also need to increase revenues as well. Only a combination of the two will work to get us out of this mess. Anything less is just smoke and mirrors and avoids the issues.

Just addressing DOD, Medicare/Medicaid and Tax Reform will generate, according to most economists, about $350 - $400 Billion is budget cuts. That is 10X what was proposed last week. Add in the increased revenues from say an infrastructure job program and we are approaching $500 Billion.

Insightful and well rounded analysis.

And at this point, the TEA Drinkers are irrelevent. The rest of society see them as a distraction and nothing more. The media keeps them in the spotlight so long as they continue to generate some income. Once the next election, they will be nothing more than noise makers on New Years Eve.

Giggidy

(:^p)

It is beyond me how republicans can justify tax cuts for the richest 2%, tax loopholes and tax breaks for big business while demanding sacrifice from everyone else. For 30 years the wealth of this country has been redistributed from the middle to the rich, the GOP successfully spins taxes, taxes, taxes yet few people bothered to look at the impact, to question them about the specifics of those taxes. What is really beyond me is why no one in the media asks the GOP, not just once but everytime they hit the airways--how do they justify tax breaks for millionaires yet demand concessions and sacrifice from everyone else.

On April 6, Jamie Dimon, CEO JP Morgan Chase said "the wealthy should pay the largest portion of U.S. taxes." Add his voice to Warren Buffet and many others who are willing to say that the wealthiest among us are reaping the benefits of voo doo, trickle up economics and it is hurting this country's future. Our budget deficit and national debt is not caused by "spending" alone, it is caused by lack of revenues combined with spending. If we eliminated the Bush 43 tax cuts, the deficit would be cut in half.

Great discussion. It's clear that Liberals aren't living in the fantasyland of Conservative imagination, one in which we don't believe deficits ever have to be dealt with. President Obama has long stated that once the economy is back on the mend deficits and debt will need to be brought under control. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atVV2FPHWlH4

What is clear is that Conservatives are NOT to be taken seriously as they piously plead for budget restraint. Every time they grandstand about this or that budget cut it's MORE THAN offset by tax breaks for the wealthy. This isn't a sincere attempt on their part to balance the budget, it's an attempt to remake America in an image more amenable to the new Robber Barons. John A said it brilliantly here; http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/08/6433288-conservative-group-obama-wants-shutdown-to-support-planned-parenthood&commentId=20642550#c20642550

Ryan’s budget is the mechanism for obdurate anti-government factions to eliminate a major portion of American public institutions long despised by the ultra-right, targeted by the old John Birch Society - now reincarnated as the Tea Party - and set in place an entirely new foundation of philosophy of government.

The Tea Party objective is to entirely revise the existing American “social contract” with one based on Jacksonian democracy, giving virtual “laissez faire” scope of individual or collective business behavior unhindered by law or regulation, guided by self-interest alone – and its accompanying caution, “caveat emptor,” or, let the buyer beware, and vesting power in the hands of those who have the will or resources to take and use it.

This new “social contract” has little need or use for government at any level, and absolutely no justification for social programs of any kind provided by public finance or activity.

@USNV

Hey Navy, so much better when you don't cut and paste from thinkprogress. Some real ideas in your piece to work on although as much as there is insane waste and fraud in the Medicare system it seems this can never be cleaned up. You know maybe some oversight like private insurance may help. Anyway here's the way I see it playing out.

Return to Clinton tax rates : 400B a year

Cut DOD 10% - 15% (I would like more but unlikely) : 100B a year

Discretionary : 100B a year

Medicaid (they should try and keep this stable but slow the rate of increase) : 50B

Medicare : 500B

The remaining 350B hopefully can be made up through growth and/or a supplemental tax on $1M+ incomes for medicare, and please, please, please the end of corporate and farm welfare. In addition there should be a limit on mortgage deductions with the idea that it gets reduced over 20 - 25 years.

Alan, NJ:

Nice post to start the week. Just so you know I do agree with a lot of your positions in your posts.

There is a lot of money out there in waste, fraud, mismanagement, bad programs, redundancy etc in the DOD, Medicare, Medicaid and the Operational End of the Feds. I agree that we cannot get rid of all the fraud, waste etc. There will be those that will scam the system no matter what. But we can create laws that would make it very unattractive to do such things.

Thanks again for a well written post. Got my vote.

Navy

3. We need to see some plans on how to redo the tax codes so everybody pays their fair share and stop the bonuses that we are currently giving to Millionaires and Billionaires that do not need it. The economic divide is at record levels and growing. That alone in income tax, capital gains and estate taxes is over 150 Billion per year. In fact new data suggests it is about 200 Billion currently because top 2% keeps getting richer.

Who is giving the bonuses? Are you talking about the companies or government.

I was told to mind my own business about PP that is my point exactly. I've said ALL ALONG PP has every right to exist I don't want to pay for it. BEV IN CHI TOWN if we fund PP I'AM PAYING FOR IT!!!! I 'm not debating ROE VS WADE I 'am a full believer of the constitution. Don't want to fund it.

I'll make a deal with you t4t...you can pay for my share of tax cuts for the rich and the $1T war in Iraq and I'll pick up your share of Planned Parenthood funding. Sound fair?

Truth: Don't want to fund it.

