What deal?

To Save the United States.

How exactly? Jake asked for specifics. Do you see any in his long winded answer?

I can understand why liberals are so happy that Obama is president... especially when he answers a question such as this:

TAPPER: And the retirement age?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I'm not going to get into specifics.

Makes perfect sense to me.... well actually, no it doesn't. Why won't Obama get into specifics? Is he afraid of playing his hand? Why be so ellusive? Can't he spell out what specifics he's expecting? Maybe that's the problem in a nutshell. He won't reveal what he will or won't accept, or maybe he doesn't even know himself. The republicans have been very specific on what they won't accept in the deal. Boehner was correct when he said working with Obama is like working with Jell-O.

And that's the kind of trade-off -- that's the kind of balanced approach and shared sacrifice that I think most Americans agree needs to happen.

There he goes..."thinking" again.

By not letting the Republicans have their way, which hasn't worked. There will be compromise.

White Collar

It was clear to me, what the President's vision is, what do you need, a Daddy to say "I'm the Decider, you do what I say?" The freakin' Congress is supposed to be hashing this out, it's called a freakin' democracy, the way the founders envisioned debate, compromise, public involvement. We aren't a monarchy, for crying out loud.

You just want to hear President Obama say "we'll raise the retirement age to 68" so you can jump all over him. You wouldn't support anything he would say. Isn't this what the whole drama in Congress is about? Political theater, an opportunity to thumb your noses at President Obama.

Amy B., Portland, ME

it's called a freakin' democracy,

We are a Rebublic...

LGR:

so it doesn't matter that the Republicans have the majority vote in the House does it? They should freakin' compromise.

Amy B. Portland, ME

They should freakin' compromise.

What would YOU like them to comprimise on?

Didn't matter that they had the majority in the house on the budget. They passed one, how is that working for the senate?

Good one Amy. Sometimes these Republican Posters are a little thick. As far as compromise, the Republicans will do so, because the President is not going to give, and that is what the American People want.

These Republicans had better quit playing their games.

What would YOU like them to compromise on?

I want the Republicans to accept the proposed revenue increases: closing tax loopholes for corporate jets, dropping the subsidies for gas and oil companies (like they need them), changing the tax code so hedge fund managers pay on the their capital gains. You know, the stuff the Republicans are refusing to compromise on because it violates their oath to Sir Grover Norquist.

Amy - So what if the conservatives don't support him. He has you liberals to support him. The way liberals talk, you'd think you were the only true Americans living in this country. Liberals disregard what the conservatives say or think. There is so much subterfuge coming from the liberal arm against conservatives, you'd think, it's all do as the liberals say, or else!

I truly hope you understand the conservatives have fundamental differences in ideology than Obama. Maybe you should try to understand what those differences are to help you see why conservatives don't agree with Obama. It might clear your head a bit.

Well we know what Amy wants the republicans to give up so maybe she can tell us what the democrats want to give up. We have yet to hear from the president on that.

" Liberals disregard what the conservatives say or think...."

OOOhhhh no we don't. And THAT'S why the right spends so much time on a left-leaning blog trying to drown them out every damned day, beginning with 'First Thoughts'!

Frankly I can't understand why both side make this so difficult. Anyone who has ever had to manage a budget could work it out.

1. Raise the debt limit to cover the obligations that we've already agreed to (for the largest economy in the world to default is just ridiculous)
2. Cap spending at thoses levels.
3. Cut spending across the board by a set rate annually until the balance sheets are back in line.

Even a 1 or 2 percent annual reduction would have significant impact over time and show the world that we're serious about getting our fiscal house in order.

How hard does this have to be?

BrianB

My brother is a Libertarian. I know all about that end of the political spectrum including the "it's not a democracy, it's a Republic" line. He brought that one out last Christmas during an argument.

My brother showed me the chart showing the federal deficit as a football field sized area of land with stacks of dollar bills representing our debt, and a little tiny person next to it to show perspective, and he lectured me about the importance of reducing it.

So, I really believed the Republicans in the House actually wanted to reduce the deficit, especially as this was the gist of Paul Ryans State of the Union rebuttal to the President. "It's the deficit, it's the deficit." Then Paul Ryan came out with his "the Boomers are breaking Medicare!" And I believed him too.

THEN the President offered 4 trillion in spending cuts, to slash the defict! I was stunned! AND the Democrats in Congress agreed to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Unheard of! Surely the Republicans will declare victory over this, I thought, remembering my brother''s lecture. He's going to chortle over the President's compromise, I thought.

BUT NO. No deal. No Grand Bargain. No historic cuts. Apparently, slashing the federal deficit is not that big a deal to Republicans. Cutting entitlements is not as exciting as they they once thought. Not as important as keeping to their pledge to GROVER NORQUIST, not to raise revenues. They want to drown the government in a bath tub, and take our credit rating with them! Haven't seen my brother lately, but I'm sure he'll tell me something like "well, we will never work with President Obama." That's it, isn't it?

I'm sure that many of the conservatives mean well. However, when you have the crazies like Bachmann, Palin, Beck and Rush, talking their crazy talk, it's hard to put much stock into the group.

And of course, we can't leave out the Social Conservatives, who want to reverse all of the Progressive changes.

Rick:

Well we know what Amy wants the republicans to give up so maybe she can tell us what the democrats want to give up.

According to some right-wing bloggers, we're all worthless slackers feeding at the public trough who have nothing TO give up except our welfare checks.

Ooops. Time to go check the mail for my weekly drinking money. ;-)

The President said "I'm not going to get into specifics". Making promises to look at entitlement and government spending without specifics does not give me a comfort level that anything tangible is coming in the way of reducing expenditures.

Amy B. Portland, ME

closing tax loopholes for corporate jets, dropping the subsidies for gas and oil companies

Amy, do you know what a "subsidy" is?

Let's Get Real! -- Why are conservatives obsessed with making that "correction" all the time? Is it because it's the only thing you know? Our form of democracy is a Republic, but we are a democracy. And if you're so obsessed about representation of the people through elected officials, than why aren't you outraged about all the Republicans signing pledges to outside special interests? Gees, maybe we should go to a direct vote, hmm?

If only conservatives would truly learn about different government systems than they'd know what socialism really is, and learn about checks and balances in our system such as three branches of government and responsibilities of each (congress holds the purse strings), and parliamentary procedure in which the president begins the budget process with a proposal but congress is responsible for the actual budget, and how the president is required to notify congress of things like debt ceiling deadlines because it's required not because he is requesting them to do it, etc.

No, instead they are petty, simple-minded, and hateful getting their undies in a bundle about light bulbs or the president's mother or ongoing cyberwar with the Pentagon. No, TeaVangelicals, YOU get real. The debt ceiling is not a hoax.

How about we make 'Plan C' in which checks go out to Tea Party districts last? After all, it is the red states that have relied on federal assistance the most. And with the floods, it is the progressives, the president, Democrats who are willing to help them. Not their own leaders like Cantor who demanded an off-set for any disaster relief.

Get on the right side of history. Kick the TeaEvangelicals out in 2012.

Ya know, there's lotsa GOP partisanslips showing.............. <giggle>

True Patriot

Why did you feel the need to jump into mine and Amy B.'s conversation? Did you feel the need to rescue her? Are you afraid she might become informed? I guess I should ask... why are you so obsessed with making sure that the distinction is NOT made?

Wow! What power Grover Norquist has over everyone. Especially the democrats... since they demonize him so much.

Liberals are the only true Americans living in this country.

Let's get real, post 1.27 - Isn't this a public forum where all are welcomed? If you're having a private conversation do it in a private format, like FB message to sender (not public), or email! I don't think MSNBC just put this up for you and Amy!

DBO said:

Liberals disregard what the conservatives say or think...."

OOOhhhh no we don't. And THAT'S why the right spends so much time on a left-leaning blog trying to drown them out every damned day, beginning with 'First Thoughts'!

Drown them out DBO? How about debate with them? You give way too much credit to the conservatives that enjoy a good argument just as much as you do. Or do you feel our arguments are attacking your way of life?

::oh please mean conservative, just go away because you are disrupting our peaceful liberal to liberal conversations::

I've seen those conversations on these boards. I felt like a stick of butter was stuck in the back of my throat. Now, you cry that we drown out liberals on a left leaning board. How arrogant of you.

Everytime someone on these threads hammers in a progressive point on the need for moderate revenue increases, the historical failures of supply-side economics or the general willingness of us liberals to make reasonable compromises on our sacred entitlement programs, someone like Let's Get Real just ignores it and tries to deflect. True Patriot was dead on and so was Amy. Every poll show that America wants what Obama has proposed: 25% in tax increases 75% in spending cuts. When this is pointed out the right-leaning in these threads deflect with complaints about a lack of specifics. But why should the President, or anyone else for that matter, give specifics when the ENTIRE Republican Party wont budge and inch on even closing luxury jet subsidies? It then it just devolves into "I know you are, but what am I" childishness.

Why can't we all just get along!?!?!?

Hi Amy,

LGR is just messing with you. Please just ignore.

Let's Get Real -- I have heard and seen that same "correction" (apparently a right-wing talking point) many times including here at MSNBC, so find it tiring if not odd. And thank you Grandma -- I did not see any rules that debate could only take place between two individuals either.

It's the right-wing who say they want to "take their country back" as if they are the only real Americans. I was listening to Democrats in Congress the other night expressing concern about chaos in the Republican Party and the need for it to be functional to have a two-party system.

What progressives will not tolerate, however, is when conservatives try to rewrite history and any other machinations instead of merit. It's been said before, and I'll say it again. You can have your own opinions, but you CAN'T have your own facts.

Speaking of which, have folks heard the latest? Yeah, Murdoch is a scam and that's why the media is not welcomed to turn the meetings into a circus. No, not that, have you heard about ALEC? Whether it's running fake Democrats in an unnecessary primary, Republicans have jumped the shark.

It is impossible to believe the Republicans have any interest in what is best for America, only what they think is best for them. When Mitch McConnell said earlier that his #1 priority was to see that President Obama would fail, what makes you think he will propose anything except failure. Most of the Republicans and Tea-Partiers (I don't believe they belong in the same party and neither would have any majority alone) also ran on "make Obama fail". How's that for positive thinking. We all should be more interested in doing things to keep this country great and a government that represents all citizens, not just certain interest groups.

Oh, for the good old days where debate could take place and both sides give a little. All we have from the Republicans is giving nothing and setting their feet in stone and saying "I refuse to support this country and government financially any more than I already do" and many millionaires/billionaires pay ZERO taxes, letting the middle class pick up the difference. Pretty soon there will be only the poor and the rich and no one will pay taxes.

Why haven't the rich corporations, with all their tax cuts and subsidies, created many new jobs to help get us out of this hole? Because they would rather store their dollars away for themselves. Where would those corporations be without employees who have produced their products that could be sold for money?

AmyB - Vision doesn't cut it in the real world of finances. Even your banker will today ask you for specifics when you are applying for a loan or check your credit rating before giving approval.

Should not we as well expect the same from our polticians?

Job1 said: My wish is for Murdoch to go to jail and FOX Noise to be broken up.

But Job1, whatever would you do if Fox was broken up? You'd have no one to complain about? You'd have no one to bash... I know you don't want to go back to the days of bashing Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck do you?

I know you liberals are all for free speech... uh... wait a second... You want to break up a free speech entity... I take that back.

It's obvious from looking not very far in the past if Obama does say something specific, no matter what it is, you will certainly jump all over him. In fact I think the only thing the President would say that would please modern day Republicans is

"I'm stepping down, and there won't be a election, Bachman gets the seat. America is now a Republican mo(anarchy). You know, Since you hate that Democracy word so much."

There wouldn't be one word of contest from Republicans because they don't really believe in the democratic process. They wave the constitution around but don't give one damn about the sentiments of our forefathers. Half of them want a theocracy and the rest want a real plutocracy. Yet most of them stand to lose the most if their ideals come true. Whats with the self destructive desires? Well I heard it has something to do with the Economics they took in highschool...something about funny charts with triangles. It was all very logical and cold, so it appealed to them. They think taxes reduce our economic potential because that's what they learned from their (republican) teacher. They REALLY think that stupidly simple theory actually applies in the real world. They believe it so much they will follow that ship right to the bottom of the ocean. Only problem with that is they want to take us with them.

bob and his far right wing, extremist, fanatics: Did you catch the news reports today that 70% of the American public are behind the President's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy? 70% and rising! Hey, bob, can you hear the rumble of that train a comin'? It's the sound of the 2012 elections handing the Democrats the largest landslide in American history! Get out of the way, bob. It's running over you.........

Grandma said: It is impossible to believe the Republicans have any interest in what is best for America, only what they think is best for them. When Mitch McConnell said earlier that his #1 priority was to see that President Obama would fail, what makes you think he will propose anything except failure.

Grandma - How can you say that Obama has been anything BUT a failure? Greater unemployment, interest rates on the rise, inflation on the rise, $3.2 Trillion in additional national debt, a divided government, the least transparent government that I've ever seen, his polling numbers falling, additional military action around the globe, not shutting down Gitmo, not pulling out of Iraq, increasing our troops in Afghanistan, always in campaign mode, always making excuses and blaming the other guy, can't take responsibility for anything that occurs, unless it improves his poll numbers.

