Today’s WSJ has an interesting article on the prospects for small businesses increasing jobs over the next year. It ties right in with Friday’s dismal jobs report. According to a Chamber of Commerce survey of 1,409 small businesses (defined as revenue of $25 million or less) on June 27-29, 2011:

1. Almost two-thirds—64%—of small-business executives surveyed said they weren't expecting to add to their payrolls in the next year.
2. 12% planned to cut jobs.
3. Just 19% said they would expand their work forces.

I know that some of the FR lefty liberals like to dismiss concerns about “economic uncertainty” holding back new job creation as ridiculous. Too bad these lefty liberals aren’t the ones running small businesses, because the article states:

“More than half of the small-business executives in the June 27-30 survey cited economic uncertainty as the main reason for holding back on hiring. About a third blamed lack of sales, while just 7% pointed to problems getting credit.”

“Many of the executives surveyed were gloomy about the economy's prospects. About 41% see the business climate getting worse over the next two years, compared with 29% who expect the climate to improve.”

I know a lot of lefty liberals think there is some conspiracy among businesses to destroy Barry Obama, but, the simple truth is the economy still sucks and it’s not going to get better until businesses regain confidence in their own future prospects. Businesses WANT to make money, that is their primary purpose. And when they believe can make money, they expand their businesses and create new jobs. The policies of the Barry admin in regard to increased taxes, more regulations, new costs imposed on business like ClunkerCare, and the general attitude of being anti-business are not helping.

First Read: GOP walks away from the grand bargain . . . . .

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said earlier Sunday that an agreement is needed by the end of next week to allow time for Congress to pass it.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58643.html#ixzz1RndlWMrm

Oh, so major tax reform should be done in a couple of days and major tax bills should be slapped together in a couple of days. Sure Timmy, whatever you say, we know you cut corners on your paperwork, so why shouldn't everyone else? The time for doing these things have long passed. The process of doing so would take many months and probably over a year because these things are that complex. The process for doing so requires detailed sub-committee and committee work in both the House and the Senate followed by votes in both houses and reconciliation between the House and the Senate. That's how it's supposed to work, but Harry Reid can't pass a budget bill to save his life. So Obama thinks this work can be done in a couple of days, both these idiots are without a clue.

DOTUS? Stimulating Murder?

When I first started hearing about Project Gunrunner, a.k.a. Operation Fast and Furious, I could not imagine what kind of idiot it must be to have ordered this, surely the guy is the biggest dunce in the United States.

Our GOVERNMENT selling 2,500 guns/assault rifles to straw purchasers known to be acting on behalf of criminals, the drug cartels, that murder, behead, fill up mass graves ….. responsible for over 34,000 deaths!

[You think this administration is so concerned over undocumented workers? It wants to insure their dignity and human rights, yet his administration is selling military rifles to the thugs and scum that kill the very same Mexicans across the border and some of the same being smuggled into, or living in the US? Unbelievable. Dispicabile.]

All for what, to track weapons that will be used to kill the people of Mexico?

WITHOUT EVEN INFORMING THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT!

And how do you track AKs in Mexico anyway? (The dunces didn’t seem to even think of that – Special Agent Peter Forcelli took it upon himself to rig-up GPS from Radio Shack……didn’t work.)

[What was the purpose? Try to disparage and do the liberal gun clamp down on Texas and Arizona by tracking serial numbers of murder weapons back to the states where THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOLD THEM? ]

Then Agent Brian Terry was shot in the back, blown away with TWO of this administration’s AK-47s left at the scene.

Now from an IBD editorial (exerted):

“Unwilling to be made a scapegoat …. Melson, acting ATF director since April 2009, testified behind closed doors on Monday before two congressional oversight committees. He appeared with his own private attorney, rather than lawyers from the Department of Justice.

Melson testified that he learned the full details of the operation only after Terry’s death made the operation public and had reviewed internal documents – documents that have been withheld from DOJ. Among the things that Melson discovered was the discovery of other agencies such as DEA, FBI and perhaps US Attorney’s Office and the Department of Homeland Security.

All these agencies and US dollars involved and the White House knew nothing?”

Obama said in an interview in March he was “absolutely not informed”, that he did not authorize it and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, “did not authorize it.”

Funny ……. Holder made a speech on April 2, 2009 in Cuernavaca, Mexico bragging about what the administration was doing.

It now turns out that it was not only obviously US taxpayer money, but it was funded by $10 MILLION IN STIMULUS MONEY!

Stimulus money – not to create American jobs – but to arm animals that behead and murder people.

What can be more be immoral and corrupt?

POTUS is the DOTUS?

Either that or DMDPPOSPOTUS this country has ever had.

"The Sugar Daddy has run out of sugar" - Sarah Palin

Perfect description of Obama.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435

This can’t be! Woooooh

After months of effort, President Barack Obama and congressional T-Republicans are right back where they started as they try to avert a looming debt default: arguing over taxes.

http://blackwaterdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/x610-5.jpg?w=472&h=610

T-Republicans are not job creators. They're debt shufflers and CEO's of multinational corporations that outsource our labor force. Why are they sitting on nearly 2 trillion jobs? Why are T-Republicans and firebrand liberals saying Obama is the Worst President?

http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/08/worst-president-ever-revisited/

It's because both of these groups are so desperate for attention and so divorced from reality; especially the firebrand liberals who told low information voters to stay home in 2012. BTW: those far lefties get paid to bash the President. I doubt seriously if the firebrand liberals are as duped as the low information voter. I know they love 15 minutes of fame and getting paid whil millions Americans suffer. I guess them love those ludicrous 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions, the lose of democracy, and a weak economy too.

The truth is some of us let President Obama down he didn’t let us down. When those disgruntled elitist lefty talking heads told the unemployed to stay home in 2010 to pay Obama a lesson. What did we get? We got more polarization in economic and social issues with 11 republi/clown governors and 88 T-republicans who don't know which why is up. See? No voting is voting for other guys.

Obamabots and ObamaDems don't want to get a Ryan plan or a Rommney/ Bachmann Presidency.

Since treasury bills translate into money, why then would the T-republican want the dollar not be the reserve currency of the world anymore or America to be like Greece?

We pay for the people without jobs when outsourcing happens.

Why are they sitting on nearly 2 trillion jobs?

___________________________________________

Really, Bev??

2 trillion jobs??

GOP walks away from the grand bargain…

The jokers crumbled just like the cheap suits they wear!

President Obama has now exposed them for the frauds they truly are...

This was never about debt & deficit - it ALWAYS been about bringing down the President and the country right along with it.

2012 Teapubican campaign slogan - BIG MONEY FIRST - Country LAST!

PS: Navy - great post as always! ;o)

For every post that proffers solutions, an honest analysis, or a fresh perspective, there are many more that seek solely to assign blame, to point fingers, and to buttress the position that you - "Yes, YOU, 'cause it sure ain't me." - are at fault. It's Bush's fault, it's Obama's fault, it's CRA, it's Clinton, it's Carter, it's "the Stimulus". This goes on and on and on, day in and day out. The Blame Game accomplishes nothing.

Consider the national economy. It does not mark Inauguration Day as anything more than just another day. Policies put into place 50 years ago are still having an impact today. The economy is an aggregation of policies and it has a momentum all its own. One doesn't wave a magic wand and command the economy to behave thus and so.

Yet, despite mountains of evidence and proof that destroy their position, ideologues continue to hold fast. It does not matter whether the dogmatic holds to a left-wing or a right-wing position. They will not budge. It's Bush's fault, it's Obama's fault. It sure ain't mine. What we need desperately is to destroy information that is false. We must expose the purveyors of disinformation. Then and only then can we proceed with an honest debate, an open discussion that is going to solve the quagmire in which we find ourselves. The ideologues must be sent to a corner where they can drool and babble to each other about matters that have no foundation in reality.

I write this thanks to the ravings of no joe. I do not know whether this person is a male or a female. It doesn't matter. He (Yeah, I'm making him a he) has staked out a position and nothing will move him from it. The most recent instance included a ridiculous statement that an outfit in Montana had installed broadband lines that would serve seven homes at a cost of one-million-dollars EACH - this being done with stimulus money.

Now just about anyone with even a smidgen of brains is going to question that figure. I sure did and a quick Internet search showed that the figures were absolutely false. So, I set up search parameters, and posted them so anyone could view a lot of sources, not just the one that suited no joe's warped and twisted scenario. After a few nudges, no joe finally looked. Well no joe just knew the Montana newspaper couldn't be trusted.

Well of course. You know how those liberal rags are in Montana. After all they must kowtow to those flaming, liberal, socialist Montanans who refuse to work, are always looking for a handout, and love President Obama.

After a point you get tired of trying to show a person sources that might change their mind. You know how that goes: "You can lead a man to information, but you can't make him think." What's the point of arguing with someone like no joe?

Well, the answer is you don't argue. Indeed a fellow poster was kind enough to show me the error of that line of thought. Don't put no joe on "ignore". Don't argue with him; that's fruitless. However, use the opportunity to show the outrage he and his ilk are perpetrating on the folks who come here looking for honest dialog, good information, and what so many of us desperately need - a slightly different perspective.

I'll be doing that. I hope my fellow posters will do the same. To hell with the Blame Game. We really must rebuild this country.

The debt ceiling is NOT the USA's biggest problem, it is jobs. If anything, government should be doing more targeted spending now, not less. The biggest complaint I have about the GOPTP is they have for 30 years focused their attention on the short-term rather than long-term. It is as if they have no vision for the future because all they see are dollars and cents. They have not been fiscally responsible for 30 years and they only reason Congress is having this debate is because there is a democrat in the White House.

They could cut every bit of government spending tomorrow and they will end up creating a larger deficit and debt than they would with additional targeted spending. Jobs and closing the special interest tax expenditure earmarks would help increase revenues for the country, decrease the deficit and the debt. All the spending cuts made at the federal level and state levels is why the jobs numbers have been dismal the past two months. No one disputes the debt is a long-term problem but the GOPTP with their demands for spending cuts is exacerbating the problem short-term which, in my view, is exactly what they want. The current crop of GOPTP legislators is perhaps the most irresponsible group I have ever seen in Washington. They and GOPTP presidential candidates are lying to constituents when they claim failure to raise the debt ceiling will not be a "big deal". It is stupid and irresponsible to do so.

Bev:

One step forward and two steps back. Hope you had a great weekend.

What every single American got on the record this weekend:

The Republican Party doesn't care about deficits. The Republican Party will sit by and watch unemployment go through the roof, but won't lift a finger to help.

Republicans walked away from the deal, because they wouldn’t give up the one thing that Democrats were asking for in return: any increases in tax hikes for the rich.

The Republicans are of the opinion that no one should tell them what the government should do with their money.

Well what about the rest of us? Who the hell are they to keep their $$$ while everyone else bears the burden in cuts and loss of employment?

Republicans walked away from the deal, because they wouldn’t give up the one thing that Democrats were asking for in return: any increases in tax hikes for the rich.

Republicans walked away from the deal, because they wouldn’t give up the one thing that Democrats were asking for in return: ANY INCREASES IN TAX HIKES FOR THE RICH.

Confirmed:

Republicans walked away from the deal, because they wouldn’t give up the one thing that Democrats were asking for in return: ANY INCREASES IN TAX HIKES FOR THE RICH.

So the GOP in fact doesn't care about the deficit. They never did and never do. They are the ones who hand us deficits.

The GOP could care less about Jobs. They actually don't care about anything.

So long as you don't tax them and they'll be quite happy. Lying.

Good job Cantor. You've been outed. For all to see. You kiss the rings of the wealthy. Period.

I see that the American People are starting to wake up and in the next election 2012, there are signs that the people are going to replace these so called Republicans-Tea People in office, who only care for a small sector of the American people.

Come on Republicans keep showing your dirty hands.

No voting is voting for other guys. The republi/clowns want to continue those 5-4 ludicrous Supreme court decisions. And that's what all this stalling and obstruction is about. It gives the paid for far right Supreme court and the Kochs and Wall Street "crooks and liars" free reign to land grand and destroy democracy.

Reforming is better than no medicare. The plan from the past was to get rid of redundant programs in Medicare. Republi/clowns have wanted to get rid of the New Deal for decades. BTW: Medicare is not a give away; it comes out of your payroll.

I say get rid of the redundancy in prison and military complexes as well as people like Dick Cheney and his no bid contracts The alternative republi/clowns offer is no reforms; except to dismantle SS Medicare and stack the Supreme Court.

Obama continues to do the same old, same old. He still hasn't presented a plan, just general proposals, proclamations, and promises that are nothing but lies. He stands up and gives speeches that demagogue the Republican legislation, and he still doesn't have a plan that he can stand by. It's over for Obama, he doesn't have a plan, he just has political talking points. He has completely ignored even his own Debt Commission's plan, and his economic advisers are nothing but loons that either have been fired, or will be fired.

Obama thought he could show up late to the party and bully everyone to agreeing with him. Now he's realized no one wants his tax increases (The Senate Democrats up for election, all 22 of them in the Senate, won't ever vote for those taxes) and Obama has started his usual screeching and whining. What's the matter Obama, no good economic news to run on for re-election next year?

So...

Evidently, there will be no agreement between President Obama and Speaker Boehner on a "grand", long-term plan to address the nation's debt crisis as part of the ongoing talks aimed at raising the debt ceiling. It now seems likely that any deal will be smaller in scope and short-term in nature. Which, of course, assures that we'll all be revisiting the topic again in the very near future.

"The Speaker, according to the Republican source, said the new revenues must come from economic growth and broad-based tax reform, not straight tax increases." -Russell Berman, The Hill, 7/9/2011-

"Boehner had been reportedly willing to consider up to $1 trillion in new tax revenue mostly through a future tax code overhaul in exchange for an agreement by Democrats to reduce spending on entitlements, including Social Security." -Major Garrett, National Journal, 7/9/2011-

If Speaker Boehner's position looks familiar, it ought to...President Obama's own debt commission's Plan recommends spending cuts and entitlement reform, as well as the complete reform of the tax code in an effort to increase revenue and spur economic growth.