And I don't want to fund continuing tax breaks for corporations. Or oil subsidies. Or overages in the military. So what's your point?

US navy, with regards to...

your item 1 - agreed

item 2, have no problem with elimination of tax loopholes as long as you realize that corporations pass on all costs to the end user. Farming jobs out overseas?? Please if theAmerican consumer was willing to pay the price for the "made in the USA" label, more jobs would still be here in America. Americans want good pay and cheap consumables and toys. Kind of an oxymoran isn't it?

Item 3 - no doubt some executive pay and bonuses are out of control, so why not a higher tax bracket or corporate boards giving only bonuses based on performance standards. This would be part government (taxes) and corporate (bonus) mandated. As for wealth redistribution (within the context you want it to happen) will never happen. Lenen and Marx proposed it, the soviets and china tried to impliment it, but their always existed the haves and have nots. Human exceptionalism and individuality will always intervein.

Item 4 - OK, but how do you plan on on addressing the issues of international trade or developmental risks?

Item 5 - Yes, we can give out shovels and wheelbarrows to your hundreds of thousands of workers, but the states don't have the plans required to even come close to supporting that number of workers.. Bridge construction is not for the faint of heart or unskilled. Road construction requires skilled operators of equipment that can do the work of hundreds operating shovels and wheelbarrows.

Agreed, more jobs will increase revenues. The newly right centrist obama has started to implement the right wings beliefs that business is our friend with his promoting business tax credits, breaks and incentives. His recent creation of a panel of corporate leaders to tell him what business need from the government also helps. Funny on how the GOP needs to do little as obama takes on the load.

Yes, all areas of spending needs to be addressed, and hopefully without emotion. Many fail to see that what we spend in debt interest could be better spent elsewhere

All in all navy not a bad post when taking into account caveats.

Ron, johnB, jody - US Navy expresses the areas needing to be addressed and you all add in how the right can't address it, and you refuse to even suggest how the left will. Where is peloses plan? where is reids plan? What do you have for a plan?

Ineffective, duplicate, or contradictory programs should be eliminated. As an example we pay people to grow tobacco, then pay for treatment programs to combat addiction to tobacco.

Eliminate corporate welfare.

15% reduction at the Pentagon.

It's not everything but these steps will come closer to balancing the budget than the Ryan plan, which actually INCREASES the deficit in comparison to current law.

Return the top 2% of tax payers to Clinton-era rates. Establish a new top rate for filers above (pick one) $500K, $750K, or $1M. Call that one a 45% rate. Over the past 20 years the effective tax rate on the top 400 filers has declined by HALF at the same time their average income has QUINTUPLED. They can afford to pay more.

Lift the cap on earnings that applies to Social Security. That change alone erases half of the projected shortfall for the next 75 years.

JohnB, we actually agree on an issue - I too agree that we need to end the subsidies for tobacco farmers while then treating the users. We also need to end corporae farming payments while seeing the costs at the grocery store rising. We need to eliminate government redundency in departments while paying them for their inefficiencies.

Return to the top 2% of clinton-era rats? Not certain.....do we still have people earning sums of money under the Obama tax credit program? Instead of having a 45% rate, why not eliminate all deductions currently on the IRS schedules, and have every citizen pay percentage tax based on income levels?

Yep, no homeowners deduction, no medical deductions, no travel deductions or office expense. No accountants to determine tax values, nor lawyers to advise taxpayers. Heck, what a simple life without the IRS and the millions who work there.

The lower income person on welfare pays; the low income earners pay; the middle class pays; and the rich pay. Now folks like Charlie Rangle wouldn't have tax issues due to the mass of regulations he wrote.

Lift the cap on SS earnings? I agree, why should people be held hostage by the government for services they are able to still render?

Never happen with the 535 folks in government who don;t wish to have this happen.

My uncle the John Bircher may have been off on the extreme politically, but he saw the world of farming pretty clearly. What he saw as a farmer is that our farm subsidies didn't help keep family farmers in business as intended, but actually propped up the very large farms more effectively than the small ones. He got out of the program in the 1960s and made all his own decisions thereafter.

We could reduce the cost of farm programs dramatically by having a hard cap on program payments. Today there are "family farms" working 10,000 acres or more from offices many states away with hired help. They get around the current, ineffective cap by breaking those vast acreages into smaller units that only exist to work the farm programs. Tackling this issue would keep money in the taxpayer's pocket, level a playing field that's decidedly stacked in favor of corporate farming, and improve the economic health of rural America all at the same time.

"And the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisanship.”

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi – Acceptance Speech for Speaker of the House - January 04, 2007

Over the next four years, Pelosi’s House of Representatives spent over $5 trillion dollars in deficit spending.

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Who said that?

Freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2011?

Nope.

Freshman Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2006.

President Obama was one of 48 Senators voting against raising the debt ceiling in March 2006.

I suspect that President Obama will ultimately find the opposition party more willing to behave responsibly than he did and vote to raise the current debt ceiling in order to avert a default on the nation's debt.

I stopped buying the GOP rhetoric with Reagan because I realized that tax cuts for the rich would never result in my becoming rich; that creating massive debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending as Reagan, Bush and Bush did, would ultimately result in what we see today. Paul Ryan and his cheerleaders are hoping no one notices what that his budget is built on sand and it is the middle class, the elderly, the poor, our children and grandchildren who will be propping it up. How sad that the republicans have been selling their goods for so many years that they actually believe Voo Doo economics works--despite 30 years of a declining middle class, declining and stagnating wages for 98% of Americans which have proven it does not. Even the economic collapse in Dec 2007 and a near Great Depression has not shown them anything.

