JC in G

You can go that set ways of yours but we the real american people, 98%, say NO.

You can equally hold firm to your sheepish delusional ideological set ways but we the real american people, hold firm to realism.

98% of Americans want tax increases? Really? Do you have a poll that shows that? As the next 10 people you see if they want to pay more in taxes. I dare you.

Do you realize that any cut would undermine the fragile gain the economy has made so far. because what it does is to add more burden on the economy. Tax cuts do not grow economy. it's like asking a sick patient to give blood. i know your set ways will never let you admit to this, Regan did increase taxes. you don't need to end medicare or kill SS. what's needed is to simply

end all wars

end all tax loopholes

increase taxes on top 2% (38%)

i know you all, GOP, have signed your lives out to Grover Norquist, we need to generate revenue. it's no rocket sciences. lets spend on infrastructures, these companies with the aid of GOP, are just gaming the system. they get tax cuts and still move jobs oversea.......who is fooling who?

imagine this, you cut = laying off workers/more dependants = shrinking the economy. We need growth.

I'm all for ending all wars as long it it does not blatently open the U.S.A. up to increased attacks by terrorist groups. And I'm not saying that pulling out of Iraq or Afganistan would do this. I really don't know; I would hope that our politicians would have a better grip on this than I do.

I am for ending tax loopholes as long as they are looked at properly. For instance, disallowing FIFO accounting practices could be considered a "tax loophole". The practice is much more complex than simply being able to charge inventory tax at old production costs and a drop dead date to "True Up" all outstanding FIFO liabilities would decimate some industries.

If your point is to increase the tax on the top 2% from 35% to 38%, please let me know how much money this would actually add to the coffers.

I don't know who Grover Norquist is, but I will look him up to see if that is who I am signing my life away to.

We need to look at the total picture and not just demonize rich people. If they can help along with the rest of us Americans, I'm sure they will. If they are tasked with the entire recovery because they are evil, I don't think they are going to help much.

If I were able to tell Congress something, my point would be: As soon as you prove to me that you can be responsible with the money we give you, we will consider giving you more. But you don't get more money on the promise that "We will do a better job, but we're not sure how to yet."

Some people will always be rich and some people will always be poor. A lot has to do with motivation. If you are not motivated to make things in your life better, the people that are motivated should not be responsible for making your comfort the same as theirs. There are plenty of people that will be "poor" that is not caused by their lack of motivation, they deserve the help of people that have been blessed with an abundance and they currently recieve that from charities and the government. The system works. It stops working when the unmotivated demand and get the same support as people that have no choice or ability to provide for themselves. Human nature would dictate that if you can get something for free, you will generally accept it. If everyone is getting something for free, who is left to support the people that really need help?

Pius,

After initial examination, I think I probobly agree with Grover Norquist on the basic principle of not increasing taxes. I'm sure you can find some quote by him that will make me look like I am a fool for following him. I don't actually follow him and I disagree on his beliefs relating to Muslim ideologies. If your point is that I am for lower taxes and a smaller intrusion in my life by the government, yes, on those priciples, I agree with Grover. Now if I can just agree with Elmo, I should be in good shape.

JC

When you invaded Iraq, with what money did plan to execute the war? did i hear you say if we need to continue some these wars, for security reasons, how do you plan to finance it if you don't go china to get a cheque? Government intrusion......really, how many Republicants in surveys/polls said yes to medicare and other safety nets? small government in other words is tax cuts period and tax cuts do not grow economy. american economy is a capitalist/socialist based economy. you can keep denying as long as you want.

imagine a situation where companies do not have money to hire, the populace is not spending as result of no jobs and govt. do not have money...........pal, that's FIASCO right there for you. At every given time in an economy, one or more out of these three groups must be spending for an economy to grow or else, we all come to a halt. lastly, you'll call govt. intervention in GM a failure?

I'm sorry that I invaded Iraq. I thought the military did this with the approval of Congress. I must have been sleep walking and I sincerly regret the trouble I have caused.

I don't think we should finance a war, I think we should pay for it if we have to be in one. So no, I don't want to get a check from China for it.

It is pretty obvious that we are a capitalist/socialist society. I'm just glad we are not a socialist/capitalist society. I agree with safety nets for the downtrodden and I believe that we should all contribute to this.