Collectively, Obama has been the worst president I've ever lived under. He's worse than Jimmy Carter and that's saying something because the real economic news hasn't even begun to trickle in about his failures. Give it 6 months to a year to see the real damage of an Obama presidency. I'm sure he'll find other things/people to blame... He's used everything including the weather....

Now the counter to your reasoning is Bush. I already know it's coming. There again, it's always blame the other guy. When DOES Obama take responsibility for anything? Liberals didn't give Bush ANY credit for anything but ignore all the bad Obama has done to the economy and our way of life.

Please think and use your heads for one second. If you think about it Obama spent way too much money in his first 2 and a half years as POTUS. Most of the money went for "not ready shovel jobs" but it was spent or given away as a form of "paybacks" to his supporters. We are paying to price for his foolish spending now. He doesn't pay for his mistakes we do! The coming generation of American's will always be in debt if Obama gets his way. He will never have enough money as he works without a budget.

Buh was a bad POTUS but Obama is far worst and is going to turn this country into a 3rd world country if we don't get him out of office soon. If the Repubs. take the WH in 2012 and stab the American People in the back the we are through as a nation.

We are a nation that is about to fall from grace and will pay a huge price for Obama's mistakes. If we lose the advantage of the dollar being the measure of value for a barrel of oil we are though.

So, Brianb- you have plenty to castigate ME for in MY opinion-posting, but no words of wisdom for the person I quoted? Interesting.

Patriot,

I am a conservative and I do not need a civics lesson from you, thanks. I am well versed in the several forms of government and the checks and balances available in our government. I am incredibly sick and tired of people such as yourself who want to lump all republicans, tea party members, conservatives, evangelicals, etc. into one big box and paint them as the evil spawn of the devil while placing all democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. into another box labeled virtuous saviors of the planet. I am neither petty, simple-minded nor hateful and couldn't give a sh!t about light bulbs or the president's mother. This whole red state, blue state business is a crock because there are millions of democrats living in those red states who were helped after those disasters and there are millions of republicans living in those blue states that helped them. Get off your high horse. You have no more idea about what I believe than I do about what you believe. I believe in a smaller government that doesn't intrude into our private lives any more than is absolutely necessary. I also believe that anyone that thinks we can fix the deficit without raising taxes is an idiot. I believe that it is more important that the federal government protect the Constitution than it is that they protect my safety. I believe that Cantor's a bafoon and Bachmann's a joke but I also believe that the democratic members of Congress haven't been any more willing to compromise than the republicans. Offering the republican party the same thing over and over again that they have already said is unacceptable without changing what you are offering is not compromise, its political grandstanding to the exact same extent that the republicans are grandstanding.

The only reason the progressives don't like the conservatives rewriting history is because it conflicts with their own revisionist version of history. Neither side presents ALL of the "facts" while trying to make their respective points. Each side chooses to present only those facts that support their position.

joemike -- My post was a general post not directed at any one person including you. But to get specific, how about posts like:

Grandma - How can you say that Obama has been anything BUT a failure? Greater unemployment, interest rates on the rise, inflation on the rise...

or

If you think about it Obama spent way too much money in his first 2 and a half years as POTUS. Most of the money went for "not ready shovel jobs" but it was spent or given away as a form of "paybacks" to his supporters.

These are some incorrect claims from just a few posts above. Will you, a moderate and rational conservative call this out? There is such a thing as facts and actual history, and the right-wing (FOX) makes up stuff far more than the left-wing -- This is documented by PolitiFact, Fact Check, etc. The "two wrongs make a right" is fallacious argumentation. There is always a lessor of two evils.

Brian - Do you know anything about truth? You're a major shrill. You don't debate, you throw out debunked junk.

Greater unemployment, interest rates on the rise, inflation on the rise, $3.2 Trillion in additional national debt, a divided government, the least transparent government that I've ever seen, his polling numbers falling, additional military action around the globe, not shutting down Gitmo, not pulling out of Iraq, increasing our troops in Afghanistan, always in campaign mode, always making excuses and blaming the other guy, can't take responsibility for anything that occurs, unless it improves his poll numbers.

Might just be the biggest bunch of hogwash I have ever seen on here. You just listed the failures of your shrub president. You know, the ones your right wing blinders prevent you from admitting. Name me one thing that Obama has done that is not in DIRECT RESPONSE to the failures of the previous administration that caused our deficit to increase! NAME ONE NOT IN DIRECT RESPONSE

Figures. Go cash your check and shrill on. Stop back by if you ever have an intelligent ORIGINAL thought. Otherwise you're a waste of space and digits if all you can do is lie.

Leaders lead, followers vote present.

Obama has never been a leader. He sued his way to state office, and lied his way to the Presidency.

Since he took office he has spent more money than any other President and produced fewer results than any other president. He looks busy, travels incessantly, campaigning non-stop, as that is all he knows.

A leader would provide specifics. A follower waits until a consensus is reached, and then accepts it as his own. A narcissist takes credit for others work.

I would like to see some newer poll numbers on these issues. Things have changed since February. I'll bet there would be some pretty big differences if the same polls were taken now.

In follow on to my post #1.46 -- You know how people call on the Muslim community to join in the fight against radical Islamists? Same thing applies to Republicans and conservatives like joemike. Start policing the Teavangelical extremists in your Party, or expect to be painted with the same broad brush.

Because that is another difference between the two Parties. The far-left wanted to make a Birther issue of McCain's birth in Panama, but it was squashed by the Democratic leadership (just as the John Birch Society once was squashed by the Republican leadership). So don't start up with the "two wrongs make a right" argument again. The GOP has been hijacked by the Teavangelicals, and you best be getting control of it.

Let's Get Real!

Amy B., Portland, ME

it's called a freakin' democracy,

We are a Rebublic...

We are a Democratic Republic.

The only reason the progressives don't like the conservatives rewriting history is because it conflicts with their own revisionist version of history. Neither side presents ALL of the "facts" while trying to make their respective points. Each side chooses to present only those facts that support their position.

No...we don't like conservatives rewriting history because they're rewriting history.

Here is the "Corporate Jet Loop Hole"

NEWS ALERT: On Dec. 17, President Obama signed legislation that would extend and expand the depreciation bonus through 2012.

The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides 100 percent depreciation bonus for capital investments placed in service after September 8, 2010 through December 31, 2011. For equipment placed in service after December 31, 2011 and through December 31, 2012, the bill provides for 50 percent depreciation bonus. Note: The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which contained 50 percent depreciation bonus, still applies to purchases made between January 1, 2010 through September 7, 2010.

The new law also extends Sec. 179 expensing for taxable years beginning in 2012. In 2012, a taxpayer may expense up to $125,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the year (phase-out threshold of $500,000), indexed for inflation. Note: The Small Business Jobs Act, which increased Sec. 179 expensing levels to $500,000 (phase-out threshold amount is $2 million) for the taxable years beginning in 2010 and 2011, still applies.

Notice it was enacted in 2010. It also affects ANY TYPE of Capitol Investment. A Corporate Jet is a Capitol Investment. SO BLAME OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS for this LOOP HOLE.

Most of the comments from Amy B. are fact based - most of the comments from conservative comentators are ideological, without factual support.

Obama has never been a leader. He sued his way to state office, and lied his way to the Presidency.

WTF are you talking about? If you want to question Obama's leadership, be specific. I think he is doing fine - not super duper, but certainly not as bad as Bush. I think he is doing fairly well, especially given the unprecedented obstruction and idiocy coming from a party whose only goal in government is to make Obama a one term president.

The rest of your post was bull@!$%#.

There is also this--

On the tax side, the stimulus contains an expansion of bonus depreciation, allowing investments in new equipment to be depreciated at a quicker rate for 2009 as well as in 2008. Over the next two years, the measure is expected to help businesses reduce taxes owed by $38 billion.

Notice the 2009 date.

Link for this post---

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/stimulus-house-vote-business_0213_stimulus.html

Link for above post--

http://www.depreciationbonus.org/

First, Grover Norquist has not been elected, he is not in charge of the USA. Why then are the tea baggers obeying him and allowing him to set national policy?

Second, President Obama, if you, or anyone in the Senate, and House, cut one penny from Social Security, Disability, Medicare and medicaid, (Also if they change Social Security such as raise the retirement age, requirements for disability, medicare etc) they will be voted out of office and the next job they will be able to hold down is flipping burgers at McDonalds

Sen. Mitch Mcconnell said this week his highest political goal was to make Obama a one term President. That is the way I see the majority of the Republican Party over the past three years.

When I am behind on my personal budget I not only make sacrifices on my expenses but I also INCREASE my income. I work harder, raise prices, do something to bring more money into my budget. That is common sense American thinking.

Unfortunately trickle down economics has eroded my income gathering abilities to the point where all I can do is stand there and say "WTF". 28 Years of Republican Presidents/14 Years of Democratic Presidents and the only time we came close to a balanced budget was also the same time I made the most money. A normal educated middle class citizen was best off during the Clinton years.

How did that happen? Through budget cuts to entitlements AND tax increases. Common sense. But I and millions of other American citizens see the Grand Old Party blinded by their hate for a man, for our President. Is it bigotry? Is it because he worked hard and became President of the United States from a meager background and understands the common man? Or is it just because of ideological differences? Whatever the reason, the GOP has stopped serving The UNITED States of America and is focused on their own political gains.

IS that the American ideal? The American Way of Life as the GOP says Obama forgot. Focusing on personal gains instead of the common good. That is what I see. Self centered ideology over the betterment of the USA. 3 years into Obama's term and the list of what has to happen to get us back on track is still being debated by the Right and Left. America has seen Obama meet the GOP in the middle dozens of times over the past 3 years. This debt ceiling debate exemplifies the GOP stance. Get Obama out of the White House at ALL costs. That is their political goal while Americans are starving, homeless and losing all hope for the next 10 years of our history.

White Collar Auto,

In an early post on this thread, you ask what exactly did President Obama offer to "bring to the table" in discussions to reduce spending. The answer is simple even for conservatives, One word, EVERYTHING is on the table. Unfortunately, the GOP currently 'hamstrung', in the House, by their masters the Tea Parts, absolutely refuse to negotiate regarding the closing of corporate and personal tax loopholes and raising taxes 3% on those who earn over $250M per year. This much is known by the Dems, GOP and most intelligent and reasonable people, the U.S. debt ceiling must, and WILL be, raised prior to August 2, 2011!

This is what socialist progressives always do when they are caught and must explain themselves,they try to deflect away and never tell the real truth,For example; recently, one of the MSNBC evening guys ran a little bootlicking Obama worship spot, complaining how unfair it was when conservatives, say Obama doesn't LOVE this country,just because everything he has done has caused harm to the nation. " Look at where he is!",the man fawned , "American Exceptionalism!" No, thats not what exceptionalism is. Holding a position is not what makes you exceptional ,it's what You do in the position,and as far as expressing Your ,"LUV", I would suggest, if You ever get married, NEVER say to Your blushing bride, Ya knows I luvs ya baby, but I'm gonna FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE everything about Ya! It will save You a lot of explaining!

Speaking of 'boot-licking' JD- I would highly suggest you lay OFF the shoe polish - what ever brain cells you had functioning have been severely compromised!

Try the Teapublian alternative instead - it tastes like peppermint! ;O)

Oh, and, save your jive talking bull@!$%# for a blog that will tolerate it... K?

This is what is known:

Around $1.5 trillion in spending reductions were agreed to in the Biden negotiation talks. The cuts would come from areas of common ground such as discretionary spending and federal employee pensions and tightening interest deferrals for student loans.

The Democrats want to supplement that with revenue increases to get to the $2 trillion benchmark based on a dollar-for-dollar increase in the debt limit to get through 2012. That would be a 3 to 1, spending cuts-to-revenue deal.

Republicans are adamantly opposed to revenues of any kind or amount. And that’s the impasse. Further complicating the matter is that NEITHER side will put down their deal on paper, at least not yet.

Obama then presented more details of his proposed cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, and Republicans supported what they heard. However, Cantor reiterated GOP opposition to any revenue increases, which continues to be the sticking point to any deal.

What the Republicans are trying to opt for now is to get spending cuts in increments, each time refusing to give on the revenue side, with hopes it will play to their advantage in the 2012 election. That such a “strategery” would hurt the nation’s credit and economic recovery is of no importance to them.

This is the answer to your @#$%&*! question about debt ceiling proposals.

Now, in regard to the particularly venomous hatred toward President Obama, this is where the vague comments come to play. I could write a book about the reasons I dislike Dubya starting with the invasion of Iraq.

What has President Obama done that is so vile to cause this hate -- Shoot JFK, Watergate, cheating on his wife? Or maybe smaller things, like warrant-less wiretaps, or playing politics with the Department of Justice and evangelical White House staff going after lawyers who did not support their agenda. Conservatives, you and your vitriol, YOU be specific and tell us what horrible crimes President Obama has committed.

J.D. - Don't misrepresent. You are referring to an advertisement, not news report. The advertisement is about the Birthers, and how they are douche-bags for claiming the president is un-American. It is about how someone could rise from simple beginnings to become POTUS, which IS exceptionalism.

In follow on to my post #1.62 above, tell us specifically how "everything he has done has caused harm to the nation." Don't just swoop and poop, we want every little detail, and we want it backed up with links to credible sources.