Jody, Iowa: I stopped buying the GOP rhetoric with Reagan because I realized that tax cuts for the rich would never result in my becoming rich.

You think the governments policy on taxes will make you rich?

You are truly out to lunch.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf

From the above link:

"Compared to the current Medicare program, the vouchers would purchase less coverage, or the premiums paid by the beneficiaries would be higher, or both. Merely shifting to private plans alone would result in higher premiums if the benefits were to remain the same as in the traditional Medicare program".

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the quote you cited does not appear in the source you cited. Caught in the act again, copying and pasting garbage you haven't even read.

Great analysis, USN. The Ryan "budget" really doesn't rise to a level that you could consider a budget. It's an outline, deliberately fuzzy on the specifics so that we can project upon it a fantasy of painless debt reduction while hiding the fact that ALL the pain will fall upon average Americans. The well-to-do will be treated very well indeed, receiving their customary gifts and tribute from the GOPTP instead of a request for shared sacrifice.

This will give you a sense of the magnitude of Paul Ryan’s budget credibility problem: The Heritage Foundation, which provided the economic forecasts Ryan used to sell the plan yesterday, has scrubbed its implausible forecast of 2.8% unemployment from its analysis of Ryan’s plan without offering any explanation, suggesting Heritage itself doesn’t believe its own numbers.

Of course, that isn’t Ryan’s only credibility problem. There’s also the fact that he claimed Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin supported his plan to repeal Medicare and replace it with subsidized private insurance, but she actually doesn’t. And there’s the fact that the firm whose model Heritage employed in its forecast is skeptical of Heritage’s numbers, saying the firm would have used different assumptions than did Heritage.

The list goes on: Ryan’s plan calls for shrinking all spending other than health care and Social Security from 12% of GDP to 3.5%, but he doesn’t explain how he will accomplish that feat. And Heritage is the same exact outfit that predicted an economic boom from the Bush tax cuts, a boom that never happened.

http://www.favstocks.com/ryan-budget-plans-economic-forecasts-dismissed-as-pure-fantasy/0742524/

JoAnnaSmith1

Jody, Iowa: I stopped buying the GOP rhetoric with Reagan because I realized that tax cuts for the rich would never result in my becoming rich.

You think the governments policy on taxes will make you rich?

Not me Joanna because I'm not in the upper 2%

Facts from the United States Government:

In Trillion
2000-7081 President Cliton last year in office
2001-7324 President Bush first year in office
2002-7880
2003-8573
2004-9331
2005-9990
2006-10655
2007-11360
2008-12537 President Bush last year in office.
2009-14539 President Obama First year in office ( Total has loas that were paid back to the tresury)

The 2010 projected National Total debt made in 2009 was 16173 Almost 2 trillion lower than projected.
Currently, the total National Total debt is at 14221

trillion- Remember all spending is signed into law by the President in charge.
Under Bush the debt grew 5456 5 trillion 456 billion (8 years in office)
Under Obama the debt grew 1684 1 trillion 684 billion (2 years 3 months)

What strikes me about Ryan, beside his pretty blue eyes, is his absolute confidence that cutting government programs, and lowering taxes on the rich, will led to prosperity. You can tell, he's run the numbers and he thinks it's only logical. But, anyone who is familiar with the real world, or economic history, knows this plan doesn't lead to prosperity.

Ryan is so confident and convincing when he talks about dollars. What you need to know about Paul Ryan, however, is that, like George Bush, he was born into wealthy family, and, like Bush, his world view was shaped by this idea that inherited wealth is the best kind of entitlement. If you aren't wealthy, in their eyes, you must be a failure or have defective genes. They see the rest of the population as simply a drain on their wealth.

This is the basis of their conservatism - they want to conserve the status quo because it's the world they grew up in. Trust me, I know folks who inherited their wealth, and they don't have the same world view as the rest of us.

Every country in the world has a thin band of wealth at the top. Russia, Latin America, even African countries have their wealthy few. The stronger the middle class, however, the more prosperous the country as a whole is. Ryan doesn't share this world view. That's what I have come to realize. He thinks a country is prosperous if it's top 10% are wealthier than they were the previous year. If the 1930'as taught us anything, it's that the stability of the middle class is the foundation of the nation's prosperity.

Bill:

The quote is in this link. I put the incorect link up on top of the quore but it was included in my source list if you would have looked at those instead of trying to pick a fight that does not exist.

Nice try, so I missed typed a url. sue me.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/22/cbo-analysis-of-the-rivlinryan-medicare-voucher-and-medicaid-block-grant-proposals/

sue me.

Not gonna sue you, just pointing out your sloppy work so everyone understands what kind of a person we're dealing with.

These so called conservatives sure are an uptight bunch. And if a conservative doesn't know their facts, they just throw out a lot of garbage.

Job1:

Yep. It does not change much.

Gee navy you started out so well in post 2.0 only to revert back to your old ways in 3.0. Yes job1 you do throw out a lot of garbage

So pelosi and reid supporters where are your plans? heck where are pelosi's and reids plans? seems that all they can say is NO, NO and NO WAY.

