Do you notice the pattern here Ron?

Gang of 6 is now a Gang of 4 thanks to 2 Teapubicans who apparently don't comprehend the meaning of bi-partisanship!

And these clowns CLAIM to be LEADERS? PUHLEEZE!

If they don't GET everything THEY want they pack up their crayons and run home!

Compromise MEANS both sides, instad of the Teapublians my way or the highway mentality!

Cantor is a hypocrite socialist. Cantor quits, and still gets a paycheck.

There's no surprise here; ever since Obama was elected, each time discussions have gotten around to the nitty-gritty, the Republicans have walked.

Cantor the VP is good enough. I am sick of the grand standing. We have to cut spending and raise taxes on EVERYONE. That is where we are right now and that is the painful truth. Get your ass back to the table and do your job.

King Dave - Really, quits and still gets a paycheck? You are going there?

Kind of like the Democrats in Wisconsin that ran to Illinois to hide from a vote?

A senator from Illinois who voted "Present" so as not to be on the record for anything that might keep him from getting elected President?

So do I. I am glad he is standing up to the No cuts/Tax Increase only Dems in the room. Lord knows the President is afraid to.

No cuts? Really? Did you bother to read the article? Trillions of budget cuts and the only thing standing in the way of a deal to make the cuts is the T-Bagger's refusal to increase revenue. Why are people like you so willing to slaughter the middle-class so the rich can get even richer? Shared sacrifice INCLUDES THE WEALTHY!

Cantor is right to hold the line here. There need to be major spending cuts. Cantor is saying that he will not agree to any tax increases without spending cuts to go along with them. This makes sense that the approach needs to be on both fronts. If it were left to the Democrats, they would just raise taxes and keep spending like drunken sailors. Cantor has nothing against the tax increases, he just wants a balanced approach to solving the problem, not a one sided approach.

"Kind of like the Democrats in Wisconsin that ran to Illinois to hide from a vote?"

Those guys all quit? I had no idea. Who replaced 'em?

JS: Maybe I mis-read the article, but Cantor does have something again raising taxes. His house members are against it. So, you cannot have cuts without raising taxes based on the current discussion. We need to do both. As far as spending like drunken sailors, both parties are guilty as charged. Glass house JS, Glass House!

President Obama made a serious error in undercutting the negotiations of the bipartisan "Gang Of Six" in their efforts to craft bipartisan legislation based on the recommendations of his own debt commission. The new panel he created under the direction of VP Biden is now crumbling as well.

The President's refusal to promote the solutions offered by his own debt commission has in large part led us to where we are now.

Regardless of what you think of Eric Cantor, he's probably correct about this, if nothing else.

The President will likely be forced to become directly involved in the talks to raise the debt ceiling.

He has no other choice.

Yesterday's CBO debt report, Fed Chairman Bernanke's comments, today's unemployment report, and the subsequent effect of all of these on the financial markets, serve as a reminder that the clock is ticking.

He is saying no tax increases, period. The Democrats have put billions of cuts on the table, but Cantor won't consider any tax increases, or even an early end to the ruinous Bush tax cuts. He's sticking with his Republican one-sided approach, funded by millionaire donors.

Of course Cantor quits... There was a real risk of coming to an agreement!

King

Cantor is a hypocrite socialist

Do you have the faintest idea of what socialist mean? Please!

I'm so tired of this "Starve the Beast" crap that is the Republican agenda.

With all the suggested cuts its fine to raise taxes. They only want to keep taxes low so they can cut entitlements.

RamFla: most Americans have no idea what a socialist is or mean. They settle for you are a liberal, you are a conservative, you are a socialist, you are a right wing nut and that's the end of any grown up conversation. The old I know you are but what am I has grown up and is now in American politics.

Keep in mind, average Americans (who aren't political junkies like us) WANT Congress to work together...

Eric's antics will not impress them...

Does Cantor ever read a poll? Approx 80% WANT tax increases on the wealthy.

This is not going to play out well for Teapublicans!

Especially is they make good on their threat to go with the nuclear option!

That poll number is funny Feisty. I guess Obama is in the minority on this one, eh?

Oh and iit really is the "teapublicans" that are at risk, right old gal? Sure they are.

You know you never have told my why Obama signed into law those tax cuts for the "rich."

But hey at least we can put the entire argument about the effectiveness of the stimulus to bed. Obviously it was a HUGE success. GDP growth ought to be right a 0 by the end of the year. Unemployment at 10% and of course interest rates at almost zero.

Yep, HUGE success.

Yeah Feisty 80% want taxes on the wealthy, over half of that 80% don't pay taxes and all of that 80% don't qualify as wealthy. What a stupid argument.

How about this? I live in Michigan so let's ask what percentage of Michiganders would favor higher taxes on people who live in Illinois. Maybe 80%?

This crap about tax and spend Democrats is horsesh*&^. There has only been one fiscally responsible president in the last 40 years and that was William Jefferson Clinton. The GOP started paying the rich at the expense of the middle class in 1981 and have never slowed down. The middle class has made it's sacrifice. We've lost our jobs, our income, tax deductions and on and on. I believe we should make serious cuts but it's time for those that benefit the most at least pay their fair share. And before you talk to me about their tax rates do some research. There is a big difference between a rate and what they actually pay after having their accountants massage it into place. Trickle down didn't work in 1981 and it doesn't work 30 years later. Stop listening to the GOP talking points and actually use your noodle for a change. It only hurts for a while and if you use it enough the pain goes away entirely.

Mnpat - apparently you missed this minor point...

In a statement, Cantor said that Democrats are insisting that tax increases must be part of the debt limit deal but that there is not sufficient support in the GOP-majority House to pass any tax hikes.

"Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," he said. "Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today's meeting and I believe it is time for the President to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue.

Looks more like the right is willing to compromise but that cantor knows the house votes aren't there.

Perhaps if obama stops his re-election campaigning he can do his job as potus and be the leader in finding common ground. Perhaps another round of golf is in order as well.

JS in SD

Cantor is saying that he will not agree to any tax increases without spending cuts to go along with them.

Did you read the article, and see the comments by Mr. Cantor? Or are you just trying to pettifog the topic?

Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," he [Cantor] said. "Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today's meeting ... we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts

The hang up is because the GOP is ideologically opposed to Tax Increases, despite the reality that U.S. taxes are at the lowest rates they have been for 50 or more years.

Pride and Joy, Obama's probably thinking about how he can slip away and join his family, friends, and other groupies on their 'goodwill' trip to Africa.

Obama's ego and narcisstic tendencies will keep him out of a leadership role in this situation as there is no upside for him! The reality check for him and the country will come in August I guess. Have we learned yet that an inexpierenced academic can not be an effective leader?

Exellent post up at the top, Feisty Rehead. I especially liked your comment about them ...

"If they don't GET everything THEY want they pack up their crayons and run home!"

That is so true. Good news is, Wisconsin Democrats never do that sort of thing. And neither do any other Democrats. Like the Democrats on this site who never flee from their keyboards when Spanky or Woim come on here and demolish them. Nope. Never. Keep up the good work, Feisty. You, me, Navy, and others are all on the same page. Beverly too. I'm sure when 8th grade lets out this week she'll be right here to join us even more!

I can imagine the hell it has to be to try and talk to Joe Biden let alone negotiate.

Cantor doubles down on the epic failure that is "Starve the Beast" economics. Bye bye Cantor.

Most of the country now realize the mistake electing an inexperience academic as President! Unfortunately, that lesson was learned just a little bit late! It will take the country years to undo the damage created by this guy in the last 3 years! Even the democrats have crawled into their holes... very much like the Wisconsin demos fled to their 'holes' a few months back over their collective bargaining issue!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL "Gang of 6 is now a Gang of 4"

Wrong group. The "Gang of 6" stopped meeting some time ago. This is a different group.

Man I sure wish we could get that $787 billion back.

But on a even more ridiculous note, you all catch the news - they nailed the Obama Admin/Geinter having direct involvement in screwing all the Delphi workers [a GM parts supplier] out of their pensions.

Oh did I mention they were not part of the UAW, which by the way had all of it's pensions protected?

You know what astounds me is the folks here just don't seem to mind when certain blue collar, middle class folks get the shaft from Obama. I guess they only care about certain middle class people. Huh.

Madson - you must have been asleep during the Bush years. If you are measuring based on "take and redistribute", Bush is a much bigger socialist than Obama!

Bush redistributed the wealth big time to the big money - the poor got poorer, the middle class imploded and the rich got 4 times richer.

Sometimes it is better to stay on topic than to wander into old talking points. Yours wasn't very intelligent or inciteful to begin with when it was new....Now it's are just old and dumb...

As soon as the lefties agree to tax hikes for EVERYBODY, maybe we can restart negotiations.

What do you say Nasty Redhead, are you game for increasing everyones taxes? If not, STFU.

DeeToo - You are wrong!! The Bush/Obama cuts were far more generous to the lower income levels. Please educate yourself before you post and make yourself look dumb.

The "Party of NO" has got to go. !

White Collar Auto, the way you write and the way you reason, I dont believe your white collar. I question your education at all>

G

Wrong group. The "Gang of 6" stopped meeting some time ago. This is a different group.

Nope! Same group!

Sen. Tom Coburn dropped out of the Gang of Six talks on Tuesday,

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), another member of the group,

The other group members are Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fsenate%2F161721-coburn-pulls-out-of-gang-of-six-talks&ei=v2IDTuS8Geje0QHf3eD_DQ&usg=AFQjCNH4Gv5uH27zz7yYYwxoU-XiRBgUwg

Poor Saxby - he's got to be one lonely dude!

Wonder why ALL of the Democrats are still sitting at the table negotiating in good faith?

Could it be because they are about this country MORE than political grandstanding?

White Collar Auto "Yeah Feisty 80% want taxes on the wealthy, over half of that 80% don't pay taxes and all of that 80% don't qualify as wealthy. What a stupid argument....How about this? I live in Michigan so let's ask what percentage of Michiganders would favor higher taxes on people who live in Illinois. Maybe 80%?"

Great analogy. Who wouldn't be in favor of raising taxes on SOMEONE ELSE, but not ME?

The 47% of people who pay no federal income taxes are laughing about this whole discussion, because they know they won't have to pay either way - but they do get to vote for "more of the same freebies" from the Democrats.

Socialist? Misusing terms just shows your level of education.

Hey Madison - how is all of the wealth moving upwards in recent decades anything other than "redistribution"? Oh wait. I know. Those guys shuffling around bundled derivatives/fraudulent mortgages on the shadow market "earned" it while the people who actually produce something deserve what they get. Of course the instrinsic value of labour is equal to how much paper money someone can extract from the system by manipulating the rules. Nothing arbitrary about that measurement at all, right? Intrinsic/arbitary, potatoes/potatos. Of course it's all a level playing field too. Laissez Faire. I mean people are fundamentally good, especially CEO's and bankers right? They would never act irrationally or unethically would they? A great untarnished meritocracy with no distinct structural advantages or disadvantages to anyone!!

The 47% of people who pay no federal income taxes are laughing about this whole discussion, because they know they won't have to pay either way

Doesn't the fact that they CAN'T pay have any relevance? Blood from a turnip man...

Doesn't the fact that they CAN'T pay have any relevance? Blood from a turnip man...

Not with this bunch! It's all about I got mine FU!

They also neglect to mention that tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years!

But hey, life is all good in ConservatiVille - Land of the greedy and home of the afraid!

One more thing - they seem to be implying that the 47% who pay no INCOME tax are somehow less entitled to a vote!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL "Wrong group. The "Gang of 6" stopped meeting some time ago. This is a different group............Nope! Same group!"

You're still wrong. Do some research.

"In addition to Cantor and Kyl, the members of the deficit team are: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Senators Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.)"

You'll notice that the group has 5 Democrats (including Biden) and just 2 Republicans. Gee, I wonder why little progress is being made?

Fred Evil

As soon as the people who really can't afford to pay taxes get rid of their cars and big sceen TV's and start using the public transportation system that we tax paying citizens have put in place for them, I will listen to them. Until that time I don't care what they think about others paying more taxes. They have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Cantor is a joke. TAX, BABY TAX.

Ok I'm going to try to make this real simple for you all.

California has the highest taxes of any state. California has the biggest debt and deficit of any state.

So as you can see the amount of taxes collect mean nothing. It is all about the amount of money spent. That taxes rates are low is of course irrelevant cause spending is through the roof. [the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire].

But it's ok - Obama is getting very desperate and will enact another tax cut.

Sorry libbies these are not your times, your arguments have failed. You saw that today with the oil release, you'll see it when he dumps payroll taxes, and hold your seats because the debt ceiling is zooming in.

Fred Evil "The 47% of people who pay no federal income taxes are laughing about this whole discussion, because they know they won't have to pay either way...........Doesn't the fact that they CAN'T pay have any relevance? Blood from a turnip man..."

I doubt that most of the 'middle class' can pay more taxes either, but they still will have to.

EVERYBODY needs to pay something to support the cost of government, even if it's only a small amount - only then will they care about how the money is spent. As it stands now, a large percentage of the 47% of people who pay no federal income taxes actually get money back anyway in the form of 'tax credits' (something for nothing), not to mention all of the taxpayer funded services (education, welfare, etc). The current system is designed as a 'class warfare' system intended to have half of the voters paying to support the other half - I'll let you figure out which Party benefits.

Why this obsession with just income tax? How about all the other taxes people pay? And how about the fact those taxes equal a much much larger portion of their income?? I agree there should probably be some minimum tax rate that isn't zero but let's not confuse the issue. To disqualify from federal income tax you have to be making squadoochie.