I hear Obama and the Democrats talking about the need for additional revenue in the form of raising taxes. If this is the case then why did the Democrats allow the employee contribution to Social Security to be cut from 6.2% to 4.2% for this year. That is a revenue loss of 2% of almost the entire wage base of the country up to $106,800 per person. I wonder how much revenue that cut cost, it is definitely in the hundreds of billions of dollars!!! Social Security could sure use those fund if you believe all the pundits saying that it is going broke. When the Democrats do something like this and then call for tax increases I find it very disingenuous. The solution to the problem is cutting spending, not raising taxes so the Democrats can spend more. Raising taxes on the "wealthy" right now would kill what meager economic growth we currently have. The Democrats call anyone making over $250,000 a year wealthy. Since that would include most of the small business owners in the country, I can only imagine what raising their taxes would do to job creation. Businesses are already holding huge cash reserves to cover the huge costs associated with the impending implementation of Obamacare. Hitting them with even more taxes is definitely not the answer. I agree that there are some specific loopholes that need to be closed. However, those loopholes, while they make great sound bites, will have little impact on revenue. Many of the "loopholes" are the only things keeping some of these businesses in the US. Raising taxes on business will have one very certain effect, it will drive more businesses out of the US. Any percentage increase in taxes collected on corporate profits will wind up being more than offset by the businesses that flee the US entirely. A smaller percentage of something is always better than a larger percentage of nothing!!!

frostyinalaska
Yeah, and polls showed Sarah Palin improving John McCain's chances of winning the Presidency before the elections. Some of us always knew she was an opportunist and a flake; it just took others longer to figure it out. How's her numbers now?

Rasmussen eh?

Then why does Gallup and other neutral polls have Obama doing much better eh?

Next.

JS in SD -- Dems wanted to do this:

With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code.

What data do you have to prove this would "have little impact on revenue?" Even removing capital gains loopholes for the top 25 hedge fund managers would generate $6 billion in lost revenue. And it all adds up. But more importantly it is about fair taxation.

I don't support everything the president or Democrats do, such as extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% -- though this was done for other concessions. Claims that taxing millionaires would hurt "job creators" is BS. Even much of the richest 2% are doctors, lawyers, and investment bankers who don't create jobs. Also, 57% of tax evasion comes from the self-employed who self-report their income (not subjected to W2 third-party reporting). Just get rid of the tax write-offs and everyone could enjoy lower tax rates.

Furthermore, companies are sitting on piles of cash because of basic supply and demand, not because of the Affordable Health Care Act. I'd support tax cuts if I thought the cut would be an incentive to hire here instead of overseas. But I don't support credits or subsidies for companies off-shoring American jobs, especially while raking in record profits as a result.

Contributions to FICA need to be increased starting with the cap at $106,000. In the meantime, the tax cuts Dems have supported have been for the middle class, and what they believe could help create jobs and stimulate the economy--for the time being to get things going. Not to be made permanent no matter what the economy is like or no matter what expenses we have such as wars.

The Norquist pledge is unconstitutional, and if Michele Bachmann wants a "penetrating investigation" to see which members of congress are anti-American, we could start with that.

Their is a simple way to fix our deficit. Cut spending so that our revenue is even (realism) with the spending. How so?

Well we know that entitlement programs cost about half of our huge budget. The other half is made up of defense, all the federal agencies, and other. Well the only realistic place we could cut would be our entitlement and defense spending. For defense we can only cut about 10%=60 billion. Unless you want us to fall behind in our protection which is possible, but will inevitably lead too downfall.

The next area is our entitlement program. For those who don't know our population is aging making it hard to sustain these programs. And this will lead to us being how we are now.

So how do we fix it?

Well I would suggest something along the lines of Ryan's plan. The eventual phasement out of social security and medicare. Here is the basic gist. We would end the tax for medicare and social security for those who turn 18 and they will basically never pay in or get any out. For those who have just started getting it they will keep getting it until they die. Now here comes the hard part the people between 19-and uhh 67 will get out about how many years they have been paying in. But then you bring up a good point that the poor guy that pays in 3k will only get 3k and that is messed up. Okay there we will still give him what he needs for how many years he has payed in. Say the law passed when he was 45 well he has been paying in for 27 years so he will get out 27 years unless he dies before that. I have to be a little class warfare there. (but nothing is perfect right)

The reason behind it is that people will get as equal as they can with these unequal programs. And in about 2050 we won't have it anymore. I'm sure their is something wrong or something I missed but that can be fixed I just am too young to know so bear with me.

The last question you will ask is well your just going to let the old die if you do that. My "remedy" for that is something like social security. (Got to pick your poison right.) It will be a simple balanced check for each "citizen" say $1000. But the difference between this and social security is that it will be a smaller amount and will be used for only basic things such as food and medicare (like a foodstamp). Another difference is that it will not be for the wealthy (class warfare sorry) and it will be nearly scam proof (dangit forgot how)

That is what I basically think we should do. Phase out medicare/aid and SS. Make a new, cheaper, simpler SS. Someone else figure out the rest. Someone with a little more experience. How this will pass LOL I don't know. Obviously there are other ways. But I believe that this is the best (feasible) compromise possible.

Ps. I'm turning 15 in a week. So please my elders make the right decisions for "us". Leave us the same chance that you had to be great. Like I say your the elders because your supposed to make the right choices. Cough

I am actually in agreement with the Democrats that revenue needs to be increased. I just disagree about where it comes from. The Democrats want to take more from the ones already paying the lion's share while close to half of the working people in this country continue to pay next to nothing.

With that said, I know the rich do pay the most taxes. But I think we should be looking at how much taxes the rich pay relative to their income or investments. Are they paying the same percentage as we are?

That is where the flat tax would level the playing field. Then nobody could complain.

The federal government should stop just giving money to the states. The states have the ability to raise their own money and choose where they spend it. The federal government should be concerned with national defense and international trade. Let the states worry about the rest. I'm pretty sure there would be massive welfare reforms if the federal money stopped flowing! Same thing about public service unions. States are required to have balanced budgets, but they need the federal government to give them money to make that happen. Cut the money off and the crazy spending will stop. We prop up states like NY and CA with federal funds and they just keep asking for more and more. Screw em, let em go bankrupt if they can't handle their money.

I would love to see some of these welfare families get the squeeze! Maybe they would get off their butts and find work. Or, if the states want to keep supporting them, perhaps mandatory work at the recycle plant, picking up trash, planting trees, cleaning our state parks, etc. should be made a condition of receiving welfare. Mandatory drug testing for everyone receiving tax dollars, politicians included!

True Patriot #1.68 wish I could vote for you twice!!

JS in SD The social security tax is not revenue . . . well it is not supposed to be (but that is something that they should definitely stop since those IOU's are part of the debt). Lowering it will only effect later pay outs but this can be addressed at a later time but for now will put more money into consumers hand thereby stimulating the economy.

The 'Deep water drilling' act which reduced taxes & royalities charges on big oil was passed during the Clinton administration...

It was; the Clinton Administration, Dodd, Barney Frank, ACORN(with Obama), etc, etc (ALL Democrats) that were FORCING banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers...

The Ethanol subsidies (almost $7+Billion last year) another DEMOCRAT program, which was EXPANDED 50% from 10 to 15% during the Obama administration...

Why thank You Feisty for reinforcing my point, You see boys and girls, the attempt to deflect from the issue at hand, that being, deflection from the issues at hand. You will notice some of the tried and true leftest tactics,(Why Saul Alinsky himself would be so proud of You Feisty! Bless Your little heart!), which is; instead of answering the questions,(or anything else You don't want to answer), in this case,the one posed so well by Jake Tapper, asking for the specifics of the Presidents plan, the President then rambles on, while saying,.....nothing, and when this is pointed out on the vine or anyplace else You may find Alinskyites,on radio, television,or in a union hall, etc, the attacks begin! personal insults, derision,(one of their favorites!), and attempting to take control,asserting their power, telling You what You can or cannot do,(Now Feisty, does that really work with anybody? Your game is really weak ,better keep practicing),or, demands of Your opponent that they give complete and total details hoping that they will be flustered into forgetting that You Yourself have given none, and are, dare We say it? ,deflecting,(I'll get to You in a minute"True Patriot"), and if nothing else works, You can always collapse the offending interloper of Your rants, and declare keyboard victory! Yup, nothing like that First Amendment and the free and open exchange of ideas eh guys ? Now,as for You, "True Patriot", You refer to that little, what most would call, Propaganda Piece as an "Advertisement",O.K., exactly what was it,(appears to me to be a basically political statement favoring a candidate, made on public airways), "Advertising" ?, Now that could easily fall under the category" political announcement" favoring a specific candidate,and if so, Who paid for it ?, My, Oh, My! don't tell me We could have an F.E.C. violation here!Why, I do believe there was an entire series of such spots! That could really get costly!and to further expound upon your point regarding the exceptionalism of making it to President,if all You have to do is "get there", I am sure that You also hold President Bush in the same high regard as President Obama, You just mis-stroked in Your disrespectful comments towards him, I will also pass on regurgitating the laundry list of miserable economic statistic this Administration has amassed,(just read the Cloward and Piven Strategy if You are not already familiar with it), I will even pass on the problems I have with attacking and starting wars with other sovereign nations that had not attacked us, and focus instead on the smuggling of automatic weapons into foreign countries, to give to anti government forces there, without the knowledge of anyone in those country's Government's. This is particularly disturbing when You consider the open hostility President Obama showed to the Government of Honduras in the early days of his Administration, when the the People and Courts, defended their Government and Constitution from an attempted takeover by a radical leftest, and then Obama and Clinton went so far as imposing economic sanctions on that lawful Government when they would not give the leftest their way!,Do You really expect the American People to believe, the smuggling of thousands of automatic weapons, and who knows what else, into those countries, without anyone in those country's knowledge, (except the anti-Government forces the weapons were going to), to be a "Law Enforcement" Operation? This could go on all night, but that's enough for now, I think You get my point.

Todd-651965

I would love to see some of these welfare families get the squeeze! Maybe they would get off their butts and find work. Or, if the states want to keep supporting them, perhaps mandatory work at the recycle plant, picking up trash, planting trees, cleaning our state parks, etc. should be made a condition of receiving welfare. Mandatory drug testing for everyone receiving tax dollars, politicians included!

That is exactly what the Clinton reform was; he called it welfare to workfare. People worked doing some of the exact things you mentioned while also getting job counseling to help them find jobs.

States like CA and NY and almost all "blue states" pay more in federal taxes then they receive back and the exact opposite is true for historically "red states". So who exactly is propping up who?

I was not a Clinton fan, but I did really like his welfare reform plan. Too bad we didn't have the balls to keep it. I'm tired of driving home past the public housing areas and trailer parks seeing a bunch of people sitting around drinking beer at my expense.

I'm not going to specify what state does what. I say the fed should give NO money to the states to support state programs. I'll give in to stuff like interstate highways and rails, but no federal money should be used for state responsibilities like unemployment, education, and welfare. I strongly support mandatory work and/or job training for anyone drawing public assistance.

I don't like the word "Entitlement". To me, you are only entitled to something you have earned. When I retire from the Army, I will have earned my "Entitlement" pension. Because I'm too lazy, uneducated, too many kids, prison record, etc, and can't find a job, who would I be "Entitled" to a welfare check? If you work in the recycling center, you are entitled to a paycheck. Working brings pride, pride feeds the soul.

NBC polls are as valid as GE polls. Owned by the same.

@Slodon you are misinformed sir (to be polite). That provision is for commercial and private aircraft, the loophole Obama was targeting was specifically for private business aircraft. The actual loophole that Obama wants to remove was enacted in 1987, when he was still a community organizer in Chicago.

The way you cons come online and spread misinfomation, you would think everyone would know to just support the opposite position (and most are starting to understand just that). We are all so impressed with the "notice the date" statements on your "facts", but we also remember the crap cons were stuffing in the unemployment extension legislation and how they held it hostage to secure outright tax cuts as well for themselves and their corporate friends.

Todd, I agree that people should not just sit around. But you don't now what those peoples particular situation really are. Do they have serious medical issues? Do they want to live a simple lifestyle and are not on entitlements? Are they not able to find a living wage in our predatory capitalistic system? Many people have been displaced over the past decade because good paying jobs have been shipped overseas and the education system has become a money grubbing scam. I don't now either.

As you are angry at the your projected or perceived vision of who these people are I could just as easily think we don't need as many people in the military. As an educated PhD I could think people like you are (insert projected derogatory remark), support the destruction of the environment and can only achieve killing people. But I know that is a stupid, selfish and narcissistic way of thinking. Putting other people down is only a way of propping yourself up above another human being. We are in this all together and it takes ALL types of people. No one gets out of here alive and we are all staring face to face with that FACT.

I would hope someone in the military would have both the ability to protect our country which is a great honor and difficult job AND protect even the weakest of our citizens whomever they may be. God Bless our country in these difficult days of pride and anguish.

J.D. Still -- Please read other posts instead of swooping and pooping. Please see my post #1.62 above,with no "attempt to deflect from the issue" there. If you want to see deflection:

Former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who heads the conservative American Action Network, said McConnell is right about the political consequences of default. “If default pushes us over the brink, then all of a sudden Republicans will get the blame even though Obama put us in this position,’’ he said.

And this:

Republican pollster David Winston, who has advised House and Senate leaders for the past decade, argued that the Democratic party is just as likely to suffer political costs because of Obama’s insistence on a “poison pill’’ of tax increases in the deal.