Well said and I second your comment. The media spin makes people dizzy.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

Senator Barack Obama – March 16, 2006

Obama and the Democrats now advocate raising the debt ceiling with no strings attached. Speaker Boehner, who appears to be the only one doing his job, says "Not a chance!!"

JoAnnaSmith1

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure

Yea by the pervious administration!!!!!!

Time to stop bashing the Tea Party Movement, folks. They have managed to change the national narrative and, incredibly, move President Obama and Congressional Democrats to acknowledge and address the debt crisis.

Did they?

Da Noid-

Watch President Obama's address on Thursday. He'll be making it official.

John B:

Great post. The agenda of the right is nothing more than the total destruction of the middle class by taking away our rights, a corrupt political system that is for sale to the highest bidders, claiming spending reform while they increase the tax cuts to their "Sugar Daddy's", period. Our politicians are not really serious yet about getting the deficit/national debt under control. It is just more political rhetoric and avoiding the real problems. They claim reform when they mean "Oligarchy". Nothing has changed and it will get worse soon.

John B. Thanks for sharing the Register's article; your added thoughts were terrific. The good thing for Iowa right now that prevents the GOP from doing what is being done elsewhere across the nation is the democrats are still in charge of the state Senate. Branstad's and the GOP's House agenda is being carefully scrutinized, and criticized by left, right and center.

Thanks, folks. I linked to the Register for another reason, other than to highlight an outstanding editorial. It's important to make clear that it isn't just one politician, and it isn't just in Washington. The Conservative war on the middle class is serious, it's big, and it's spread across battlefields all around the nation. In Congress, the statehouses, and even at the local level Republicans are working to destroy services for average Americans while dramatically increasing corporate welfare and tax breaks for the wealthy. Groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home write model legislation and feed it to Conservatives around the nation, funded by deep-pocket Conservatives whose goal it is to keep everything they have and take yours as well.

Your right John our lives don't need to be dictated by the Koch'd and Murdock's or even the Melon-Schiaf's but they also don't need to be dictated by The Blankfein's, the Immelt's or the Federal Reserve. We need to start thinking for ourselves. We need to get corporate money out of politic's but that's never going to happen. Just an observation notice any women on our list's

John B - Off topic, but to follow you about state house battles, I wanted to post an update on the Texas budget battles.

Much like the US there are two battles being fought in Texas, the first is to make up a $4 billion dollar shortfall until September of this year. In a surprise move, some GOP have agreed with the minority Democrats to use a portion of the Rainy day emergency fund, $3 billion, to balance the remaining year. The second battle is for the two year biennium funding that starts in October 2011 that is estimated at $24 billion.

Last week, I was able to join 6000+ other state workers and union members at the capital to speak out against the House Bill 1 that cuts approximately $24 billion dollars from Texas state services, agencies, state workers and teachers via job cuts, benefit reductions and furloughs. Mind you at no time did the majority think to actually look at adding additional revenue.

In fact, despite earlier warnings property taxes were lowered to unsustainable levels that caused huge shortfalls to school budgets. With no state income tax, the sales taxes in the recession and now the fragile recovery will be unable to pay for our state services. Unfortunately the people hit hardest will be those least able to weather the cuts, the elderly, the poor, low income students and the mentally ill. Much like the debate in Washington, the brunt of cuts are expected to be absorbed or paid at the expense of the middle class and low income worker.

___________________

Debate on HB 1 began on Friday, April 1^st. The Republican majority chose to cut deep, and threatening the infrastructure of Texas by reducing funding by 21% to public education and higher education, eliminating the Texas Grants financial aid program for incoming college students and reducing nursing homes’ funding by 33%. Some estimates have up to 80 % of the nursing homes in Texas closing due to the cuts. The Legislative Budget Board (the state’s non-partisan body that analyzes the budget and its impact) also estimates that this budget would eliminate over 355,000 public and private sector jobs in the next two years.

Medicaid is by far the largest health care program in the state. It accounts for over 25% of the Texas budget. HB 1 cuts funding for Medicaid by $ 4.7 billion for FY 2010-11 levels, and is $13.7 billion shy of requested funding to account for enrollment growth and cost increases. Texas already ranks 49th in per capita spending on Medicaid, barely offering the basic services to those eligible.

Other cuts in HB 1 assume that two state hospitals will be privatized. One State Supported Living Center will be closed, while funding for community services for those with intellectual disabilities are cut by 33%.

lisa, I believe very firmly that excess money is the biggest issue in our political system. It just can't help but have a corrosive effect.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court's definition of "money" as "speech" only takes us further down a bad path. I'd like to see the new Congress take up the DISCLOSE Act that was passed out of the House and filibustered in the Senate last year. If at lease we could add transparency to the process it would be a step in the right direction.

Yellowdog - your post begs the following questions. In order to avoid cuts will the citizens of texas accept higher property taxes? Higher sales taxes or even instituting state income taxes? Remember the Charlie Rose interview with big city mayors?

the services that taxpayers want or expect rarely line up with what those services will cost, and the pay and benefits public workers expect rarely line up with long term costs and revenues.

BTW - I considered your post to be very much on topic. Thanks.