JH- I guess you don't want those people buying consumable goods. Clearly the government could spend their money in a more efficient manner more beneficial to the economy. You forget that these people are spending ALL of their discretionary income on consumption. It's called The Pecuniary Standard of Decency. Who do you think spends a greater percentage of their discretionary income? 100,000 guys making $20 an hour on one guy making 2 million an hour?? What's more beneficial? Oh but wait! That bazillionaire is DEFINITELY pumping all that money back into R&D, hiring, etc, etc. And of course he's making sure he's buying local goods at a commensurate rate to those 100,000 people.

If negotiations fail, with this walk out, Republicans will be blamed if a default on the debt happens.

Spanky- "Ok I'm going to try to make this real simple for you all.California has the highest taxes of any state. California has the biggest debt and deficit of any state."

They also have the greatest number of welfare cases in the Country. With about 12% of the Nation's population, California has about 35% of the welfare cases, in addition to the largest number of illegal immigrants. Once an illegal immigrant has an 'anchor baby', they automatically qualify for all sorts of taxpayer funded welfare. While very few of the illegal immigrants ever gain the right to vote, the Democrats take a long-term view of illegal immigrants - they expect the 'legal' anchor babies to grow up and vote for Democrats, since the vast majority of them will end up on public assistance (most never graduate from high school).

Feisty - What, no further comments on your 'Gang of 6'?

ivanho75

I will bet that those 100,000 people making $20.00 per hour are spending a lot more on state lotto tickets than the one guy making 2 million an hour. If the guy making 2 million an hour spends 10% of his money on consumable goods he is going to contribute much more to the tax base than the clown handing his hard earned money right back to the stae hoping he hits the big one. It all boils down to how the money is spent, not who's spending what. And all of this has nothing to do with income taxes. But I am glad to see that you are concerned about how people spend their money. Keep in mind that the guy making 2 million an hour is contributing far more to the government in income taxes than probably 95% of the people making $20.00 per hour. They better learn how to thank the 2 million dollar an hour person rather than continuing to demonize him. He may just quit making the money and retire. Which is what I think about more and more now that the so called rich are being attacked in this country.

Until that time I don't care what they think about others paying more taxes. They have no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned.

They have exactly as much say as you do.

You'll notice that the group has 5 Democrats (including Biden) and just 2 Republicans. Gee, I wonder why little progress is being made?

Are you intimating they are deliberately excluding Republicans? I'm willing to bet any other Republicans who wanted to sit in on it, would be more than welcome.

Fiesty, USNDVR, Bev and the rest of the cast of "regulars" here on "FIRST READ" a.k.a - The Democratic Demagoguery and Propaganda Macine and Cut & Paste Board. I urge you all to wake up and smell the coffee! Read and OBJECTIVELY digest all the negative news regarding your fearless leader in recent days.......it's not good and it AIN'T gettin any better either!!!!! Bernanke's premonition alone spells political doom for ANY incumbent President, however and at this juncture......it happens to be Obama. It is better to accept this situation for what it is rather than continue to deny it....it is only counter productive to do so. Sticking your head in the "cut & paste essay" sand and pretending that this is all not happening is a fools game!

Gee

TWO Republican leaves a Budget Panel And the Liberals/Progressives have a SH!T Fit. But when 14 Democrats leave the Wisconsin Legislature,and bring the State to a stand still for 3 weeks, they are HAILED AS HEROES. Do I see a double standard here???

Roy, the gang of six was originally 3 democrat and 3 republican congressmen and was to be coordinated by Biden. John Kyl left the group (probably not enough discussion about what military spending can be funnelled to his district) early on. So it ended up being a gang of 5. Now with Cantor leaving, you can say it is pretty much collapsed.

As for the republicans in general, they are very flexible, as long as the flexibility means moving to the right.

hey feisty, cant wait till ILL comes sniffin for a fed bailout. cant wait for your spin then.

There is something sinister at work here.

The Republicans have stated their #1 goal is to ensure Obama is a one-term president.

To accomplish this, they are setting out to damage our economy.

Everyone knows, that addressing the deficit will require both spending cuts and tax normalization. Taxes are at their lowest in 60 years.

There stance, to use the debt ceiling as a political tool, is is all just a game to degrade the economy in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential elections.

Shame on the Replublicans! I consider them traitors to our country.

JH - Your comeback is to suggest that middle and lower income people spend all their income on the lotto?? I'm sorry I engaged you in a debate my bad. Clearly histrionic non-sequiturs are your speciality. Btw- commensurate means "equal to". Some guy making 2 million an hour spending 10% of his discretionary income on consumption is NOT EQUAL to 100,000 people spending almost 100% of their discretionary income on consumption. In fact, it's 90% less. Duh! This is why the middle class consumer is going to do FAR MORE to stimulate the economy than by continuing the trend of wealth moving rapidly upwards into the hands of the top 2%. Again, it's called The Pecuniary Standard of Decency and it is a statistical fact.

This has to do with income tax because you're suggesting people who are exempt from federal income tax laws contribute nothing. Clearly they pay other taxes and those taxes make up a much greater percentage of their income than some bazillionaire. And their % of discretionary income spent directly back into the economy is greater.

On the other hand, I do agree all people earning an income but are currently exempt should pay something nominal.

Anyways, the idea that the uber-rich are going to "Go Galt" is ludicrously laughable.

When hard labour is valued properly and people who produce a product or provide a service are valued properly vis as vis people shuffling around bundled derivatives/fraudulent mortgages on the shadow market, then we can create a system where the right incentives are in place for people to earn an income where they can contribute more.

I'm hearing Kyl left too. The gang is getting smaller.

EVERYBODY needs to pay something to support the cost of government, even if it's only a small amount - only then will they care about how the money is spent.

Raising taxes is okay with me but first everyone pays then we vote to raise them equally across the board.

Wasn't raising taxes while cutting spending the way we balanced the budget during the Clinton Era? Seemed to work very well until the Bush II era ruled for 8 years. Get these bought and sold politicians out of Washington (Tea Party members are paid for by the Koch Brothers) and get people who know how to get things done.

Critical Thinker (Maine) - White Collar Auto, the way you write and the way you reason, I dont believe your white collar. I question your education at all>

Perhaps you shouldn't be so critical, in this context it is the contraction for 'you are' or you're.

Cantor wants Boehner and Obama to sit down and work out a budget ... maybe Boehner has nothing better to do but im sure Obama does ... whats wrong with the Vice President negotiateing a deal.. apparently Biden isnt playing fair and wants the GOP/TP to give a little ... Cantor is another Fascist that doesnt care about our Country... he only cares about saveing the rich a few tax dollars ... he would gladly see our country become insolvent .. if that would mean .. the black guy is no longer the prez

The gang of 6 are/were Senators. Cantor is a Representative. Somebody needs to either do a mea culpa or shut the F up.

i'll tell you how to get 3 trillion back and use it to pay down the debt...

Strip the Tax Breaks for Billionares and Trillionares from them, then make the billionares and trillionares pay, back taxes, from 2000 the back taxes alone will bring in another 2 trillion dollars making it 5 trillion that we can then pay down on the debt.

But the republican'ts must obey their masters the wealthy, the Billionares and Trillionares, and so they will fight this debt reduction plan tooth and nail. Then after fighting the repeal of the acting president george the lesser's tax cuts for Billionares and Trillionares, they will then turn around and demand an end of Social Security etc so they can take the Social Security money and pay, you guessed it, the Billionares and Trillionares

In 2012, be sure to vote all the republicant's, the tea baggers and the "democrats in name only", out of office!!!

Not even the truth about our current administration will stop the libby bloggers like fatty redhead and retarded bill from spewing thier brainwashed ideals to the sheeple out here that will believe them. I guess when you make a good enough living at being a paid blogger, the truth is no longer a concern of yours.

Lets put Partisan politics aside here. ( so this post really isnt directed at the Fab 5 libbies here who are NOTHING but partisan)

Both sides of the isle have said that our economic growth depends on the spending that the middle class does. When the middle class goes out and spend money our economy grows. The poor and middle class have been and is getting hit hard by the record high UE rate and high fuel rates which raises the price of everything else. Consumer confidence is in the crapper and the poor and middle class are trying to keep their head above water, and IF they have extra money they are not spending it on " extras " they are putting it in savings.

SO if they do not have any extra money to spend, HOW do you think the economy is going to look IF you raise taxes? More money being taken out of your paycheck each payday equals less money for us to live on. We are not the Gubment where we can borrow and print whatever we need to live.

I am not against raising taxes, ( even though I feel like the Gvmnt should deal with what it has not just tell us we have to pay more ) BUT you cannot raise taxes when we are in a recession/depression like we are. To me, that makes ZERO sense what so ever. CUT everything until we are at the bare bones, We do not need an all encompassing, tell us how to live Gvmnt. Then once everything has been cut AND we are out of the recession, look at raising taxes with a law that specifically says that all money collected from said tax increase goes STRAIGHT to the principle of our debt.

I applaud the republicans for taking a stand on no tax increase right now.

Jonathan-2055273 "Roy, the gang of six was originally 3 democrat and 3 republican congressmen and was to be coordinated by Biden. John Kyl left the group"

With the resources of the Internet available, why don't people do some research before posting. The 'Gang of 6' was an informal group that did not include Cantor or Kyle. Biden had nothing to do with it. It dissolved some time ago.

Aww...the poor widdle republicans aren't getting their way, so they don't want to play anymore. Kindergarten sandbox politicking at it's finest.

Cautiously Optimistic One "There is something sinister at work here. The Republicans have stated their #1 goal is to ensure Obama is a one-term president. To accomplish this, they are setting out to damage our economy."

That's about as lame as saying "The #1 goal of the Democrats is to re-elect Obama, and to accomplish this, they are setting out to bankrupt the country".

Guess what - there are legitimate policy differences on both sides, and extreme comments accomplish nothing.

Let's keep this simple! Cutting spending while cutting taxes for the rich is NOT BALANCING THE BUDGET it is simply corporate welfare and transferring wealth from the Middle Class to the rich. Trickle Down Economics my A S S... rather trickle up theft!

Let's put this 'Gang of 6' nonsense to bed. Here are the members of the 'Gang of 6' that started trying to solve our debt problems - all Senators, and they disbanded some time ago;

Democrats

• Mark Warner (Virginia)
• Dick Durbin (Illinois)
• Kent Conrad (North Dakota)

[edit] Republicans

• Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
• Mike Crapo (Idaho)
• Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)

Here are the 6 members that are meeting on the deficit with Biden, at Obama's request;

Sen. Daniel Inouye, Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Max Baucus, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. Chris Van Hollen

Just because each group had 6 members doesn't mean they were the same.

Let's move on.

Im to a point where Im about to say, let the liberals have what they want for 4 more years and watch what happens. The issue is I dont think we will ever get back once 2016 rolls around. If you people would come to Detroit and live down town where I live for a year you would see where we will be at that point. 10 of 12 of my neighbors live of of Government subsistence. 6 of those families have been doing this for at least 2 generations. The guy making the best living is the ones trading 50% on the dollar for Bridge cards , WIC or foodstamps. Or you can trade them for 40% worth of Medical Marijuana or Crack/Meth!

The number one issue is the repubs/teaparty only want to let the crash happen to say Odumbo is at fault. Neither the dems or repub/tea party give a damm about the working stiff, they just don't care. That said, when the crash happens the repubs will blame Odumbo for not coming to the table to help straighten this mess out. This is their plan to try and get him out of office. The people don't matter in this chess game. And all of you people on the left are just as bad, the people are the ones who are going to get hurt in the crap. The Politicians will not get hurt, they will still have the salaries and benefits of which we pay for. While more than 25% are the real unemployment numbers are wondering when are they going to get their jobs back, they won't because those jobs are gone forever. All of these people are hurting, and the poles don't care for eg. Cantor leaving the talks, so he can say he fought The hard fight to his house members. This only proves he doesn't give a crap about us. Plain and simple

I didnt see anything in the article that indicated that the democratic senators were willing to put any serious spending cuts on the table. It seems as if they dont want to be on record of cutting medicare or SS entitlement spending even though everyone knows that has to be part of the deal. I think most people would be for tax increases if tax policy could be totally revisited. The current system where half the country doesnt pay tax and even those who earn less than 75 thousand pay a very small percentage of their income as tax. No social security tax doesnt count because thats a small contribution into your retirement benefits in which again you will receive a disproportionate return when you are eligible and the less you pay in the more disproportionate it is. We need a fair progressive system where all the social engineering is eliminated from the tax code so no mortgage or any deductions and where everyone contributes to the well being of this country even if its extremely modest.

For the person that gave Clinton all the kudos no he didnt raise taxes and cut spending. Not once did spending did cut but the rate of growth was cut and spending for programs like Welfare went down as a result of the Contract for America Gingrich led agenda was passed and eventually supported by Clinton. He also didnt raise taxes but cut them. He created a top rate for high income workers but cut the capital gains rate allowing all those wealthy people you guys hate invest into the technology and internet boom and sell their investments at tremendous gains. The capital gains cut during the run up in the stock market in the late 90s created more tax revenue as a percentage of GDP since the tax code was enacted so unfortunately Clinton cant get credit for spending cuts and tax increases.

Let's be realistic here. Both significant budget cuts AND tax increases are needed to get control of our deficits. The 'rich' can afford to pay significantly more in taxes, and the extension of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' for the wealthy needs to expire at the end of 2012, as well as doing away with many of their tax 'loopholes'. That will raise over $1.5 Trillion in new taxes over 10 years, but we also need to make big cuts in spending to get control of our deficits. Also, if people want to get full Medicare benefits, they need to fully fund the program. Either we fully fund Medicare (about $2 Trillion in new taxes on workers over 10 years), or we have to find a way to cut costs/benefits. There is no free lunch.