"Obama put us in this position." Really? You didn't put yourself in this position by demanding a dollar-to-dollar reduction in the debt based on spending cuts alone in order to raise the debt ceiling? You didn't swallow that "poison pill" of tax increases yourself with thatunconstitutional pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist? Seriously?

Oh sure, you thought how successful the last threat to shut down the government went. It's like a kid making such an embarrassing scene in the grocery store so the parent will buy the candy bar. Hey, it worked last time, and you can always make a bigger scene this time if you need to, right? I can see why President Obama treats congress, especially the Republicans like kids.

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: We've said that we are willing to look at all those approaches.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I'm not going to get into specifics."

Getting any details of what he would do is like trying to grab hold of soft, runny Jello. It slip right through you hands. No wonder the Republicans are frustrated, Obama talks about "Everything is negotiable", but he won't agree to anything when it comes to any REAL spending cuts.

The Republicans should just pass their own legislation in the House authorizing a short-term increase in the limit in return for short term spending cuts, and dare the Democrats in the Senate and the President to reject it.

The poll was taken back in Feb by MBC/WSJ. It would be interesting to see the numbers if taken now by a non-partisan group. I bet the number would be very different 5 months later.

Roy, have you ever asked yourself if the talking points you spew are helping the conversation? All day long nearly everyday we watch the influx of cons come in and repeat the same 2 or 3 lines nearly word for word, ignoring that the same "question" or "point" has already been discussed multiple times. Just like when you were all trying to convince America that our President was not an American you were all screaming in unison "where's the birth certificate". When you were shown the birth certificate you all continued to scream the same line as if it had never been shown, even now that your handlers think they've gotten the most out of that lie there are still some of you trying to breathe new life into the conspiracy.

What do cons have to be proud of in the current environment? Every one of the GOP have broken their oath to serve the people in favor of their pledge to Grover. Everything the GOP has done since 2008 has been to hurt Obama at any cost. Every time your kind come here to "debate" something you ignore what people say and spew talking points. Perhaps you could find some positive way to contribute to the country, instead of this "burn the place down" approach because you don't like Obama for whatever reason you are claiming today.

In the Biden negotiations, the Democrats agreed to about $1.5 Trillion in cuts, but then started asking for tax increases in return for more cuts.

The Republicans should just give a dollar for dollar increase in the debt limit in return for those spending cuts agreed to with Biden, and then pass a short term bill in the House, saying "This is what we previously agreed to", and dare the Democrats and Obama to reject it. Then the onus will be on Obama and the Democrats if we default on the debt.

Of course, Obama would hate this, because it would mean the issue would be revisited again before the election, unless Obama really DOES make the cuts in the near term. It should be interesting to see what bill the House votes on next week.

Thinknaboutit

If you don't like the 'solution' I suggested, what is your plan - other than to criticize. That's what's wrong about this whole debate - The Republicans offer a plan, and the Democrats just say what they think is wrong with the plan, but never offer a counter-proposal, other than "We want more tax money to spend".

PS - I'm not a Republican, a 'Tea Partier', or a 'Birther', but I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

Roy you can claim to be whatever you want, your constant posting of lies is neither conservative nor moderate.

You cons claim raising taxes will kill jobs, where is your proof? What makes you think increased revenue will necessarily kill any jobs? At the same time you cons claim that cutting spending is the only thing you will vote for, while obviously cutting spending will kill jobs. Cuts in the federal budget will kill many more jobs immediately than any tax hike or loopholes cut.

Democrats want a balanced approach with cuts and revenue increases. Since the wealthy have recovered and are sitting on trillions of extra money their recession is over raise their taxes. Where are the jobs we were promised they would create for lower taxes.... nonexistent because they lied.

Apparently cons/social moderates/republicans/teapartiers lack common sense and should not be allowed to sit at the table when our nations welfare is at stake, let them all go hang out with their buddy Grover and make blood pacts that are counter productive for the welfare of the people of the United States.

Ohh boy, more references to every Democrat's new favorite whipping boy "private jet owners."

Someone like Obama ought to know as well as anyone that these aircraft are tools that large businesses need to operate. They save time, and time is money.

Furthermore, why harp so much on private jets? They are one of the few things we actually still make in America, all you buy USA people out there.

Cessna, which produces not only small prop planes, but also the popular the Citation series of Private Jets. Cessna was started in, and is still headquartered in, Witchita Kansas. At that facility alone it employs 8000 americans.

Learjet, now an owned subsidiary of the Candian Bombardier, is also built by Americans in Witchita Kansas.

Infact Witchita is still today the Headquarters for Hawker Beechcraft, and Spirit Aerosystems (who builds the fuselage and other parts for several Boeing and Airbus commercial airliners).

Then there is Gulfstream, whom makes possibly the most sought after private jets in the world, was a splitoff of Grumman Aviation, and is Headquatered in Savannah, Georgia.

So yes, lets harp on an industry that produces its products in America, and gives Americans Jobs, just because we all (my self very much included) can't afford to ride on one much less own one.

Who are you???? Really???? I Know you are not trying to support not taxing the upper income and anyone who is not paying taxes. 51% of American households pay no taxes. 66% receive some form of government assistance, State or Federal. If everyone pay their fair share would we be in this debt crisis??????. I call on all you independent party members to help fix this system and vote for anything that will fix this debt problem. Forget about who is in office because if you vote out Obama we will only replace him with the same fools who got use into this in the first place. So now we have the opportunity to fix this mess now. Changing parties or Presidents want fix it. Common sense will. It's not rocket science. Obama and all the government leaders from both parties will do what we tell them if we stop being Democrats and republican for just long enough to fix the American faulty system of government and finance. Forget Obama, he is just one man and will leave sooner or latter. He will be replaced by another man or woman, and if we don't support that man or woman like Obama, Then we will continue down this road of self destruction. We don't need a new President or or government system, just get rid of the political parties interfering in their day to day operations. It's not about politics, It's about getting the job done for the America people. " Support your President", and your government, and get rid of all political parties and we will have change for the future of America. "War Fighter Out""HOOAH"

Everyone on here is bitching back and forth and offering no ideas. Do you all think you're in congress or something ?

I have a few ideas I believe are common sense and would be a good starting place to begin to straighten some of our problems out.

1. Raise the tax cap on SS from $120,000 to $400,000. This would increase revenue into SS & Medicaid without causing cuts.

2. Means test SS benefits. If your retirement income is over $100,000 do you really need the $1,800 a month that a good number of SS recipeints need to live on ?

3. Cut ALL federal budgets by 2.5 to 5% for ten years. Attrition would take care of most of this due to federal employees either quitting, dying, or retiring. In ten years the government woud be at least 25% smaller.

4. Immediately stop ALL foreign aid to every country and the "foreign aid" programs here at home like the $100,000 intrest free loans to refugees. The payouts to foreign nations would save us trillions and the elimination of the domestic foreign aid might mean Americans actually owning convienience stores again.

5. A ten year ban on earmarks, automatically renewable every ten years unless specifically voted on as a seperate issue by congress. Once the earmark mentality is broken and the realization of how much they save is seen it would be political suicide to vote for reinstating them. The requirement that it be voted on as a seprate item would reveal to all who voted which way.

6. Bring our troops home from Iraq & A'stan and rotate them to our southern border. Since they have sworn to defend our constitution from all enemies both froeign and domestic, anyone attempting to cross into our country ILLEGALLY is considered an enemy and should be stopped by whatever means necessary.

There, here are six ideas for a solution to some of the problems we are facing. No bitching, no bickering, no name calling, no party stratigizing. Just some plain, simple ideas that one might think our supposedly educated members of congress could have come up with if they weren't so busy worrying about who might get the credit if a good idea is brought up. They need to be working on this country's financial problems and not the next election. They are all guilty of DERELECTION OF DUTY for placing the importance of their reelection before the good of this country.

This isn't the first time I have seen this arguement.

Raise the cap on contributions for Social Security, and then tell those people you are now taking more money away from that they are ineligable to recieve any of that money back at any time.

Sounds to me like the program cannot pay for itself just from contributions made by the taxpayers, and therefore if you need to "take from the rich" and then tell them they don't need anything back in return, it is an entitlement for those who collect from it.

Amused in the Midwest said: You just listed the failures of your shrub president. You know, the ones your right wing blinders prevent you from admitting. Name me one thing that Obama has done that is not in DIRECT RESPONSE to the failures of the previous administration that caused our deficit to increase! NAME ONE NOT IN DIRECT RESPONSE

Amused - it sounds to me like you are a little pissed off and ready to blame everyone but Obama for his immense failures. I know you don't like hearing it because you have opted in to make Obama your messiah.

Name one not in direct response? How about castigating the democrats for their failures? Our economy started tanking in 07. Who took over Congress in 07? It wasn't the republicans. That was 2 years before Obama became president. I suppose you feel that ordering up $1.3 Trillion in stimulus and porkulus money was a good thing? How was money managed? Where did it go? It went to fund temporary job stays for local governments. It went to pay back the unions for their support. It went to the trash pile of history. It didn't achieve the intended goals at all by Obama's admission. Didn't you hear it when he said that the shovel ready jobs weren't there? As he laughed... So, $1.3 Trillion was for what?

Start paying attention. Snap out of your partisan/liberal mode for a few minutes. You might never go back when you have your ephipany. Liberals like yourself only see one side... start thinking for yourself, please do us all a favor, put your pride aside and come to grips with the fact that Obama is a tyrant. His true colors are shining brightly now.

I know Hiap, we should just go back to putting the poor elderly on icebergs so they can't drain money away from those fortunate enough to be able to pay for their own outrageous nursing home bills. Actually, I think that is why they keep telling us that the earth is getting warmer, so we will think there aren't any icebergs left to put the elderly on anymore. Heck, that system worked for the eskimos!

(all sarcasm intended)

Stimulus Spending -Aid to People Affected by Economic Downturn $36,910,807,000

Aid to State and Local Governments $58,355,000,000

Education $48,420,000,000

Energy $41,400,000,000

Health Care $18,830,000,000

Transportation and Infrastructure $98,325,000,000

Stimulus Tax Cuts -Tax Relief for Individuals $246,869,000,000

Tax Incentives for Businesses $6,150,000,000

Business $3,540,000,000

Other Tax Relief $6,858,000,000

Infrastructure Financing Tools $19,350,000,000

Renewable Energy Tax Credits $19,968,000,000

Aid to State and Local Governments $95,136,000,000

Health Care $20,352,000,000

Aid to People Affected by the Economic Downturn $62,310,000,000

The stimulus bill was both Republican and Democratic philosophies. And each say it did not go far enough. Republicans wanted deeper tax cuts and Democrats wanted more spending. So why can't WE THE PEOPLE get that type of bi-partisan governmental policy right now. Ask yourself what the real goal of the GOP is. It has nothing to do with helping the country and everything to do with the 2012 general election. Political ideology over doing the right thing... If Obama makes cuts he will take a political hit, so why shouldn't Republicans be in the same boat for the long term betterment of our economy.

I say we need a big 4 trillion dollar package before Sept 1st.

davidscameracraft said: Ask yourself what the real goal of the GOP is. It has nothing to do with helping the country and everything to do with the 2012 general election. Political ideology over doing the right thing...

Early on the GOP vowed to not increase taxes on anyone. They won't accept any deal with increased taxes. While you may think this is for political gain, how about stepping back and looking at the real reason.

History has proven the democrats to be at fault for renigging on any promise of decreased spending while raising taxes. Reagan got burned by it. Bush 1 got burned by it. Now that the republicans are holding strong, every liberal and democrat is angry about it. They lash out at the republicans for what is referred to as political gain. How about holding fast so the country doesn't get burned again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I can just hear all the squawking now. That's no real reason... the GOP is just playing games... anything to try to put them down for holding fast. The democrats need to realize that just because they want to raise taxes, the GOP doesn't have to accept it.

Once again Newsvine stops being "A Place to Get Smarter". And becomes an emotive uninformed opinion blog and popularity contest (votes, collapsed by community, etc.).

Anyway The United States of America IS A REPUBLIC, in writing:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

During the establishment of the United States of America the Founding Fathers believed that a Democracy was "Mob Rule". As to why the United States was established as a Constitutional Republic (NOT a Democracy). This was the same arguement used later with the Establishment of the Electoral College, "the average US Citizen is too ignorant to decide the highest Offices of the Land, President and Vice President of the United States of America".

All of you keep thinking that there is a difference between Demoncraps, Repugnants, In Depends (Adult Diapers).

Sorry, Politicians' Dance Cards Are Full

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/21/ftn/main6228685.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea

The Price Tag Of Politics

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228712n&tag=related;photovideo

Most of you claim that the Repugnants back the "Rich" and you do not even bother to research who "Mr. Corporate America" is. In 2010 he Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court on "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions" and admitted he violated the US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. For the US Supreme Court to Rule otherwise would have invalidated the 2008-2009 Elections.

This allowed President Obama to get $1 Billion USDs in "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions" from the Health Care Reform Act.

Unlikely ally of health care reform: business
Insurers, drug companies came on board early and may profit from it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35989945/ns/business-us_business/

Also PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal".

The Insurance Industry gets $67 Billion, the Medical Device Industry gets $20 Billion, and the Pharmashuetical Industry gets $23 Billion and the US Citizens get the Bill for 1.7 Trillion USDs (adjusted for Inflation, 2.1 Trillion USDs). Reference President Obama's "THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL February 22, 2010" that was included by US Congress into the Health Care Reform Act.