A smaller government run more efficiently would not require as much in taxes; so yes, smaller government (Doing a good job) would equal tax cuts.

For me, the government intervention in GM was not a failure. Now I know that if I mismannage my business and as long as I employ a lot of people, Obama will give me money to re-build. As long as too many people that run businesses poorly don't realize this, we should be OK. If everybody catches on, we might be in a little bit of trouble. Should the government have stepped in and saved all the dot com companies? It really hurt our economy when so many failed. Seems we have recovered from that, I think we could have survived GM learning a hard lesson on running a profitable company also.
As a matter of fact, the housing problem seems to have caused a lot of the problems we are in right now, maybe if the government just payed for all our houses, we would not be having any problems right now. Oh yeah, except for the cost of paying for everyone's houses might have bumped the debt up a little.

If US invaded Iraq, doesn't that mean we, you and I invaded Iraq whether we agreed to it or not. I disagreed with the war, but my country invaded Iraq. hey, if you don't have money, how do you pay for continued war because of security reasons you cited.......are you not going to finance it? absolutely, you'll have to finance it.

small government is good when you give tax cuts to top 2%. the last time i checked, tax cuts never pays for itself.......so you'll rather skin the middle class alive to pay for it. is that the definition of GOPers small government? housing bubble........i know you might favor deregulation which allows banks to run riot on wall street to cook up all sorts predatory financial models/loans. all, aimed at this same middle class.

this govt. already put in place laws that would not allow any more govt intervention in any failed institution.....isn't this good? absolutely.

Nice talking point "Tax cuts for the top 2%"

Don't you mean "Tax cuts for everyone, including the top 2%" or "Tax cuts for everyone. including the middle class."

How about "Tax cuts for the 50% of Americans that don't pay any taxes. If we could get just a few of these no-tax-paying people into the top 2%, we could just blame them for all our problems."

So how are the Obama tax cuts doing now?

So how are the Obama tax cuts doing now?

Apparently not well, since the corporations are sitting on their money instead of creating jobs.

JC in G

"So how are the Obama tax cuts doing now?"

Well, as well as they did when they were the Bush tax cuts, you big silly!

I'll use the Obama mindset to answer this:

If Obama had not cut the taxes, the economy would be worse than it is now. I applaud his tax cuts!

Tax cuts are not working. Things have been going down downhill since Bush put them in. Keeping them at this level will make things worse. Why not try increasing them for those making over 1 million and eliminate subsidies for big oil?

But do not worry JC - the GOP will hold firm on not raising taxes on the very rich because the very rich own those congresspeople and have bought and paid for those votes through contributions.

Jack,

I'm afraid that that excuse does not fly. If politicians want to be re-elected, and I think we can all agree that that is what they want, would they really pander to 2% of the voting public or would they want to make sure that most of the people that vote agreed with them? If a politician can't figure out that the mojority is who elects them, then I doubt they are smart enough to even get their names on the ballot.

JC - The majority of people who vote will believe whatever the last negative ad said and believe they are voting for "the lesser of 2 evils". Most people believe that they will be better off with lower taxes, so they vote for the party who feeds them that line of manure. They want lower taxes and a lower debt, until it impacts their 'entitlements' or takes away their union's ability to negotiate.

I cannot quote any specific pole, however of the ones I have seen, most people believe that the financial markets, millioinaires and big business do not need more tax breaks.

Whis is proposing more tax breaks for the top 2%?

The GOP.

Good one. Let me try:

It is the Democrats that are proposing tax cuts for the upper 2%. I'll get you a link later on. Just believe me on this one.

Amused, I agree with one line in your comment:

'I think you'll see the grassroots folks out educating people on the streets and in living rooms this time to counter their massive spending.'

Now let's look closely at who has done the massive spending the last 2 years.

Oh, you were talking about buying an election. Doesn't the Obama clan claim that they are going to raise a billion dollars to spend on campaigning. A billion dollars to keep a job for 4 years. Do you have any idea how many jobs a billion dollars could support for 4 years???

"Do you have any idea how many jobs a billion dollars could support for 4 years???"

Well, NONE with all this 'uncertainty' hovering above the heads of corporations, you big silly!