Social Security changes are not yet at the critical stage, and some simple adjustments (increasing the retirement age gradually, and a small increase in contributions) will solve the actuarial problem. A much bigger problem for Social Security is paying back the $2.5 Trillion that the government borrowed and spent over the last 40 years.

Just three simple steps will solve the vast majority of the deficit problem;

1 - Eliminate the tax cut extensions and 'loopholes' for the 'rich' - Cuts $1.5 Trillion from the Deficit over 10 yrs.

2 - Make Medicare fully funded (or cuts benefits) - Cuts $2.1 Trillion from the deficit over 10 years.

3 - Adjust Social Security contributions (about 0.5%) - Cuts about $300 Billion from the Deficit over 10 years.

That's a total savings of almost the full $4 Trillion recommended by the Debt Commission.

I love watching all the liberals go nuts when someone like Cantor won't give in to what they want. We went two years with little or no compromise. Now that the Republicans have a little bit of power, they are the ones who must compromise and come over to what the libs want. I saw someone say Americans want the Republicans to compromise in Congress. What Americans want is for those Republicans who were elected in the largest House landslide ever last Fall to stick to what they promised when those same Americans voted for them. How does compromising what they promised fulfill their promises? All no raising the debt ceiling means is that the Congress is forced to balance the budget. Tax money come in but we can only spend that money. We still pay our debts but no deficit spending. This means major, major forced cuts. When Cantor and the GOP went into these negotiates they said tax increase were off the table and that was not negotiable. Since the Democrats insisted on tax increases before talking about spending cuts, there isn't anything to talk about.

Roy Wilson:

Just off the phone with the cremation people. Death must be near. I agree completely with your post at 1.74.

As far as California's taxes being the highest in the nation, I think you are incorrect. If we sat down and went over the tax and fee structures of every state, I think we would find that that the NET effect of the revenue raising mechanisms is remarkably similar. There is no sales tax in Oregon, but property taxes are sky high. Property taxes in California are woefully skewed as a consequence of Prop. 13. Identical properties pay vastly different amounts. Property tax rates in Kansas are all over the place. California has a sales tax that is limited in its application. Kansas lays a sales tax on everything and the rate is almost the same as California's. Fees for license plates are very low in Oregon; much higher in California, and off the charts in Kansas. My point is that money - tax money or otherwise - is fungible. It really doesn't matter where or how you get it. It goes into state coffers.

There is also the issue of how much authority and revenue raising power is granted to the primary political subdivisions - the counties.

I've lived all over the country - primarily in my native state of California - but the amount of revenues raised by the various states and their political subdivisions are remarkably similar.

Some food for thought for everyone. Can you imagine sitting across the negotiating table from John Kyl. This is the same guy who gives us information that is, "not intended to be a factual statement." Oh yeah, that's a guy I would trust.

Ray W.:

Cantor is a flaming punk. The fact that he went into negotiations saying tax hikes were off the table might as well have put him out of the loop from the get-go. That ain't negotiatin'. Anyone with ten-cents worth of brains KNOWS that tax hikes must be in the mix.

Roy Wilson

Let's be realistic here. Both significant budget cuts AND tax increases are needed to get control of our deficits. The 'rich' can afford to pay significantly more in taxes, and the extension of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' for the wealthy needs to expire

A few months ago you almost bite my head off when I stated the same thing... Glad to see you've come to your senses

As long as Republicans continue to insist on robbing us of our pre-paid Social Security Retirement money and our pre-paid Medicare while they refuse to raise taxes on the rich, Eric Cantor can go jump in the lake as far as I'm concerned.

We only have about $2 billion in our Social Security Trust Fund and even if Republicans stole every penny, which is exactly what Republicans want, it STILL couldn't even come close to the Trillions of Dollars the Republicans owe China for that lie called the war in Iraq.

Hell no, Republicans CANNOT have our retirement money, and they can't have our health care.

RamFla "Roy Wilson Let's be realistic here........A few months ago you almost bite my head off when I stated the same thing."

We can all make mistakkes (see). I've checked out the amount of taxes paid by the 'rich', and some of the 'loopholes' they use, and I've concluded that they have unfairly benefited from the tax code (not just the Bush Tax Cuts, but tax code changes going back to Reagan). I am 'evolving' in my old age.

David Walker "Roy Wilson: Just off the phone with the cremation people. Death must be near. I agree completely with your post at 1.74."

Sorry about the shock to your system - Just trying to be realistic. I don't think I said that California has the highest tax rate in the Nation - that was a quote from Spanky. It is among the highest, however, and their budget problems are enormous. I live in California (but I just got back from 6 months in Costa Rica - much simpler and laid back there).

You'll notice that the group has 5 Democrats (including Biden) and just 2 Republicans. Gee, I wonder why little progress is being made?

You really think it wouldn't be the other way around if it were a Republican administration????

What is it now? 37 days until Obama and Geithner cuts off payments to the elderly and military? Bet he still gives the EPA, FCC, Dept. of Education their money.

According to figures contained in the 2010 US Census, only 10% of Americans earn more than $211K per year, so the proposed Democrat tax hikes (actually the reinstatement of the end of the Bush Jr tax cuts that Republicans voted for to start with) are on less than 10% of our population. Anyone who drives pays both Federal and State fuel taxes, as well as sales taxes on vehicles too. Sales taxes are paid on almost everything that we buy, and if we are able to afford to fly, there are extra use and security taxes paid there too. If you own property, you pay property taxes too. It is awfully difficult to pay income taxes when you don't have a job or earn above a minimum tax-paying salary, which I think some of those of us who keep claiming that the poor don't pay enough income taxes keep forgetting. The U-6 unemployment rate is what? 16%!!! So basically 16% of would-be wage earners are paying no Federal income tax, the lion's share of those so that the top couple percent can make far more money by exporting our jobs overseas to the lowest-possible bidder. And now the top 10% are angry that the very people that the rich dumped from middle-income jobs don't pay enough taxes? I think that is kind of cold myself.

Almost all of the increase in our national debt above where it was in 1981 can be blamed on income tax and capital gains tax-cutting Republicans, who have been quite wrong about the theory that lowering taxes would somehow trickle-down and increase employment. As more production has been modernized, followed by offshoring production to the lowest-possible bidder, more and more middle-income jobs have ended. The top tax rate in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was President was 67%, back when we still had less that $1 trillion in Federal debt, in fact, Jimmy Carter was the last President to preside over an increase to the national debt that was less than $1 trillion, under $400 billion in fact, back when the American middle class was at its strongest, many of those people happy to pay 25% of their income in taxes.

Back in December when the Republicans threatened to throw the long-term unemployed out in the snow unless they got an extension of their 3% tax cut for the wealthiest among us, that tax cut cost us $350 billion per year to give, and the difference in the top tax rate was the difference between 35% and 38% of income. During Ronald Reagan's first term in office, the top tax rate was cut from 67% to 50%, which resulted in more than $1 trillion of budget deficit being added to the national debt just in Reagan's first term in office. If we take the cost of providing the top rate income tax cut from 38% to 35%, ($350 billion) and multiply that figure by 5, then the cost of cutting the top tax rate from 50%, where it was when the conservative God Reagan was President, is $1.75 trillion per year, or our entire annual budget deficit at this point. This figure does not include a heavy increase in the number of unemployed paying no income taxes or a heavy decrease in taxes paid by former middle-income workers either, nor does it take into account reductions in capital gains taxes either. So basically our entire budget deficit crisis now can be blamed on tax-cutting Republicans just since 1981. There is no such beast as trickle-down economics that benefits the lower income levels. That argument is a sham.

The current argument among the Gang of Whatever had been that any tax increases needed to be offset by spending cuts. Biden and the Democrat members of the group have agreed to cut a couple trillion in spending, so why not raise taxes by that amount? Kyle and Cantor's new fascist position is that there be no tax increases, only spending cuts. Does anyone find it odd that the Republicans can't even agree to their former talking points of just a few months ago? My own position as one of the 90% majority of Americans who earns less than $211K per year is that the constantly more severe requirements of the far-right in continuing America as we have all known it are becoming more and more traitorous on a daily basis. It almost seems that the goal of the far right is to collapse the Federal government so that they and their wealthy constituents can get away with murder when it comes to regulations, oversight, worker's rights, safety, and environmental law too. Make no mistake, a default would greatly benefit the wealthy far right while it would greatly impact the 90% majority of us who depend on Federal spending for our livelihood.

How do we get America back to where we were in the 1970s, back when we had a stable and viable middle class who paid a large share of Federal taxes? Frankly we can not continue to afford to allow cheap foreign-made products to flood our shores, nor can we continue to allow American companies to offshore production and steal our jobs either. Less than a year ago the right ended a Democrat proposal to impose penalties on companies that offshore American jobs, by a 59 for vs 41 against vote in the US Senate, which means that 59% of the Senators supported the legislation. Allegedly "fair" free trade has been the bane of the middle class, as more and more US companies just offshore American jobs to the lowest bidder. Basically what the far-right wants is to take America back to the era of the robber baron 100 years ago, and undo a century worth of improvement in the lives of anyone below the level of ultra-wealthy, which would include a fair percentage of the upper 10% income crowd too.

If you want to undo a century worth of improvement to middle and working class security, undo any and all environmental or worker protection, and return 90% of America to a position totally subservient to the whim of the rich, vote Republican in 2012. If you would rather fight for an American return to the middle income economic security of the 1970s, and live in a much more inclusive country where everyone pays taxes based on their ability to pay, vote Democrat, it is pretty simple. Unless one side or the other has more than a 60% majority in both houses of Congress and holds the Presidency too, progress is not possible, and the economic malaise that has led to our current position will continue to get worse. Otherwise we might be better off as a nation divided into two or more parts, where each side can get what they want without substantial interference from the other. Could a Federal default lead to a breakup of America similar to what happened to the former Soviet Union, perhaps civil war or even worse? You bet that it could. Are you going to stand idly by while your economic and retirement security is stolen by the rich, or are you going to stand-up and fight to keep what you have worked your entire life for?

I say that both Cantor and Kyle return to the bargaining table and agree to continue seeking a deal based on their own previous speaking points, where spending cuts offset tax increases, or they get arrested for treason. No deal is possible without some tax increases, that is pretty simple.

The problem is that to the Republicans "the tax issue must be resolved" (Cantor) means "take tax increases off the table" (Boehner). It is the same old Republican definition of "compromise". Do what we want or we will take our marbles and go home. I don't see any way to get anything done to help this country as long as that is the attitude. They can say that the Left doesn't compromise either, but the only things that have been accomplished regarding the economy since Obama was elected have been a result of the left giving in to the right (which the right calls "compromise"). It's sad to watch a once great country fall apart due to the refusal of some of it's citizens to invest in the support of the country.

American Girl, I think everyone would be ok if all you got back was your prepaid retirement social security and your prepaid medical. But you will receive much more back including a decent return on your contribution than you paid. With medicare its even more skewed and the people that will pay that difference are the people younger than 40. So its a huge wealth transfer from our youngest and least able to afford it to the richest by demographic segment of our population. Forget the liberal laments about the poor seniors barely surving on social security which very well could be the case in your situation but lets take all seniors as one big group including the baby boomers have more wealth by than any generation in our life time and they receive over 80% of the entitlements in the national budget. So when you see that ad of Ryan pushing the senior citizen off the cliff because of his plan, the more appropriate ad would be the senior citizen pushing a baby carriage over the cliff because of his entitlement programs.

David, I dont have access to it but I am pretty sure that when you take every tax into account in California its still in the top 5. I think the top 4 are New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California by total tax collection per individual. Illinois seems to have a low state income tax rate but its a flat tax on gross revenue which offsets the low rate plus our gas tax and sales tax are the highest in the country plus we have a lottery, gaming tax etc that really are taxes on the lower income segments of our state. But the evidence would show that these 4 states are in the biggest fiscal mess because by and large they have no ability to control the spending side as revenues increase and primarily because of the promises made to government union pension and medical benefits. In some cities in Illinois within 3 years the annual required payment to the local firemen, police etc pensions and medical will equal the entire city budgets requiring them to eliminate all services but paying into these plans. I am not editorializing and making any judgements about these necessary civil services just stating the fiscal facts. Taxing more doesnt address this issue. You cant have the spending side of things grow at faster rates than the revenue grows. By the way didnt Schumer say that medicare was off the table. The problem with both sides is that they are negotiating in good faith with nothing off the table.

Kirk

Texas is in a bigger fiscal mess than California is. The issue isn't really about what state is in better or worse shape. The problem is something that ALL states are experiencing, though some low population states are faring better than the higher population states. The reality is that this recession is largely unprecedented, only being compared to the great depression. There are many factors, not just tax rates.

And the reason why Schumer probably said that was to draw a line in the sand to go along with the line that the republicans drew first about tax rates. The republicans even say that eliminating any loopholes in the tax code is the same as a tax increase and is therefore off the table.

Old Timer-88224 "Back in December when the Republicans threatened to throw the long-term unemployed out in the snow unless they got an extension of their 3% tax cut for the wealthiest among us, that tax cut cost us $350 billion per year"

Even the Democrats said that the tax cuts for the 'rich' amounted to only about $60 Billion per year, so all of your other calculations are off. The $350 Billion per year included tax cuts of about $290 Billion to the middle class and 'poor'.

Roy...

I'm glad to see you've had an Epiphany about taxes the rich DON'T pay...though you still need some work on Medicade and Social Security. Cut the military budget by 40%...eliminate all forms of corporate welfare...simplify the tax code and make the greedy 1% pay capital gains taxes at a linear rate beginning with 20% at 5 million dollars and capping at 40% in Bill Gates Land. If the greedy bastards move or hire overseas...enforce a tariff of 50% of their TOTAL assets and make them pay a minimum rate of $15/hour for overseas workers AND they can never do business in the US again! Get this freakin burden off the back of the middle class NOW and leave our social programs alone...period!!! They are off the table Cantor! BTW...health care is a right...not a privilege...get over it Conservatives!