So instead of Real Universal Health Care, like what President FDR implemented and what Senator Kennedy wanted for All US Citizens by getting the Insurance Corporations out of the Medical Profession and US Citizens getting Unlimited Medical Treatments for $42 we got the bill of $1.7 Trillion USDs to pay for President Obama's Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions.

Decreases cost 80% (last part of video) by Doctor David Ores, New York.1:45

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5247963n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

So all of you stop worshipping the Self Serving Professional Politicians of any Political Party (note: I have long lists for President Obama, President Bush (43), President Clinton (42), President Bush (41), etc. of all the corrupt crap the pulled on the US Citizens.

The solutions for the current situation(s):

1. Reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Acts. (Details I posted in other Newsvine Topics).

2. Eliminate the Free Trade Agreements and Amendments and create Fair Trade Agreements.

3. Conduct a larger scale version of President Eisenhower's successful Operation Wetback to apprehend and deport the over 23 Million Illegal Aliens (loyal citizens of another Nation) at the US as the known previous and current National Security Threat. This opens up the low pay, entry level, etc. jobs previously occupied by the Teenagers of US Citizens, this category of Unemployment is 42%. This would temporarily suspend those US Laws preventing the US Military (Federal Active) from being used within the US.

4. Mandatory Compulsory US Military Service (to get the 92% of US Citizens that have never served in the US Military, ready for the future Wars, instead of constantly relying on the 1% of US Citizens.). As reflected by the President Obama April 2009 Defense Budget Cuts the Mandatory Compulsory US Military Service would be into the US Military Ground Combat Forces (US Army, USMC) and not the USAF and USN that were cut by President Obama's April 2009 Defense Budget Cuts. No exemptions, no waivers, no deferments, etc.. This would make all US Citizens think more than twice about the US getting involved Militarily anywhere.

5. Cut the US Military Defense Budget by 50% by getting rid of the millions of expensive US Civilians employed by the US Military and replacing them like it was before with cheaper US Military Personnel. This also would make the US Military Personnel stronger like it was before the previous Reductions In Force of the US Military that created the niches for the expensive US Civilian Contractors, as the US Military Personnel can be also used as Combatants, that the US Civilians cannot be, and the US Civilians require either US Military Personnel or very expensive US Security Contractors for their personal security. The thousands of US Civilians do NOT belong at Nations that have continuing Hostilities, like Iraq and Afghanistan (President Obama's US Civilian Surge, August 2009).

6. Implement and enforce a Federal Law, similar to California Proposition 187, making non US Citizens not eligable for US Taxpayer paid Public Assistance. Implement a US Law, similar to President Bush's 2006 Illegal Alien Act (apprehensions and deportations, not the watered down version of US Congress of amnesty, no more free Public Education, Health Care, etc. for Illegal Aliens). example: 2004 California spent over $10 Billion on Illegal Aliens $7.7 Billion USDs on Education for Illegal Aliens, $1.4 Billion USDs on Illegal Aliens Health Care, $1.4 Billion on Illegal Aliens in Prisons; the Billions spent on Illegal Aliens Public Assistance (of some form) is not included in the over $10 Billion spent on Illegal Aliens each year of the California yearly Budget of $85 Billion USDs. In 2009 over $20 Billion was spent on Illegal Aliens Education, Health Care, Prison with the California Budget decreasing due to Illegal Aliens NOT paying Taxes to $80 Billion USDs. In 2010 over $25 Billion was spent on Illegal Aliens Education, Health Care, Prison, as more States created and enforced Laws against Illegal Aliens, with Illegal Aliens running to California resulting in the California Budget further decreasing to $79 Billion as Illegal Aliens do not fill out Employer Paperwork (withholding for State, Federal taxes (Felony Criminal Tax Evasion), deductions for Medical Dental Vision, deductions for Social Security, etc.) as Employer Paperwork is used by ICE to determine which Businesses to get Search Warrants to Raid. This would stop California begging for Federal Funds (from the US Budget).

There is a lot more researched solutions as posted on other Newsvine Topics.

add to post #1.95.

7. Implement President FDR's Universal Health Care for All US Citizens, by eliminating the Insurance Corporations from the Medical Profession, US Citizens pay $42 for Unlimited Medical Treatments. The Insurance Corporations would be eliminated out of managing Medicare and padding their costs to make profits of $17 to $18 Billion USDs per year (reference President Obama, Face the Nation, September 20, 2009).

8. Eventual changes to the US Political Process. US Representatives are selected at random like Jury Duty (a Civic Duty), Term Limits, paid a average of Middle Class, Votes of No Confidence, Benefits like US Military that end after Service, etc.. Using US Technology (similar to secure electronic banking), eventual "One for One" Voting on all issues.

I must really be tired (forgetting things).

add to post #1.96.

9. US Congress pays back all the Money that the took from the US Citizens' Contributory Funds of Social Security and Medicare. THESE ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS. Any Politician that claims that these are Entitlements are those crooks that have no intent of putting the money that they stole from the US Citizens back into these US Citizen Contributory Funds.

Fun fact time!

America is not a democracy.

America is not a republic.

America is a democratic republic, incorporating aspects of both systems. The founding fathers found that both systems implemented as pure forms, fail. They examined historical examples of both and found that, while both had very positive aspects, both also had aspects that contribute to their eventual failure. Part of their genius was to incorporate the best aspects of both into a single system so that the bad aspects of both would cancel each other out. They also feared that a two party system would eventually ruin the whole thing . . . go figure.

Back to you, Chet.

I think the deficit ceiling is really in question, we need to sincerely look at how much we want to spend and owe others in the future. I don't see the country leaving the tax issue alone, all of us suffer when the corporations are taxed we all pay. Who do you think will make up the difference when the corporations are taxed at a higher rate? Our tax system needs revision, loop holes etc. and the rates are ridiculous especially for those who are small businesses. When doctors file for medicare or Medicaid they charge us for a filing fee because they are charged a fee. I would be for raising the debt ceiling with a provision for changes or revisions in how people and corporations are taxed and how the spending is dealt to others, not just taxes and cutting programs that are in place.

David, I agree to mandatory conscription if it includes women the same age as the men. The sole excemption for women who are pregnant. However there is a work around for military couples who have children. Women already in the military would be granted maternity leave. I do not want a pregnant woman in a combat situation.

I am ready for women in combat if they can do the same obstacle course as the men without any adjustment for gender. If both genders are called upon to fight and die in combat, it may make the country more careful about getting into wars in the first place. Obviously a couple with children would have to rotate times in combat and noncombat jobs.

It is time for the President to step back. He is just muddying the waters by being so involved in the debate and that is not his job. It is up to Congress to solve this. It is up to the President to accept or veto their solution. Just tell them: "Hey, you all know what is the deadline. Present a plan before that time or I will invoke the 14th Article and I will decide what and who gets cut. Go back and do your job. I will be waiting for your call." Instead, he is up to his ears in threats: If you do this, I will veto it. If you do that, no SS checks will get sent out. If you don't compromise, I will tell on you to the American people. I do not think that the President is part of the solution anymore. He is part of the problem. He wants to be seen as the great diplomat, but is using the American elderly and disabled as bait. Enough already!! Whatever is going to happen will happen. We will survive because that is what Americans do. Where has all the articles gone about our Congress and President accepting contributions from foreign nationals? One article and it all but disappears from the news? What's up with that?

Well Mark, I used a poll yesterday that was from January and the regulars here jumped all over me. Why not go out and conduct another poll? I believe that the American public is a little more informed now than they were in February. Pretty good chance those numbers have changed. (Except of course for the tax the rich #, most people aren't rich so that number will always be high.)

-- Cutting funding for the new health-care law so that parts of it will not be put into effect or enforced: 51% acceptable

What do you think that percentage might be now?....in a new poll?

White Collar Auto
Except of course for the tax the rich #, most people aren't rich so that number will always be high

Oh, WCA, the irony. Wanna hear something even more ironic? The 2% of the country that make up the "rich" feel the exact way about the middle class. The rich aren't the middle class so they (the rich) vote for us (the middle class) to pay more taxes and cover their realestate/stock market gambling debts.

Difference is somehow, someway the rich (though they are a super minority) get what they want. How do you suppose that is?

I also have a feeling that the % for the question about changing Social Security into a voucher program wouldn't be as high in a new poll as it is in this one. Ask Paul Ryan how it seems to have gone off a cliff.

Thanks Mark!

There is a certain element around here who will NEVER be satisfied! ;o)

I would direct WCA to the latest Quinepeac (sp?) for how America really feels about the debt debate... oh WAIT that wouldn't fit his narrative! lol

Must suck to always be on the losing end of the argument..

PS: Not sure why no one could find the specific poll you were pushing WCA? Coincidence?

Cutting the ACA out completely has been close to 65% for as long as I can remember. The real costs have been very short on specifics since it became law. Who's to worry about it since most of it won't come out until 2013... just after the next election.

Polls change like the wind... there's a lot of variables in polls. Just the way the questions are asked can effect the results of a poll. Like this:

Do you support the ACA since it may give you the ability to get health care insurance for free

Do you support the ACA since it gives some Americans the ability to get health care insurance for free.

Imagine the range of positives in a wording change of the question. Each question says the same thing, but the way it's worded is completely different.

That's why I never trust polls. The only true poll is at the election box. Well, I say that... depends on how much tampering occurs.

How many of you actually believe any poll?

Most polls are conducted by sampling 1000 to 1500 people. How does anybody think you can get an accurate view of the total population based on 1500 people?

Feisty, good to see that party in St. Louis is paying off for you.

Envy is not a GOOD look for you WCA! ;o)

Feisty:

Now remember, White Collar is NOT jealous!

lol

Ohh Ohh Ohhh- You guys got ice cream cones, and I didn't! I'M TELLING!!

You sure can figure out which posters were always picked last for the gym teams Nash! lmao!

What a sensitive & indignant bunch of 'girly' men we have around here these day...

Oh well, watching the teeth gnashing IS entertaining as hell...

Now - I got that *popcorn* with cheese you were requesting! ;o)

Bryan,

ACA: Actually only 34% want to repeal all of it while 23% desire to repeal parts of it.

Another 42% want to either let it stand or expand it.

As usual Feisty, attack, attack, attack. Truth is you couldn't get into most of the places I go or have done many of things that I have done.

It's going to be hot and sunny here in Detroit this weekend and I am off to enjoy some golf and the great weather. I am sure you will be hanging with baited breath around this board all weekend to let go a snark whenever you can.

Hope you have a fun filled wekend.

Truth is you couldn't get into most of the places I go or have done many of things that I have done.

WHOA!

Now you're a psychic to boot!

WHO KNEW!

You wingers really are the jack of all trades and master of NONE!

Enjoy your golf game!

Good empirical methodology and survey research is based on things like proper construction of questions, asking the same question different ways to test for consistency of answer, and most of all having a large and representative sample size. Better yet is to take an average of several credible polls, and you'll have a decent reflection of opinion.

When the above is done, we find support for the Affordable Health Care Act goes up--a lot. Likewise, the majority will favor pro-choice not anti-abortion laws, especially when you drill down to cases of extreme deformity, the mother's life being at risk, etc. But even in the most skewed of surveys, the majority of the American people do NOT support an end to trust fund benefits (Social Security/Medicare) and DO support tax reform that would require the rich to pay a fairer share in taxes.

Right now the majority supports debt reduction that includes some amount of revenue. And the percentage of people who don't want the debt ceiling raised at all are a very small minority (TeaVangelicals) in the Republican Party who get their information from unreliable sources of information, for example Michele Bachmann.

Current positions in the GOP/TP such as Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare, refusing to end loopholes, and playing chicken with our credit and economy is not going to get Republicans reelected.

Actually Dennis then 57% want either all or parts of the HCA repealed. Pretty big majority over the 42% wouldn't you say.

Ben,

Cut it any way that makes you feel good.

I was just stating that Bryan overstated the percentage
that want to defund the entire law.

Dennis said:

Bryan,

ACA: Actually only 34% want to repeal all of it while 23% desire to repeal parts of it.

Another 42% want to either let it stand or expand it.

First Dennis, my name is Brian, not Bryan. You have made the same mistake several times. Not sure if the i looks like a y to you, and if it does, forgive any inert meaning that you can't distinguish the difference.

It depends on what polling data you are looking at. I have a tendency to trust Rassmussen a bit more than the others, only because it is the most accurate when it comes to election results. Rassmussen has the public at a 65% against the ACA. I do realize other polls have it closer to your numbers, but like I said, it depends on who you choose to listen to.

Seems that most are forgetting what happened during the passage of the FY2011 budget earlier. Everyone wanted their own special programs left untouched but were more than willing to to hack away at everyone elses sacred cows.

Seems that the most balanced approach would be to raise FICA taxes accross the board to maintain a semblence of solvency of medicare and SS and cut, really cut All OTHER PROGRAMS (except veteren assistance) by a given % to obtain a sustainable path to dbet reduction.

Why leave veterens benifts alone? Who has been asked more by America for sacrifice to keep us free!

Brian,

Sorry … I worked for a VP that spelled it with a “y”, just habit.

The Rasmussen Poll doesn’t offer any breakdown it is just repeal or not. If you add the first 2 percentages they come to 57% which is close to the percent you stated.