American,

In short, not many will accept higher property taxes or state income taxes. Believe me it is Tax season, I'm not too thrilled about sending my federal payment in this year. However, I believe in paying my fair share and not any more.

_______

the services that taxpayers want or expect rarely line up with what those services will cost, and the pay and benefits public workers expect rarely line up with long term costs and revenues.

_____________

On the state side, I don't think the tax system works. It is broken and needs to be addressed. There are others here who are willing to address taxes. Believe me many people of all stripes have demanded cuts, but when they see what the cuts are and how they will be affected they take a moment to pause. I have spoken to Liberals, moderates and even some conservatives on this issue.

The conservative nonpartisan group Tax Foundation slotted Texas 45th out of the 50 states, meaning it has one of the lowest tax burdens based on the amount of state and local taxes paid as a percentage of income.

The first issue is property taxes, the state constitution mandates that only a certain amount of money ie. $1 per $100 per household value can be used to determine property tax values. Some think a way to combat this is to have a constitutional statewide amendment put to the voters to see if this can increase. Another plan could be to have the local school districts submit for voter approval if their school district can add say another $.10 or $.20 cents per $100 per household value to go directly for their own district.

Other ideas to supplement education are being discussed during this legislative session to allow casino gambling. I have been tracking this and the social conservative groups and many lobbyists (backed by Ok and LA casino groups) will probably kill this bill.

There is no state income tax in Texas, a fact that played some role in selecting my graduate studies here thirteen years ago. However, at this point I believe people might start to consider that a state income tax is necessary. Every two years, the state has this funding issue. There are plans to place a state income tax on those making more than $150,000 a year. Others have called for everyone to pay their fair share, something I could support.

Again as with the federal budget, I believe a balanced approach spending cuts and tax increases are needed to balance the equation.

Remember the Charlie Rose interview with big city mayors?

What I got from the Charlie Rose interview - read excerpts was that the city situation as well as a state is greatly affected by the national climate/economy. In Texas the sales taxes generated had no chance of dealing with our current funding issues, thus the need to tap the rainy day fund this go around. This even after Perry used some of the stimulus federal money for 2010 and 2011.

John, I believe in public funding and never supported Citizens United. I would like a money limit on both candidates.

yellowdog, I concur. I was impressed that cities were effectively the end of the line for any state or federal subsidies and were the closest to the frontlines, so to speak.

PSLC:

Because they have no new ideas and the ones they have do not work. Just look at the last administration and where it put us. And these guys want a second bite of the apple to destroy what they missed on the first go around.

The people are wise to them. Big rallies in WA State, recalls in WI, eroding support for the new ideology that closely resembles Europe of the 30's and 40's. This ideology is not compatible with democracy and one will have to go. The American people are going to have to make some serious choices on which on they want. And soon.

Democrat and founding Chair of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, says that the U.S. is facing the prospect of a sovereign debt crisis...just as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are experiencing.

It used to be unthinkable that such a calamity could occur in the United States...but, not any more.

And it's not just Republicans saying it.

Bag:

Democrat and founding Chair of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, says that the U.S. is facing the prospect of a sovereign debt crisis...just as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are experiencing.

Democrat and founding Chair of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, denounced Paul Ryan's crazy make-believe budget after Ryan dishonestly started calling it the "Ryan-Rivlin" budget to mislead people into thinking it was vaguely bipartisan.

There is no debt "crisis." But there will be if enough people fall for Ryan's repeated claim that "America has a spending problem, not a revenue problem." It has a revenue problem that Ryan intends to make worse with his tax cuts for the rich. The problem we have now is a JOBS crisis, not a budget crisis.

Sadly, republicans actually believe what they've been selling for 30 years despite all the evidence to the contrary. They believe what big business tells them; they believe that for America to be competitive, we must also have wages similar to those in China, India and elsewhere. In reality, the USA should be setting the standard for those other countries to achieve.

Houston-

"There is no debt 'crisis'."

Alice Rivlin says there is a debt crisis.

On Thursday, President Obama will tell the nation that there is indeed a debt crisis.

Their comments on the issue, understandably, carry substantially more weight than yours.

Sorry.

Navy. There is some heavy lifting ahead. When the media devotes so much time to people like Trump, and so little to unemployment, you know we have a challenge ahead of us.

PSLC:

Touche'. It will get worse before it gets better. Have a great day and keep your posts coming, I look forward to them.

So true, Patrick, though Trump on CNN Sunday morning was both entertaining and informative. Informative in that he pointed out that 50% of Republicans believe President Obama isn't an American citizen and more than 20% more are open to that possibility. It certainly says a lot about the level of disinformation among the GOPTP crowd.

When Candy Crowley pointed out that birth announcements were filed in not 1 but 2 Honolulu papers Trump insisted it was Mr. Obama's grandparents falsifying the public record because "back then American citizenship was something people were very proud of, moreso than today." He insisted it was very common.

The Donald was forced to change the subject when Crowley replied "We checked. The announcements were placed by the hospital, not family members."

Bag:

Alice Rivlin says there is a debt crisis.

No she did not say that. This is what she did say:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0311/Rivlin_US_debt_crisis_definitely_possible.html

"We could definitely have what's called a sovereign debt crisis," Rivlin told CNN's "State of the Union."