Here is the amount that each person has to pay in taxes (same as spending per person, since budgets have to be balanced) for the 4 largest States;

California = $5,289 per person

Texas = $3,630 per person

New York = $6,221 per person

Florida = $3,273 per person

Isn't it interesting that California and New York (controlled by Democrats) collect almost twice the amount per person in taxes as Texas and Florida (controlled by Democrats). Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Here is the source to verify for yourself;

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?typ=4&ind=32&cat=1&sub=10&sortc=1&o=a

As a card-carrying member of the bottom 90%, I would gladly return to paying Carter-era tax rates across all income levels, just as long as us middle-income types could have our job security back too.

And as for those folks who see Social Security and Medicare as some kind of income transfer, just remember that us baby boomers had to pay so that our elders could retire too. If anything us baby boomers did wrong, you are saying that we should have had a higher birth rate, so that there could be even more young people to contribute toward our retirement, or even more young people unemployed or underemployed than there now are?

Also remember that the 2005-2011 Great Recession is not my generation's first trip to the dance either, as there were recessions in the mid 1970s, 1979 to 1983, 1990-91, and the tech bubble too, to go along with regional recessions in oil-producing regions in the mid 1980s and defense spending dependent regions in the mid 1990s too.

In many respects our parent's generation, or even the Gen-X parents generation did better than many of the younger baby boomers have. The 1956-58 recession was so bad that it wiped three major American car companies off the map and threw millions of middle-income workers onto the street, but it was the only major recession between the post WWII recession and the mid-1970s, an era when home prices rose by an average of 8% per year.

Like I said previously, we are not going to be able to get America back to the kind of country that so many of us among the bottom 90% want without raising taxes back to historically-average levels, and we are not going the be able to restore middle-income job security and spending habits unless we take steps to protect American jobs and exclude cheaply-made foreign products either. Who cares if the rich think that they can make more money by under-cutting the rest of America? If the rich don't like it here, I hear that they are hiring in China!!!

mucker87

None of your 'solutions' are realistic, so I won't bother to address them.

I would, however, like to see a change in the tax rates for long term capital gains. While I think the rate should be lower for capital gains to encourage long term investments (otherwise, why would anyone do it?), the current system makes no sense. Someone that keeps an asset for slightly over 1 year gets the same tax break as someone who builds a plant with a 20 year life.

I would suggest a tax rate that adjusts for inflation, so that someone that has a gain of 50%, but loses purchasing power of 30% because of inflation would just pay taxes on the REAL gain of 20%. To tax someone on ALL of the gain at normal tax rates, when they have actually lost 30% of their REAL value would result in hardly anyone making any long term investments - who would want to pay taxes on inflation alone?

Roy

The tax rates for only the top tax bracket was only about 70 Billion, the figure for all the bush tax cuts was around 350 billion per year.

The problem that I have with capital gain tax rates is that they encourage extraction of 'equity'. The problem is that for the most part (not all) capital gains tax is applied to the financial services market (buying and selling of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, derivatives through hedge funds, etc..). If you invest in Company X by buying say 10,000 dollars worth of shares, Company X doesn't actually get any of that money unless it is an IPO or you are exercising a Warrant (essentially a deferred IPO). The money actually goes to the entity that owned the security before you did. Now the value of those securities increases by 10%, well that doesn't benefit the company very much (it may in a few years after the value has stayed high). The only person that benefits is you personally (you can also lose if the securities drop in value too so it goes both ways). The issue is that the only industry that really benefits from the low capital gains rates is the securities industry. Not the mid tier companies that actually create most of the jobs.

Is it any wonder that GE's largest division is its financial services division?

I would have to think about your proposed solution (I have some Partial DIfferential Equations in my head right now that is occupying all of my mental computing powers so can't really comment on it at the moment).

Roy: The average cost of living and wages both in California and New York State are at least double of what the same rates are in Texas and Florida, so your point is??? On the Mass Turnpike, a regular fast-food breakfast value meal costs more than double of what it does here in Colorado, but local wages in Mass are double what local wages are in Colorado too. Perhaps this is part of the problem we are facing, is that $200K worth of income in urban CA, MA, or NY buys the same amount in those States as less than $100K of income in FL or TX, or probably no more than what $50K worth of income buys in some of the lowest-cost States too. Here in Denver Motel 6 can be had for $32 per night and even Embassy Suites can be had for under $100. Try that in NYC, Boston, LA or SF??? Even choice strip steak or ribeye can be had here for under $10 per pound, and gas is back down to $3.50 per gallon here too. Average wages here among the bottom 90% are only $45K or less too. Who is worse off, the residents of a high-cost/high-tax State like CA, or the residents of a low-cost.low-tax State who have 1/4 the budget deficit that CA has?

You choose to live in a high-cost/high-wage State, of course you are going to have to pay more in taxes to get the same benefit that the residents of lower-cost States enjoy for a lot less money. You also earn a whole lot more money too.

Kirk and Roy Wilson:

I'm still not sure you have all the taxes taken into consideration. Remember counties collect property taxes. Cities collect taxes. Roy, I think you are in California. Look at all the special districts. Local jurisdictions can add sales tax.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply think there are so many taxes, hidden in so many places, we probably couldn't find them all if we tried. However, each of the states have any number of functions in common: roads, parks, schools, jails, prisons, cops, firefighters, DMV's. There's a lot of costs. There's a lot of taxes.

Now, I'm too tired to argue, but I'm going to throw out something to chew on. I think there's a lot of places to look for cuts, for fraud, waste, and for raising revenues. But consider this. What if - really now - what if we overhauled civil service. Now the fact is, for all the hype, government employees aren't paid all that much, with the exception of emergency service personnel who I think are grossly overpaid and have ridiculous pension plans. But I digress.

Suppose we could find a way to kill the get-along go-along mentality in civil service. Suppose we stopped promoting based on seniority. There's a whole lot more little fillips and ruffles and such, but consider that. Think about commission programs in some departments. The IRS comes to mind. The cheating that goes on there is mind-boggling. Imagine if we had some sort of incentive program at the SEC. I'd bet Bernie Madoff would have been caught much sooner. What if we had someone truly watching the insanity during the housing meltdown? Just a thought.

Now, I have some stuff to plant. So I gotta run.

Old Timer-88224 "Roy: The average cost of living and wages both in California and New York State are at least double of what the same rates are in Texas and Florida, so your point is???"

Here are the median incomes by State, based on Census Data;

California = $56,466
Florida = $45.159
New York = $50,243
Texas = $46,895

The relatively small differences in median income for California and New York (about 16% on average) don't even come close to justifying the much higher tax rates in California and New York (67% on average).

So your point is?

PS - You must have different memories under Jimmy Carter than most people. I recall his 'Misery Index' (combined inflation and unemployment rates) got as high as 21.98% per year. His average Misery Index was 16.26%, vs only 8.11% under G W Bush (the second best in the last 40 years - close to Clinton's).

David Walker "Kirk and Roy Wilson: I'm still not sure you have all the taxes taken into consideration. Remember counties collect property taxes. Cities collect taxes. Roy, I think you are in California. Look at all the special districts. Local jurisdictions can add sales tax. I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply think there are so many taxes, hidden in so many places, we probably couldn't find them all if we tried."

It's not all that difficult when you look at it from an overall perspective. The total amount of spending by State and Local agencies is reported each year, as are the figures for GDP and population. Since states are required to 'balance their budget' each year, the amount of spending is the amount that they collect in taxes and fees (with minor variances on occasion). These calculations provide a pretty reliable figure for per capita income and taxes per year for each State.

David Walker "What if - really now - what if we overhauled civil service."

Great idea. I'm all for paying civil servants a fair wage and benefits, but it appears that they are over-compensated now, and have unrealistic job security because of union rules, where it's almost impossible to fire incompetent workers.

I'd like to see some REAL figures on compensation compared with the private sector. The ones I have seen are very problematic (see link below).

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Those stats from USA today include minimum wage jobs like mcdonalds employees, walmart employees. The government doesn't operate fast food franchises nor crappy department stores. The comparison doesn't mean much. You need to look at like jobs and government jobs tend to pay less than the private sector for the same job MOST of the time. There are often 'consultant' type positions that pay more, but usually those positions are gotten through internal or political connections.

And on the other side of that coin, Repubs have failed to see the light that revenue must also be raised. What Tax increases???? All we have done is give tax breaks. Both to the middle class, and at the insistence of the Repubs to the upper 2%. This is the republican way, lower revenue and then start some wars to feed their giant military industrial complex buddies. Halliburton and no bid contracts ring a bell? It works both ways and about the only thing I agree with Trump on is that Cantor is a complete idiot.

Apparently Cantor did not get the memo from Senator Coburn (R) who said last week that those politicians who have pledged to Grover Norquist "no new taxes" are delusional.

Cantor is delusional AND not very bright because he cannot ADD and SUBTRACT.

yap......i knew they'll never agree to anything. these guys keep sending wrong messages to financial market and US creditors.......no tax increase, but yes to tax breaks to top 2% that never pay for itself and you wonder why your neck deep in debt. GOP simply don't care. Cantor and co keep holding a fragile economy and middle class hostage. it's a big shame.

Strongly agree Sheila, MD. Fire him and elect someone who can and will legislate (without playing "I'll take my basketball and go home" attitude!)

Far past time to "git 'er done" and work for America and her citizens instead of playing partisan politics. MO

So what will you all be saying when Obama busts out a new tax cut in the next few weeks? Will it then be OK because he did it?

After all Obama had his chance to do just what you all are calling for - raise taxes. Yet oddly enough he chose to cut taxes. Now why do you suppose that is?

Sorry you all but you are just on the wrong side of this argument for the time being. But hey, if it helps just take a look at California - a progressive paradise. See we had a budget problem and they raised taxes. A lot.

Guess what? It didn't help, cause now its worse. See how that works? More taxes just means more spending.

By the way - I don't know if you know this be we could really use about $120 billion. We are, after all too big to fail.

So how about it Amy and Pius, you all going to chip in? Thank yhou for your anticipated cooperation. :)

et al. - perhaps this short observation by former senator alan simpson will put both sides of the posters here in proper perspective...

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70166506/

Can't say my personal opinion is in line with simpsons opinion of biden, but his message to both sides is very clear.

Amy B in Portland, of COURSE Cantor and the R's would have taxes as part of a remedial economic package if he cared about the debt. But that's not the point.

Though I'm sure he cares about it as do we all, reduction of debt is not really the objective of his involvement in negotiations. The objective is to construct a legislative Law of the Jungle - survival of the fittest. It's right there in his quote: "spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here."

They want to create what the strong and the resourced have always wanted to create, and have done so across the planet forever with great success - until the miracle of America and America's middle class emerged. They want the the old familiar systems - European Lords and serfs; the Russia of the Czars the Politburos; the East India Trading Company and the British Empire; the slaveholders of the Southern states in America; Egyptian Pharoahs and the Jews who built the Pyramids; Iranian Mullahs and the citizenry hopelessly tweeting their despair; Honduras right now, basically owned by 13 families....it's been always and everywhere. A few very wealthy and strong, living off the lives of large numbers of the poor and weak. And the weakest simply die. (Did you notice in the R debate last week that when Ron Paul was asked if a 5 year-old without citizenship, bleeding at an emergency room, should be treated - he did not answer Yes? Simple question anyone who identifies as a Christian should have been able to answer without a blink. He went on with some answer that things work out if you just have freedom. I wonder how they would work out for that 5 year-old.)

They want to dismantle any vestige of a moral America which values the individual lives of citizens, who their system would be placed into the service of the creation and retention of wealth - by in this case, corporations. (Get rid of the minimum wage. Tax the shrinking middle class at higher rates that the Buffets of the world. Lower the contributions of the wealthiest. Let corporations leech off America while taking their jobs and profits offshore....) It's not new. The only thing that's new here is the spin, conjured up to appeal to Americans - tell us it's Freedom to be greedy, tell us it's Freedom to let people suffer and die, tell us it's Freedom to live with no thought other than that of our personal self. The next step will be to sell us on the idea that it's MORAL to be these things, because they represent Freedom - and of course freedom is a good thing, so that's not much of a leap. It should be a pretty easy sell.

It was Reagan who first ran up unbelievable debt - I remember being very upset about it at the time. And Cheny who told his Treasury Secretary "deficits don't matter". And Bush that gave a trillion to the richest among us (whilst claiming Christianity, no less!) alongside huge spending on wars and programs of his liking.

It's not really the debt that is the issue to the R's - though like it does to all of us, I'm sure it matters. It's that the debt is their key to political power at this time. Their passion about it really springs from that fact, and the reality that their political survival is dependent upon the Tea Party/Limbaugh/Fox contingent.

Any responsible person, acting in the best intersts of our country, knows that economic recovery will require both cuts and revenue. But Cantor is neither responsible, nor acting in the best interests of our country.

A little look at history should spare us any great surprise on this point.

spanky

not kidding, GOP establishment is an embarrassment to common sense. here is a proverb......."a child carried on the back of his or her parent would never no how difficult walking is. Cantor is riding on the back of the tax payer who picks his tabs so he can afford to do anything he likes. millions are out of job and he walk out on them?

there is nothing am going to say that have not been said. so cantor expect to solve problems by pulling out of the meeting. maybe because he's employed and which ever way the coin falls, he's going to get paid. I sincerely hope the PEOPLE are watching.