LOL,

I do like your use of "You big silly". It is much nicer than many comments on this sight.

So is there any way to remove the 'uncertainty' that is confounding all the corporate invest stratagist? Maybe let them know what we are going to do about our debt? Spell out exactly what their taxes will be? Let them know how much it will cost to give healthcare to their employees? Let them know that we are not going to spend all our money on wars. Let them know that we will be able to be more energy independant by using our own resources.

I'm not sure how many jobs a billion dollars would support, but a substantial number I would assume if they are given to the middle class. However, not too many if you hire a bunch more CEOs and bond traders, or just pay it off in bonuses to those who tanked the economy to begin with. Corporations right now are sitting on trillions of capital that they are not investing, at least not in America so the question is kind of moot.

I do not buy into the uncertainty argument. I think everyone understands that cuts will be made to deal with the debt. i think the argument is more centered around the cuts being across the board or if we're just going to allow so called entitlement spending to take the brunt of the hit. I think that large numbers of people have sounded off to the pollsters that killing off medicare and social security are a no go. The programs need major adjustment, but not under the pointed gun of the Republican party. They have played their hand and privatization just isn't in the cards. Additionally we've got to do something about tax loopholes that are allowing the GEs of the world to avoid paying any tax. The big millionaires, the top 2% if you will, for the most part, have already signaled that they know they are not really paying their fair share. Those things need to be on the table and get addressed. This is the message that so far Republicans just refuse to see and believe. Not sure why the blinders.

Amused - Rove and his ilk have theirs and don't care about the rest of us. Even though we've worked hard all our lives for a comfortable retirement, those greedy guys want to take it away and put us on welfare, then they want to take even that away. I don't think even they have enough money to convince voters to give up Medicare and Social Security, although that has been the mission of the Republican party since I can remember, but not as vicious as it is now.

If you want to know how many jobs a billion dollars could support...just take the real, full-time, permanent jobs the $800 billion stimulus created and divide it by 800. There is your answer.

Summertime, I am not a very accomplished arguer but I think that some of your accusations are a bit distorted when it comes to the Republican party and your retirement. I believe it is the current administration that is trying to do away with pre-tax deductions for your 401K. Also, voters will not need convincing when the Medicare and SS trust funds are EMPTY! Oh yeah, the government will still be able to write those checks...they will just be worth less than the paper they are written on.

You can not tax your way out of this. You can not cut your way out of this. It will take a combination of both which is what the debt commission suggested before they were ignored.

An Ann Richards quote ALWAYS brings a smile to my face.

Thanks Fred!

I think what is of most interest to me in your comments Fred, is the acknowledgement that two people are going to spend 2 billion dollars to compete for a job that pays $400K per year. This to me speaks highly to the need for publicly financed campaigns, not privately financed campaigns. No matter who you are, and no matter which party you represent, when that much money is involved, there is no doubt that a "quid pro quo" comes into play. I think President Obama, (then candidate Obama) really did a disservice to himself, and to the process, when he changed his mind on taking public funds. That's no doubt, hindsight on my part, but the era of billion dollar campaigns is here, and the nation is the loser as a result.

"BTW, why are you repeating yourself?"

Because he think's he's Mitch McConnell?? (The big silly.)

JC - do you object to elimination of big oil subsidies or eliminating tax breaks for those making over $250,000?

"Big Oil" is one segment of business. If they get a significant amount of subsidies that other businesses do not get, then, yes, I think these subsidies should be curtailed. If the intent is to simply punish "Big Oil" because we don't like the company; They polute the environment, they have very wealthy administrators, the price of gas is too high... then I don't think reducing subsidies is the right answer. I have a 401K retirement plan that invests in "Big Oil", most working Americans do too. I want them to make money so that they pay dividends to the stock holders, (me).

I think the group that makes over 250K a year already pays a higher percentage in income tax. If you call paying more a "Tax break", I am confused. It seems to me that people that pay only 5% of their income are getting a tax break. The people that don't pay any of their income are getting even a bigger tax break. The people that don't pay anything at all in taxes and get money and/or services are getting something above and beyond a tax break. By the way, the disabled vet that is not paying taxes and is getting a subsistance allotment or health care deserves it and it should not be taken away. We all need to help support this person, and we do.