Other than a 15 cent/gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax intended to replace the current method of funding transportation outlays, the revenue increases outlined by the debt commission derive from the overhaul of the existing tax code.

Reuters has reported that as part of his "grand bargain" proposal to cut $4 trillion from the budget over 10 years, President Obama wants between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion in tax increases...including the repeal of part of the Bush tax cuts he extended only last December.

Ah yes...those Bush tax cuts.

Remember:

If the debt commission's Plan were implemented, the Bush-era tax cuts (so despised by the majority of First Read's "usual suspects") would become irrelevant...they would be swept away along with the rest of the present tax code. The hated Bush tax cuts...ALL of them...gone.

Many here have insisted that Republicans would never vote for the debt commission Plan (despite evidence to the contrary) while I have insisted that we'll never know unless President Obama endorses it and forces members of both parties in Congress to vote on it. We don't know how many Democrats would vote for it, do we? It's likely that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and virtually all of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus would oppose it, as would most of the Tea Party Congressional Republicans.

That leaves the rest of them. How many? Let's find out, shall we?

After seeing the broad outlines of Speaker Boehner's position on a long-term compromise agreement on the debt crisis, it looks to me as though Boehner is pretty much there in terms of being able to live with the debt commission Plan, or something very close to it.

Embrace the Plan of your own debt commission, and make the deal, Mr. President.

You aren't going to get a better one.

Jody:

Very true it is about Jobs. See my post above for what Ms. Bachmann thinks about unemployment. She wants it to increase as it favors the GOP/TP's political agenda. I have been saying for a long time that the GOP/TP is not going to create any jobs in this country. They are not going to help with the economy and they will continue their agenda of "class warfare".

The GOP/TP has opposed virtually every Job creation Bill that our President has proposed including the Infrastructure Bill. They continue to claim they are for jobs but to date they have not done one thing to help this country move forward.

I have been asking for 6 months now for the GOP/TP to show us one thing they have passed to help move this country forward. One Thing!!!! Zero, none, nanna.

The handwriting is on the wall.

bob, thanks for exposing another waste of billions of borrowed dollars under the heading of stimulous. Is it any wonder it failed to create jobs.

Last Friday, the results of Obama's economic "genius" were once again displayed; we got the usual whining from those who are left supporting him that it was the fault of the republicans. Evidently, they believe in hoodoos- that is, despite his passing almost a trillion dollars in stimulous, it is the fault of the republicans "wishing he would fail" that caused it not to work.

Un huh.

It patently obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that giving over a billion dollars to your biggest campaign donors to build electric cars will not spur a big growth in employment. Nor is giving half a billion to a Chinese company to build wind turbines at the request of one of your big campaign donors.

Does this register at all in the mind of then person who is supposedly the "smartest president ever"?

Nope. He is on, again, about "investing" in infrastructure. This is what he said in response to the jobs report

Let me give you some examples. Right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work after the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of America needs rebuilding. We connect the two by investing in rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure. And we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust

Let's see if we can follow this logically, (it is clear that Obama cannot)-

He expects carpenters, plumbers, Sheetrock tapers, roofers, and electricians to go build roads? Durable goods workers, (washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc.), to build bridges?

Even if he could convince a no longer gullible public to sign on for another money wasting "investment" scheme- he does not understand that construction jobs are not interchangeable.

Yesterday, we had a family get together, and of course, the economy was the main topic of conversation. My father, a life long liberal, explained that had Obama campaigned as a Keynesian, even he would not have voted for him- and he does not plan to vote for him again.

My niece, who dubbed him "Mr. Hopeful Changiness" six mo this after she cast her first vote, ( she now has a bumper sticker that reads "voted stupidly"), summed up Obama's problem most succinctly-

This is the first job he has ever had where it mattered if he succeeded or failed, because it is the first job he ever had where such things were measured.

To which I added that it was probably a good thing in the future to remember that such an experiment was a bad plan for the country.

Excellent post, Pat.

Good job Cantor. You've been outed. For all to see. You kiss the rings of the wealthy. Period.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, now we even hear them starting to grumble that the poor just don't pay enough.

Mixed Bag:

Embrace the Plan of your own debt commission, and make the deal, Mr. President.

You aren't going to get a better one.

A better one? Are you sure that Republicans would even embrace THAT one? LoL

If only we could speed up the patent process and have an "infrastructure bank" (whatever that is), the economy would flourish!

Anna Molly:

That has always been their agenda. Bleed the middle class and low income people dry. To them if you are not Wall Street, Big Business or a millionaire/billionaire you are expendable just like a piece of worn out machinery.

Mixed Bag:

Embrace the Plan of your own debt commission, and make the deal, Mr. President

You aren't going to get a better one

AM: A better one? Are you sure that Republicans would even embrace THAT one? LoL

The Democrats are free to come up with their own plan. They own the Senate, let them pass it in that house of Congress. If nothing else, we'd finally know where the Democrats really stand on the issues. And that's probably why we won't see the Democrats come up with their own plan any time soon.

Navy

Obama has 15% revenues of GDP. We spends 25% of GDP. 10 POINT Spread - THE LARGEST IN HISTORY!

The average revenue since WW II is 17.8%. The highest is 19%. In other words the best scenario in history doesn't get us half way!

THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING.

Bush's revenues in 2007 were 18.5% of GDP. The revenues for 2008 were 17.5%.

Obama's revenues for 2009 and 2010 were 14.9%. Same tax rate as Bush but Bush has 3.5% of GDP better revenue.

It ain't the tax rate - its the complete lack of confidence in this president, a president that cannot even put together a BUDGET.

This guy has gone from wanting to raise tax rates to accepting the extension for 2 years to wanting to raise taxes. In less than 6 Months!

The problem is a crippled economy. An economy crippled by uncertainity, rising costs everywhere, inflation .......... Why cripple it more?

Everyone says we need to grow the economy ..... create jobs.

How does raising taxes create jobs, grow the economy?

Can any lib answer that?

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev:

One step forward and two steps back. Hope you had a great weekend.

Yes, Navy that is the new republican dance. Eric Cantor should enter soon with his Micheal Jackson "moon walk sliding out the backdoor.

I had a great weekend celebrating my birthday Friday with my family. Then we celebrated my Sister's the next day. I'm beat.

I was so glad to see you hold the fort down when I couldn't get to a computer.

Looks to me like Boehner is on 'borrowed' time! lol

The wild eyed weasel is Johnnies very own 'Brutus'.

“Et tu, Cantor?”

Joe in Albany

I know that some of the FR lefty liberals like to dismiss concerns about “economic uncertainty” holding back new job creation as ridiculous.

What I know is that the kooky conservatives don't like to talk about the ENORMOUS uncertainty caused by the Republicans playing chicken with the debt ceiling. The potentially devastating effects on the US economy that would result if the US becomes a deadbeat nation far outweighs any uncertainty about closing tax loopholes on corporate jet depreciation and the various other corporate welfare giveaways Republicans are so fond of.

As some economist/expert recently said ....

How do you make a million dollars today in Obama's economy?

Start with 2 million.

Hi Feisty: How was your weekend? I hope you all had a great time!!!!!!!

Welcome back.

Anna Molly-

"Are you sure that Republicans would even embrace THAT one?"

As I said, AM...

"Let's find out, shall we?"

DW- you take issue with the findings of Navigant Economics, a well respected consulting firm.

Fine- ignore the findings. Does nothing whatsoever to undermine them.

You posted an article from the Billings Gazette to support your view- and ignored this one

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_fa8fde94-a1b6-11df-b0ce-001cc4c03286.html

This article clearly shows that the grants given to Montana Opticon went to an area already well served by seven different broadband providers- and has been questioned by many.

You waste a lot of words to say very little. Is that you, Obama?

Mixed Bag:

If Speaker Boehner's position looks familiar, it ought to...President Obama's own debt commission's Plan recommends spending cuts and entitlement reform, as well as the complete reform of the tax code in an effort to increase revenue and spur economic growth.

Wrong. Boehner's position has absolutely nothing to do with the debt commission, which proposed one dollar in tax increases for every 3 dollars of spending cuts. Boehner's position is no tax increases ever, not even to end corporate welfare. Obama's proposal for a $4 trillion deal was $3 trillion in budget cuts and $1 trillion in tax increase, in line with the debt commission proposal.

A compromise between the Democrats and Republicans would be some combination of budget cuts and revenue increases. What the Republicans want is total capitulation: huge budget cuts that will gut the regulatory agencies their corporate masters dislike and no tax increases whatever.

Job1

I see that the American People are starting to wake up and in the next election 2012, there are signs that the people are going to replace these so called Republicans-Tea People in office, who only care for a small sector of the American people.

Come on Republicans keep showing your dirty hands.

Job your comment is the best of the best.

Pat:

Outstanding Post. The GOP/TP could care less about "Fiscal Responsibility" or moving this country forward. It is and always has been for the last 30+ years about power and greed and how much of it they can control.

Their deeds prove this beyond any doubt. What legislation have they passed or proposed in the last 2 years that did anything to move this country forward.

Everything they do is with Wall Street, Big Business and the 2% crowd in mind. Nothing, absolutely nothing for the 98% of the people trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their head.

Repugnant in my opinion, all of them. Where is the leadership they keep yapping about. These guys could not lead a boy scout troop out of an empty parking lot without a seeing eye dog.

President Obama continues to prove he is the only adult in the room and his patience is running thin with these romper room kids.

Joe in Albany

Why are they sitting on nearly 2 trillion jobs?

___________________________________________

Really, Bev??

2 trillion jobs??

Correction: 2 trillion dollars and "NO" jobs. How's that??

Same old GOP/TP talking points this morning nothing new. Looks like they'd get tired of saying the same old lies over and over and over. Nothing new here folks just move along and ignore the right wingers. Their still cheering for the country to fail.

And fellow Liberals please ignore the right wingers till they have something substantive to say.

bob lotsanumbers:

You ask the questions: "How does raising taxes create jobs, grow the economy?

Can any lib answer that?"

I don't know if I meet your definition of a "lib", but I'll answer the question.

Here's the scenario. We'll use the state of Minnesota for our example. You know, the place that has the "I love government handouts" candidate, Bachmann, and the former governor who loves deficits, Pawlenty.

What we have is a bridge that is in very bad condition. So here's a "lib"solution: Raise taxes and hire people to fix the bridge. Those people will pay taxes and buy stuff. (Remember, the complaint is that consumption is down.) The bridge will need structural steel, rivets, concrete, all kinds of stuff. People must go to work to make that stuff. That's creating jobs and growing the economy.

Here's the "conservative" solution: Cut taxes and ignore the bridge. The bridge falls down, people are killed when their cars fall off the bridge. Someone has to fill the jobs of the dead people. Morticians see increased business. That's the conservative way to create - sort of - jobs and grow the economy.

Wow! You could just sit here and ponder for days which is the better solution. (Do I have to explain that I am being facetious?)

This current years Budget was supposed to be passed last year by the DNC controlled Congress......now they want to make this the GOP's fault?????

Good morning, Houston.

I sourced my comments about the relative positions of President Obama and Speaker Boehner with regard to a "grand bargain" sort of agreement.

Boehner wants spending cuts and entitlement reform, plus reform of the tax code to provide increased revenue. That is what the debt commission's Plan proposes as well.

Before you argue otherwise, I suggest you actually read the debt commission's Plan.

I suspect it'll be a relevatory experience for you, Houston.

You might even undergo an epiphany.

Obama wants to raise taxes on "the rich"- says we need more revenue.

How about getting some revenue from the 51% of people who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

When 49% pay ALL of the taxes, there is something entirely screwed up with the system.

The first time I saw Paul Ryan deliver the State of the Union rebuttal, I felt pre-disposed to respectfully listen, because, with his black hair and blue eyes, he looked like many of the men I respect in my family. (I know, I'm kind of shallow.) I took him at his word that he was some kind of fiscal geek.

The second time I listened to him, an alarm bell started to ring, and I thought "I know this type, he's a zealot." Again, could be my genetic memories, but he reminded me of my Puritan forefathers.

Then, I watched Paul Ryan on Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show, after MTP yesterday . I tried to understand what he was saying, because I want to understand this debt issue, but all I could think was he reminded me of a fast talking, used car salesman. He creeped me out and I turned it off.

From a "fiscal conservative" with legitimate concerns about our debt, to being a monomaniacal zealot , to a creepy, fast talking salesman, pretty much describes the evolution of the Republican Party, on this issue, in my eyes. After telling us the Federal Deficit was going to kill us, they reject a deal to lower it dramatically to protect tax loopholes? No amount of fast talking can make their position credible.

Houston:

They will try and spin anything they can. The GOP/TP is against ANY AND ALL proposals that even hint at increasing revenues.

You should have heard that moron Buchanann this morning on MSNBC - Even Joe S. shot the idiot down bigtime. Gave President Obama a back handed compliment for being the only one who is putting everything on the table for discussion. The only one, even at the risk of taking flak from his own party because he believes it is the right thing to do in order to correct the mess that the Previous Administrations have dumped on America. If you wipe out all the crap the Bush did we would have a balance budget as one of their guest said.

The deficit is 30% for the Bush Tax Cuts and just about all the rest from uncontrolled spending from the previous administration. Only less tan 130 Billion is stimulus money not spent yet.

AMERICAN!!!!!

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Did Professor Olson point out how the voter suppression is going on in those states won by PRESIDENT Obama?