Ah, RevMum you remind me of a great song: You cannot go against nature, because when you do, go against nature, it's part of nature too.

Natural order. But I wonder Rev Obama is a responsible person, right? Of course he is, yet he ignored his debt commission, produce a budget that was by all account a total joke, and now pass off his biggest responsibility to Joe Biden.

Joe Biden. For god's sake I get the "leading from behing" crap, but this is pure abdication of responsibility. Which of course is not in the best interests of the country, correct?

Amy, that was such a cute, dainty and uncensored suggestion, and the BEST suggestion I have heard yet!

Sure Pius embarrassment and all, but I have to ask you: Is borrowing $.40 of every dollar common sense?

You saw the CBO's projections yesterday. That's common sense?

Is Obama, by not participating, ignoring his debt commission and producing a budget that was laughed at - by democrats - you model for common sense?

I think you and I have different view of what is and what is not common sense. We have no sense in common.But I bey you dollars to doughnuts {mmm, I love doughnuts] that you don't spend 40% more than you make. Would be prudent, would make SENSE.

Yet oddly enough he chose to cut taxes. Now why do you suppose that is?

I guess, you weren't paying attention last December. Instead of hitting the middle class with a tax increase, which would have been even worse for the struggling economy, he, begrudgingly, went along with the continued cuts for all.

Spanky, you keep talking about Obama extending the Bush tax cuts but continually fail to mention that the only reason he did that is because the republicans said they were not going to vote on anything until he extended them. They were holding the unemployment benefits for many hostage.

Whether you agree with the extension of the tax cuts or even the extension of unemployment benefits you can't possibly agree with the way the republicans extorted the extensions from Obama. If they disagreed they should have voted no. The end, no games no blackmail just a vote.

Everyone seems to know this but you. Or are you conveniently forgetting this point just to try to make your point?

Spanking,

You must have missed the recent vote in the Senate to extend the payroll tax holiday proposed by Democrats that Republicans are standing against.

As to a consise plan to help this country and not political ideology we get this from Republican leaders (using the term loosely)

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Bob Schieffer asked Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “Do Republicans have any plans to do anything on the unemployment front or are you just going to let things take their course?” McConnell, gave an uncharacteristically truthful answer saying, “No, I — I think — what — what we’re doing is encouraging the president to — to quit doing what he’s doing.”

Yeah Andie those republican are so all powerful Obama is but their puppet. He could not possible have said no.

And of course it was he who signed the bill. Bush's cuts expired, these are 100% Obama. But I get it - it is the dems are powerless and everything is the repubs fault meme. Weakest argument ever.

vwterry - you are applauding the republicans right? Tax cuts are bad - you dems say that here everyday. And what's this - the reps don't want obama to get re-elected? No Way! Get Out!

Also,

"Is Obama, by not participating, ignoring his debt commission and producing a budget that was laughed at - by democrats - you model for common sense?"

It's the responsibility of the Congress to write the budget and the President to sign it. Not the other way around. The original debt commission included a significant tax increase in their recommendations and per Mr. Cantors actions today the Republicans have shown no inclination to go that direction, so it might be best for you and others to quit bringing that up lest you continue to show the full extent of your hypocrisy.

I really think Republicans want to break the US Gov. so they can privatize it.

David-3469355 "benamin! When until the just recently have the Republicans cared about the debt? Are you really that blind?"

Since Congress sets the budget (and deficits) each year, let's look at the record over the last 30 years;

Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.

Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.

Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

What was your point again? Perhaps you should look at the record, not the rhetoric.

Davids Camera Craft, I think you're right.

What proves it is how Republicans have totally abandoned the American People AND the American concept that the United States is "By the People, and For the People."

I also think Republican insistence that they somehow bully our Democratic Representatives to turn over our Social Security money is also unsettling.

I just can't imagine how Republcians think they can just TAKE our money for our pre-paid retirement and our pre-paid health care and walk away. It certainly is disturbing.

American Girl-724855 "I also think Republican insistence that they somehow bully our Democratic Representatives to turn over our Social Security money is also unsettling."

I have some news for you - Taking money from the Social Security Trust Fund and spending it was started under Lyndon Johnson (D). There is no real money in the Social Security Trust Fund to 'take' - it's all spent, with nothing but IOUs in the fund. The vast majority of the spending of those funds was done by Democratic Congresses (see my Post #2.21 above).

Also, you will have only paid in about 35% of the cost of the Medicare program, so only a fraction is actually 'prepaid'. If you want full benefits, then perhaps you should pay the full actuarial cost - About an extra $100 per month ($1,200 per year) for each worker should make it solvent.

American Girl, how do you feel about what is going on in California? The legislature did not come up with a balanced budget proposal, so their government has decided not to pay them for their failings. I think that's great. It should be a national policy as well. Just as in private business, if you don't perform your job as expected, you don't have an income from that job. Liberals continue to support bloated government that puts all citizens of this country at risk, when they would not do that with their personal finances, for the purpose of buying votes from those that don't care where the money comes from as long as it is not from them. Cut big government and raise taxes on every penny earned by every citizen. Matters not to me whether those earnings come from a poorly run welfare system or a well run business.

We need to address both sides of the deficit equation. Revenues need to be increased AND spending needs to be cut. Anything less will hardly put a dent in the huge deficit. Cantor and Kyl quiting negotiations aimed at accomplishing this just show they are towing the GOP party line: no tax increases (on our wealthy supporters). Just wait until they screw with the debt ceiling and we all feel the sharp pain.

Once again it is politics at its best. My way or no way.

TO: ROY WILSON-336103 who wrote:

"American Girl-724855 … I have some news for you - Taking money from the Social Security Trust Fund and spending it was started under Lyndon Johnson (D). There is no real money in the Social Security Trust Fund to 'take' - it's all spent, with nothing but IOUs in the fund…"

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

No, I've got news for YOU Roy Wilson: President Bill Clinton replenished the Social Security Trust Fund, put all THAT money back AND had a $40 billion dollar surplus in Social Security at the time President Bill Clinton left office, leaving Social Security well funded for decades into the futrue.

The only IOU in the Social Security Trust Fund is the one signed by Republican GEORGE W. BUSH.

Who do you think you're trying to fool? Didn't I already say NO you can't have our money, so you try to lie and say you already spent it? That's exactly what crooks do when they're stealing from you, try to lie and say "Too late, I already stole it and I already spent it."

American Girl--What money do you think was put in the Social Security Trust Fund by Clinton? Like none? It never held any real cash and the government was always using the excess cash to run other parts of its business. At one point in the Clinton administration, there was estimated to be enough collected payroll tax to pay for future years of benefits but that had nothing to do with a surplus or anyone raiding the "lockbox" as Gore liked to create. You dont replenish a program like social security, there isnt money sitting in some account not being used. Nobody stole any money it was used to pay bills in other parts of the government including dramatic increases to education, welfare payments, unemployment benefits, defense spending and the war. It didnt get raided for tax cuts either as all that meant is that less revenue came in and the deficit was larger as the social security surplus would have been used to pay other bills regardless of the Bush tax cuts or wars etc. By the way, when Clinton was in office, he increased employment because he cut capital gain taxes and increased the amount of investment in internet technology and government revenues increased because of stock sales from the run up in the stock market. He also created performance based pay for corporate executives that allowed corporations to only get a tax deduction from giving stock options to execs. That one act of social engineering as created the biggest impact on executive pay that all of you get mad about and it was Clinton who did it. Further when Clinton's huge surplus was estimated it was based on revenue collections based on economic growth back in 1999 and 2000. Do any of you remember the internet bubble? That surplus was gone after that although I agree the Bush tax cuts gave back to "EVERYONE" the rest of the surplus.

Kirk

the SS fund ran a surplus during the clinton years.

The way that the SS Trust was managed has not changed since its inception other than to change how it is displayed in the books. Sometimes it was consolidated, sometimes it wasn't. The only difference there is that some people in power wanted to see the numbers rolled into one, to get a real picture and at other times, the people in power wanted to see everything in different books.

Any surplus in social security during the Clinton years would only have to do with amount of payroll taxes collected against the benefits paid out. So as payroll went up in the aggregate obviously more revenue was collected or with Obama reducing the payroll tax as part of his stimilus that reduces the revenue and increases the deficit in Social Security. Clinton had nothing to do with any changes to social security that would create any surplus so giving him credit is no different than giving me credit.

not giving him credit or faulting him. Just stating a technical fact (if that comment was directed towards me).

It does point out a reality though. The best solution to the deficit problem today is the creation of high paying solid jobs, not temporary jobs. This will a) increase income tax revenues and b) increase payroll tax revenues, making the balance sheet look better from both angles (revenues and less spending due to UI costs etc...).

jonathon - of course SS runs a surplus every year??? LBJ added it to the general fund to finance his war on poverty or Vietnam (take your pick). Reagan and speaker tip Oneil had to put a fix in during the 80's so it would remain solvent. Gore wanted to make the trust fund into a lock box to keep politicians from raiding it. There have been continual discussions from the 90's to this day that the funds are becoming insolvent, with a variety of "run out of money" dates. SS used to have what 15? workers paying in for every one being paid. Now it is what? <2 workers paying in for every one being paid. Even the original intent of SS was expanded on by giving more $$$ to other programs with no increases in contributions thru FICA.

Sure SS currently takes in more than it pays out (if you want to call that a surplus). But what about in 10 years? 15? The government supplies data giving total revenue coming in and total costs going out. Revenue coming from payrolls going into SS is rapidly approaching parity with what the government is paying out in SS. If I am not mistaken, our FICA withholding also goes towards medicare as well. if you look at a pie chart of revenue vs expenses anyone can see that the size of the pie for medicare and SS outlays is far greater than the revenue coming in thru FICA.

I challenge you to prove that the SS trust fund consists of cash and not treasury promissory notes. Regardless, since SS was not kept separate from the general fund since the 60's any debt that the government carries also means that any program funding is also in debt and the US backs its debt with promissory notes.

BTW - the government also provides data on historical US public debt as well. Seems that the US has pretty much always carried some type of debt load. Even clinton added about $1.1 trillion to the debt during his terms. The bottom line is that our debt is out of control and neither increased taxes or spending cuts will solve it. Yes the right is wrong but so is the left with both playing chicken and obama telling the right to shove it.

american: the way that the bookkeeping has been handled on the SS Trust has changed. That doesn't change the fundamental numbers that reflect the state of the trust, just where they are reported. That is ALL it did.

Some people preferred to look at the SS Trust in a different set of books, and later on, some people preferred to look at the books as a consolidated government picture. The trust valuation is the same, regardless of where up put the number. The SS Trust is currently worth just under 5T.

At NO Point since the SS Trust was created in the 30's has it ever been insolvent. The changes that were made in the 80's were to extend the life of the SS Trust to just before 2040. The surplus is an ANNUAL surplus, and the last year or two it has run a deficit, for two reasons. First off, payroll contributions are lower now because of the high unemployment situation as well as the wage pressures on the middle class. Two, the baby boomers are starting to retire, increasing the benefits. The baby boomers retiring has been known for decades. It is not a surprise.

Right now, approximately 20% of the population of the US is retired, so that means it is 1 out of 5 persons that are drawing, and the other 4 are contributing. And yes, that is a problem. You either need to increase the payroll deductions or you need to increase the number of people paying into the system, probably largely through immigration.

Now, the problem with the worker ratio is going to solve itself in the longer term, because the baby boomers are eventually going to pass on, reducing the number of people drawing benefits.

You can't challenge anyone that the SS Trust consists of cash, because it doesn't. Ever since it was created, 100% of all Social Security (I include medicare in that) are invested in Federal government securities. ALL OF IT. That isn't from the 60's, that was from the moment it was created. There isn't a challenge to make. What is cash anyways, it is nothing but a number on a computer today. It isn't a bill, only a tiny percentage of all the US money in "circulation" is printed (less than 1/10th of 1% is M1 currency -- the printed stuff).

THe SS Trust fund was ALWAYS part of the same cash bucket, it is however accounted for separately. Once you turn the annual surplus into treasury securities, the contributions get moved to an asset book. The value of those assets are based in part on the value of the underlying securities. Guess what happens if the US defaults because of republican games? the SS Trust gets hit as well.

And yes, the US has ALWAYS had debt. At the time of confederation, the US had a debt load that was much larger as a percentage of GDP than it is now.

As for medicare, medicare is experiencing the exact same price pressures that private insurance has been. Probably the ONLY chance to deal with that pricing pressure was lost when the health care reform bill didn't even touch the cost component of insurance, that is the cost of health care DELIVERY. Medicare uses the exact same delivery system that any of the private insurers do. So Ryan's changes don't actually deal with the problems of why the costs are increasing, it just defers the problem to those that largely can't afford it.

Again, as for insolvency, the SS Trust will not be insolvent until the Trust fund has a balance of 0. That won't happen for close to 30 years (medicare being admittedly a bigger issue).

Look, I am not trying to be political. I agree both parties are a problem. But as useless as the democrats have been, they have NOT been reckless like the republicans have. You are incorrect that Obama has been telling the right to shove it. Obama has been one of the most accommodating Presidents in the last 40 years. To a fault actually. He has caved in time after time after time to republican demands, and he has gotten NOTHING for it. He should be much more obstinate than he has been because quite frankly the republicans have no interest in dealing with him.

Kind of like Obama and the democrats for the last 2 + years definition of bi-partisan....my way.

"bi-partisan": 'this will be your Waterloo'.

Ah, yes- priorities. Then, people wonder why the new guy can't get anything done.

Richard, why is it that Republicans have such selective memories? Have you already forgotten the Republican pledge to do anything and everything they could to force failure on the President and, it would necessarily follow that if Republicans are forcing the POTUS to fail that America would also fail.