Here's the one that you can really sink your teeth into:
I don't think that medical insurance is a "Right" that everyone in this country has. It is a commodity like any other service. Do you have a "Right" to have lawn services? Do you have a "Right" to have your hair cut? No. Just because someone wants to have medical insurance, does not give the government the "Right" to take my money to give to that person to get medical insurance. There is a big difference between a "Right" as dictated by the government and doing the right thing. Is giving a vet health care they can't afford the right thing to do? Yes. Is giving a criminal better health insurance than the vet has the criminal's "Right". I don't think so.

Big Oil will be just fine without government help. Our 401's will be just fine. They will find a way to make money. They are really good at it.

As far as insurance: When an uninsured person goes to the hospital, the hospital will service that person as it is the law. When the hospital files a medicare claim, in the lovely state of Illinois (where I reside) they can expect to be reimbursed around .45 for every dollar submitted. So one can quickly see why hospitals, given these parameters, charge $5 for a bandaid. So insurance companies (who only care about making as much money as they possibly can from the system) raise their rates to compensate for the high cost of medical bills and their own bottom line. So currently, those of us with health insurance are 'paying' for the people who do not.

So as far as health insurance goes, I just want uniformity. Either we socialize it and everyone gets it, or we do not serve the people who do not have health insurance. So if you are in an accident and on the side of the road bleeding, you would need to prove you are insured to get an ambulance ride and the proper attention at the hospital. You would then have the "right" to be insured if you'd like. Not very nice, but hey we should have the 'right' not to have health insurance and take that chance.

When the government mandated everyone gets attention if needed, they should have mandated everyone have health insurance. It is kind of like car insurance, but a little more complex. Otherwise, they should have socialized health care. Either way, health care costs would go down.

So I believe you cannot go half way without looking hypocritical. Either get government out of the health care business altogether, or socialize it.

It is like being pro-life and pro-war. These beliefs conflict with each other.

Yes, you are probably correct. If we stopped all spending, our deficit would still go up even though we brought in more money than we spent?????

As far as the wars go, I think that Libya will be the perfect place to join another never-ending war. That way we can get a lot of our soldiers killed, spend money we don't have, piss off the people that we are trying to protect and then have them come back and use everything we did for them and gave to them against us. Wait a minute, this is Obama's war; maybe I should rethink this since Obama can't possibly do anything wrong.

" I am new to this and at 71 years old, these new-fangled gadgets are hard to learn"
Yes these computers that they just came up with are really complex. Oh for the days when you could just type on your typewriter and not have to worry about having your spelling automatically fixed....

Fred,

Good for you for trying something new at 71 years of age. The old adage about "old dogs and new tricks", appears to be non-applicable for you.

You should probably keep in mind that the last war started, was started by President Obama, and doesn't appear to have any exit strategy. What started out as a rescue operation for threatened civilians, has now morphed into a "regime change", whether they're calling it that or not. I'd probably bet that we'll find a way to eliminate Kadaffi, but even then, what have we gotten? Just like in Egypt, we have no idea what will happen, or who will ultimately end up in control.

Compromise isn't a dirty word to Republicans, at least not to this Republican, but a continual failure to address the issues facing our nation is a serious failure on the part of our elected officials. We've reached a total debt of 14 Trillion dollars, that's $14,000,000,000,000. That's a lot of zeros, regardless of which party is in power. Cutting entitlements isn't the only avenue, defense expenditures, and revenue also have to be on the table.

Have a great day Fred.

Fred,

Your comment was right on. (Lots of people double post by accident. Also, if you accidently hit the "newer" tab on the right or "older" on the left, while posting you bounce right out of you comment screen. So annoying. That has happened to me several times)

I look forward to reading your future posts (even twice!)

Hey how about that, people are finally starting to understand that we need to stop giving billions to foreign countries stop the wars and pull back on the defense budget to say, the level of China and Russia COMBINED... then we could balance our budget. Ron Paul has been saying this for years and unfortunately, he is STILL the only politician that is serious about actually DOING it. It is nice to see people are finally waking up and realizing that not only is our foreign and military policies bankrupting us but they are also making this country LESS safe. We need to protect our borders and stop trying to police the world.