I would like to see some newer poll numbers on these issues. Things have changed since February. I'll bet there would be some pretty big differences if the same polls were taken now.

Dennis, I agree. More than the numbers, it's the amount over 50%. That would suggest that more Americans are against the ACA than are for it. I have my specific reasons for being against it. If I don't have health insurance, the government will force me to buy it or face fines. To me that smacks of tyranny. The federal government should never force anyone to buy anything. It's unconstitutional. To me that's a no brainer.

To the people saying that the democrats are not willing to compromise, I point out that they come to the table already compromising. They start at the middle expecting that the republicans will also come with something in the middle that everyone can agree on. But the republicans won't give anything!!!They make pledges to special interests and hold to that pledge rather than the pledge they took in office to do what is best for their constituents and this country.

Brianb, your argument against the mandate is an argument for a single payer system. You say you don't want to be forced to purchase health insurance. You don't say you think that the US Government shouldn't act in the best interest of the general welfare of its citizenry. Which healthcare certainly is. It is in the best interest of this country to have the citizens healthy and productive. It is in the best interest of the country that disease is caught early and not spread throughout the populace. It is in the best interest of the country that woman obtain pre-natal care and that babies receive post natal care so that they actual grow to adulthood. It is in the best interest of the country that people who are sick do not have to choose healthcare or rent and food because starving homeless people are not good for this country. So with that being said it is clear that this country needs healthcare for all. The question then is how do we get there. Do we do like some other countries and raise taxes and cover everyone? Do we have medicare for all where like now all working people pay in, they would have to make changes so parents could pay in for their kids (kind of like people pay premiums to insurance companies) and like now continue to pay once you retire, and like now people that could not afford it would be subsidized or get medicaid? Or do you think we should continue the way we are now that if you can afford it you get great care and if you can't and don't qualify for medicaid you get to die?

Rassmussen has the public at a 65% against the ACA.

Nowhere in Rasmussen poll has there been a 65% favor repeal for the Health Care Bill. Presently they have 53% for repeal and the highest they list was 63% in May 22-23 of last year.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

The problem with Rasmussen is they are tied to FOX which I believe slants it polls to the Conservative side. USA Today and Gallup polls showed a 49-40 percent favor of HCB in March 2010. By contrast Rasmussen showed a 55% -40% against the bill at the same time and has consistently been around those number to date. Who's right?? I guess it depends on who you call which is why I always disagree with polls of a political nature like the HCB.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201011050013

Could it be that FOX is paying Rasmussen to slant their polls against the HCB?? It's odd that no one else is conducting polls on the HCB except Rasmussen but I did find an article dated Jan 2011 that stated that opposition was diminishing against the HCB just when the Republicans took over control of the house and were threatening to repeal the HCB..

The federal government should never force anyone to buy anything. It's unconstitutional. To me that's a no brainer.

The government is always making you buy things. Auto license, drivers license, fishing license, building permits, passports, etc.

You people against health care reform probably have your own personal reason more likely political but I have another way to look at it. The people that run up hospital bills and don't pay puts the burden on people like me that does have health care coverage. If everyone bought health care coverage the cost of hospitalization might not have gotten so high but as it is they have to charge more to those that can pay to offset the lost of those that can't pay. This makes the insurance companies pay more which causes my rates to go up. I have too much to lose by not having coverage so if I have to pay for coverage, so should everyone else.

Realistically, the health care reform can work if they would get together and iron out the bugs in the plan. Republicans won't work with the Democrats to improve the bill but what else is new? They can't even agree on a budget.

Ben-636050

Actually Dennis then 57% want either all or parts of the HCA repealed. Pretty big majority over the 42% wouldn't you say.

What a spin. Let me try my hand at it. Actually 65% want all or part of the HCA to stay. Pretty big majority over the 34% that want it repealed.

Larry, the state governments make you buy those things. The passport is an option because you really don't HAVE to leave the country (or come back in). The federal government shouldn't require you to purchase something only they are selling, with no other option other than not purchase it and pay a fine. Kind of like a federal tax on breathing air.

Todd, actually it is not something only they are selling. In fact since there is no public option the government is not selling anything at all. This is unfortunate since that is something that might actually lower our premiums. Competition in the free market would be a way for cost control without the conservative dreaded regulations. Then the people that would like to pay the insurance companies their ever increasing premiums can (It's not like premiums only started being increased in 2009-they have been for decades which is why there is a need for reform now) and others can choose to purchase affordable care from the government. Isn't that the exact idea of the free market that the conservatives talk about?

Larry said:

The federal government should never force anyone to buy anything. It's unconstitutional. To me that's a no brainer. (My words)

The government is always making you buy things. Auto license, drivers license, fishing license, building permits, passports, etc.

Larry, please learn how to debate your points. The first step is to read, actually read, what the other person said. Don't add your spin to it because you will be shot down every time.

I said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. All the things you said are optional. I don't have to buy any of them. I make the choice based on what I want to do. If I don't feel like fishing I don't have to pay the STATE for the license. If I don't drive, I don't have to pay the STATE for a license. If I don't travel abroad, I don't HAVE to buy a passport. Please check out the dictionary version of the words "optional" and "forced." You will find totally different meanings behind the two words.

Andie - I disagree. The government is NOT my parent. They don't have the right to tell me or anyone what I must purchase. Collective good? We aren't the Borg. We are people... free people. I don't buy the socialist mentality. I believe in freedom... the way it's written in the Constitution and definitely not by the democrats or Obama.

Larry said: The people that run up hospital bills and don't pay puts the burden on people like me that does have health care coverage.

Tell me Larry, what's your opinion on illegal immigration? Do you complain about the illegals that place the burden on the hospitals? Do you complain that they don't pay? Do you complain they get government benefits and you don't?

Tell me Larry... if I pay my doctor bills, why should I have to get insurance? Not EVERYONE lives by the standards you set and believe in. Is it fair for the government to force me to buy insurance when I pay my bills?

Um.. actually the gov has been forcing you to buy into something only they sell for quite some time... there is this medical insurance program called medicare... yep they take the premium right out of your pay... oh and that retirement fund called social security... yet another... right out of your paycheck.. And decrying doing someing for the collective good is so bad? without the WHOLE of the country the INDIVIDUALS MEAN SQUAT!!! without workers there are no bosses... without cashiers and baggers, where do you buy groceries to stock you pantry and fridge? There is a such think as the collective good or well being and without the nation functioning as a whole there are just parts floating around and everyone suffering... without us peons making money to funnel UPWARDS to the rich folks there would be NO RICH FOLKS... that is simple common sense. reading post after post from article after article there is only one thing I am absolutely sure of. There is no comprimise and there is very litte hope for a country so full of personal and/or political AGENDAS... when the agenda is anything other than the prosperity of our once great nation as just that, a NATION... when we dont view others as fellow Americans but as foes... when we cannot work together for what is best for ALL, we are doomed to be a chapter in history books showing what can go wrong with what was once the most powerful country on the planet... it happened to Rome.. it happened to Greece it has happened over and over throughout time.. We are not infallible.. we are not invincible and we too shall reap what we sow. May God (whichever god) have mercy on us.

jim - social security is something I'd opt out of in a heartbeat. I can manage the money I earn way better than the government can. I realize most liberals feel the government should control every aspect of our lives, but I don't. You also failed to mention income tax. I have to pay that as well. I don't mind giving my fair share, but I am against paying a government that wastes the money and takes the debt to ungodly limits.

How can you claim we are doomed? Just because other society's have fallen doesn't automatically mean we are going to. What we need are leaders that are honest, care more about freedom than they do their own personal gain. We need trust in government again. We lost it November 22, 1963 and it's been growing worse as time marches on. Corrupt governments can become uncorrupt if the population rises up and makes changes. Fortunately, we have such a Constitution that takes that into account. For as much as liberals despise the Tea Party, they are the birth of such an uprising.

Come on all of you start singing (I am the driver, all of you are the passengers):

'and the wheels on the short bus go round and round, round and round'

Again, louder:

'and the wheels on the short bus go round and round, round and round'

Go read posts#1.95, 1.96. 1.97, how about doing the research into the actual written Health Care Reform Act (US Law), READ THE WHOLE F**KING THING. By the way that factcheck.org is bogus, follow the money, it costs tons of money to run that site.

I agree, Rick, except the only budget cuts I want to see are of nuclear power assistance and national defense.

uh oh, does this mean we'd default?

So Rick Obama care should be gone then right? 53% oppose or does that not count?

That is what I'm saying Paul

Sounds good, we agree

Rick, you do know the Healthcare Reform bill the Presidnet signed, or as you like to call it Obamacare, is set to reduce the federal deficit by 118 billion dollars over the first ten years, don't you?

Oh, I'm sorry, you no longer think reducing the federal deficit is important. Republicans have moved on to a different issue, like protecting oil company profits.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488

AmyB - Wonder what the CBO currently projects from 2011 forward for obamacare savings. Then again in 2014 when the real mandate takes place and all those government vouchers being made to those who have found out that obamacare isn't really "affordable"?

Amy B. Portland, ME - I agree, Rick, except the only budget cuts I want to see are of nuclear power assistance and national defense.

Come on all of you start singing (I am the driver, all of you are the passengers):

'and the wheels on the short bus go round and round, round and round'

Again, louder:

'and the wheels on the short bus go round and round, round and round'

Go read posts#1.95, 1.96. 1.97,

Once again those of the 92% of the US Citizens that have never Served in the US Military have the most to say. Go research how many US Civilians are going to be laid off when President Obama's Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military occurs. This does not include those US Civilians that will be laid off when these 27,000 US Military +xxx, xxx US Civilians Unemployed no longer have money for (unemployment in these areas) Theaters, Car Dealerships, Retail, Fast Food, Lawyers, Restaurants, Fuel, Transportation, etc. with these resulting in less Local, City, State, etc. revenues affecting Schools (Teachers), Public Employees, etc..

Do you even have a formal education in Nuclear Power. The whole purpose of the Federal Funds was to replace the 1980s designed Nuclear Power Plants with safer (less Nuclear Materials and waste produced) Generation III Modular Nuclear Power Plants with Nuclear Waste Materials Recycling. Having taught Nuclear Physics (including Nuclear Weapons) and Nuclear Physiology it would be better to replace the 1980s Nuclear Power Plants with Generation IV Thorium Nuclear Power Plants. What will it take another accident like Japan's 1980s Nuclear Power Plants for you to bother to do the research. In 2009, President Obama previously cut these subsidizes and the successful Brazil Alternative Energy Solution subsidizes and gave the subsidizes to his Constituents of Illinois Oil Refineries, Illinois Corn, and Pennsylvania Coal.

Once again those of the 92% of the US Citizens that have never served in the US Military have the most to say.

What exactly are you suggesting? That only those that serve in the military are entitled to an opinion? I respect and appreciate your service (assuming that you served). But I lost a brother, who had a wife and three children, in Iraq and I can assure you that “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Once again Newsvine stops being "A Place to Get Smarter". And becomes an emotive uninformed opinion blog and popularity contest (votes, collapsed by community, etc.)……

All of you keep thinking that there is a difference between Demoncraps, Repugnants, In Depends (Adult Diapers).

You make the first comment and then resort to name calling??? Grow up.

This allowed President Obama to get $1 Billion USDs in "Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions" from the Health Care Reform Act.

False. President Obama’s total for the 2008 election was 745 million from ALL sources. This is the kind of blatant misinformation conservatives like to spread.

So instead of Real Universal Health Care, like what President FDR implemented and what Senator Kennedy wanted for All US Citizens by getting the Insurance Corporations out of the Medical Profession and US Citizens getting Unlimited Medical Treatments for $42 we got the bill of $1.7 Trillion USDs to pay for President Obama's Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions.

You can thank the Republicans who threatened filibusters in the Senate for any plan that involved even a Public Option, never mind a single-payer plan for that. I agree, we need the Health Care system in this Country to be one that focuses on quality care, not profits. As long as the Insurance Industry can make a profit from denying care, they will.

Recommendations from Post #1.95 – I agree with all of them. I would suggest, in looking at #5, that you may still need some Civilian Employees for areas of unusual technical expertise, but that would represent a tiny number. I agree wholeheartedly that the use of civilians for things like security, food, etc. was intended to simply line the pockets of Defense Contractors.

Recommendations from Post #1.96 – #7 is fine but #8 is 1) Impractical, and 2) undesirable. The last thing this Country needs is someone doing that job that resents it. And while absolute democracy sounds good in theory, it eliminates the checks and balances against “Mob Rule” that the Founding Fathers were, appropriately, concerned about. If the US was an absolute democracy, we would probably still have Slavery. Remember, the Civil Rights movement didn’t even occur until 100 years after Slavery was ended by force. It would not have ended by popular vote when it did, nor even 100 years later.

Having taught Nuclear Physics (including Nuclear Weapons) and Nuclear Physiology it would be better to replace the 1980s Nuclear Power Plants with Generation IV Thorium Nuclear Power Plants. What will it take another accident like Japan's 1980s Nuclear Power Plants for you to bother to do the research.