Republicans made that pledge before the POTUS was even enaugurated. Now did that SOUND to you as if the Republicans ever had any intention of bi-partisanship?

The fact is, Republicans just DON'T put America first, nor do they put the American People first or at least NOT over and above their own political ambitions.

Look what Republicans did to Lindsey Graham when HE was working with the POTUS, the GOP threatened to ostracize Graham if Graham didn't STOP working with the President.

American Girl,

There was never an official pledge by Republicans - unless you count the talk show personalities - and they are not elected reps. Yes, the Republicans play politics just like the Democrats do. But, the real issue is a significant difference in ideology.

By the way, I am for going back to the Clinton era tax rates and I think the Republicans need to give on this one - but I don't view them as the "evil empire" that most on this board seem to think they are.

I will agree they aren't an evil empire, though I do think they are demonstrably self-centered. There is of course no 'official' pledge, but you have a large number of prominent Republicans pledging to make Obama a 'one-term President' at what seems to be any cost.

I also think the Dems need to give a bunch of spending, and get some tax concessions from the Reps. We can't tax our way out of our debt, and we can't cut our way out, it must be both. Unfortunately, all I hear from the Right is insistence on no new taxes, which is fiscally irresponsible in a big way.

If you are in debt up to your eyeballs, you don't quit a full-time job to go work at McDonalds, you ask for OT, you take a second job, AND you stop buying the extra ice-cream when you go shopping.

From the LA Times:

McConnell reiterates GOP agenda for Obama

The Kentucky senator says limiting the president to a single term falls in line with Republicans' plans for rejecting healthcare reforms, ending bailouts and reducing government's size and spending.

November 04, 2010|By Lisa Mascaro | Tribune Washington Bureau

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky doubled-down on his assessment that the GOP's top priority is making Barack Obama a one-term president.

"Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office," McConnell said during a speech Thursday at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Since when has it never been on the agenda for one party to want to take control of congress or the whitehouse?

drive-by-observer

Ah, yes- priorities. Then, people wonder why the new guy can't get anything done.

Perhaps if he didn't extend the Bush Tax cuts for 2 years and taxes the wealthiest 2% of Americans, there would be an extra $700 billion in the Treasury. Did someone make him do that or was that his choice?

Perhaps if he pulled out of Libya now, we won't have to spend another billion dollars there. His choice.

Perhaps if there was any long-term plan to stimulate the economy coming from the WH we'd see an improvement in the economic indicators.

You want to blame this all on the GOP?

Where's Reid and the Senate democrats and House democrats with ANY plan? Any plan?

There is a lack of leadership on both sides so don't start with the party of no and the conservatives trying to destroy the country and the same old talking points.

Place the blame where it's due.

TO: Ron-1861300 who wrote:

"American Girl, There was never an official pledge by Republicans ... and they are not elected reps. Yes, the Republicans play politics just like the Democrats do..."

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

I, along with Millions of other Americans watched Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Leader) ON TV as he made that pledge, and I'm on the Internet nearly everyday reading people's comments who also took Mitch McConnell's words seriously.

You can tell Lindsey Graham a braisen lie like that and he'll laugh in your face, because Mitch McConnell nearly had Lindsey Graham REMOVED from all of Lindsey's leadership positions in committee, just for cooperating with the POTUS.

Now since Republicans love to do everything they THINK others are doing because they're followers and NOT leaders, I wonder why hasn't the GOP jumped off that bridge yet?

So true Drive-By.

The Republicans Senators are blocking any bills with continued amendments that help the economy. All they want is for President Obama to fail.

Job1 - which bills would those be?

Lay them out for us. Oh and are they blocking the Senate's budget?

Oh, and what Groucho said.

It's public record that the Republicans have blocked 4 jobs bills with obstructionist tactics.

That's nice, but what are the bills and what would they have done. Specifics job1.

I know it's hard, but mighty helpful to have a meaningful conversation, right.

Oh, and where Reid's budget? They blocking that also?

Currently, coming up for a vote next week is "The bill, entitled "Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act," would provide payroll tax relief to companies which hire employees domestically during a three-year period beginning September 22."

Republicans most likely will attempt to block the Economic Development Administration reauthorization.

Others blocked already are the, "The Small Business Innovation Research bill which was a good piece of legislation, too. That also died in the Senate last month under a pile of unrelated amendments."

Two other bills are bills the Senate passed this year reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and reforming America's patent system were good legislation, too. They would have created or saved half a million jobs. They made it out of the Senate , but now they are dead in the Republican-controlled House.

Of the 90 amendments thrown in by Republicans, most had nothing to do with the bills.

So the Republican goal is to see the Democrats and President Obama fail.

There is no reid budget, the senate votes on the budget that is submitted to them from the house. The house did that, the Ryan budget, and it was put up for a vote. It didn't pass.

jonathan - there is no rule against the senate submitting any bill for most anything, including a budget alternative to one submitted by the house.

I can't seem to find the link, but there are rules that may not explicitly prevent it, they do effectively prevent it. Right now the only thing I can seem to find is the general process which is Presidential Request -> House Resolution -> Senate Resolutions -> Reconciliation -> Presidential Sign off.

The rationale for having budget bills originate in the House is that because it is the body of congress that represents the population at large, it alone has the responsibility for initiating bills that have budgetary components to them.

It was during the health care debate that this came up and I researched it then. Again, sorry, I can't find the links at the moment.

And any Democratic is...I think not....

What would be nice is if our transparency President would down load the budget recommendations from both sides of the aisle so we as the American people can determine.

1. Who is telling the truth

2. Whose ideas make more sense

3. What lobbiest, special interest groups, companies etc are going to benefit the most.

Hi Nelly...good points, but impossible.

1. TRUTH - You can't know who is telling the truth when 40% of America consider FOX to be "news". Even their own guy Chris Wallace admitted they are not fair or balanced. And have you listened to these guys on the radio like Limbaugh and Savage, who millions of people actually follow?

2. IDEAS THAT MAKE SENSE - See above. How can the average citizen, working themself to the bone everyday to survive and raise kids, and without the leisure for research time, possibly do much more than listen to the spin noise of the partisans? That's why the talking heads and radio guys get so much power - they package information in the ways they want people to understand it.

3: LOBBIEST, INTEREST GROUPS, CORPORATIONS - That "Citizens United" decision has obliterated any hope that the public will be informed as to where political money is coming from, or that elections can;t in the end, be bought. Another thing for which we have to thank Scalia, Thomas, Roberts & Alito.

But you have good hopes, my dear.

Charctine,

I must be extremely tired right now, as opposed to just really tired, because when I first read that, I saw 'porn sitters'. lol

Nelly, the truth is that the republicans are very flexible when it comes to their proposed policies as long as that flexibility is only in one direction, rightwards.

who is telling the truth, well not much to that. Cantor says absolutely not, hard line made out of reinforced concrete in a concrete desert will raising taxes ever be considered, nor will cutting defence spending. The democrats say that revenue solutions must be considered. It isn't a matter of truth, it is a matter of where your political lines are drawn.

Ideas that make sense is a judgement call.

agreed on the citizens united decision. not sure who would make the most out of the decisions, it is hard to say with anything at the moment.

revmum - nice fantasy points except #2 in part.

The ability to make decisions on how to handle time lies with the individual and who they listen to is by choice. Nice attempt though, trying to use emotion as an argument.

If you don't like Americans ability to petition the government then get a constitutional amendment passed changing the 1st amendment.

I heartily agree with you and Amy.

yep. and the politiking just goes on and on. L or R makes little difference.

I'm not sure, either, zeroscout, but if I had to guess, I'd guess the dems want tax cuts for people that need them, and repubs want them for people that don't. A guess, mind you, but it sure wouldn't surprise me at all.

Drive-by, you know you're right. The POTUS is trying to help the middle class, and the Republicans are trying to prevent the mega-millionaires from paying their fair share in taxes. After all, it was the mega-millinaires who profitted the most from that Lie Called the War in Iraq by investing in war machines on the stock market.

bowels - simson said we have to raise taxes. dick stockton from the reagan admin said we hae to raise taxes. all the economists say we have to raise taxes. grover norquist say's we don't. they all signed the pledge. they are in a bind. plus they want to kill the economy so they can take all branches of govt. well i think 2012 people will be fed up with the GOPTP. the vast majority want taxes on the rich to go up. 15o millionairs wrote a letter to congress saying to raise their taxes. do you really think this is a winning stratagy? plus they want to cut everything for the middle class that is quickly disappreaing. i think they are cooked and in another 6 month's or less the cke will be baked. if we default it will be the GOPTP that will be blamed and then it's really over for them for at least a generation.

Brilliant Drive By!

So who are these people that need tax cuts, and more importantly, who are the ones that do not.

And Amerian Girl, please hit me with at definiton of "Fair Share." Does it apply across the board or only for "rich?"

The head librarian here just retired at full pay $250,000 guaranteed for life. Is that her fair share? Tell me how many tax payer does it take to pay her pension each year?

American girl, just to help you out here is some United States Internal Revenue data for you to formulate your answer...

contains a breakdown by taxable income groups.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

I think the current % of individual income taxes paid making up revenues is more like 40% today.

Spanky... I also notice that no one has ever put a number on what "affordable" means relating to healthcare.

Yeah american, but I'm thinking your girl [American Girl] probably cannot walk that talk.

Besides numbers and math and figures are hard. Just ask Biden.

Poor Joe, all he wanted to do was ride a nice new shiny train.

Oh and everyone - tell you children to become librarians. Man, $250k guaranteedfor life! Public service is where it's at. Nt even like they even use the Dewey decimal system anymore.

Spanky, don't you think it's about time Republicans came up with some other strategy, instead of just keep playing "stupid" and "I don't know what you mean" and "I can't remember"?

Democrats have been giving Republicans the definition of "Fair Share" every since Bill Clinton was running for POTUS and Republicans STILL can't remember.

If Republicans don't know who or what the top 2% earners mean, maybe that's a start to explaining why Republicans ALWAYS destroy the American Economy when they're in control.

I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.

Let me make it real easy for you American Girl - what is YOUR definition of "fair share?"

Perhaps yu can remind me about the state of the economy in say 1978,1979. All good?

Now comare that to 1986, and 2004.

The Tax System – Explained with Beer

Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would be like this:

The first 4 men (poorest) would pay nothing. The 5^th would pay $1. The 6^th would pay $3. The 7^th would pay $7. The 8^th would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The 10^th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that’s what they decided to do.

The 10 men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve, “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. “Drinks for the 10 now cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first 4 men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other 6 men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone could get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that the $20 divided by 6 is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the5th and 6^th man would end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each would pay. And so:

The 5^th man, like the first 4, now paid nothing (100% savings). The 6^th man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The 7^th man now pays $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The 8^th man now pays $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The 9^th man now pays $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The 10^th now pays $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the 6 was better off than before. And the first 4 continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a $1 out of the $20,” declared the
6^th man. He pointed to the 10^th man, ”but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the 5^th man. Í only saved a $1 too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more than I!” “That’s true!” shouted the 7^th man “Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first 4 men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The 9 men surrounded the 10^th man and beat him up.
The next night the 10^th man didn’t show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even ½ the bill. And that boys and girls, journalists and college professors and liberals is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Spanky, see above. After 1,000 times you still don't understand?

Just keep reading it over and over again until you do, take 2 asprin and call me in 10 years.

That settles it American Girl, you just don't get it.

Again, good luck - you are really going to need it.

But loved the beer analogy. You'd think American gorl would have gotten it. Sad really.

American girl - thank you so much for showing us all what a strawman argument is.

The original question is what is a "fair" amount, you know $$$$. I even gave you IRS data to help you and the story of the drinkers should have helped as well.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to share your emminent knowledge by providing us with links to your "facts"

Remember the question is what is a "fair" amount. Spanky even made it easier for your mind to handle it by asking what you personally thought as being a "fair" amount.

JoAnn, my bet is that Cantor is taking MILLIONS in handouts from the uber-rich oil companies and others to continue letting them make record profits while they little to no tax.

ya all didn't read the article above very well did you?

wa American Girl - Pelosi drained that swamp.

Didn't you hear?

I didn't "hear" it Spanky because you made it up.

But if anybody knows what's going on in the "swamp" it's definitely Republicans.

Oh no -American Girl. Really?

Do us a favor. Google Pelosi drains swamp. I can't make up crap that deliciously good.

Knowledge is power American Girl. Get some.

I don't google negative propoganda. If I wanted to Google dirt on somebody, I'd google George W. Bush, but we've pretty much had enough poop from that guy.

Oh dear.

Well ignorance is bliss. Good luck American Girl, with that attitude you are really going to need it.

The only time I would be considered ignorant is if I ever voted for Republicans who are trying to steal my Social Security Retirement money, my Medicare, and then toss middle class Americans to the wolves while the GOP keeps working on making the rich even richer.

If I ever vote Republican, please feel free to call me "ignorant" AND laugh in my face.

American girl - why not look up US government supplied historical data on incoming revenues and outgoing oblications (expenses). If you want to maintain your medicare and SS for your expected long life what are you going to cut? medicaid? Military? planned parenthood? education? infrastructure? etc.

Remember the IRS data? who are you going to go after when individual income taxes only covers about 40% of total revenue?

The bad thing about debt is that interest also needs to be paid on it. All that money being spent on interest rather than your favorite programs. Must give you the warm fuzzies.

american

The deficit is composed of two parts, a cyclical part and a structural part. The cyclical part is the increase in the deficit as a result of the economic retraction. The structural part is the part that is left (probably around 500 billion). So, you put people back to work, you deal with the cyclical part. If the republicans actually carried out what they promised the people instead of focusing on abortion restrictions, then the cyclical part of the deficit would already be declining.