Perhaps the difference between a crisis happening in the present and one that may happen in the future is too fine a distinction for you to grasp, but most people understand the difference when they're not being misled by Chicken Little types screaming that the sky is falling. What we have now is a JOBS crisis, but the job situation is improving. For Republicans, it's the fact that the economic recovery is gaining strength that's the REAL crisis. They need to stop it at all costs to prevent Obama from winning a second term, and forcing drastic cuts to the federal budget is one of the best ways tools they have to kill the recovery.

John:

The Donald was forced to change the subject when Crowley replied "We checked. The announcements were placed by the hospital, not family members."

Yeah, that's what the hospital WOULD say. They're obviously in on the vast birth certificate conspiracy, too. And so is Crowley!

Houston-

I hope you don't honestly believe that the quote from Alice Rivlin that you produced supports your argument...hardly. Furthermore, it doesn't provide any context to her words. She was making the point that, while the notion of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis was once regarded as unthinkable, that's no longer the case. And in any event, unlike you, Ms Rivlin is suggesting that action to address the crisis reflects the urgency involved, isn't she?

Moreover, Houston...you never tell us exactly how long the United States actually has before its ability to issue new debt is affected in the world's financial markets. Others have said two years or less (Erskine Bowles) or "several" years (Paul Ryan), but the truth is that no one...including you, knows for sure. Once that begins, it's already too late.

Lastly, you'll be able to listen to the latest convert to the "Chicken Little types" on Thursday when President Obama addresses the nation and offers his proposal to avert a U.S. sovereign debt crisis.

Apparently, he disagrees with you on this matter as well.

Bag, adroitly dodging the fact that Alice Rivlin has distanced herself from Paul Ryan's Roadmap to Ruin:

Furthermore, it doesn't provide any context to her words. She was making the point that, while the notion of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis was once regarded as unthinkable, that's no longer the case.

The United States does NOT have a "sovereign debt crisis. Rivlin did NOT say that. What the Republicans have is an economic recovery crisis, and they're pulling out the stops to end that crisis with hysterical nonsense about a debt crisis that does not exist.

Lastly, you'll be able to listen to the latest convert to the "Chicken Little types" on Thursday when President Obama addresses the nation and offers his proposal to avert a U.S. sovereign debt crisis.

Actually, some progressives do think that Obama has been too much influenced by the Republicans' deficit hysteria. Spending cuts are not unreasonable at any time, but the cuts Obama is proposing are nothing like the job-killing cuts that the Republicans want. Serious economists don't think any drastic measures should be taken to cut the deficit until the economy has more fully recovered. If the debt problem is not yet serious enough to justify ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, then it's certainly not serious enough to destroy the social contract of the New Deal that has worked for Americans for the past 70 years.

BTW: If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling to appease the teabaggers, then we WILL have a real debt crisis, one of their own making. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Houston-

You provided a quote from Alice Rivlin:

"We could definitely have what's called a sovereign debt crisis."

A "sovereign debt crisis." Exactly what Greece is experiencing, Houston...GREECE.

What do YOU think that Alice Rivlin was trying to say?

What was she trying to tell you?

You don't regard her words as a dire warning?

By the way...

Then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006...a level of irresponsibility the "teabaggers" haven't achieved yet, Houston.

The White House is now suggesting that our President was mistaken when he voted against raising the nation's debt ceiling.

If President Obama didn't agree, none of us would have heard that admission, eh Houston?

Great reminder, Da Noid. Our country was founded through compromise. If the Founding Fathers had not compromised, the USA would not exist. What a shame that conservatives now refuse to use the word compromise let alone consider it.

DN, as far as reactionaries in the South and partisans of Jacksonian government like the John Birch Society (big sponsors of the Tea Parties) are concerned the outcome of the Civil War was wrong. The've worked for generations to kill government and they're at one of their most vocal moments right now.

Compromise is the enemy for such. It's not that they forgot, they never knew, and that's the danger they pose.

DN, I watched last week's rerun of the Civil War as well Ken Burn's account was the best I have ever seen. This is the second time I watched and it was more poignant then the first time. I found it disturbing though that Sherman's strategy was to descimate the civilian population. Makes you wonder why other countries feel justified using this tactic.

Nash:

I guess that sums it up pretty clearly. These guys (democrats and republicans) had better start doing the work of the people and stop putting their personal agendas first. The people are no longer going to tolerate this type of behavior.

So true Navy . . . "we the people" are tired of being spun.

You are so right, Nashville Fan. When will someone say--let's not raise the debt ceiling--let's raise taxes and pay down debt. Ain't gonna happen.

Nashville, simplified truth in your post. I agree that polling people about the debt ceiling is silly and dumb since most people likely do not even know there is one let alone the impact failing to raise it would have for this country both nationally and globally.

Maybe the White House and some economist's should have televised discussion which would explain what the debt ceiling is and why it must be preserved to keep the U.S. credit rating.

This is not the first lie from Paul Ryan. It just demonstrates that he will lie and mislead the American people with the best of them. I am tired of the crap from both sides. The American people need the truth what ever that may be. Sugar coating the problems does not help any more than lying to get votes.

The Ryan proposal will just destroy this country as we know it.