Summertime,

I have spent 6 years in the military, I fly a flag during daylight hours at my home, I have taken a fight to my kids school when the teacher pronounced that they should not cover their heart with their hand when the national anthem is playing, I say the pledge of allegience prior to the start of every meeting we have at a well know civic organization and my family has sent numerous care packages to our troops on active duty. There are a lot of ther things that I do that I consider to be patriotic and I do these things because I love this country that we live in. I am patriotic. I don't want taxes raised to support an ineffective congress. You are correct, you can't run a country without taxes. I agree and I pay mine. You can't run a country where most people don't pay taxes and expect to recieve more services than what is collected in taxes. That includes, police, fire, roads, welfare, food stamps, military protection, and thousands of other things the government does for us. It is called spending more than you have and it does not work.

No, wealthy people should not be able to claim their weekend ranch for farm subsidies. That's kind like saying that a person on welfare is entitled to collect more money by having a dog. They are both fraud and the laws should be written and enforced to stop it.

Ceno and JG - I agree with both of you. I'm willing to pay more taxes and I'm in the under $100,000 brackets with no tax breaks, and JG, I agree with you that I'm happy to have the Coast Guard if I'm lost at sea, the Forest Service if I'm lost in the woods, or God forbid, my grandchild is, the Highway Patrol to pick me up and fly me to the nearest hospital if I'm in a car wreck. I'm happy for the water conservation and power from Hoover, Grand Coulee, Glen Canyon, etc. dams, and the USDA, the FDA, the EPA and other agencies that protect our food, drugs, air and water. We get so many services from the Federal Government that I can't complain about our taxes and I don't want to give up my Social Security and Medicare. I do agree with Bachman and the Tea Partiers that we need less and more efficient government, but I can't abide their lacing their rhetoric with their personal idealogical and religious agendas and fear a fundamentalist radical Republican Tea Party member in the White House. I do believe that the debt ceiling needs to be raised, that we shouldn't default on our National Debt. I don't think a lot of essential programs should be cut during a down economy. I think that would result in more jobs lost and a weaker economy. I think we should see the economy out of this mess, then address cuts in programs.

Interesting. I don't worry about radical social agendas for a president. I don't think a president has the power to make radical social agenda changes. If they did, Bush would have outlawed abortion and Obama would have legalized gay marriage. These issues are handled in a different way, mostly by local governments, the courts and popular consensus.

I like that Medicaid and Social Security will be available for me when I retire in some form. Initially, Social Security was intended to bridge the income cap for retirees that did not have a pension plan from the time they retired to the time they died. We are all living a lot longer now, so that time that we draw SS lasts longer, costs more and in some cases cost more than we contributed. I understand that that can't last, but I want to get at least some of what i put into the program. I don't think it is fair or correct to simply say: "We will keep paying everyone for as long as we can and then we will have to abruptly stop paying everyone when we can't borrow anymore to pay with." Let's re-evaluate what we can afford with what we have prommised. It won't be pretty, but it just might be fair.

I'm curious about your thoughts on one issue; you mentioned the Coast Guard. Do you think it is the "Right" of a person on welfare to take out their boat (How did they get a boat while while on welfare?) and get lost at sea; have the Coast Guard spend days and hundreds of thousands of dollars on fuel and resources looking for them? They never paid any taxes to support the Coast Guard? Would that money be better spent on re-training a factory worker that has lost their job on how to use a computer?

It seems to me that you have to earn some "Rights". I know with my kids, that is the case. If they want to drive the car, they have to prove that they are responsible and earn the "Right" to drive around. So you may not be able to track who has each of these rights ahead of time, but if someone abuses the system, wouldn't it be ok to come back to them after the fact and say: "Holy smokes, you never purchased healthcare insurance. Yes, we stiched you up for free because we have to, but you have to give us your flat screen TV - because you have to. Sell the TV and give the hospital $100. Sell the boat and give the Coast Guard $100.

Ceno181

You are right, it is a shame that the size of government has about DOUBLED since Obama made that statement and that most of the government growth was his own doing, I wish he would take his own advice, unfortunately I think he now realizes the big campaign donors don't agree with small government, and like most politicians, he has changed his views to agree with the big donors.