Everyone talking about the 40% bit doesn't take into account that once the economy starts to ramp up again, that this ratio won't be looking as bad.

Jonathan - understood on the cyclical and structural, but your conclusions on the republicans begs the question on why the democrats didn't keep focus on jobs in 2009 and 2010 as well. After all, they controlled both houses and the WH and the senate independents gave them the votes necessary to pass obamacare and other bills without the need of even minor republican support.

Since I am not afraid to vote split ticket, I find it odd that some people insist that all our ills come from the right, the banks, wall st and business. Seems strange that this blame game blames everyone else, but not those of their own ideologic thinking. I learned a long time ago that a straight acceptance of any one parties total platform leads to disaster.

American,

There isn't actually a lot that the government can do about the jobs situation in the short term. I completely agree with that statement. ANY politician that came out with the idea that they are going to create jobs, jobs, jobs is spewing bs and outright lying to the people.

I am not hiring at my company because to be quite honest, we just don't see the economic/business environment justification to do so. We could do to lay some people off actually, but we have enough capital reserve to be able to pay our employee's for several years with the current business levels (We lost a bit of money last year, and we are losing money this year as well, though it isn't enough of a loss to restructure). We don't want to lay off our employee's, then if in a couple of years, have to rehire them, maybe they are not available anymore, or potentially have to retrain them (the majority of our employee's have annual and biannual training requirements). So we have made a decision to ride it out for a couple of years and see what happens. If this market stays, we will restructure later.

Now, the problem that the democrats have had is that they have had EVERYTHING that they have tried to do being denied by the republicans. The Democrats may have had a majority, but they never had a SUPERMAJORITY, which allows you to close debate, push legislation through. And when you have the ENTIRE republican party voting as a single block to prevent legislation from going through, (even non jobs related bills like the NYC 9/11 emergency workers bill which was paid for, and supported by both parties was blocked until the lame duck, and that only after the tax cut was extended.

To get that supermajority, you needed I believe 3 or 4 more seats in the senate. That allows a party to close off debate and bring the bill to a vote. They never had that. On paper they did, but then Edward Kennedy died, and even before that, he was too ill to attend. You even have Mitch McConnell ADMITTING that they are voting no because it is a Democrat in the Whitehouse. That they are doing that is shocking enough, that he admitted it though is even more shocking. They have even voted no on a recent jobs bill that originally they supported. No reason given. How is that good for the country.

The reason why I call the republicans reckless is because for them to do what they want to do, DRASTIC CUTS in social programs such as medicare and social security among other things, they would end up hurting the economy even more right now. People seem to think that this money just disappears. It doesn't. It goes into the economy, to pay peoples wages, to buy equipment, to fund research and development, etc... When you have two of the 3 major parts of the economy not spending (business and consumer), the last thing you need is for the other part to cut back as well. That is exactly what happened under Hoover. Look what happened there.

I could go on and on, but in general, I am not really supportive of either party, they are both ineffectual but at least the democrats are just being useless and not playing games with the country's future (re the debt ceiling).

Had no problem with letting all the bush tax cuts expire as planned. BTW - they are now obamas tax cuts.

I agree the tax cuts should have expired for all, not just the upper bracket.

Cantor needs to be recalled! Mainly because he's not doing what President Barack Hussein Obama wants him to do. Come on Virginia! Follow the example of those who are superior to you in intellect and income, and vote somebody in who is smart!

Give me, you can't pay down the deficit with budget cuts. Budget cuts DO NOT create revenue.

What worries me is, this debt will remain until it IS paid and it will only continue to grow larger as interest is added on.

If Republicans don't get on board and get serious about PAYING DOWN the deficit, it's going to continue to remain rough, and maybe even become rougher as the debt continues to grow.

Now what is the Republican plan for PAYING DOWN the deficit, they don't have one because you need REVENUE to pay the bills that Republicans ran up in the first place.

You can't turn budget cuts into revenue.

Explain American girl: why can't you use the money saved through budget cuts to pay off debt?

Oh and while you are at it - explain what budget you are talking about.

Why no budget American Girl? I think it would be a great idea to have one, how about you?

There you go again Spanky, pretending as if Republicans don't know anything, which is EXACTLY why I wouldn't support ANY for office. We Americans are getting pretty sick and tired of having to remind Tea Baggers and Republicans on a daily basis "what we're talking about".

That said, let me ask you this: Can you pay your utilities bills with the "fact" that you just trimmed your trees? Or to think your utilities companies will want "cash".

Do you think China cares whether or not Republicans have cancelled programs to help our poor, or do you think China wants "cash"?

Come on, think hard.

Why no American Girl, but you know what I can do? I can not buy a bigger tv and pay my cable bill. I can sell the expensive car I drive and buy on for cash, using the difference to pay off credit cards.

You obviously don't understand the concept here, or apparently basic economic principles.

See even with you example - if tree trimmer dude #1 wanted $1000 to trim, but I found trimmer #2 to do it for $750, I now have $250 to use for something else, like pay an existing debt.

I'm sorry to bust out math on you , but my goodness there appears to be a problem here.

AG: your analogies are stupid. If you cut off your premium cable channels you CAN use that $ to pay your electric bill or phone bill, or put gas in your car! Cutting spending doesn't increase revenue, but it can lead to surpluses which are needed to start paying down the debt! This is accounting 101, but why should expect a flaming liberal socialist to understand accounting???!!! NET INCOME = income - spending. If NI > 0 you have a surplus. If NI <0 you have a deficit.

The deficit can be reduced and the debt paid off by cutting spending. You can either cut spending, increase revenue (not necessarilythe same as increasing tax RATES!), or a combination of the two. The problem is no politicians want to get serious about our SPENDING PROBLEM. We don't have a revenue problem. Historically, regardless of whether top income tax rates are 20% or 90%, total revenue proiduced by income taxes hovers right around 20% of GDP. That is a FACT! You could tax 100% of all income earned over $1M/year, and it would not put a dent in our deficit or debt! There just aren't enough people in those brackets! Revenues right now have dropped below 20% of GDP because of the recession (not because tax rates are too low). Recessions will devastate any economy or fiscal budget. We need to grow the economy, but POTUS is too ignorant of how economics work in the real world to ever come up with a single idea of how to grow the economy (hint: you don't grow the economy by taking more $ out of it in taxes!).

Spending is now around 25% of GDP. The only time in our history it has been higher was during WWII. That is unsustainable. We do have a spending problem.

As a private citizen, if every year you spend 50% more than you earn (assuming you don't inherit a large sum of $ or hit the lottery), eventually you will reach a point where the interest payments on your accumulated debts will consume over 50% of your income. That is a very difficult predicamaent to get out of. Most individuals don't have the ability to significantly increase their income in the short term, so therefore the only logical solution is to cut spending. Forgo that new car, no big screen TV, cut HBO & SHO-time, stop eating out 10 times a week, etc... You have to start somewhere.
Our nation is SO FAR down the crapper financially, we don't need to just cut $50B here or $100B there. We need to look at the big picture and cut $TRILLIONS! It is going to take us 20-50 years to pay off this accumulated debt. But it can be done. We have to start somewhere. That somewhere is balancing the current budget. First we need a budget though ( we are now almost 75% through the year and have no approved budget...talk about abdication of responsibility Mr. President!). Then we need to run BIG surpluses for about 50 years and maybe we will eventually pay off our immense debt.

hey look it is the chic from the Tom Petty song!

TO: Spanky-who wrote:

"Why no American Girl, but you know what I can do? I can not buy a bigger tv and pay my cable bill. I can sell the expensive car I drive and buy on for cash, using the difference to pay off credit cards..."

____________________

Spanky, if you "SELL the expensive care [you] drive" THAT would create revenue IF you actually receive a profit for the sale of your expensive car.

The Government is NOT "selling" anything.

Again, tax cuts are NOT revenue, and spending cuts are NOT revenue either.

Neither tax cuts NOR spending cuts would be accepted by China as "cash" towards the money the U.S. owes China.

Geez!

AG: you need some remedial math, accounting and economics courses. You have no idea how the real world actually works.

spending cuts do not create revenue. that's math. only an increase in revenue creates revenue. cut's just eliminate spending. when you are borrowing to pay dept then to bring down the debt you need to have more revenue. in this case taxes. you poeple like bush's math that never did add up. and HE did not pay for 2 war's and the drug benifit. plus he took avay revenue in the form of tax cut's. the tax cuts were trilloins of dollars. now that's real math for all of you GOPTP'ERS. i think you people need to take math again.

dji - You got that right!

That's the problem with Republicans, and they really need to consult Nobel Prize Winning Economists, but they don't because they're afraid he/she will find out how much money the GOP has already stolen.

AG & dji: you two have been drinking a little to much RED Kool-aid! You CAN in fact balance a budget by reducing spending! You still have revenue coming in. If revenue > spending, you will have a surplus (opposite of a deficit!). A budget can be balanced by cutting spending AND/OR increasing revenue. Either will work. This is not rocket science (well maybe for some!).

Increasing tax RATES does not always result in more revenue! Income taxes as a % of GDP (Gross Domestic Product - saved you from having to look it up!), has always been around 20% (plus or minus a little, REGARDLESS of what the top tax rate on the rich is. At one tiem the top tax rate was 90%. Income tax revenues were still only about 20% of GDP.

The recession is certainly making our deficits larger in the short term because fewer people are working. But even if the recession ended tomorrow, we would still have HUGE deficits because spending in the last 2 years (under Odumbo) has skrocketed from 20-21% of GDP to 25-26% of GDP. We DO have a spending problem. You liberal Marxists cannot see what is staring you right in the face! I truly feel sympathy for people like you that are so slow that they cannot understand the most BASIC introductory accounting principles.

Looks like our education system is in worse shape than we thought!!!

American Girl

'what worries me is that this debt will remain until we pay it off'. Did you go to the school of stating the bloody obvious? (Sorry if that is offensive, but even though I sometimes make mistakes in what I type, that sounds as though you were sleeping or on drugs when you wrote that).

The Reason why cutting spending won't necessarily help the debt situation is that you first need to deal with the annual deficit. Until you get a fiscal annual surplus, you can't pay down your debt.

tjb

The recession is over. The recession by the way is defined by the growth, or lack thereof, of the economy. Being out of the recession does not imply that the damage done by the recession is repaired. No the deficit isn't going to be reduced under current laws until we start improving employment. As we get closer to full employment, we will gradually reduce the deficit. That is unless we change the laws to remove stabilization programs that are costing us. (yes there are complexities with Social Security and Medicare, but that isn't SS/Medicare's fault that previous governments spend the SS Surplus on consumption instead of investment).

Yes the recession is making our deficits larger, however the current state of employment, GDP has more to do with the deficit than anything else. Alas, I think you need to either take a few classes yourself or not misrepresent what the word deficit means.

Deficit is the ANNUAL shortfall in spending. So the deficit of 2 years ago will have NOTHING to do with the spending this year. The opposite of that is surplus. You don't pay off a deficit, you reduce it.

Debt is the sum total of deficits (- surpluses but since this is the US here, the country of economic stewards that can't imagine what a surplus is). So the deficits of 2 years ago impacts the current DEBT level, not the deficit.

Before you start criticizing others, you should look at yourself. Oh and by the way, the US has essentially had Reaganomics for 30 years. Are you really better off?

BRAVO kr !!!!!

"... the rich have ruled long enough and the rest of us have suffered too long!"

But what can we do about it, anything? Damn straight, we can. Election time's a-comin', kids. We can do plenty! Your job will be to get the word out every damned day between now and then! That, and debunk the crap the right puts out every damned day, between now and then, of course.

Take these posts, for instance.......

Great Drive By - so when does the debunking start?

Here's one for you my man, a real soft ball, so debunk away: Unemployment will be at 10% by November 15th. THis means Obama is toast-y.

Ok go.

One thing for sure, Republicans CAN'T say they've even done ONE darn thing to stop unemployment from increasing. Republicans just keep on demanding more tax cuts for mega-millionaires who aren't even the ones asking for any tax cuts, NOR have any mega-billion dollar companies come forth to say that if they're given more tax breaks then they'll hire more people.

The Republican strategy is the same as it's been for the past 30 years, "trickle down economics" which never once "trickled down." As a matter of fact, Republicans have even gone to far as to say if they see the poor doing any better they'd consider that a "transfer of wealth".

So, Spanky, exactly WHAT have Republicans contributed to the well being of the United States and the American People over the past 3 years? Does the GOP have any accomplishments? I don't think so.

Spanky, and what are the republican plans to help lower that number? Didn't Boehner say "so be it" when it was pointed out that the Ryan budget would actually eliminate jobs.

I haven't seen nor even heard about anything put forth by the republicans that would lower that number. They are too busy trying to legislate their "morals"(and I use that term loosely).

Gosh Andie it almost like you think the government can create jobs.

You know it cannot right?

Oh and you are right AMerican Girl, but really I like to focus on the dems' accomplishments - 9.1% unemployment, exploding debt, and now negative GDP growth.

andie, that is because the republican objective has nothing to do with jobs. That much is obvious based on their track record.

if you are suffering get out and work harder or go visit a church near you for their soup kitchen

damn it, he can't even be bothered to cover up his crap as he drops it behind him. What is he a donkey or something?

Maybe we should STOP paying taxes like the major Corporations and the upper 2% - after all...WE MAKE THEIR PAYDAYS POSSIBLE!!!!

They don't hate Americans, they don't care about them unless they are rich. They hate Democrats. They hate Democrats enough to let the country go to $#@& just in order to make them look bad.