Is Professor Olson now going to admit a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

The laws are being passed in the name of preventing "voter fraud." But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama's victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

Again, think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

A party comfortable with the notion of limits probably wouldn't even attempt such an audacious scheme. Under the auspices of rooting out non-existent "voter fraud," Republicans are passing voter-ID measures, approving new laws restricting voter-registration drives, and closing early-voting windows. It's not subtle, but it is disgraceful. The GOP fears losing in a fair fight, so the party is trying to rig the game.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/shining_a_light_on_voter_suppr030369.php

========================================================

In other words AMERICAN!!!!!, Professor Olson is admitting, subtlety, T-baggers and the GOP will try to steal the election in 2012!!!

Bag:

Boehner wants spending cuts and entitlement reform, plus reform of the tax code to provide increased revenue.

That's just not correct. Boehner will go along with tax code reforms only if they are revenue neutral. He might have gone along with increases had it not been for pressure from the teabag contingent in Congress.

Before you argue otherwise, I suggest you actually read the debt commission's Plan.

The commission called for a 3-to-1 ratio of budget cuts to revenue increases, which is what Obama proposed. The Republicans demand ZERO revenue increases and will destroy the economy if they don't get their way. I've read summaries of the recommendations. I also know that Alan Simpson said Grover Norquist was basically a jerk and Alice Rivlin totally disowned Paul Ryan's budget plan.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Anna Molly:

That has always been their agenda. Bleed the middle class and low income people dry. To them if you are not Wall Street, Big Business or a millionaire/billionaire you are expendable just like a piece of worn out machinery.

What a ridiculous comment. The republicans want to bleed the middle class?? What do you call what the democrats are trying to do? Let's see....cost the middle class jobs through overregulation and taxing small businesses, then bleed the middle class more by taxing them to death to pay for entitlements and welfare for a bunch of people that live off the government.

I'm tired of paying the way for welfare lifers, illegals and unions.

David Walker:

That is exactly how the GOP/TP thinks. Great analogy and very very accurate look at the GOP/TP mind set. Their deeds prove your point beyond a doubt.

The WSJ just had a piece that we need Tax Reform. They said that the 2% paying an effective rate of income taxes at 18% while the average American is paying 25% is WRONG. They said for big corporation to pay no taxes or less taxes than a shop worker is WRONG.

This cutting taxes for the 2% will somehow create jobs and stimulate the economy is so stupid and old it just shows their lack of any viable ideas at all. It is a fact they do not create jobs or stimulate the economy in any meaningful way. Just about every economist of note keeps saying the same thing.

We need more revenue in addition to spending cuts period. That is the bottom line for long term recovery. Nothing else will work.

its only a bluff, boehner will cave just like he did with the CR, and sell out the country for a song.

Hi Feisty: How was your weekend?

Hi Pat! Thanks for asking! All I can say is, it exceeded our wildest expectations!

I couldn't of imagined a better time!

Can we count you in for next year? We're talking Vegas...

Bev, US Navy and Feisty are absolutely right:
1. the more taxes increase, the more private sector jobs are created.

2. nothing bad that has happened since the last presidential election is the fault of the POTUS.

DW

.... Policies put into place 50 years ago are still having an impact today.

Not really. That may have been true to an extent BO (before Obama), he certainly has done everthing to change it.

You didn't hear he wanted to be a "transformative" president? Well .... he has ..... he has transformed a recession into THE WORST RECOVERY.

Last 50 years? Obama's numbers are far worse than any of the previous 11 recoverys the last 70 years. Actually - his drop of housing equity is worse than the Great Depression.

Obama has also completely ignored everything learned the last 50 years. How else do you set a new bar of incompetance?

Anyway, feel free to come up with any legitimate indicator that this is not the worst recession.

"Yes, YOU, 'cause it sure ain't me." - are at fault. It's Bush's fault, it's Obama's fault, it's CRA, it's Clinton, it's Carter, it's "the Stimulus". This goes on and on and on, day in and day out.

You missed the latest ...... "it's the weather" ..... "it's Libya" ..... it was that big way that hit Japan .....

The Blame Game accomplishes nothing.

Tell that to Obama ...... ah nevermind ...... it's all he's got.

And finally, one less simple thing for you to be ignorant about - no joe is female ...... she also just kicked your azz.

Sorry, Houston-

President Obama is proposing tax increases based on the current, existing tax code.

That in no way resembles the way his own debt commission would generate revenue...the debt commission would scrap the entire tax code with an eye on creating a new one focusing on stimulating economic growth (and tax receipts) by eliminating special-interest deductions and loopholes, and making U.S. businesses more competitive in the world arena.

Therefore, Speaker Boehner's suggestion that revenue be increased through an overhaul of the tax code is far closer to the debt commission Plan than President Obama's "grand bargain". Again, Houston...I did source my original comment. Please...review it.

In any event...

If the President's "grand bargain" is so similar to the debt commission's Plan, why doesn't the President simply endorse the debt commission's Plan, Houston?

C'mon...you know the answer to this one.

I'll help.

It isn't similar, Houston.

In fact, not even ballpark.

you have to hand it to trumpka, he switches from holding barry's ears to holding boehners hips without skippin a beat.

Obama blew through $ 5 Trillion in borrowing in 2 1/2 years and even HIS his budget projects $ 20 Trillion in DEBT by 2020 TRY $ 30 Trillion at HIS spending rate why not CUT spending NOW not "over 10 years" (when Obama is safely out of office permanently vacationing with his Wall Street buddies at Martha's Vinyard) THIS CRIMINAL needs to return to AT LEAST 2008 spending levels NOT the "new baseline" of UNSUSTAINABLE SPENDING why doesn't Obama REPEAL OBAMACARE and SAVE the $ 500 billion he STOLE from MEDICARE not to mention CUT OUT the $ 1.5 TRILLION in NEW OBAMACARE TAXES?

___________________________________________________________________________________

In response to Obamacare United Health Care announced rate increases in NY of $22 % for 2012 not including last year's or next year's increases

AMERICAN!!!!!

• Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000

If dirt could vote, McCain would have won in a landslide. Unfortunately for him, only human beings are allowed to vote, and the soil and rock community has expressed no interest in gaining suffrage.

Amy B. Portland, ME

Then, I watched Paul Ryan on Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show, after MTP yesterday . I tried to understand what he was saying, because I want to understand this debt issue, but all I could think was he reminded me of a fast talking, used car salesman. He creeped me out and I turned it off.

Amy,

Even, the teapotty people are creeped out by this geek.

Why do the Sunday shows have these T-repubicans talking heads on their shows? Why do they NOT ask them about passing jobs bills? Why do the Sunday shows ALLOW these incongruous, ludicrous, out of touch, talking heads to cudgel the middle class and poor people while praising the uber wealthy and Wall Street Barons who screw the middle class and poor people?

The true extent of Conservative hypocrisy was revealed this weekend as Republicans chose $2T in deficit reduction over $4T, just because the wealthy elites might be asked to fairly contribute to the support of the society which makes their wealth possible. The thought that CEOs and hedge fund managers might be asked to give up their income tax rate of LESS THAN what the middle class pays is simply too much for them. The thought that big corporations, 2/3 of which pay NO CORPORATE INCOME TAX might be asked to contribute to the maintenance of the government is something they can't stand.

Of course we've been watching the hypocrisy ever since Election day in a series of arguments Conservatives make, hoping all the while we don't connect one to another.

First Republicans took credit for a rebounding economy, claiming the business class was so thrilled to see them in charge of the House that they jumped back into hiring mode. Now that the recovery has slowed they make exactly the opposite argument, claiming they have no responsibility for the economy and it's all about the President.

Q: Why haven't Republicans done anything about jobs? They promised to get the economy moving if elected.

GOPTP A: Silly, naive person--government CAN'T do anything about jobs, they can only get out of the way of business so that real hiring can commence.

Q: In December Republicans promised that wholesale retention of tax breaks for the wealthy would get the economy moving. They said it would "get government out of the way of the private sector." Why is hiring slowing down. Instead jobs growth has slowed. Why is that?

GOPTP A; silly, naive person--the function of private businesses isn't to provide jobs, it's to increase profits.

Nope, no hypocrisy there. Let's look at another example;

Q: Republicans said they'd stop runaway regulations and provide "certainty" to business so they can increase hiring. Instead hiring seems to have lost momentum. Why is that?

GOPTP A: Next question, please.

Q: If "uncertainty" is such a big deal, and Republicans are so concerned about it, why are they playing chicken with the entire economy through the debt ceiling debate?

GOPTP A: I'm sorry, we aren't taking follow ups today.

Mixed Bag

Sorry, Houston-

President Obama is proposing tax increases based on the current, existing tax code.

Sorry, Bag. The Republicans demand ZERO revenue increases and if they don't get their way, they are willing to destroy the economy. It's laughable that you constantly attack Obama for not doing exactly as the commission recommended when you know quite well that the Republicans would never allow anything vaguely resembling the debt commission's recommendation to get through Congress. It's all Obama's fault. Yeah, sure.

The liberals on this board are expending the same verbage, condemning the GOP, placing blame on Bush, all in all, pretty much the same talking points with nothing new. Defending Obama, disregarding the fact that democrats were in control for 5 years and saying if the debt ceiling isn't raised, this country will go into default.

Nothing new? It's the same ol, same ol. Of course they claim we are using the same tired old talking points.

We've reached a point of impasse. Minds aren't being changed because of the fact that no matter what the opposition says, it goes in one ear and out the other. Maybe we can start a new discussion since the political dischord here never changes.

Nahhh... it's much more fun to say that the GOP only wants tax cuts for the rich... even though it's not true.

It's much more fun to say that it's all the GOP's fault... even though that's not true either.

It's much more fun to say that it's the GOP's fault for the loss of jobs... even though there's no truth in that statement.

It's much more fun to say that the GOP doesn't want Obama to win a second term... while the liberals say they don't want a GOP president to win in 2012. Finally, some truth...

Wrong again, Houston.

I have no idea how many bipartisan votes there are in Congress for the debt commission Plan, nor do you.

We do know that half of the members of Congress on the debt commission's panel voted in favor of the commission Plan, and were split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.

Those are the facts...while your comments are mere speculation unless and until President Obama endorses his own debt commission's recommendations, and uses the bully pulpit of the presidency to pressure the leadership of both parties in Congress to vote up or down, yea or nay, on the debt commission Plan.

Brianb: disregarding the fact that democrats were in control for 5 years and saying if the debt ceiling isn't raised, this country will go into default.

Just as the Democrats could have changed the tax code any time they wanted from Jan/2009 to Jan/2011, but they didn't. The could have let the Bush tax cuts expire, but they didn't. They could have raised the debt ceiling in the 2010/2011 lame duck session in Congress, but they didn't.

Now they compalin because the Republicans have a say in those matters. The Liberals seem to forget history, they have very short memories for their sides failures.

DW

What an ignorant answer. (It wasn't a clue when Navy endorsed your comments?)

Isn't what you just said almost verbatim what Obama said about shovel ready jobs and then laughed latter that there was no such thing ....... isn't that the argument all the libs said last summer when they were fighting over money for the teachers .......

I can understand that the Rick living under the rock in that Geico commercial is unaware that he could save 15% in 15 minutes even with the giant billboard outside his rock ...... but WHERE THE HECK HAVE YOU BEEN!

NONE OF IT WORKED!

People save the money they make because it is temporary, it is not sustainable, because the economy is in the tank.

What about all those teachers last year - getting fired this year. What about the employment number DW, no clue where that was and where it is now?

The economy is growing ...... 1.8% ..... coming out of a recession? (That is way over your head to understand that concept, sorry.)

Regardless, thanks for providing a perfect example to reinforce my point.

"More than half of the small-business executives in the June 27-30 survey cited economic uncertainty as the main reason for holding back on hiring. About a third blamed lack of sales, while just 7% pointed to problems getting credit."

And why do you suppose that is? How's this for a thought; business is uncertain about the economy because consumers aren't spending money! When will it dawn on you Republicon economic genius' that cutting jobs, lowering wages and cutting infrastructure repair and construction is killing DEMAND! Do you people really believe you can cut your way to prosperity? Really? The only people who are making money are the top 2% of the population. So go ahead, keep lowering workers wages, cutting government jobs, protect millionaires and billionaires and tank our economy...you'll love what comes next!

For the record, and I am stepping out on the limb here... I don't want to see the debt ceiling raised.

We have reached a point in our history where the government needs to live within it's means. They need to start doing the hard work they were elected to do. They need to stop handing out money like it's water and work with what they have. $14.3 Trillion in debt is quite enough. I don't understand how anyone can justify it getting any larger considering the government has nothing to show for that much debt.

@Beverly, & @Houston

I think you missed the point. I'll post the most important part again so that you two can understand the issue.

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama counties are on the government welfare..."

Like I said in my original post, the democrat plan is to raise taxes on the "rich" to pay for more low income tenements and allow for more people on various forms of government welfare. This obviously creates more poverty, dispair, and a sense that working people OWE them something causing them to be bigger and bigger criminals. The democrat constituency wants more for less, so that's who the Obama administration has to pander to, whether it's good for the country or not...bottom line.

Bag Boy:

"Let's find out, shall we?"

LoL Indeed. In fact, I'd say the timing may be just about right.

There. That's done. It seems that you and I are reasonable people, after all.

Now if only we could get 535 members of Congress and one other really, really important guy to agree with us.

This country has a serious spending problem that has a dangerous amount of debt.

The solution is to cut spending and borrowing not do more of the same!

The Repubs have it right this time and as usual are beginning to cave, the creeps.

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

AMERICAN, the MURDER rate? Are you serious?

Is this the best youcan do to try and 'rehabiliate' your 'side'? This is surely a stretch to ANYONE's imagination. You cannot be SERIOUS that anyone would use this metric as a means to show that this is a GOOD thing for Republicans.

AMERICAN, you REALLY need to get out more.

And STEP AWAY from the hateraide.

@Pietro

As I have stated before, I an an independent voter and thinker.