Testy aren't we? One does not need to have a degree in nuclear physics to be opposed, not to the updating of the plants, but, to the Federal subsidies supporting that effort. One could easily argue that the Feds could simply require the private companies operating these plants to update them at their own expense (OMG! You mean the people that get the profits actually have to pay the costs??????) by a certain date or lose their licenses to operate. We have allowed Industry in this Country to do an excellent job of externalizing costs while retaining all rights to profits. If this can not be done without Federal assistance, and the energy is desperately needed, then maybe the taxpayer should receive stock equal to its investment in subsidies??? We assume that private individuals have no reason to invest in a business without the promise of profit, but Industry has come to just automatically expect the taxpayer to do so.

Ryan's plan is the only one that has been offered. The left loves to criticize it but I have yet to see a counter proposal. How about we start demanding that? It's easy to bash the only plan offered right, but apparently very difficult to create your own. Ryan is at least willing to take the heat and put SOMETHING on the table. Everyone else seems too afraid of the ramifications for their reelection to take a stab at it.

Suzy - so I guess the budget plan that the Congressional Progressive Caucus produced is not a plan that was offered?

It is pretty obvious that the CPC plan was NOT considered.

Rep. Ryan deserves the heat he is getting because his plan does NOTHING to help Americans or America.

Suzy with all due respect the President, Vice President and other Dem's have been in negotiations for a couple of months listening to plans and proposing plans, it's not like they haven't been trying to come up with a "viable" plan, why write down and publish a plan that has no chance of passing Congress, Ryan knew his plan was a farce when he released it, all it accomplished was getting Mr. Ryans picture in the news, so one could say it was a complete success because that was all it was designed to do.

Suzy

The Ryan`s plan is the worst plan I ever heard, If you like this plan then everything in your life must be pretty good. So why are you here complaining Oh you might have to open your dusty wallet and help out. Let us lazy good for nothings do without health-care Are there no work houses, are there no prisons. Scrooge.

How much money do you need Barb.H? Are you applying that people that are responsible have to pay more? Interesting you call somebody you don't even know a "Scrooge".

Well at least the Republicans got 15 buildings named.

Only 15 building names? I think there's a train station named after a current VP in Delaware. I think there's a school in Tennessee or Alabama named after a current President, the point is Job1-Who cares!!!

Barb,

If Ryan's plan was the worst you ever heard of, you probably weren't paying attention when President Obama's plan went down to defeat in the (Democratic) Senate by a 97-0 (opposed) vote. Ryan's plan passed one chamber, I guess that makes it better than the President's plan.

Pierto, thank you. I actually hadn't heard anything about the CPC's proposal. I'll check it out. Curious why it's not getting press though

W bush, the point of publishing is THAT is when the American people get a chance to see what they are talking about. PPACA is a great example of what can happen when things happen in closed door meetings and we don't get to see the legislation until it's passed.

Barb H. No need to be so condescending. No where did I say Ryan's plan is the be-all and end-all solution. In fact I'd welcome you to go through past comments I've made to see that I have on many occasions stated the need for counter proposals so we can have a meaningful debate on the subject.

suzy - I see that you still have style. Keep on keepin' on!

The president started the budget process with a proposal as required. He started with a low offer per criticism that he negotiates from too high a starting point. But he knew no matter what he offered it wouldn't be passed, so WTF? And of course there is the People's Budget, what about that? And other Dem plans that have been derailed. I'd like to see Jan Schakowsky's fair tax bill passed.

Go on and continue your right-wing b!tch session about how ONLY Paul Ryan has presented a plan. A plan, mind you, that would require the debt ceiling to be raised. A plan that would add 6 trillion to the debt. And most of all a plan that would privatize Medicare and still not balance the budget.

Paul Ryan, he may be stupid but at least he's courageous! Yeah, we know brawn beats brains every time where conservatives are concerned, or good looks, or being just like you, or...

Suzy - you are welcome and thank you for being gracious.

marc wrote:

to bad the g.o.p. doesn't seem to listen to the polls.

Why bother with elections then? Just run some polls and implement what the majority say they want.

Under other circumstances might you not condemn Republicans for focusing too much on polls? Their Contract with America from some years back was heavily poll-based.

Regards....

DarnThatDream, isn't an election like a giant poll? and for that matter Congress too!

The problem with these polls is that the sampling is too small. 1000-1500 is not truly representative of a populace of 300+million, add to that regional differences (do you think you would get different results in the south vs north or middle America vs the coasts?) and it is not at all valid. Even if the poll was spread out evenly through the states, that would be 30 people per state. Do you think that is enough people polled per state to extrapolate a fair of assessment?

An election is a poll of sorts, but on people rather than issues, although there is the occasional ballot initiative. And while an election will likely have more participants than, say, an MSNBC poll, it is the MSNBC poll that is selected scientifically. The election is a poll of a biased sample of the total population.

Anyway, I think politicians should not concern themselves with polls. They should vote their own viewpoint as long as it is Constitutional, the govt has the money, the private sector won't do it, it's cost effective, and there is no better use for the money. However the candidates are morally obligated to inform us peasants how they intend to vote before we vote. I suppose if they failed to do that, then it might be appropriate to poll their constituency. That'd be pretty shabby though.

Polls have huge weaknesses, but a small sample size is not a big one. They usually come with a margin of error which reflects the number of folks polled. Bigger problems are the way questions are worded and.... the fact that it's just a poll, not reality, i.e. people might well say "cut defense spending by 50%" in a poll, but they might feel differently were that issue actually before Congress. "Cut Social Security" might sound good too, but when it appears that mom and dad want to move in with you, you might change your mind.

Anyway, I'd still like to know whether marc thinks Republicans should or should not base their votes on polls. And should members of other parties behave similarly?

Regards....

DarnThatDream, how do you account for the election results in the July primary in Wisconsin? All the democrats beat the fake democrats by at least 18 points? A republican district in New York elected a Democrat for the first time since the civil war. A Democrat beat a Republican in a California special election. Maybe we aren't far apart politically.

All of these mock solutions you folks are coming up with are just fantasy. We don't get to decide and no one is listening to you--or me. It is hard to accept that we have no control over this whatsoever. They will make the decisions based on what is best for them personally, financially, and then on what is best for their party in the long run. We are just assets--those that pay taxes. Those that are due their SS after 30+ years of involuntary contributions are now the debits. Who thinks that our politicians care about what we think or need? That is the reality of the situation. If it is profitable and, at least, marginally legal, then our politicians do it. Whether it is ethical or a conflict of interests, well, doesn't interest them. As Burden said: "If you find that it (the money he took from Pakistan) is illegal, I'll donate the same amount to the Boy Scouts of America." Read between the lines: I don't give a crap about it because you can't prove that I did anything illegal and I am not a boy scout.

That sounds like a pretty true statement to me. Additionally, Grover Norquist is like the old "insurance" people had to buy if they wanted to continue their businesses. I believe it was called the MAFIA and now the teapartiers and Republicans and even a few Democrats seem to think it is okay to give up their free will and decision making to sign a "pledge" that takes away their freedom to think for themselves. Here is the oath they swear to the U.S. of A.:

The current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

You notice it doesn't say they will protect and defend Grover Norquist, the corporate masters or any single individual.

Boy are our politicians messed up - they don't represent their constituents any more.

Grandma35--I have been wondering who actually made Grover Norqiust the emperor of the known universe and the high nabob of no-no. Sounds to me like he must know where the bodies are buried!

Nurse 1006475

I agree. How did this Lobbyist Norquist with a crooked background wind up telling all the Repubs when to pee? What is going on here? Can someone tell me please?

All I have seen of that 4 trillion deficit reduction is rumors. Maybe if we knew what he was talking about we could get behind it.

Rick, so far the Republican leaders haven't objected to a single cut: not to defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc, their complaint is over raisning revenues. They refuse to compromise on this. No closing tax loopholes on corporate jets, stopping the oil and gas subsidies, changing the tax code to raise revenues off capital gains. It's not about spending cuts, Rick, it is the ideological purity test of not raising any taxes. The Republicans are willing to default on our credit to preserve tax loopholes.

Amy - I'm sorry to have to tell you this but there is nothing specific on the spending cuts. Where is he cutting defense spending - less support for our enlisted men? What is he cutting from medicaid and SSI. Why has no one mentioned health and human services which is the third largest expenditure. It would be nice to have a high speed choo choo system but can we afford it now? How about HCR? Even the president admits it will cost billions to start up. Couldn't we delay that for a while. You can deny it all you want but reducing taxes have resulted in job gains and increased revenue in the past. It doesn't work now because of the uncertainty of the economy.

This is what is known:

Around $1.5 trillion in spending reductions were agreed to in the Biden negotiation talks. The cuts would come from areas of common ground such as discretionary spending and federal employee pensions and tightening interest deferrals for student loans.

The Democrats want to supplement that with revenue increases to get to the $2 trillion benchmark based on a dollar-for-dollar increase in the debt limit to get through 2012. That would be a 3 to 1 cut in spending to revenue deal.

Republicans are adamantly opposed to revenues of any kind or amount. And that’s the impasse. Further complicating the matter is that NEITHER side will put down their deal on paper, at least not yet.

Obama then presented more details of his proposed cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, and Republicans supported what they heard. However, Cantor reiterated GOP opposition to any revenue increases, which continues to be the sticking point to any deal.

What the Republicans are trying to opt for now is to get spending cuts in increments, each time refusing to give on the revenue side, with hopes it will play to their advantage in the 2012 election. That such a “strategery” would hurt the nation’s credit and economic recovery is of no importance to them.

And so it goes…

Amy B. Portland, ME - Rick, so far the Republican leaders haven't objected to a single cut: not to defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc, their complaint is over raisning revenues.

That is because like the Demoncraps, those Repugnants are crooks too, as Medicare and Social Security are US Citizen Contributory Funds NOT ENTITLEMENTS. These self serving Professional Politicians keep lumping Medicare and Social Security into the same category as Public Assistance so that they do not have to payback all the money that they raided from these US Citizen Contributory Funds. And worst of all YOU believe that bullsh!t propaganda.

As far as cutting US Defense go read post# 4.7.

W bush - I am on your side, but what I want to know is why it is OK to slash Social Security and medicare but NO ONE looking at $200 BILLION that could be cut from the Defense budget? That $200 BILLION would be able to shore up ALL shortfalls in both Medicare and Social Security.

That $200 BILLION could be used to pay down the deficit.

So why is THAT not mentioned at ALL in these debt 'negotiations'??

Just 25% of the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq in
the last nearly 10 years would make Medicare solvent for the next 75 years.

W bush - my question above was rhetorical. I was trying to support your point(s) and thatquestion is NOT directed at you.

Pietro, agreed any talks of debt reductions is disingenuous without putting defense on the table, and Obama has, but the Republican Party has become nothing more than an entity to protect the wealth of the wealthy, the contractors that suckle from the military machines teat have very corrupt and powerful Republican Congressmen whatching their back, and so it goes.

Or the Stimulus right Dennis?

Great Points!

Besides being the party of "NO" the Get Obama Party is the exact antithesis of what we in the US stand for - they believe if you are down and out - stay down and out - they don't want you to pull yourself up and get on your feet - sort of like stomping on someone who has fallen. I liken them to the anti- Robin Hood where they take from the poor to give to the rich. Remember what happened to Marie Antoineete when she said "Let them eat cake".....I think once America wakes up and sees what is happening the rethugs may be rueing the day they said "NO".

Where have the republicans said that defense spending is off the table?

W bush,

It doesn't seem that anyone actually attempted to answer your question, so I'll give it a shot. Those of us that have yet to retire have time enough to make choices that will enhance our retirement income, those that are currently on Social Security are, by definition, either retired, or disabled, and thus, unable to make different choices. Here's a typical choice that American's face, and depending upon your income level, you can choose different vehicles:

I have a twelve year old Expedition that I purchased when my children were in Cub Scouts / Boy Scouts / extra-curricular activities in school. That vehicle allowed us to go camping, help in the transportation of scouts, team members, and various other activities that required a big vehicle. Now, both of my children are in college, my wife and I don't need that large of a vehicle, and it's twelve years old, with the attendant maintenace costs of an older vehicle. So here's our choices, buy a smaller car (it's my wife's car, and she really likes it), buy a new car (she'd love a new vehicle), or, keep the older car (it's paid for), and pay the maintenance costs, since that's cheaper than buying a new car. We chose to keep the car, and put an additional $300 a month into our retirement funds, primarily because we don't believe that Social Security will fund us (sufficiently) in retirement. We call that delayed gratification, others may call it "shared sacrifice", since we don't anticipate an acceptable standard of living off of Social Security. Older, retired people, don't have that choice, their respective income streams are locked in, with relatively few exceptions. I've explained to both of my children that they should make provisions from the date of their first "real" jobs, to start saving in whatever tax deferred vehicle (401k, 403b, whatever) is offered by their employer, and force themselves to save more if/when they receive raises. Thankfully, they have a long time ahead of them to save enough money to retire in comfort (I hope).

Pietro,

There shouldn't be any programs that are off the table, and that includes both defense and the "safety net" programs that comprise the majority of our budgets. I don't recall the exact values, but between defense, SS, and medicare, something on the order of 70% of our budget is spoken for. If there's two hundred billion in waste in the DOD, let's get it out of there, and use it to offset the accumulated debt, not the current year's deficit.

Defense spending takes up 16% of the budget. Other discretionary spending takes up 19%. So that is 34% of the budget to get 4 trillion over ten years. Do you think that will work.