That may be so Charctine, but I'm not handing over my pre-paid Social Security Retirement money, or my pre-paid Medicare just to make Republicans happy (who CANNOT handle the economy any).

The reason why Republicans do so poorly with the American Economy is because they have no consideration for the American People. Republicans ONLY thoughts are for big corporations with BIG corporate profits.

Scott I wish that I knew the answer to your very legitimate question, but it seems that if you are not a corporation or a multimillionaire you are worthless in the republicans eyes.

Actually Scott, I, for one Republican, don't hate Americans. I happen the think We the People are the greatest people on the planet, living in the greatest country the planet has ever seen.

I also think that sometime in the last century some folks were deluded into thinking that the largesse of taxpayers (in a booming economy) was something to which they were entitled. They were, and are, wrong.

Nothing in any of the founding documents of this country entitles anyone to the products of my labor; the Declaration of Independence allows for three entitlements: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and the Constitution enumerates ten more, in the Bill of Rights. Please note that "pursuit" is an action verb, meaning, get off your ass and do something for a living - do not expect me to support you in any manner.

Slavery was outlawed 150 year ago (in round numbers) and expecting me to provide for a person's every need while working for me makes him or her a slave, requiring that I provide for his or her need without benefit makes me a slave - both are destructive to society, and not to be tolerated.

Others have said that cuts to expenditures won't pay down the deficit - which is only correct as long as expenditures exceed revenues. Should expenditures be cut to a level below current revenues, and the revenues not cut, the deficit WILL come down, a point that many here seem to either miss, or conveniently ignore.

That's the level of cuts I'm looking to see. I don't honestly expect that it will be achieved this cycle, but until the federal expenditures - including the mis-labeled "entitlements" are cut to the bone, I'm not willing to give up another nickel to the government in income tax; I have better ways to spend my money.

Say what you like Old Gaffer, but I know I am "entitled" to receive my Social Security Retirement money I've paid into all my working life, and I KNOW I want my the Medicare that I also pre-paid.

Now you can call it want you want, but that is MY MONEY and I AM NOT going to give it to YOU or anybody else, and I doubt any of the other of us who have paid all or working lives, IN ADVANCE, for our retirement and our health care are going to turn our money over to YOU.

That's just as if you told someone "Oh, what an ugly diamond that is on your finger. Can I have it?" Hell no.

Our Social Security money was good enough for Republicans to borrow from us, and now it's time to pay us back. Personally, our Social Security Retirement money is the only money that I know of that Republicans borrow from, but don't pay us any interest on your loan you take from US !

The Republicans want to starve the Beast = Government. That way they can say look no revenue why should there be a government. That thinking has been disastrous for the Country so far. Taxes for the Corporations and the rich are at 1950's levels. Due to the simple fact we are not in the 1950's, not only should they paid back the interest they should contribute there fair share. For the Repubs to say no new taxes is not only destructive to our nation. It will have a global effect and everyone in the world will be affected. Then what will you think of your Republicans then? Bring down the Global Economies around the world because they refuse to increase millionaires and billionaires taxes to the Clinton levels. How selfish are they? VERY. Do they care about anyone not making millions? HELL NO.

Republicans = Take the GLOBAL ECONOMY DOWN

Social Security has a 2.7 Trillion Dollar Surplus. DO BROKE

2012 Can't get here any faster

@ old gaffer

Simply put, your diatribe gives credence to the label so many non-Republicans put on the GOP/TP today, which is "I GOT MINE, FU!".

America is not, never has been, and never will be the land of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL. Yes, the majority of people in this country do have opportunity but the majority of something is not all of something.

There must, in any modern day non-3rd world country/economy, a social safety net/program that will keep the unfortunate from being exploited by the capitalistic market forces which provide revenues upon which everyone benefits.

As far as cutting expenses below the point of revenues, you do realize that even if all social programs with the exception of Social Security and Medicare were eliminated we still would have a significant budget shortfall (deficit). We will need to make cuts in defense spending, social security payouts and medicare reimbursements if there is to be a CUTS ONLY approach to deficit elimination. Does that sound fair to you? If it does then there is no doubt that you are a true Grover Norquist Republican and a cold-blooded one to boot!

Republcians are the "beast" so far as I'm concerned, and if they starve, "so be it."

(The "so be it" quote is taken from Republican House Member John Boehner of Ohio, who said "so be it" when he learned that Republican economic policies would likely lead to the loss of more American jobs.)

I actually like john kyl's office statement of 'This statement was not meant to be factual' to be the best. I have been using it in variations quite often.

DISCLAIMER: THIS STATEMENT MEANT TO BE FACTUAL.

The only this Cantor is leading is US off the cliff!!!!

Bob 1887910, HOW do Republicans plan to pay for that Lie Called the War in Iraq, or do Republicans just plan on ignoring the rate of interest that is being ADDED ON to that debt?

The only tax increases with on the top 2% income, which would include Republicans' beloved oil companies.

You can't PAY Down the Debt with Tax cuts alone. Just like Republicans needed CASH to fund their illegal war in Iraq, they're going to need CASH to pay down the debt.

bob taxes have nevr ever been this low. you can't have a country without taxes. you sound lik a whinny rich guy. go buy an island and create your own country and get out of here. we don't need you or your kind here. what a rdiculous statement by you.

Definitely!!! Just what we need. WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!! I mean please, who runs this country, anyway? THE RICH! They deserve it. Scr@w the middle and lower classes. They're just the lowly people who need to work more so that the rich can feed off of them!

Girl

I keep hearing that the "rich should pay their fair share" just how much is their share? How about the 47-50% who pay no income tax start paying their fair share?

Slodon, why are YOU asking, you are NOT among the top 2% earners, so you don't have anything to worry about.

Firt, there are not 47-50% not paying taxes. Dont pull numbers out of your arse. Next, there's nearly as many millionaires not paying taxes (probably) as poor people not paying.

gofinsgo

Here from NPR Radio.

It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years. Robert Siegel talks to Roberton Williams, who's been crunching the numbers at the Tax Policy Institute in Washington. According to Williams, millions escape filing because their incomes are too low or they're eligible for deductions, credits and exemptions.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

Now you do believe NPR Radio don't you? So stick this up your a$$ so you can read it.

slodon:

ok assuming that this statement is true (I am not going to comment one way or the other about it), the tax rates for individuals haven't changed in a decade. So if the percentage of people that do not have to pay income tax goes up year over year, what does that tell you about the economy?

It tells you that the income of a segment of the population is either stagnating or declining. THAT is the core problem with the economy. More and more people are becoming lower income earners. THIS is the problem we need to solve as a nation. Arguing about who is paying enough tax is kind of pointless in the long run when there is a very definite trend towards declining incomes in the largest segment of your population.

gofingo

actually I believe that number is correct (the %age). What it means is that after you do your tax return, that %age of people in the country get tax returns that either returns all of their contributions (only income tax, not the payroll tax deductions) or gives you a net positive. What I don't know about those statistics is how are the people that get a greater amount back than what they put into the system. Is that extra tallied into the total figure (making that statistic Meaningless) or is it just truncated and not factored at all into the statistic.

Dari, you ARE going to need to raise taxes on the top 2% income or there is no money to pay the debt the Republicans ran up so that they could make themselves oil barrons.

The government can bring in more tax revenue without raising taxes on anyone. Add more taxpayers and the government gets more revenue. You know - support small business - create jobs - increase wages - encourage immigration - create new markets - expand the economy. It is possible to increase government revenue without 'taking' one more dime out of your pocket.

Instead of adopting an easy 'cut and run' strategy, the Republicans could actually work on business policies that would expand the economy. Pandering to the wrong part of the economy is not improving anything.

So you're saying that someone who makes $12,000 per year gross needs to pay the Federal Govt. 25% or $3,000 reducing their income to $9,000. Add on to that state taxes ($500) and Social Security/Medicare taxes ($1,000) which reduces their yearly income to at BEST $7,500 which comes down to $625/mo. Out of that they have to pay RENT and buy FOOD and get to work (either paying gas money or mass transit fares) plus pay utilities. Hmm ... I don't know about YOU but I can't think of a single place that a 1 bedroom apartment is even CLOSE to the take-home pay of $625 in terms of rent. THIS is why a flat-tax (as proposed by the likes of Mr. Ron Paul) can't work. You think we have a homeless problem NOW? This effectively makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the working poor to continue to work. It's mighty hard to work when you have no place to lay your head, no money for food, no way to GET to work, no way for your employer to contact you ... This cuts those people completely out of society since the same people also don't want to subsidize anything. I guess if you can't get a good job then you can just go off somewhere and die? The only people who can afford to work for this wage would be teenagers (who live at home and so don't have rent outlays) and this means that those jobs could only operate after school hours. This eliminates those jobs since no employer would be able to stay open those limited hours ...

Please take a look at the numbers and tell me why this is such a GREAT idea.

No one has serioulsy suggested a 25% flat tax. The devil is in the details. A flat tax could still include some sort of exclusion of the first $10K of income (per wage earner), or whatever number was agreed upon. Better yet would be replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, that woudl not epply to food, medicine, toliletries, etc. There would be no other deductions, loopholes, tax evasion. It woudl reward savers as only spenders would have to pay. It will never happen though, because too many lawyers and accoutnants (read: politicians!) would be out of work.

Even at the minimum wage, annual income would be around $14K. If you have a high school education (a real education, not just passing through the system by beauracrats that don't care about whether students actually learn anything), you should be able to get a job that pays significantly more than minimum wage. Acquire some skills, further your education, start a business, apply yourself. Someone with the IQ of a 5th grader and no motivation to improve their lot in life should not expect a $50K a year job to be just handed to them on a silver platter.

TO: Nerm_L whowrote:

“The government can bring in more tax revenue without raising taxes on anyone. Add more taxpayers and the government gets more revenue… Republicans could actually work on business policies that would expand the economy...”

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

The only thing Republicans know is how to do is remove restrictions so that it’s ok for companies to pollute our air, our drinking water, and our food supply, which they tried for 8 years and all those companies did was lay off workers, and reduce their payroll.

Republicans just don’t understand what works and what DOESN’T work and they’re so jealous of successful Democrats the GOP would rather for us all to starve to death rather than allow the Democrats to fix to economy, which I, for one, don’t understand WHY that doesn’t amount to treason.

I'm with you. I've had enough of their brand of bi-partisanship.

Always whining about weiners, thought he quit?

My confusion in the whole mash here is the argument that cutting spending doesn't raise revenue. While that may be correct if you only use the semantics of the argument, at its base it's faulty. Cutting spending leverages current revenue levels to a point where the debt can be addressed. I also agree however, that it is insufficient and taxes need to be raised. I would support an equal % tax increase as long as two things are tied to it > 1) No new spending using that revenue to cover anything but the deficit and 2) the tax increase is limited to the period required to close the deficit.

rob1

Not if that cut spending reduces your revenue as a byproduct of reduced economic activity.

Class warfare BS.

The 'rich' is not a static group, individuals become wealthy and lose their wealth, over 30 years.

So your Marxist class warfare statistics are meaningless.

One of these days Bob-1887910, the Debt is going to HAVE to be paid, and you won't be able to get any money from dirt poor folks, you're going to HAVE to get it from the only people who do have money in this country.

Bob...the only "class warfare" that is going on in this country is against the middle class. We're talking about a 3 to 4% income tax increase...wow, what a big SACRIFICE to make from the folks whose income has risen by 240%! Boo hoo, if this is Marxist then you and the GOP are Fascists pigs.

Higgi - YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

More fun! Those evil rich people with all that money just sitting under their mattresses, because that's the only place they can put it where it isn't working in the economy today. If it's in the stock market, in a bank, or even if they bought bonds with it, that money is fueling the economy each and every day. Now just imagine if that money wasn't in the economy where we would be today? Oh, it's only a LITTLE sacrifice putting more taxes on them. I mean after all, the top 5% only pay 80% of ALL taxes anyway. Of course they're not paying their fair share. Well, how much IS their fair share hmm? 90%? 100%? You simply can't collect enough money from the top few percent to fix your problems. How about we start by cutting Cowboy Poetry...oh wait, can't do that, they already said that's too important for a cut. Now THAT is a Democrat compromise.

Don't be Tea-bagging us JJ - the top 5 percent had a total average federal tax rate of 27.9 percent, and with all the tax loopholes and overseas tax shelters you know (or should know) that these people actually pay around 9% in actual income taxes. The middle class is carrying most of the tax burden because they have fewer loopholes and tax deductions, and also can't afford an expensive tax attorney to hide and/or defer most of their taxes. So...JJ, unless you are one of these 'pigs', you are doing them them a favor by advocating a position of actually increasing your lifetime tax burden. Get a clue now, I won't feel sorry for you later!

Higgi - read what I wrote not what your ideological goggles are printing for you. I said they pay 80% of ALL taxes. I never said anything about tax rates. The numbers are easy enough to find, go look them up. So how much of the total percentage of taxes paid are you saying the rich should pay? 100%?

JJ...by reading my latest post you should have been able to infer that I'm refuting your 80% of all taxes claim. Also by reading my posts you should have been able to calculate the approximate tax rate in effect for the Top 5% under both Clinton and Reagan: 27.9% + 3 or 4%= 30.9% or 31.9%. By the way, I'm in the Top 5%, but I'm more than happy to pay more to help this country and people like you (middle-class)...well, maybe not people like YOU!

Higgi - By reading my post you should have been able to infer that the numbers are easy to find and you can look them up yourself. And I did read your post and said I wasn't talking about tax rates but total percentage of taxes being paid. You want to argue apples when I was talking oranges.

If you are more than happy to pay more then why aren't you simply giving it to the government instead of waiting to be told to? Put your money where your mouth is otherwise it's all just hot air.