How do you account for this statistic? I'm not sure that if either side needs to be "rehabilitated" over this issue that it would be the republicans, that is, unless you are in favor of high murder rates. The point is, why are we catering to the people who are less likely to create jobs, spend money, and help the economy? Why are we so afraid to acknowledge the truth about the people who are trying to rob taxpayers blind?

Bev:

Happy belated birthday.

I thought that was actually a very interesting stat by American. I'd never seen that before. It's not really surprising, seeing how pretty much ALL major cities voted for Obama and all the inner suburbs. Those places are where the crime always is and are almost always dominated by Democrats. I'm sure we could tie this in with the Dems wanting to get voting rights for felons and their constant crusade to release criminals from prison early.

no joe, no bo, nj

Does this register at all in the mind of then person who is supposedly the "smartest president ever"?

Nope. He is on, again, about "investing" in infrastructure. This is what he said in response to the jobs report

Let me give you some examples. Right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work after the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of America needs rebuilding. We connect the two by investing in rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure. And we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust

Let's see if we can follow this logically, (it is clear that Obama cannot)-

He expects carpenters, plumbers, Sheetrock tapers, roofers, and electricians to go build roads? Durable goods workers, (washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc.), to build bridges?

Even if he could convince a no longer gullible public to sign on for another money wasting "investment" scheme- he does not understand that construction jobs are not interchangeable.

No Jo I remember my grand mother telling me that when the WW2 vets started coming home the unemployment rate skyrocketed, the ship yards that were building carriers and other war ships started laying off soon after VJ day. President Eisenhower embarked on a grand scheme of building the interstate Hwy system. today some 60 years later its falling apart. i have seen studies that it would take 4 trillion a year for 10 years to rebuild existing roads, bridges, dams and a long needed up grade to our electirc grid system, rebuild gas mains that are exploding all over due to age, sewer main made of concrete are falling apart.

Now you said something that is so stupid i can't believe you said, it, it sounded like JS1 said it. Construction jobs are interchangable but in a different way. If you build roads and bridges, you need steel, concrete, stone, forms of Plastic, ashpalt, machine rentals and or purchase and the labor to do the work. thousand of labors are back to work,

If you upgrade our eletric grids and gas main all over you are buying conduate, steel pipe and thousand of electricans and pipe fitters are back to work.

If you replace Lead water mains, concrete storm and sanitary sewers that are over 60 years old, that are all over chicago, new york and citys that were around for 100 years or more you are buying again concrete products, copper and steel products that can put thousand of plumbers back to work and help steel and copper makers bring factories back on line that allows them to hire more workers.

when planning these projects, your are putting Architectural firms and engineers companies back to work, construction companies will hire the paper pushers, Secretaries, and support staff, they will get workers from other markets that are not hiring.

the payroll tax and SS tax generated by this will more than pay for this.

last if your were are up todate as you want people the think, most durable goods are not made here any more.

Its too bad that to you think construction spending is all labor but the labor part is a fraction of what really goes on. its not just hard hats.

As I have stated before, I an an independent voter and thinker.

AMERICAN, I didn't say that you weren't.

How do you account for this statistic? I'm not sure that if either side needs to be "rehabilitated" over this issue that it would be the republicans, that is, unless you are in favor of high murder rates.

AMERICAN, I don't. I think this statistic is ridiculous and you have wasted your time and ours posting it, making yourself look like an idiot by thinking that this statistic is relevant in the first place..

The point is, why are we catering to the people who are less likely to create jobs, spend money, and help the economy?

If you are referring to those that are using the Government as their own personal ATM, then I agree with you - why are we? We would need to close those 'loopholes' that these people are exploiting for their own edification, while trashing America and Americans. Too bad our Congress is more apt to defend those that can pay them rather than those that elect them.

Jeff, speaking of "stupid", are you the same Jeff that a couple weeks ago accused someone of racism because they asked why Obama didn't send his kids to public schools? It was very memorable because Chris Christie was, at the time, being lambasted for answering honestly to the same question. If that was you, it's maybe a good idea not to refer to other people's posts as "stupid". If it was not you, please disregard.

@BrianB

I absolutely agree. The scare tatics being used to make us believe that if we don't raise the debt ceiling all he!! will break loose around the world; that global financial meltdown will be catastrophic is ridiculous. If we default on our debt and they downgrade our credit rating...SO WHAT? We are still the world's reserve currency (for now anyway) and all that will happen is that our interest rate will go up, just like the individual who makes a late payment and the credit card company raises that person's rate. I, fo one, do not buy into Tim Geithner's horror story nor do I buy into Bernanke's. It's their job to scare us, so that they can get what the president wants. It's just too bad for them that most reasonable Americans have woken up to their scare tactics and aren't buying the doom and gloom.

@Pierto

You absolutely did, here is exactly what you said to me

Is this the best youcan do to try and 'rehabiliate' your 'side'?

You don't account for the statistic?....WHY? It is very relevent to the arguement.

Jeff - over the weekend Forrest Grump and I were discussing this very topic. We were talking about the stimulus bill and how it was supposed to do exactly what you are speaking of. My point was that I expected the stimulus to do exactly that, improve and fix the infrastructure system in this country. Forrest concurred... imagine that, two people from different ideologies actually agreeing on something.

We both agreed that most of the stimulus money was wasted. We had differing opinions on how the money was spent on saving public service jobs and that led to the point where I said those jobs were not sustainable. The stimulus needed to be put to use for sustainable good... Forrest and I agreed and we started talking about how the government needs to do some big projects.

Someone had said that what we need is a much larger stimulus. That's what got the ball rolling in the discussion. I said that I don't trust the government because the first stimulus failed. All that money gone, for what! Had the president actually directed that money to be spent on major improvements instead of bailing everyone out, I might have developed some trust. It would have put thousands to work... and maybe we wouldn't be facing so much uncertainty.

In my opinion, Obama just doesn't get it. He's long on giving speeches and short on actually doing something good for the country.

American!!! - We won't default on the loans. The 14th Amendment will kick into force if that were to occur. The president has to pay debts first. What will happen is major cutbacks in social programs will occur. People will lose jobs in government. The government will have to get smaller... and THAT is what the emergency is all about. This is stepping on the president's sacred cow. That's why the press releases from the White House claims we will default. They want to lie about it in order to keep the government growing larger and larger.

bob lotsanumbers

LMAO! Well said David!

I absolutely agree. The scare tatics being used to make us believe that if we don't raise the debt ceiling all he!! will break loose around the world; that global financial meltdown will be catastrophic is ridiculous. If we default on our debt and they downgrade our credit rating...SO WHAT? We are still the world's reserve currency (for now anyway) and all that will happen is that our interest rate will go up, just like the individual who makes a late payment and the credit card company raises that person's rate. I, fo one, do not buy into Tim Geithner's horror story nor do I buy into Bernanke's. It's their job to scare us, so that they can get what the president wants. It's just too bad for them that most reasonable Americans have woken up to their scare tactics and aren't buying the doom and gloom.

Actually, BrianB and AMERICAN, the question(s) we need to ask are these:

1. Who has to the most to lose if we default on the debt?

2. Who has the most to gain if we default on the debt?

I have been reading articles that have had the new Intrernational Money Fund chief warn of 'dire consequences' if we do NOT raise the debt limit. So what could happen?

It seems that the IMF has it's grubby little hands in many countries' finances/money supply, so what makes the United States any different? So I would think that the IMF and/or whomever owns the United States debt would be the ones who would be concerned they would not get paid their interest on the money that has been lent.

Now, can we identify to WHOM we are paying all of this interest to on this debt, then maybe we can cut some side deals to get rid of it. I have been told on this blog that there is no 'one entity' that owns this debt. Many say the Chinese own the debt, but I believe that this is WRONG.

The Chinese are INVESTORS who bought debt, not owners of the debt. I am more interested in whom the Chinese bought the US debt from.

So who really 'owns' the United States debt and why are they so hell bent on making sure that Congress raises the debt limit?

The other question we need to ask is why Congress really cares WHO grants the debt, since they are only interested in getting paid anyway. As long as our Congresscritters are getting paid, who cares, correct?

As far as the 'reserve currency' situation is concerned, the American dollar could cease to be the reserve currency. However, the next strongest currency, the Euro, is having it's own problems with a potential default by Greece, which is threatening to collapse the Euro and cause serious economic problems in the Eurozone. I personally do not think that the Euro woud be stable enough to become the 'new' reserve currency, but I could be wrong.

What I would do would be to look out for some new type of currency that will replace both the Euro and the US Dollar that is backed with real collateral, and is not fiat currency. I do not see any currencly like that out in the marketplace right now, so I think that the Dollar's tenure as the reserve currency - even if we default on our debt - will not change.

Damage123

Jeff, speaking of "stupid", are you the same Jeff that a couple weeks ago accused someone of racism because they asked why Obama didn't send his kids to public schools? It was very memorable because Chris Christie was, at the time, being lambasted for answering honestly to the same question.

Yes that was me, i agreed with christie, its a parent decision where their kids go to school, and the person who asked the question i did accuse of being racist because never has a president been asked or judged about sending his kids to public school but because Bob asked the question i knew where he was coming from, Bigot!!!!!

No Jo comment that construction spending was not interchangable was stupid. when a road,bridges, electic grids gas main water main sewers, dams are built several industries have a direct impact in hiring because of it.

bob lotsanumbers:

Well gee whiz. You asked for an example and I gave you one. Your response? "What an ignorant answer."

You may recall in my first post I pointed out that I would refute with facts. I did, and all you can say is, "What an ignorant answer." Show me where I was wrong. Did the bridge not collapse as the result of neglect? Did people not die as the result of neglect? Well bob, you know the answer. The bridge did collapse and people did die. That's a fact.

To answer another of your ridiculous questions, no, what I said was not "almost verbatim". By the way, what is "almost verbatim"? Is that like almost pregnant?

Really now, when I can answer your question and the best you can do is hold your breath until you turn blue, you don't really think I'm going to take your word that the stimulus didn't work, do you?

So bob, I'm going to do what I said I would do. I will let the readers determine whether the stimulus worked. I went to a search block and typed in "did stimulus work". Yup, it's that hard. There's a lot there and the overwhelming consensus is that the stimulus - also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - WORKED.

The readers don't have to take my word for the success of the stimulus. They can look it up and make their own determination which will be: The stimulus worked and bob lotsanumbers doesn't know what he's talking about.

David Walker, I must thank you for your lucid posts. I almost always agree with you. And the eternal blame game is so tiresome and disheartening. Today, Pres. Obama again displayed a grown up approach to the crazy dance going on in DC. Too bad no one will listen to reason anymore, on both sides. Only thing they ever think about is getting re-elected, and the nation be damned. We have very serious problems, they need to be addressed and soon. The chicken game is childish, and non-productive. If I were an investor from another country, I would never invest a dime in a country that can't even have a civil conversation about real solutions. Just like the CEO of Pimco said a week ago, his company is telling it's customers to invest elsewhere, and that is really sad.

Pietro - We won't default. It's that simple. Raising the debt ceiling and defaulting are not even related. Think about it for a moment. This country takes in almost $2.6 trillion in tax dollars. Our debt interest payments, even if they are 15% of the revenue won't be neglected. The 14th Amendment prevents the president from defaulting on any outstanding loan payments.

That's not the problem we face. The government faces defaulting on social programs due to lack of money. They will have massive layoffs in government employees... National parks will be shut down to the public. We won't be able to visit the White House... golly gee. The government won't be able to grow... what a travesty.

Default on loans? Not possible.

American!!! - We won't default on the loans. The 14th Amendment will kick into force if that were to occur. The president has to pay debts first. What will happen is major cutbacks in social programs will occur. People will lose jobs in government. The government will have to get smaller... and THAT is what the emergency is all about. This is stepping on the president's sacred cow. That's why the press releases from the White House claims we will default. They want to lie about it in order to keep the government growing larger and larger.

Brianb - your premise COULD be correct (that the President will enact the 14th Amendment solution), but your conclusion(s) are, well suspect.

Let's just say that the Congress punts (again) and the 14th Amendment solution has to take place.

-- What makes you think that THIS President will start 'cutting social programs' to be able to pay the bills? With the President's unitary powers (you can thank George Bush for making sure this President has those powers by setting the precidents for this), why would he start there?

What conclusive evidence do you have that this is a grand conspiracy by the government to keep the government 'large'?

I dunno, Brianb, your 'hatred' for the government seems to cloud your conclusions.

-- You discount the warnings that have been floated by Moodys and Standard and Poors about the credit rating.

-- You discount the warning of 'dire consequences' by the International Money Fund.

-- You discount the inaction/actions by the Fed.

-- You discount the unwillingness of the Congress to consider a balanced revenue raising/cost cutting method to reduce the debt.

All of these are stimuli to the grander problem at hand, which you have NOT defined correctly or completely.

And I am supposed to believe your conclusion(s)?

Bag:

Those are the facts...while your comments are mere speculation unless and until President Obama endorses his own debt commission's recommendations, and uses the bully pulpit of the presidency to pressure the leadership of both parties in Congress to vote up or down, yea or nay, on the debt commission Plan.

I'm not speculating that the Republican "leaders" keep walking out of negotiations whenever Obama or the Democrats mention revenue increases resembling those proposed by the debt commission. And while the president is basing his proposals in part on the debt commission's proposals, he does not need to "endorse" them, especially since they were not even agreed upon unanimously by the commission.

BTW: It hasn't escaped my attention that you are trying to avoid acknowledging your mistake in asserting that Boehner's position was similar to the debt commission proposal.

Brianb-999431

That's not the problem we face. The government faces defaulting on social programs due to lack of money. They will have massive layoffs in government employees... National parks will be shut down to the public. We won't be able to visit the White House... golly gee. The government won't be able to grow... what a travesty.