The Ryan Budget Plan

He tells us that once his policies are enacted, unemployment will decline to 4%, a rate that the U.S. has not seen since the early 60’s. The plan does not touch Social Security, and it does not specify the actual programs it would cut. So for all its supposed radicalism, it's actually quite weak at outlining reductions in government spending. The bulk of the deficit reduction -- which allows for the large tax cuts in Ryan's plan -- would come from changing American health care. But there, too, Ryan's plan is highly unrealistic.
The theory behind Ryan's health plan is that if individuals have to pay for their health care, they will shop carefully and drive down costs. But health is an unusual economic good and is unlikely to follow the usual market pattern. (Look at higher education: consumers pay for a large share of the total, and costs still rise at three times inflation every year.) In health care, a huge part of the expense relates to a small percentage of sick patients and to the last year of life (and those two categories overlap). 85% percent of Medicare costs are generated by just 25% of patients. Even in the most conservative health care plan, the health savings account, people buy catastrophic insurance. Well, that sick 25% of the patient population would have catastrophic insurance, which would still explode the Medicare budget.

Houston:

When you accuse a man of a lie, you need to prove it. Prove to evryone that the man lied. Don't just spout offf an opinion as fact. Personally I received a $4.00 making work pay decrease, I guess that is what you call lowering taxes. I employ 17 people at our restaurant and only 1 received a one-time $16.00 decrease.

I guess you can claim you lowered taxes even if someone only paid 2 cents less.

There are a lot of people with the opinion that every time a Democrat open their mouth a lie flies out of it......now see how that works...????? You call me a lie, I call you a lie......what has it proved?

ALL POLITICIANS LIE and TWIST the truth to their advantage. Republicans truly do not have the market cornered. Name one POLITICIAN that has never told a lie in order to gain an advantage.

Speaking of Ryan, you're not even from Ohio, so you really don't know this man. I would think there are a lot of people in his district that would disagree with you. What you think doesn't matter; you don't have a vote in his district....lol......that is called reality.

Speaking of Ryan, you're not even from Ohio, so you really don't know this man

Apparently neither do YOU! Ryan is from WI!

Oh brother, just what we need, another geographically challenged wing nut 'know it all'! lol

[T]he AP reports:

[A]s a share of the nation’s economy, Uncle Sam’s take this year will be the lowest since 1950. [...] And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike. [...]

But in the third year of Obama’s presidency, federal taxes are at historic lows. … in the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president.”

The AP adds that even though federal income tax rates have remained unchanged, “many taxpayers are seeing their bills drop under Obama because of more generous tax credits for college students, working families, homebuyers and the working poor.”

Will this stop the Tea Party meme that Obama is raising taxes? It hasn't these last three years, why would it now?

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/taxes-still-lower-under-obama-than-bush/

Yes, Paul Ryan is a liar.

Feisty,

Forgive ITM........He doesn't know just how much he really doesn't know!

Ryan has to know that his budget plan ( Middle class shake down) as it stands will never be signed by the President.

Fiesty and chilled:

You both can really .................. you fill in the blanks. Who gives a %^$^ about where Ryan is from. WI or Ohio what difference does it make. Where he is from is not the point I was making.

Chilled I will match my education against you and anyone else on this message board anytime......now kick rocks TRICK.

John B:

TAX RECEIPTS are at their lowest..... There are so many loopholes in the tax system as to where of course some are paying lower taxes. THE RATES ARE STILL THE SAME. I pay lower due to CPA's.

Job1:

That is a talking point. (Middle Class shakedown)...lol....... Obama won't be POTUS forever.

Of course he does Job1, which indicates his plan isn't about fixing ANYTHING, it's about furthering the Tea Party agenda in the next election.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that 32 percent of the public has a favorable view of the two year old anti-tax movement, which also calls for less government spending and a more limited role for the federal government in our lives. The 32 percent favorable rating is down five points from December. 47 percent of people questioned say they have an unfavorable view of the tea party, up four points from December and an increase of 21 points from January 2010.

So the Tea Party movement may be losing steam, or, what is more likely, as Nate Silver cautions:

It’s not clear, on the other hand, that favorable views are decreasing; they’ve never been much higher than the low 30s, and that’s roughly where they remain today. Instead, this is almost certainly a case of Americans who had ambivalent views about the tea party before now coming to a more negative impression.

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2011/03/decline-of-tea-party-and-return-to.html

IntheMIddle sez:

When you accuse a man of a lie, you need to prove it. Prove to evryone that the man lied. Don't just spout offf an opinion as fact.

Everyone who pays any attention at all knows that it IS a fact that President Obama has lowered taxes, not raised them as Paul Ryan lied. John B. gave the proof that Ryan is a liar so I don't have to do it again. Not that it will make any difference to ITM. Wingnuts are immune to facts. I think they get some sort of vaccination against them at an early age.

Houston:

You are correct. I do not see how this 40 Billion really does anything when the budget is about 3.8 Trillion. Just smoke and mirrors so they can see "see we cut something". This is the same reason they use to go after discretionary spending only. They consider it low hanging fruit but will not really impact he deficit to any great degree since this spending is only 12% of the budget.

Smoke and Mirrors, Bait and Switch.

So true, Houston. The media is spinning itself dizzy along with ignoring the truth. It was President Obama who insisted cutting programs like defense which are not discretionary spending. Except for the republicans, most people will see that Congress couldn't accomplish a budget but when the President stepped in, held meetings every night with Boehner and Reid, agreement was found. Beyond me why the media finds it necessary to declare winners and losers period.