Do you realize that "massive layoffs of government employees" means that the unemployment rate will increase substantially and that all those laid-off public sector workers you despise will spend less money on goods and services from the PRIVATE sector, causing private sector employees to lose their job and spending less money on goods and services, causing a snowballing effect? You may think that would be great, if you also think the Republicans can get away with blaming Obama for the results of their sabotage of the US economy.

no joe:

So, I went to the link you provided. This was the same one you poo-pooed last week. This was the same link that puts the lie to your contention that Opticom spend 7,000,000-dollars for seven hook-ups. I don't really want to be the one to break this to you, but you don't win a debate by committing suicide.

Brian B. I understand why you say that but you need to look beyond the debt ceiling and analyze the financial facts. Why is it so difficult to understand that the debt ceiling is what provides America its credit rating. IT IS MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT, THE INTEREST IS DUE, and not raising it will not make those debts disappear; it will not make the interest due suddenly be forgiven. The debt will increase regardless of whether or not Congress raises the debt ceiling.

Failing to raise it, and long-time republican legislators know this, would be catastrophic. If government spent not one more dime starting tomorrow, it would NOT mean the debt ceiling would remain where it is, it would rise and for Government to fail to acknowledge that fact and not raise it, is the equivalent of sticking ones head in the sand.

American. I realize you're trying to make a point but there's no point to make with the election land size and murder statistics, fewer people live in those millions of acres McCain one. You need to compare the number of people per square mile, fewer people means few murders; fewer people means more square miles per vote. Also, how do you explain that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan won many of the states Obama won? It's like comparing apples and oranges or claiming rattlesnake tastes just like chicken.

-- What makes you think that THIS President will start 'cutting social programs' to be able to pay the bills? With the President's unitary powers (you can thank George Bush for making sure this President has those powers by setting the precidents for this), why would he start there?

In one sense I agree with you. Since when has Obama followed the law on anything he was forced to comply with. I guess to spite this country, he'd let us go into default even though the 14th Amendment prohibits it. What's the 14th to Obama... just another hinderance to his agenda. Eh?

What conclusive evidence do you have that this is a grand conspiracy by the government to keep the government 'large'?

Who said anything about conspiracy? Lets look at the size of government growth in the past 2 1/2 years alone. Read this one:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-pro-growth-government

I dunno, Brianb, your 'hatred' for the government seems to cloud your conclusions.

Incorrect statement Pietro. I don't hate my government. I dislike this administration. Big difference.

-- You discount the warnings that have been floated by Moodys and Standard and Poors about the credit rating.

No I don't. The warnings are because our debt is so large, not because the republicans want to stop the raising of the debt ceiling. The warnings are because the government spend too much, not because of raising the debt ceiling. I've followed the warnings and the reasons... have you?

-- You discount the warning of 'dire consequences' by the International Money Fund.

Again, the warning of dire consequences have to do with our spending habits and the AMOUNT of debt we have accrued. How am I discounting the warnings when I say don't raise the debt ceiling?

-- You discount the inaction/actions by the Fed.

Oh... you mean the same fed that just ended QE2? The same fed that is using the scheme to buy our debt in the form of paper? That same fed? The fed that prints our paper currency with nothing to back it other than our "good" name?

-- You discount the unwillingness of the Congress to consider a balanced revenue raising/cost cutting method to reduce the debt.

Oh give me a break! Congress has had 5 years to do this and haven't. Uh... who was in power during those 5 years? My, my, my... it was and still is, the democrats.

All of these are stimuli to the grander problem at hand, which you have NOT defined correctly or completely.

And I am supposed to believe your conclusion(s)?

I don't care what you choose to believe. None of what you said or asked above has anything to do with the gravity of not raising the debt ceiling.

Let me ask you a question... When will it be necessary to not raise the debt ceiling? When republicans are in control? I guess you will finally see the light when they win majority... Then you will say.. don't raise the debt ceiling... Let them eat cake.

What you are misinterpreting is - I don't want to see the debt ceiling raised because it's the wrong thing to do. Stop empowering the government to continue to increase this nations debt. They were sent to Washington to do a job, and that job is to control spending and live within their means. I've been saying the same thing for over 30 years... and I haven't seen it happen yet. It's not partisan... I said it when Bush was president and I will say it now.

Houston said:

Do you realize that "massive layoffs of government employees" means that the unemployment rate will increase substantially and that all those laid-off public sector workers you despise will spend less money on goods and services from the PRIVATE sector, causing private sector employees to lose their job and spending less money on goods and services, causing a snowballing effect? You may think that would be great, if you also think the Republicans can get away with blaming Obama for the results of their sabotage of the US economy.

Of course I realize what massive layoffs means. I may be one of them. So there! Does that change my opinion? Not at all. What do you think of those apples Houston? My belief system is stronger than my personal position. You really can't get past yourself, can you? You'd rather have the government set itself up for a catestrophic failure than a course correction. I guess you can't see the larger picture, can you?

When will all the excessive spending end Houston? When will our debt be large enough for you? Is your love for Obama stronger than the love for your country?

Jody said: Brian B. I understand why you say that but you need to look beyond the debt ceiling and analyze the financial facts. Why is it so difficult to understand that the debt ceiling is what provides America its credit rating.

Jody, you fail to recognize when enough is enough. We have $14.3 trillion in debt. Think about that number for a moment. Can't you see our government is spending more money than necessary? Can't you see how much it wastes? Can't you realize the government is out of control? They haven't even come up with a budget for this year... so how can the money have been spent already? They don't have a plan, they don't have any constraints and they print dollars like they are going out of style. Been to the grocery store lately? No complaints?

Jeff-1541632

Now you said something that is so stupid i can't believe you said, it, it sounded like JS1 said it. Construction jobs are interchangable but in a different way. If you build roads and bridges, you need steel, concrete, stone, forms of Plastic, ashpalt, machine rentals and or purchase and the labor to do the work. thousand of labors are back to work,

If you upgrade our eletric grids and gas main all over you are buying conduate, steel pipe and thousand of electricans and pipe fitters are back to work.

If you replace Lead water mains, concrete storm and sanitary sewers that are over 60 years old, that are all over chicago, new york and citys that were around for 100 years or more you are buying again concrete products, copper and steel products that can put thousand of plumbers back to work and help steel and copper makers bring factories back on line that allows them to hire more workers.

when planning these projects, your are putting Architectural firms and engineers companies back to work, construction companies will hire the paper pushers, Secretaries, and support staff, they will get workers from other markets that are not hiring.

the payroll tax and SS tax generated by this will more than pay for this.

Talk about not learning a thing from the failed stimulus. No Jeff, the payroll tax and SS tax will NOT "more than pay for this".

That's like saying you bought a $90,000 car for $85,000 and thinking at the end of the year you had $5,000 extra in your savings. Obama's shovel ready job stimulus bill cost the taxpayer about $200,000 per temporary job! Did the government collect $210,000 in payroll taxes and social security from every job?

Spending MORE is the solution to the federal government's debt crisis?

@BrianB

THANK YOU!!!

It's good to know there are level-headed people out there who know what they are talking about!

When did people become so partisan that they put that in front of being an AMERICAN?

It's time for this administration to see the handwriting on the wall....and it says, in big bold letters...

CUT SPENDING!!!

Jody, Iowa

Brian B. I understand why you say that but you need to look beyond the debt ceiling and analyze the financial facts. Why is it so difficult to understand that the debt ceiling is what provides America its credit rating. IT IS MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT, THE INTEREST IS DUE, and not raising it will not make those debts disappear; it will not make the interest due suddenly be forgiven. The debt will increase regardless of whether or not Congress raises the debt ceiling.

Jody, it isn't money that's already been spent...it's money allocated to be spent.

Look at the big picture....even if the republicans agree to Obama's plan of cutting $4 trillion (which really isn't cuts because he's counting increases in taxes), the government is going to spend $15-20 trillion more than it takes in over the next 10 years. That makes the national debt about $30 trillion in 2021. What is the interest payment on a $30 trillion loan?

Obama is fooling a lot of the people by saying he's cutting the DEFICIT....the deficit is spending above what comes in. What needs to be cut is the DEBT, which he (and congress on a whole - both sides) have not even mentioned.

The debt ceiling should not be raised and the government should be forced to pay no more than what it takes in.

What you are misinterpreting is - I don't want to see the debt ceiling raised because it's the wrong thing to do. Stop empowering the government to continue to increase this nations debt. They were sent to Washington to do a job, and that job is to control spending and live within their means. I've been saying the same thing for over 30 years... and I haven't seen it happen yet. It's not partisan... I said it when Bush was president and I will say it now.

Again, Brianb, we are talking about the debt ceiling being raised, NOT WHAT CAUSED THE DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Raising - or not raising - the debt ceiling will NOT do ANYTHING to the CURRENT DEBT we have.

Is that clear enough for you, Brianb?

You ire - and focus - is on what created the debt in the first place, which is a good conversation to have. However, you and I are NOT talking about that at the moment.

-- We are talking about what S&P is saying about not raising the debt limit.

-- We are talking about what Moody's is saying about not raising the debt limit.

-- We are talking about what the IMF is saying about not raising the debt limit.

-- We are talking about what the ramifications are if we do not raise the debt limit.

So what on God's green earth does that have to do with cutting the size of Government?

Short answer - NOTHING.

While I agree with you that we should be doing all we can to control our spending, that has NOTHING to do with raising the debt limit. This is why I suggested our focus should be on why wins or loses if we do or don't raise the debt limit.

Jody, Iowa got on here and explained to you that the debt limit we are talking about is money ALREADY SPENT.

I got on here and wondered who are paying all of the debt to.

You need to FOCUS your arguments, Brianb.

AMERICAN!!!!!

@Pietro

As I have stated before, I an an independent voter and thinker.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Then why do you say "democrat" instead of "democratic"? That's kind of a "tell" y'know...:)

Joe-755363, you are the person not making sense here.

@Pietro

By Ben Rooney, staff reporter February 10, 2011: 4:37 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

The IMF said Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, could help stabilize the global financial system.

SDRs represent potential claims on the currencies of IMF members. They were created by the IMF in 1969 and can be converted into whatever currency a borrower requires at exchange rates based on a weighted basket of international currencies. The IMF typically lends countries funds denominated in SDRs

While they are not a tangible currency, some economists argue that SDRs could be used as a less volatile alternative to the U.S. dollar.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the IMF, acknowledged there are some "technical hurdles" involved with SDRs, but he believes they could help correct global imbalances and shore up the global financial system.

"Over time, there may also be a role for the SDR to contribute to a more stable international monetary system," he said.

The goal is to have a reserve asset for central banks that better reflects the global economy since the dollar is vulnerable to swings in the domestic economy and changes in U.S. policy.

In addition to serving as a reserve currency, the IMF also proposed creating SDR-denominated bonds, which could reduce central banks' dependence on U.S. Treasuries. The Fund also suggested that certain assets, such as oil and gold, which are traded in U.S. dollars, could be priced using SDRs.

Oil prices usually go up when the dollar depreciates. Supporters say using SDRs to price oil on the global market could help prevent spikes in energy prices that often occur when the dollar weakens significantly

So, Pietro...how do you feel know about the stability of the US dollar remaining the world's reserve currency? If we don't get our debt under control, we won't have to worry about debt ceilings and yearly deficits; we'll have to worry about THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH BECOMING A THIRD-WORLD NATION.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN AMERICA'S EXCEPTIONALISM?

If all welfare payments are cut, does that include corporate welfare, Joe? Or is robbing the poor to make the wealthy richer okay with you?

Democrats have no balls!

If I was a Democrat or better yet a ""Democrat Leader I would aim for a hostile takeover of the Republican party.

I would write a bill the ends all and any redistribution of funds. Whether corporate subsidies, welfare, health ALL! Then I would sit back and watch the republicans become democrats.

And if not!

The one fact of history is through the ashes of failed civilizations comes the growth of humanity.

Insane?

No insane is bringing a knife to a knife fight! It is more like a tempertantrum an escalation of stubborn stupidity.

Talk about not learning a thing from the failed stimulus. No Jeff, the payroll tax and SS tax will NOT "more than pay for this".

That's like saying you bought a $90,000 car for $85,000 and thinking at the end of the year you had $5,000 extra in your savings. Obama's shovel ready job stimulus bill cost the taxpayer about $200,000 per temporary job! Did the government collect $210,000 in payroll taxes and social security from every job?

Spending MORE is the solution to the federal government's debt crisis?

sorry but all the business tax created by all the infastructure work being done will pay for it. I'm not talking about a stimulas to pay for it.

If we can spend trillions on war, why the hell can't we spend trillions on Infastructure projects. SH&t, Bush Gave the iraq goverment billions to rebuild there roads after we distroyed when we invaded. but for some reason we are too stupid to do for home. I could give less than 2 craps about iraq, Afgan i care about america, and for the last 20 years our lawmakers have been giving our money away to people who don't need it, or we are giving it to them because we Fu&&ed up and invaded their country when we should have minded our own business.

hey we would not have a debt problem if we did not spend almost 3 trillion on war, and 6 trillion over 10 years on a perscription drug program that has failed.

@Dangerfield

I said "democrat" instead of "democratic" only once and it was in my first post. It (democrat) referred to the democrat PLAN...that's why I said democrat instead of democratic...anything else? Maybe something relevant or germaine to the actual post?

Pietro said:

Again, Brianb, we are talking about the debt ceiling being raised, NOT WHAT CAUSED THE DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Raising - or not raising - the debt ceiling will NOT do ANYTHING to the CURRENT DEBT we have.

Is that clear enough for you, Brianb?

I really hate name calling... it seems to serve no purpose... but in this case, I will break my own rule. Pietro, you are an ass.

What the hell do you think I've been talking about all morning? Do you even read the posts? Are you paying attention? You addressed me first and I responded to your points, one at a time. That doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Controlling spending has a direct effect on how much debt we are in. In order to address the debt, we need to control spending. Raising the debt ceiling isn't sending the right message.

Is it a fact that government always spends more than it takes in? Clinton was the only president in modern history that had a congress that didn't overspend. I wonder what party they were in. That information seems to elude most posters.

Money isn't spent, it's allocated. They can always reallocate the money. Let the elected officials do their jobs. We should expect no less from them. They are elected, paid and given great benefits to do that job.. why should we expect less from them. I guess it depends on what party you support.

@BrianB

What the hell do you think I've been talking about all morning? Do you even read the posts? Are you paying attention? You addressed me first and I responded to your points, one at a time. That doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Brian, I've noticed the same thing. The people that respond to my posts only seem to attack, not discuss the issue. It seems they're not willing to let common sense and logic enter into the discussion. I asked pietro how the murder rate in counties where democrats generally win elections isn't directly related to this administrations voter base and I was ignored seemingly because the question was too hard to answer. So, discussing the debt ceiling, default, deficit reduction, and entitlement reform now seems pointless.

Here we are using the Washington Examiner as a source again...a FREE newspaper bankrolled entirely by big funders of Conservative causes with no claim to be a legitimate journalistic source.

So, Pietro...how do you feel know about the stability of the US dollar remaining the world's reserve currency? If we don't get our debt under control, we won't have to worry about debt ceilings and yearly deficits; we'll have to worry about THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH BECOMING A THIRD-WORLD NATION.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN AMERICA'S EXCEPTIONALISM?

American: first of all, this is a pretty old article, but it is still valid. I have seen this one before.

Secondly, the mere fact that the IMF is preparing/thinking about using SDR's instead of the dollar as a reserve currency does NOT mean that has anything to do with the debt ceiling. What this DOES mean is that the IMF, if they can get control of the world's money supply, is thinking about using something that THEY control to be the 'new' reserve currency.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

While you and Brianb are harping about our 'excess spending' and 'Government living within its means', the IMF is making noise about raising the debt ceiling and the 'dire consequences' if we don't.

THIS is the conversation we should be having. Why is it that the IMF is SO INTENT on getting that ceiling raised? I think it is just a matter of time when we see SDRs being used as reserve currency, and I do not put it past the IMF to create a financial crisis so they can get their SDRs instituted.

If we were to follow YOUR arguments, AMERICAN, the IMF would be HOPING that the ceiling is not raised so they can institute those SDRs. So why is it that the IMF WANTS us to raise the debt ceiling and whomever is lending America money wants to CONTINUE to do so?

As usual, you are focusing on the WRONG THINGS and making your arguments and conclusions based on that focus. We needn't focus on the debt itself; we need to focus on who is granting even MORE debt and why they want the debt ceiling raised.

We need to focus on WHOM is granting that debt and what is their motivation.

We need to focus on why these same people are so WILLING to lend America even MORE money wirh we have already racked up $14.3 Trillion in debt already.

Houston-

"it hasn't escaped my attention that you are trying to avoid acknowledging your mistake in asserting that Boehner's position was similar to the debt commission proposal."

I'm doing no such thing. Why would I acknowledge a mistake I did not make?

As reported by Reuters, President Obama is seeking $1.3-1.7 trillion in tax increases under the current tax code...including the partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts the President extended only last December.

Speaker Boehner and the President's debt commission favor generating additional revenue (and economic growth) by completely overhauling the present tax code. Night and day, Houston. No comparison whatsoever between the President and his debt commission on revenue.

And, although the debt commission Plan was favored by 11 of the 18 commission members, Houston, President Obama should endorse it because:

a) He asked for it, b) It's a realistic, balanced, bipartisan effort to address the debt crisis, and c) Because there's no other proposal that has a prayer of passing Congress, and landing on his desk for signing...his current proposal certainly doesn't have a prayer, does it?

By the way, Houston...

You should love the debt commission's Plan.

If it's ever signed into law, the Bush tax cuts (along with the rest of the existing tax code) will disappear.

That alone ought to be reason enough for you to drop everything and start phoning and e-mailing the White House right now urging the President to work for passage of the debt commission Plan, Houston.

lol

Pietro said:

Again, Brianb, we are talking about the debt ceiling being raised, NOT WHAT CAUSED THE DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Raising - or not raising - the debt ceiling will NOT do ANYTHING to the CURRENT DEBT we have.

Is that clear enough for you, Brianb?

I really hate name calling... it seems to serve no purpose... but in this case, I will break my own rule. Pietro, you are an ass.

OK, the game is over.

When you resort to name calling, then there is no sense in trying to deal with you any longer. If nothing else, it shows your lack of respect with whom you are conversing and a deficit in your intellect if calling me an ass is the best you can do when we are discussing salient points.

We are talking about two distinct issues here, but you cannot see the distinction. It seems we cannot have a conversation because I am pointing out things that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge.

You know what - that's fine by me.

Fair enough.

Brianb, carry on.

@Pietro

Do you know anything about Basel I, Basel II, or the new Basel III regulations that are coming out?

If not, maybe you should do a little research on those topics and then you'll understand WHO and WHY "people" are willing to lend us money.

AMERICAN, I am familiar with Basel I, II, and III.

However, this does NOTHING to bolster or refute your argument about the debt ceiling. We are talking about two distinctly different subjects that you and our friend Brianb fail to see.

-- The debt and how it was accrued is an INTERNAL issue to the United States.

-- The debt and how it is FINANCED is an EXTERNAL issue to the United States.

-- How we handle reducing the debt we accrue is based on INTERNAL stimuli in the United States.

-- Raising the debt limit to accrue even more debt is based in EXTERNAL stimuli to the United States.

Do you see what I am getting at, AMERICAN?

@Beverly,

I wasn't even going to respond to your post, but then I thought better of that decisionand decided to ask you a several questions. My post sited some statistics that you apparently don't like, so are you saying that criminals SHOULD be in charge of the country? You stated....

It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama's victory in 2008

1) Do you think the non-taxpaying, welfare & foodstamp receiving, murderers should be in charge of American fiscal policy?

2) Why shouldn't Americans have to show identification to vote? How does limiting early voting reduce turnout?

You could have no early voting and it wouldn't change my determination to vote.

YOU ARE EITHER ELIGIBLE TO VOTE OR YOU'RE NOT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

"But Republicans walked away from the deal, because they wouldn't give up the one thing that Democrats were asking for in return: any increases in tax hikes for the rich"

First Read has to make it sound like the only thing Republicans care about is protecting a few 'rich' people, and nothing else.

Of course the possibility that raising taxes in a recession might not be such a good idea never enters into it, and of course opposing giving the Democrats more money to spend couldn't possibly be on their minds, especially when the Democrats have already dramatically increased spending already. Just for the record, here is average spending under 8 years of Bush vs 2 years of Obama;

Average spending under Bush = $2.396 Trillion per year.

Average spending under Obama = $3.487 Trillion per year, an increase of $1.091 Trillion per year (46%).

The additional spending by the Democrats accounts for almost all of the huge increase in Deficits.

Your bias is showing.

Wade, Tampa Florida.

Joe-755363, you are the person not making sense here.

Ok, what didn't make sense to you? Kind of an unspecified attack isn't it? Does it make sense to spend $3.8 trillion when you take in $2.1 trillion? Does it make sense to increase the national debt to $30 trillion over the next ten years and pay interest on that?

Wade, Tampa Florida.

If all welfare payments are cut, does that include corporate welfare, Joe? Or is robbing the poor to make the wealthy richer okay with you?

Well that comment makes zero sense. How can you rob the poor of something they didn't have to rob in the first place?

@Pietro

I will agree on this

-- The debt and how it was accrued is an INTERNAL issue to the United States

An internal issue...meaning that we must stop creating new debt. We, as a fiscally responsible nation, have to QUIT SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE! We will be fine even if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

I can't understand the American who is NOT for a balanced budget amendment, throwing out the tax code as we know it and instituting a flat tax, or reforming entitlements. It goes against everything it means to be an American.

Just think what a better America this would be without the IRS. Just think of all the people who wouldn't have to spend their hard earned money at H&R Block to figure out how much they owe the government. Just think of all those tax lawyers that would have to find real employment. It would be a GREAT day in America.

Closing "loopholes" won't do anything but appease the minds of the liberals who believe that the "rich" are the problem.

Pietro - Good. Go away! Your points are useless... it's like arguing with a slug. I gave you a chance, but you don't know how to comprehend. Oh well... no loss to me.

the GOP couldn’t support the big deal ($4 trillion) because of the tax hikes and that he prefers the middle-sized deal (about $2.5 trillion).

and there it is Ladies and Gentlemen; this was never about spending cuts. This was about keeping the very tax cuts that failed under Bush.

As long as they get to keep the top 2% happy, the "Fiscally Responsible" GOP is willing to give up the cuts that they have been preaching about...

ROY WILSON-336103
in your post you blame the Dems for the spending, but why is it that the Republicans are willing to do ANYTHING to keep the very tax cuts that did not create any jobs? If you tell me they did, why did Bush double Clinton's unemployment?
By the way, how much of that spending is due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Please don't tell me that we would be spending that on military anyways because that claim is preposterous. How much of it is accrued interest on debt (that we have been paying for by leaving IOUs in the SS)?

Pietro - Good. Go away! Your points are useless... it's like arguing with a slug. I gave you a chance, but you don't know how to comprehend. Oh well... no loss to me.

Great, Brianb.

Have a great day.

bayllie "why did Bush double Clinton's unemployment?"

He didn't. The average unemployment rate under Clinton was 5.20%.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.33%, even with the huge increase after 9/11.

Average interest on the debt under Clinton was $227 Billion per year.
Average interest on the debt under Bush was $202 Billion per year (yes, it's true).

Unfortunately for you, some people actually keep track of things.

no joe, no bo, nj

Obama wants to raise taxes on "the rich"- says we need more revenue.

How about getting some revenue from the 51% of people who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES?

1) each time you guys post this, the % goes up: propaganda or more and more are making less and less?

2) I keep asking this but no one will answer: how many of those who don't pay taxes are High School students, College students, single mothers, retirerees (supplementing their SS), unemployed, minimum-wage workers? How many pay the insurance for their families ($12,000+/yr)?

3) why don't you question the fact that this many US Taxpayers don't qualify to pay? Unless they are all cheating (which I doubt), why are they making THIS LITTLE??????

ROY WILSON-336103

bayllie "why did Bush double Clinton's unemployment?"

He didn't. The average unemployment rate under Clinton was 5.20%.
The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.33%.

I don't care about the average because you averaging the low unemployment that Bush2 inherited from Clinton, and you are averaging the HIGH unemployment that Clinton inherited from Bush1. Nice try though. Look up the unemployment as of Jan of 2001 (Clinton left office) and again Jan of 2009 (Bush2 left office) and then go back to me.

You lost any credibility with this one. Nice manipulation of numbers, Roy.

Roy,

From the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his Omnibus Act of 1993 that passed without a SINGLE Republican Senator's vote, reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

During his administration, George W. Bush increased the national debt by $4,901,104,747,205.59 (and counting) and personally approved of the creation of 46% of the entire national debt, in only 8 years.

How about the cut of $3.8 Trillion that we paid out (and will be paying for) because of the Bush's war in Iraq. This is not blaming Bush; this is simply stating that his bills are continuing to come "each month" even thou he has not been the president. Until you can stop those bills from coming, you have to give credit where credit is due.

So again, I don't care about your averages. And it would be nice if you supported your "numbers" that you keep track of with an actual data (links to source would be great). I am still waiting for that proof of how spending during peace time is comparable to spending during war time.

bayllie "ROY WILSON-336103 I don't care about the average"

I'm sure you don't, but I think a President's performance over 8 full years is far more meaningful than saying "This rate was such and such on such and such a date, but on another 'cheery picked' date, it was so and so", and then make generalizations about their overall performance based on carefully selected dates. That is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

By the end of this year, the debt under Obama will likely have gone up in 3 years as much as it did in 8 years under Bush 2, and if you want to 'cherry pick' data, then you could say that Bush's deficits after his first 2 fiscal years were only $29.5 Trillion (which is true) and Obama's deficits for his first 2 fiscal years were $2,706 Billion (also true). You could also look at the unemployment rate when Bush left office and compare it to what it was at Obama's 2 year mark and make Obama look pretty bad.

That's why I think overall averages are far more meaningful in gauging overall performance than carefully selected 'cherry picked' dates, but of course your method allows for a lot of 'spin' doesn't it.

bayllie "Roy, I am still waiting for that proof of how spending during peace time is comparable to spending during war time."

Could you clarify your point. To which spending are you referring?

bayllie

My error - Bush's deficits should have read

" Bush's deficits after his first 2 fiscal years were only $29.5 Billion (which is true), not $Trillion.

9.2% unemployment. 18,000 jobs created. It is no longer cool to support Barack Obama.

Please continue to support President Obama, because all these problems are due to the Republicans and Tea people in office who are blocking the Presidents efforts to correct our problems.

Please continue to support President Obama, because all these problems are due to the Republicans and Tea people in office who are blocking the Presidents efforts to correct our problems

The Democrats had two full years to raise taxes on anyone they pleased in any budget they wanted to do it in. Obama could have done nothing and have had the Bush tax cuts expire at midnight on Dec31/2011, yet he signed the Obama tax cuts passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate instead. There was no Republican that could have blocked either action. Its clear you Libs aren't acquainted with anything resembling the truth and you need your bogeymen to keep your worshipping of Obama going, but the truth is the truth, and the Democrats aren't associated with much with it.

The truth is the Tax cuts were signed because the Republicans held the unemployed as hostage to get this extension. Some call it hostage taking or blackmail.

2 years without a Budget under DNC controll

Also.....back in Dec Obama said it would be unwise to raise taxes in the current Financial environment...........now the Economy is worse and now he wants to raise taxes. He has no plan!!!

Joanna as if you ever supported President Obama in the first place.

What is not cool is the Domestic Terrorist known as Republicans willing to destroy our country.

To hear them talk starting two wars and cutting taxes on the rich has nothing to do with our countries problems.