I too have wondered why it isn't a bigger story that a county clerk with a long history of election irregularities miraculously produced enough votes for the Republican to ensure there will be no automatic recount. http://www.wisn.com/news/27473900/detail.html

Kathy Nickolaus did a nice job of providing votes for her former boss when he was in trouble. How is it that someone who once testified to election irregularities within the Republican Party through a deal giving her immunity from prosecution still has a job of such high responsibility?

Frank, that's exactly the quandry we're in. Well described.

I am looking forward to President Obama's plan for lowering the deficit. It's amazing to remember the guff he took for cutting NASA last year - a string of astronauts paraded in front of the cameras to criticize him and pundits saying Democrats would lose Florida in all future elections. Now, the Tea Party's budget has given him cover for the cuts he wants to make. I think he is playing this brilliantly (as usual.)

Too much common sense there Frank, well said.

There is no reason that raising the debt ceiling would mean Congress and the President would stop looking at spending cuts and increasing revenues.

If all the Bush 43 tax cuts were allowed to expire, the deficit would be reduced by nearly half but for those making less than $75,000-$100,000, raising those taxes would be a mistake during economic recovery--they're the economic engine as far as buying goes. It would help considerably if the tax rates were expanded to include several more brackets, ones for millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires. Someone making $250,000 should not pay the same rate as someone making millions and billions. Having higher brackets for the wealthy also encourages more philanthropic giving. Eliminating the tax breaks for big oil which were put in place when oil was $19 a barrel should be eliminated. Tax loopholes need to be closed. There are so many revenue generators Congress should look at FIRST before cutting programs that benefit education, the poor, elderly and disabled.

Everything, especially defense, must be on the table. Our military industrial complex is by far too large and too expensive.

I have one tough question that needs to be asked before we talk of cutting defense spending. Why is Robert Gates in Iraq(supposedly for the last time) telling them we will stay after the end of the year? This was the reason I voted for this President and now it looks as if we are to be there forever. All they are waiting for is an invitation according to some news channels. (Not MSNBC) I keep thinking this can't be true but have read it several places . Do you know?

Frank:

I agree with you.

Quite succinctly put, Frank.

About two weeks ago, the Spaniards were informed that, contrary to conventional wisdom, they were not considered "too bog to fail"; that, in fact, if they did not embrace austerity measures, they would be joining Greece and Portugal, and denied access to the bond markets.

They woke up and cut their spending, thus were able to sell bonds at a pretty favorable interest rate.

The same brokers economists who put out that information followed with the fact that, if they were willing to let Spain fail, there was no earthly reason not to do the same to the United States, meaning, WE could be shut out of the market.

I wonder if anyone in this administration comprehends the gravity of the situation. The ECB has already split from the Fed- raising their rates, making ECB bonds more attractive to investors. We are in serious trouble, and it seems that we have a president who fails to comprehend the problem.

Nailed it...Neither party wants to admit it, but unless we cut spending and go back to the Clinton era tax structure all we are doing is discussing the color of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Frank you are quite correct. I was never for extending the Bush tax cuts but I also feel that more people should pay taxes. Everybody has got to have a dog in this hunt. The corporate loopholes have got to go there is no reason that Google, Wall st ,GE shouldn't be paying taxes. If they try to move offshore don't let them sell in the U.S.

Actually, the DOW hit its highest point under Bush and a Republican Congress, over 2,000 more than it is now. It wasn't under the left took over Congress that it started to fall. The DOW fell 383 points the day after Obama's victory on that fateful November; I guess business knew then what we know now.

Its simple. The House should pass a resolution stating that they verify that President Obama was born in America. And all republican presidential candidates should sign a document saying the same thing.

I agree, sbv-418808. It seems like the Tea Party faction (formerly called the base of the Republican Party), have influence out of proportion to their actual numbers. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact they represent the wishes of the wealthiest 1%? Money speaks.

if the Tea Party had not taken the house, we would only be discussing THE SIZE OF tax increases, not expense cutting.

THAT IS A FACT.

If it's A FACT then I presume you're ready to provide documentation. Otherwise it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

SBV- The tea party has strength because both of the other entrenched parties don't want to move in ANY way that might jeopardize their power and electability. They would rather raise spending over and over to keep people complacent rather than face the fact that our country is spending far more than we make and is heading towards catastrophe. The CBO said that they "can't conceive" of a way our economy survives on the same path for more than 15-20 years. Quite frankly, both parties are perfectly happy that the Tea Party exists- the Republicans get to watch them take the reins on budget control and the Democrats get an easy target for their campaigning.

BTW Amy- Nationally there are about 40% of voters whom are "independant". If the Tea Party is about 30-32% of someone- whom are they? Are they democrats and republicans not happy with our government? Are they all republicans? Are they most of the independant voters? In any case, 30% of voters is PLENTY to change the outcome of any election if they are the independant voters.

John- I can prove it. If you just take the amount of spending from the 2009-2011 federal budgets they've risen from $2.8 trillion to $3.8 trillion. After last week's "compromise" we are now talking about spending less next year. The President was viehemently against spending cuts until two days ago, where he said that cuts will have to be made across the board. That is the impact of the Tea Party- spending cuts accepted by both parties.