Its like you got a pay cut and then went out and bought two new cars you could not afford and then blamed your wife because she can no longer pay the bills with the money you are giving her. Then you blame the children and your grandparents because you could afford the new cars without them.

The Republican blame game: It is only our fault if it is good news. You need to credit Bush for killing of OBL even though he has been out of office for two years.

How can you blame Bush for the economy when he has been out of office for two years?

I loved it "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think"

Job1:

They like to forget how the GOP/TP held this country hostage several times just to give the 2% huge tax cuts. President Obama had to compromise (the "C" word again) to get other legislation passedthat did help the country.

Sorry the OP/TP is all about one thing - "Themselves". I have never seen a more selfish arrogant group of people in my liftime.

Do as I say not as I do, More for Me less for You - That is the GOP/TP traveling song.

I never realized how much power the GOP has in this country. A democrat president. A democrat house. A democrat Senate... and the little GOP holds them hostage. WOW! What power, what influence.

Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

Brianb: Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

They just only listen to what that little box tuned to msnbc tells them to believe. Notice the libs around here, the ones that just worshipped Olbermann, don't talk about him, at all. The libs know he's back on the tube, but they haven't figured out he's on a different channel. I doubt they know that there are different channels.

Unfortunately, Brianb, they are the only people to whim they listen. Why not? They would not possibly countenance anyone challenging their beliefs.

Obama has the same problem- which translates to disastrous fall out from his policies. The evidence was patently obvious, and easily sourced, that Keynesian economics fails every time.

Care to speculate as to WHY he went full speed ahead anyway?

Cause, I'm thinking, it's because he would not even consider anything that challenged his belief.

Hence, the blame game. On Fiday, he blamed THE WEATHER for the failure.

Take comfort in the knowledge that his support dwindles daily.

Brian, do you ever read or watch the news. You do realize right now at this very moment the Republicans are holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling vote.

They voted 7, I repeat 7 times to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was president. Now all the sudden they will not pass the debt ceiling unless we cave to their demands to steal from the poor and give to the rich. Remember we can not pass it without their votes.

Do you people ever think for youselves?

The things the liberals complain about are juvenile. It seems they are better at placing blame on everyone else than taking responsibility for their own actions. It's always the GOP's fault... They've had majority for 5 years but yet blame the GOP for everything. Can't the democrats get anything done to correct the course?

I've come to the conclusion that the democrat ideology is forcing socialism down our throats. The masters of politically correct don't realize that being PC is socialism.

Did you hear that the far left country of California has mandated the teaching of gay history in the public schools? Imagine your 6 year old coming home and telling you all about the gay lifestyle. It makes zero sense to me that .05% of the population is hearlded in the public schools. They don't pay that much attention to native Americans in school.

American's first - I think for myself plenty. Who cares what the republicans did during Bush's administration. That's history to me. What's important... what's really important is what's happening now. I guess you don't see that. You'd rather dwell on what we can't control over what we can control now. Bringing those historical tidbits up at this time is irrelevant. But, I can see your point... you have nothing else to say about it.

You know it's wrong to raise the debt ceiling with $14.3 Trillion in debt. You know it's wrong, but you will make your talking points because you feel Obama is getting the shaft. It's more important to you to expend your political belief over what's right or wrong. The other guys did it so why can't we? Because it's wrong, that's why! It was wrong then and it's wrong now! Develop your critical thinking skills.

"A democrat president. A democrat house. A democrat Senate"

It's Democratic, not democrat

"Who cares what the republicans did during Bush's administration. That's history to me."

you honestly see no relationship between Bush's actions and inactions and where we are now?

starts 2 wars and cuts taxes at the same time. now the same party that lauded those actions are decrying the debt and deficit resultant from them.

That's history to me...Tell me, Brian, just how much more ignorant can you get?

The democratic House passed over 400 pieces of legislation, Brian B, including budgets. The GOP Senators filibustered nearly every piece of legislation including tax breaks for businesses to create jobs, including infrastructure spending to create jobs (paid for by reducing spending elsewhere), and many, many other things. When one Senator can "object", block, obstruct--it doesn't matter what the others want to do. It is a fact that from Jan 2009 through Dec 2010, the GOP set an all-time record for filibusters; they continue their strategy today. Country First my foot.

Who cares what the republicans did during Bush's administration. America is still suffering and that's history to you?

I get it, start a war of choice, give tax breaks to the rich for a tradeoff for unemployment benefits was good and now water under the bridge.

The Republicans are not interested in what they have done to us in the past only how they intend to destroy in the future.

The Republican "We screwed you, get over it" and you think I need critical thinking skills. The fact that we want to screw you today, now that what is important.

Jody, do you serve cheese with that whine? Why do you suppose the republicans did that? Are you now spouting about a conspiracy? Are your blinders on so tight that you can't see that the democrats needed to be stopped because they spend so much money and when they are in power they feel like they can spend as much as they like, unchecked? I wish the republicans had been able to filibuster the ACA... but they were given cloture.

Do you ask the question... why weren't the republicans included in those 400 pieces of legislation? The democrats didn't want their input because of partisan reasons alone. What choice did the republicans have? Remember - Obama wanted them sent to the back of the bus... I guess they didn't listen to him.

Americans first... when did this all start falling down around us? Why, I believe it was in 2007. Who took control of congress that year? Blame it all on Bush. Don't place the blame on the housing bubble that was completely bipartisan in nature... no, that doesn't serve your purpose. It's much easier for you to place all the blame on one person. That's the only thing you got! Never, never, never, ever, blame anything on the democrats. They weren't around during the Bush administration, were they?

Your one sided argument doesn't fly. The democrats are pure as the driven snow. They are completely exhonerated in your opinion.

Do you realize how foolish that argument is? When does Obama take charge over anything? When is he to be held accountable for the massive spending in the democratic controlled period? Never? Not according to you.

@ rick in savannah -- Have you forgotten that this country was attacked in NYC and Washington, DC, on 9/11/2001???? Start two wars??? I believe you don't start something if you were attacked. Secondly, unless your Obama in Libya, one man does not start a war -- Congress does and it did. Also, over the last four years the WH and Democrats controlled both branches and could have let the tax cuts expire. They chose not to so therefore the now own them. If the dems thought tax cuts during that time were not the right thing to do, then they could have stalled them in Congress -- just like the left whines and cries to their mommies that the Republicans stall dem proposals.

That's the real history not one filled with lies. So Brian, tell me just how much more ignorant you can get?

Ben said: So Brian, tell me just how much more ignorant you can get?

You address your post to Savannah and you ask me this question? Explain please.

Hopefully John A will come along as this is an area he's documented particularly well. This amendment would DESTROY America as an important economic force by destroying our ability to manage a sophisticated, modern economy and national government. Putting the United States on a "cash basis" would forever end our ability to fund needed infrastructure or even wars, should we be attacked.

@Brian -- My apologies sincerely. I just was looking somewhere and typing somewhere else. It was meant for Rick and mocking his statement to you. It was my mistake.

That's the real history not one filled with lies. So Brian, tell me just how much more ignorant you can get

your point?

I'll grant you Afghanistan was laudable - until Bush took his eyes off the prize and lied his way into iraq. Nothing about how he didn't pay for the wars? Nothing about how he lowered taxes while in two conflicts?

that was the point B n' B. Not the legitamacy of either one, instead how neither was payed for. And now we are.

yes, how much more ignorant can you get?

No problem Ben... I ignored Rick's remarks... This is a public forum board and when someone stoops to correcting words, that person is only here to make themselves feel important. As if I care if it's democrat or democratic. My point didn't change. Arguing semantics, spelling or grammer isn't what this forum is all about. Then when he asks a question like.. how much more ignorant can you get? I can tell he's only here to throw bombs. What's the point in having any sort of a mature discussion with a person who starts off like that. If after a period of time a person does that.. they they turn into an ass and I have no problem telling them so.

Rick, the best thing I can do is ignore you. You are crossing posters remarks with mine. You are trying to argue something that's not being discussed. Your remarks are irrelevent. You have nothing to add. Your cry for attention isn't worthy of it. Add something of value and I may respond to you. Until then, catch ya later.

The longer it takes to raise the debt ceiling the more damage will be done. Do you, I am speaking to conservatives here, see this as an opportunity to crush SS and Medicare once and for all? In a pinch the country can do without medicare, if that is what it takes to keep SS on track. You are aware that in a default the Treasury department, not the GOP congress, will decide what is paid and what is not.

The Tea Party in congress doesn't care about the debt ceiling. Career politicians like Boehner may cave. Go ahead vote no on the debt ceiling. Not only will the electorate be incensed, it will cost the GOP the support of Wallstreet at election time. I personally hope that the GOP goes the way of the Whig party, if they don't have the spine to stand up to the TEA party.

Wade, I'm not qualified to give the Conservative answer you're looking for, but I CAN tell you the current radical Conservative talking point that there are no repercussions for default are full of hooey. There's even a historical avenue to prove that defaulting on the debt has real consequences in terms of increased interest rates and additional costs for the American taxpayer.

John, from the tone of your response I take it you and I are not far apart politically speaking. I am very much afraid the GOP is contemplating political suicide. I just hope GOP doesn't drag the rest of the country with it on it's fall over the cliff.

I share your concern, Wade. Google "1979 default" and you'll see that we had a technical default in that year and even though it only affected a small amount of bonds and lasted a very short time it cost the US taxpayer a huge amount of money through increased interest rates.

This http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52027.html is worth a read as well--if you trust the word of a Nobel prize-winning economist over that of Glenn Beck or Eric Cantor.

I think Tom likes porn. All his posts are rated XXX.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

DaNoid:

Nothing has changed and they will ride the "Obstructionist" bus off the cliff. I just hope they do not take the country with them.

Remember, the fall won't kill you...it's that sudden stop at the end.

“If not now, when?” the president said to the group, according to the official.

Source:: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58643.html#ixzz1RncUAhi5

You see Obama, while you were off campaigning, fund raising, and drinking pints of beer in Ireland, the Republicans were hard at work putting their plan for the debt ceiling together, explaining it to Americans, stating their goals, and putting together their legislation. Now you dance in right at the end of the talks, demanding this and demanding that, and holding a gun to the heads of all Americans (btw - I guess this is the "civil" tone Obama keeps telling others to use, and he's apparently exempt from it). Sorry Barry, you wasted all your time with trivial things, too bad for you. The deal the GOP has is the deal. Sign it, and if you don't, it's your fault the USA defaults.

Amen, DaNoid and Navy.

Navy – as always, glad to see your posts!!
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
Bachmann admitted that she is gleeful over the poor jobs report and she intends to capitalize on it to bolster her bid for the presidency. We the people should be outraged that any presidential hopeful is gleeful over a poor jobs report for purposes of scoring political points.
Republicans continue to hold Americans hostage over the debt ceiling. We should be outraged that they are gambling our credit worthiness over political one-upmanship. Maybe the outrage will finally be felt when anyone with a variable rate house payment is forced into foreclosure as they watch in horror at payment increases of 200-300%, or perhaps when credit card rates zoom to 60%, or car financing rates zoom to 15-20%. Sky rocketing interest rates will be a death knell to any economic recovery.
Pawlenty takes exuberant credit for being the original "shut down government" guy. We should be outraged that any serious presidential candidate prefers government shut-downs to score political points. This results in loss of wages, services to the needy, and a disruption to social services required to support society at large. Please, Pawlenty, explain to us how this helps society!
The GOP/TP ran on the platform of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!!! Where is the outrage over the utter failure of the GOP/TP to create even one job since they took over the House. They have done nothing but kill job creation efforts, as evidenced by the continued decline of net jobs, and the increases in unemployment since taking over the House.
Wake up GOP/TP. You have done nothing but obstruct and destroy the economic recovery ever since taking over the House. And the American republic is on to you. We are OUTRAGED at your lack of compromise, lack of leadership, and most of all, lack of ability to govern through the worst economic crisis to have ever created almost exclusively by your party.

DNC....The party of NO Budget.......over 800 days we have operated without one under their controll.

RedDev PS:

Back at you my friend. Great post. The GOP/TP ran on a campaign of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. So where are their plans for job creation and how are they going to stimulate the economy. There are none and there are none coming.

This was their time to lead and they have flunked their leadership exam big time. President Obama is the only one trying to do anything for the Country. The GOP/tp is still trying to everything for the 2% and the hell with the 98%.

Great ideology, lets see how it pans out in 2012.

Obama is trying, but at some point, in the adult world, you have to start succeeding.

So far that has not happened.

This is not grade school, where you get "A's" for effort.

This is not grade school, where you get "A's" for effort.

Nor walking away from your responsiblities.

Nice try njnb!

I couldn't agree more njng - this isn't grade school where you might get an "A" for effort.

Obama get an "A" for results. He stopped a global catostrophic crash, and even managed to reverse the crash with an improved economic picture.

This is where GOP/TP deserve an "F" - since taking over the House, they have stalled any and all improvements. They have not created one job - and in fact have destroyed jobs by slashing government spending at the state/local levels. And now economic growth has slowed to a snails pace. They promised jobs and economic improvements, have given us nothing, and as Devie says, they have walked away from their responsibilities.

Is it not so very obvious that devie and RedDevPMS are two of the -- maybe the same -- leftie posters on here with different names LMAO!!!!!

Ben - your prowess at name calling is duly noted.

Thanks Ben, and yes I am a Liberal and PROUD of it! But no I am not RedDevPS. Talk about silly conspiracy theories. Reaching a bit on that one! Sorry to disappoint you! Oh and btw this is FR a left leaning site so it's not hard to believe that there might, just might be like minded, dare I say, Liberals posting here.

devie and RedDevPS -

OMG - according to Ben's reasoning, I must be the same person as JoAnnaSmith1, 'cause there's, like, three letters the same in our names, too - and in the same order!

I guess that also means that Bob (Numbers) and Bob (Other Numbers) are one and the same as well? Ditto Nashville_Fan and Steeler Fan?? Dangerfield and Fielden??? Hey, this is kinda fun - thanks, Ben!

Liberals and center left moderates like myself.

Hope Solo has got to be the coolest name in sports ever!!!

Frank:

I saw that this morning. Go USA. I think their next game is with France. Maybe another Olympic gold for women's soccer????

@David Walker,

Great post and i thank you for you super reasoning skills. It's something that most people get in this forum.

@AMERICAN!!!!!

So what happen in Al Gores cast? Care to comment on that election? Ask your professor to do an analysis on Bush vs Gore election. He'll probably turn up with the same numbers.

Chris, Cranbury -

Hope Solo is admittedly pretty cool - but come on, coolest sports name ever? I'd be tempted to go with Peerless Price, formerly of the Buffalo Bills, except that I can still remember the early 1970's and the immortal Fair Hooker of the Cleveland Browns. Hope Solo ain't even in the same league (pun fully inrended)!

Sorry, Joanne. The greatest football player's name in history foes to Bronko Nagurski!!! Peerless couldn't carry Bronko's jockstrap.

I stand by my comment regarding Hope Solo.

This is the GOP/TP mantra, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Anna Molly - Interesting article. And M0681343, yeah - "spite" was the first word that came to my mind too. This gives whole new meaning to the term "fuzzy math".

Nash:

Kudos - I agree and could not have said it better.

Too easy, Nash. It's because the corporate media is fixated on personalities -- it's much easier -- and certainly more titillating -- than actually studying the issues and reporting all that dry stuff ...

... like facts.

More simply put, it's the mushroom effect. Navy knows what I'm talking about -- keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure.

Someone read BRAVE NEW WORLD and thought, "good idea."

Well stated "Nash". The scary thing about this is that Obama's plan played right into the republicans and they didn't take it. That $4T deal would have hurt the low and middle class the most and virtually would have barely impacted the rich and corporations. Ideology is blinding to say the least. By the way, the house approved additional military spending of over $6B last week. Where's the outrage, where's the media on this story? The sad part of all this is that people are just plain sheep. The republicans keep telling you that cutting taxes create jobs and we have 30+ years of empirical data that doesn't support that economic model - wake up folks, its Econ 101 stuff. 1) Close all corporate tax loopholes and subsidies outside of R&D for green manufacturing. 2) Do not allow congress to borrow from the SS fund. 3) Cut the waste out of Medicare, 4) Allow generic drugs in this country to push bug pharma to reduce its pricing. 5) Review all military "systems" spending and cut any system that doesn't make sense for the 21st century or hasn't done what it was promised to do - like the Osprey. Those changes alone would get us back on stable footing. Last but not least, term limits for all politicians, no more than 8 years. The founding fathers warned us about "career politicians"...

*waves to Navy and Anna Molly*

Thanks for adding your thoughts Mav . . . you bring up some great points.

It would almost be worth the default to force some changes to the salaries and benefits of representatives in the house. Make the wages of the representatives the minimum wage, and cut their health benefits to nothing until every citizen has the same coverage. Ah well I guess I am dreaming if I expect that to happen.

Are you saying that the republicans, who got almost everything they wanted, did not walk away due to proposed tax increases on the rich?

Then why did they walk away Bob?

GOP/TP will allow the US to go bankrupt unless they get the tax cuts for the top 2% wage earners and let the poor pay for them.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, huge tax increases on everyone is already baked into the horror show called Obama Care, which are "off the table".

The moonbat class warfare Party line is always that any proposed tax increase is only "on the rich" which is a crock of BS.

Even AP reported some of the Dems proposed $1 trillion tax increase will hit poor and middle class...of course.

Republicans are the adults at the table, who want to save the free enterprise system and grow the private sector economy. Obama represents the Party of Government, and their only concern is growing and feeding the state.

If republicans didn't walk away from the deal because of the tax revenue increases, then why did so many of them stand before the mic and say they can't buy it? Come on, Bob, you can do better than that.

Well said.

I hate to say this but it may be better just to let medicare implode as it will if Ryan plan is adopted. If the country goes into default it may come to a choice between medicare and social security. I do not type these words lightly. If medical care becomes so expensive no one can afford it, it will force the cost of care down. What makes me angry is the number of people who will almost certainly die at all ages do to a lack of decent health care. It will give everyone incentive to vote the GOP out of power once and for all.

I hope I live to see the demise of the GOP, if it doesn't return to it's moderate roots. I will certainly devote the balance of my life to see the party of No broken up, legally, once and for all for not standing up to very far right.

Someone needs to tell the GOP/TP you can't cut taxes for the rich and barrow the money to make up the difference in lost revenue, like whats happened since the GOP/TP beloved Ronald Reagan cut taxes for the rich in 1980. Except in the 1990's when Bill Clinton was president and there was a surplus.

I don't think the Republicans know what they are doing ...if they did they wouldn't be there...someone needs to tell them you can't cut taxes while starting two wars.

Maybe I am asking too much, it would take somebody smart to figure that out.

To that I'll add, I don't think the Republicans know what they're doing because you can't strengthen Medicare by passing the Rx medicare bill and NOT PAYING FOR IT. The worse part about the GOP not paying for the Rx plan is they did it on purpose--to make medicare even less solvent because their intent is to kill it by any means possible.

Playing the race card...all ya got left. Pathetic.

Most people this time will be voting for the candidate not named "0bama" !!!!

Don't count on it, black_belt3.

As an independent republican, I will stay home during the GOP primary, if it's a choice between Bachman or Palin. I will vote a straight democratic ticket even if I have to write in the names in the general 2012 election.

Few if any facts are found in the Soros- funded smears from the moronic "Thinkprogress" which are cutandpasted here by the Libs r Us moonbats.

Thank you very much for the most kind words. I think there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle if they would just stop the politics and sit down and listen to each other. The GOP used to be the party of compromise as they had it down to a science. Everybody got something and nobody got everything. Somewhere over the last 30 years we have lost that ability.

If somebody else comes along that has ideas I can believe in and wants to make this country as great as it could be I would be a fool not to look at what they are saying and weighing those issues then vote. Political party means very little at that point.

I am a Fiscal Conservative (within reason) and a Social Progressive/Liberal.

Right now the right has nothing for me at all. I am not Wall Street, I was a small business owner, and I am not a millionaire. I believe that if we are to get out of the mess we need to have everything on the table for discussion. Fix what is broke and get rid of what does not work. We need more revenues and one way to do that is for the government to create and environment that would do that - like the infrastructure bill etc. We need tax reform as well.

When you can't kill the message, kill the messenger, huh, Bob? Get real.

Ny-Sd-Ny - you have got to be kidding right?? The group of usual suspects you are talking about are ignored by a large group of regulars on First Read because all they do is cut and paste Dem talking points from different web sites and then congratulate each other about what a great post it was. Are you turning into one of "them" - ha, ha!

Black_Belt3, you are one of the worst of the hecklers here. No substance to anything you type. Democrats don't have talking points but the GOP does.

Obama "Volt" = YUGO

Nancy Piglosi managed to only hold the Speaker of the House title for 4 years. The shortest period of time in 70 years. She also helped direct the biggest Dem loss in 70+ years. I will take Boehner any day. Repubs smart enough not to get tricked by the Dems into raising taxes. You can't tax the rich enough to get out of the hole 1 Term 0bama has put us in. The $70 billion per year extra you get by raising the Rich's tax rates is rounding error on 1 Term 0's spending of $3.7 trillion per year.

Getting rid of the Rich's tax break is worth $70 billion per year. If you want to get some real money you have to get rid of all the Bush/0bama tax cuts. That will be worth $400 billion per year. But you will have the lower and middle classes howling about raising their taxes. The tax cuts by a 5 to 1 margin went to the lower and middle class. You won't find any Democrat - (or Republican) that will raise taxes on the lower and middle classes going into an election year. You might if they are hidden tax hikes like in 0bamacare. Why hasn't either party gotten rid of the duplicate spending that the GAO found at the first part of the year. That was $250 plus billion which is 3 - 4 times what you get vs. raising taxes on the Rich. (Oh - that would be smaller govt- and that is bad according to this regime)

he can campaign all he wants to, but he is done.

"Done in One" - Jan 20, 2013 - 0bama's last day in office. Thank God,

Ana, I think it more likely the President may advise the treasury department suspend medicare and let the medical system crash and burn, if the country goes into default. I am not suggesting that the GOP is correct in all this. I am suggesting that once medical care as we know it is dead, even the GOP will not stand in the way restructuring medical care so every American can afford it. If everyone including people in government loses affordable health care, Boehner and Canter, may well be singing a different tune.

Cantor was smart to walk out on Biden. By meeting with Biden he is wasting his time. Biden isn't calling the shots so why waster your time meeting with him. Cantor is light years ahead of Biden and 0bama on how to lead and how to run Congress. Ever wonder why the highest thing Biden ever did until be picked as impeachment insurance was a Committee Chairmanship? despite years and years in DC. 0bama couldn't lead a group of cub scouts out of meeting in the church basement!

Those who strongly support 0bama is down to 21% - those who strongly disapprove of his job performance is up to 40%. Another "Shellacking" on Nov 6 2012. - Jan 20, 2013 - 0bama's last day in office!! Thank God.

Alan, I too just finished watching the President's press conference. He was clear, strong and reasonable. He was clear that he would not accept a stop gap measure of raising the debt ceiling for 30, 60, or 90 days.He was strong in his belief that now is the time for spending cuts and new revenue. He was reasonable in talking to the progressives in our party that his goal is to make Medicare work for future generations by some changes on the table in these negotiation.

It time for Boehner to get the Republicans to "eat their peas" Obama is asking the Democrats to do the same.

Peas are not my favorite vegtable, but I know they are good for me!!

I watched the President's address and Q & A as well. As always President Obama was clear in what he said, answered the questions with facts, went into detail. Trouble is for folks like Alan W, it wasn't the words they wanted to hear.

NorthstarDFL. I liked the President comment about peas; so did the press. Fresh, home grown peas with new potatoes in cream sauce--devine but unfortunately, no longer as healthy.

Jody, But the home grown sugar snap peas raw are really sweet!! It was refreshing to have a new little metaphor to chew on. Better than the old tired sport metaphors,or similes about a household budget.

Jody, the irony is I like peas anyway I can get them. I also got the point Obama was making. Obama put even more on the table then the GOP asked for and they still would not budge.

Alan, the card is 4-2 score right now for Obamacare (yes it isn't the supreme court). Now how will you feel when the socialist pulls the 14th amendment trick on the house. The will then lose their jobs like Mr. Bin Laden lost his life. They beter cut the deal or get killed by the Constitution.

Bull - but the big lawsuit - the one with 26 or more states involved hasn't finished being heard yet by the Atlanta circuit. Based on the questions they are going to throw it out. You and I probably both agree that this is going to SCOTUS. SCOTUS watchers say it will be ruled on by them at the end of June next year. If the Atlanta circuit says it is constitutional I think SCOTUS will agree - If the Atlanta Circuit (remember 26+ states in this suit) says it is unconstitutional I think it get thrown out by SCOTUS. I think Atlanta circuit rules it unconstitutional and so does SCOTUS. Just my opinion. If it is constitutional it will be harder to beat 0bama - but I think he is gone no matter what and then the Congress just repeals it. It can't stand as law - we can't afford it.

Gateway, it's a stretch, there may enough malfeasance among the GOP appointed Justices to see them knocked off the high court when the GOP crashes and burns.

Alan W. do you even know what the word Socialism means?

Here is the dictionary definition, for any who are not clear on what it means.

Socialism–noun

1.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Aside from the connection I see conservatives trying imply the country is on a path towards communism I see no evidence that the country is anywhere near being a national collective. I do see a possible move toward a theocracy that could be much worse where civil liberties then Nazi's or Russia at it's Soviet worst being advanced by the GOP. Socialism is not, in and of itself an evil, system as many in the GOP would imply.

It's all G.W. Bush's Fault.

It all started with him and that's a fact!!!

Actually the problems we have now started during the Clinton regime. Fannie and Freddie began loaning money to anyone. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are the ones most personally responsible for this mess. Bush warned the Dems 17 times about the "house of cards" that Freddie and Fannie were and no one listened. The financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the housing crisis and that crisis was caused by Dems.

Actually the problems we have now started during the Clinton regime. Fannie and Freddie began loaning money to anyone.

Actually, that's just right wing talking points BullSh**t!

Clinton will likely be remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American history.

Bush, on the other hand, left us 2 unfunded wars, unfunded part D Medicare and unfunded tax cuts for the rich and corporations and a deficit in the trillions.

@izzy -- Yes a deficit but in the very low trillions. Not the massive trillions Obama wants to strap up with. Also, them unfunded tax cuts must also include the middle class.

Yes Ben. Whatever floats your boat. You believe the spins and distortions that suit you. But please don't spew your right wing lies in an open public forum!

@no joe, no bo, nj

So 49% of the people that is working pays no FICA, no SS, no State, no local taxes or high gas, food, electric, clothing, child care, support of their families tax.

But the ones who can afford it should not pay none because the 49% who actually buys things to support the economy should pay there fair share as well right? And some how making them pay taxes is fair as well. Either you are so rich that you can pay someone to wipe your dumpass every time you shhhhiiittt or you are the one who is single and maker over 1 million dollars a year.

@izzy -- You are the one spinning the left wing lies here. In fact, here is a link from MSNBC.com a few years ago that states the surplus Bush had when he started and deficit when he finished. Go to the CBO and see the deficit being created by obama. I have the links from a left leaning organization and a neutral government body and in the Wash. Post. Where's your "INDEPENDENT" back-up???

If you don't believe that the entire Bush tax cuts were unfunded, then there is no hope for you.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/01/07/4426625-the-bush-years-then-and-now?pc=25&sp=25#discussion_nav

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html