There shouldn't be any programs that are off the table, and that includes both defense and the "safety net" programs that comprise the majority of our budgets. I don't recall the exact values, but between defense, SS, and medicare, something on the order of 70% of our budget is spoken for. If there's two hundred billion in waste in the DOD, let's get it out of there, and use it to offset the accumulated debt, not the current year's deficit.

Living in LA - thank you for seeing my point. Although I do not agree that we should IMMEDIATELY consider the programs that consist of the safety net, I do think that after all has been considered and/or consolidated and we still have a budget shortfall, then yes, absolutely go after the waste and fraud that are in the safety net as well.

I hope all is going well, and I hope you are not driving on the 405 anytime soon.

Social Security and Medicare should not be in the budget at all. Both of these programs are self funding and if they weren't pillaged by politicians and replaced with IOUs there would be no need for them to be in the budget. So now because the economy is in the shape it is some want us not to honor our marker.

I don't believe that is the America that anyone wants which is why this whole debt ceiling argument is all about political posturing and grandstanding (with the exception of those that invested in the failure of this country, all they care about is their greed). Perhaps Michelle Bachmann should have those investigators she wanted to see who in Congress is un-American look into who is betting against us.

Pietro,

I generally stay away from the 405, and certainly this weekend, I'll be as far from there as I can get.

Living in L.A. Sounds like a great plan unless you are making $10.00 and don't have a retirement plan to add another $300 a month too like my son.

Or me, I was putting $600 a month into my 401K until I was laid off. In addition five years into my job they froze their retirement program which more and more corporations are doing. Now the struggle is not dipping into my 401K before I retire to save my house.

I am glad you are doing well and could handle the change, but you aren't the majority who depend on social security.

@Living in L.A.

Those of us that have yet to retire have time enough to make choices that will enhance our retirement income

This may be true in theory, but they are talking about the changes affecting anyone under 55. For those of us that had Retirement Savings wiped out and stolen by Wall Street, that isn’t a lot of time. Maybe if you were talking about under 35, but then it becomes passing the problem to the next generation. Here’s an idea, get the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share and the problem is solved.

There shouldn't be any programs that are off the table, and that includes both defense and the "safety net" programs that comprise the majority of our budgets.

Why are people so willing to fix this problem on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the Country? Those “safety net” programs care for the sick, the elderly, the disabled and children. Are we really prepared to sacrifice these people to lives of despair, misery and early death just to insulate the tax cuts and subsidies to the wealthy and corporations? Shame on us if we are.

@Rick-312779

Defense spending takes up 16% of the budget. Other discretionary spending takes up 19%. So that is 34% of the budget to get 4 trillion over ten years. Do you think that will work.

Actually, the reverse is true. Discretionary spending represented 14.7% of the budget (Down 3.7% from 2001) while Defense spending represents 29.2% (Up 7.5% from 2001) So we can leave discretionary spending alone because while cutting defense may not solve the problem by itself, it would make a significant dent. How about we start by eliminating the pork spending that the Military doesn’t even want?????

If everything is on the table, get rid of the 16% raise to 450 white house employees and lower all federal employees wages to min.(7.50 an hr.) from the pres all the way down.

Not even sure who posted this but that is the typical mean-spirited comment that has become common with this issue. The private sector has screwed its employees and rather than fight back and demand fair compensation and benefits folks turn and want to see someone else get screwed. Maybe if corporate CEOs were making a few 100 less million each year, there would be more money for everyone else. But they have done too good a job at focusing people’s anger at each other, rather than at the source of the problem….their greed. The wealthy in this Country are laughing while watching us fight amongst ourselves over the scraps that fall from their table.

In fact the reverse is true. The Republicans' desire to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment is a back-door attempt at ending Social Security and Medicare. If that Amendment were to pass, they need only cut taxes further each time they gain control of Congress until the Amendment forces cuts to Social Security and Medicare that end the programs. Ask them if they are willing to exempt those two programs from the Amendment's requirements and see what they say!

So True. Also, in the 2010 election only 37% of voters voted.

That would be point #2......all the bitchin the Dems are doin about the goofball teagaggers , just exactly how many of you got up off your whinning asses and got out there and at least did your part and voted lst election ???.....only 37 % voted and just how many of those were dems ???? Not to many it seems so dont complain when you are part of the problem.....if your really fed up as you people on here act like you are get up and vote the suckers out ....it really is that simple !!!! and while im at it i got one favor to ask....if you vote any one person out vote that damn Cantor out as that is a vote to help both parties without a doubt !!!!

So in Real Clear Politics average of 5 major polls showing a 0.3 approval rating you are all saying that is a really clear indication that Obama is showing the voters are very happy with the job he is doing?

The President is doing very well in the polls and he will win re-election. Just look at what he has to run against and you will see why.

If the economy remains sluggish and unemployment isn't moving in the right direction a chimp could beat obama. Then we might really see what "hope and change" are really about.

If the the economy remains sluggish and unemployment isn't moving in the right direction, it will be primarily due to the Republican's continued unwillingness to make any meaningful concessions ( such as knowing that there really is a point where you have enough money) and stop off- shoring and outsourcing millions of jobs, as has been done while Bush was our overlord. And why is it the conservatives are so opposed to rolling back taxes for the uber-rich a measly 4%, from 39 to 35%? Oh yeah, they can never have enough money.

KC - obama is in the WH, he is supposed to be the leader and he will take the heat.

You make it sound like the American consumer is clueless on the affects of always wanting the lowest price on the goods they buy.

BTW - the obama tax cuts expire (by law) in 2013.

KC-80503 - If the the economy remains sluggish and unemployment isn't moving in the right direction

This is exactly why all of you will be eating rationed Obamachow, one can of dog food rationed per week that you will have to turn into Great Depression Era "Hobo Stew" to stretch out for the entire week.

It was both Parties that removed the US Laws that made Illegal the Causes of the 1907 Depression, 1929-1939 Great Depression, and the current 60-100 Trillion USD "Global Economic Crisis" consisting of the "Mortgage Crisis", "Financial Crisis", "Credit Crisis", "Banking Crisis", "Wall Street Crisis", etc.. Same Causes means the US is NOT in a Recession, and is in a Depression.

If President Obama and US Congress does not Reinstate these US Laws, the next "Crisis" of 54.6 Trillion USDs of a possible 643 Trillion USDs will cause a Depression worse than the Great Depression.

From 1907 to 1933, US Government attempted harsh Regulation that failed (even harsher than President Obama's Financial Reform), so in 1933 US Government made the Causes Illegal. The US Laws worked from 1933 to 2000 to make Illegal the Causes of Depressions.

The Chinese have retained their versions of these previous US Laws, making them immune to Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. These Financial WMDs can destroy Nations Governments and Economies.

The Reinstatement of these US Laws, NOT Health Care Reform, should have been President Obama's First Priority.

And those that do not study History are doomed to repeat the mistakes. So sure (sarcasm) tax the h3ll out of the rich. They like the Rich British Rock Stars will just leave and become Citizens of another Nation like they did to get away from the oppressive English Taxes, leaving you holding the bag paying for and suffering thru the next Depression.

If you have no idea as to what US Laws I am talking about, DO THE F**KING RESEARCH.

Just how are we going do get these laws thru our no, no to everything Republicans that have been stopping any meanful legislation. They did name some 15 buildings.

I don't know of any rock stars that gave up their citizenship, much less droves of them leaving enough to empty England of the rich. Is this the new mantra, "If we tax them, they will leave."

Republicans are doing everything in their power to take from the poor and shrinking middle class and give to the rich. Somehow you twisted this around to make it President Obama's fault.

Wisconsin Republicans have got it, voting Democrat this time. When they realized that the Republicans are out to destroy Wisconsin and the rest of America they decided to fight.

Are you smart enough to fight or are you voting for protecting the rich at the cost of America?

@anthony-1118394

all the bitchin the Dems are doin about the goofball teagaggers , just exactly how many of you got up off your whinning asses and got out there and at least did your part and voted lst election ???.....only 37 % voted and just how many of those were dems ???? Not to many it seems so dont complain when you are part of the problem

I said it in 1972 and again in 2000 and I’ll say it again…….Don’t blame me! I’m from Massachusetts! Yes we have to eat the Brown victory in 2010, but the Dems didn’t lose the Senate and we sent 10 Dems out of 10 seats to the House that year. But I agree with the sentiment, we need to get out the vote!

@Rick-312779

So in Real Clear Politics average of 5 major polls showing a 0.3 approval rating you are all saying that is a really clear indication that Obama is showing the voters are very happy with the job he is doing?

Another distortion. When you posted that on 7/15 Real Clear Politics had his approval rating at .46, which I grant you isn’t wonderful but it is significantly higher than you wanted people to believe.

@american-2051576

If the economy remains sluggish and unemployment isn't moving in the right direction a chimp could beat Obama. Then we might really see what "hope and change" are really about.

That may have been true before he killed Bin Laden and before people saw that the Republicans are blocking any fixes to purposely keep the economy in the toilet until the election. But hey, the Republicans have fielded several chimps so I guess we’ll see. (You made that too tough to pass up!

:-)

KC - Obama is in the WH, he is supposed to be the leader and he will take the heat.

That’s what the Republicans are counting on. That they can sabotage the economy and shift the blame to Obama, but it’s not working. They bit off more than they could chew with the Debt Ceiling and their strategy is crumbling.

@david-475776

Same Causes means the US is NOT in a Recession, and is in a Depression.

Flawed logic. Same cause but different effect given a different economic environment. The definitions of “Recession” and “Depression” are established and we either met the criteria for either of them or we didn’t. Are you aware of an economic authority that is claiming that the criteria was met for “Depression”?

From 1907 to 1933, US Government attempted harsh Regulation that failed (even harsher than President Obama's Financial Reform)

This is a statement of opinion, not fact. You’ve cited no regulations that you are comparing to the financial reforms President Obama got passed, so a comparison is impossible. Yes the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted in 1933 and there is little debate that it’s amendment in 1999 which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act's restrictions on bank and securities-firm affiliations lead to the recent economic meltdown. That was done by a Republican Congress and signed by a President who was a Democrat.

If you have no idea as to what US Laws I am talking about, DO THE F**KING RESEARCH.

I have. But since you supplied no evidence, only unsupported statements of opinion, I’m sure that the facts are just an inconvenience to you anyway. And btw, chill out. You're going to stroke out if your post is any indication.

Ironically, I agree with you that re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act’s restrictions are critical. There is, however, no chance of getting them passed without a Democratic majority in the House and Super majority in the Senate. And even then, the Senate Super majority has to be of “real” Democrats, not conservative southern Democrats passing themselves off to get elected who vote with the Republicans to block anything meaningful, like we had in 2009.

How long have you been under the delusion that our votes actually count? Our politicians buy their seats. The rich control who gets elected--not you and not me. Look at the options we have been given. How do you vote for "none of the above" and still vote?

Show up and cast a blank ballot or write in the name of someone that you do support. You will be counted as having voted, but you don't have to hold your nose to do so. I've done it several times because just not voting makes the situation worse and gets interpreted as voter apathy.

Please use your spell check. You sound like a complete idiot - then again........

REB,

It's more than just spell check, I actually got a headache reading that gibberish.

good call paul avoid the fact that your a repb and unamerican....why read even my hyped up workout rant...when you can go on avoid the truth...

You know Marc if I could understand what the hell you were saying than I would give you facts. Your post gave me a headache. Look up the term "gibberish" and tell me I'm wrong. A simple yes or no will work for me.

Sorry to break it to you Marc, but I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican. As for the un-American part, if serving 20 years in the military is un-American, what does that make you?

Let me add to that Paul that all these liberals refuse to acknowledge the real cause of the 2008 but continue to blame it on the Bush administration. I have posted links to unbiased articles only to have them disappear. Not deleted, not collapsed but disappear. By ignoring those facts all these lotus eaters prove to me that their sole objective is to keep republicans out of office regardless of what it means to our country.

marc huff,

How about this you spend about 15 years of training to enter the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces.

President Obama did NOT order sh!t pertaining to the USN SEALs that shot the Somalis Pirates, he distanced himself from that Operation as Politically Expedient, if successful he claims credit, if failed the OSC (On Scene Commander (OIC of the USN Bainbridge)) and the USN SEAL Team Commander kiss their US Military Careers good bye.

President Obama did the same thing with OBL (Osama Bin Laden). President Obama even froze up and Leon Penetta had to give the order to terminate Osama Bin Laden. During this Operation, a. No one knew that OBL was even there, so it started as a Reconaissance Mission (two MH-60s) and became a Direct Action., b. as to why the two MH-47s containing the Main Direct Action Teams did not land; and after the MH-60 crashed, the C4I MH-47 went in to pick them up. While four MH-6s provided cover. c. During this operation the short ranged tactical communications on the ground to the C4I MH-47, then to here (Afghanistan), JSOC, and finally to the White House were cut off to the White House for over 20 Minutes. d. This Operation was on General Petraeus (his assets), the On Scene Commander, and the Team Commanders (NOT President Obama). e. It was Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted and not only the USN SEAL Teams of Redacted as part of a JSOCTF.

Without President Bush amending the US No Assassination Policy, the US could not even consider terminating Osama Bin Laden (per President Obama).

Since when is the Amnesty of over 23 Million Illegal Aliens (loyal citizens of another Nation) at the US going to make the US better, they still Felony Crime Evade Taxes, see post #1.95 paragraph 6 as to the Billions spent on Illegal Aliens by California:

Associated Press, Guadalajara, Mexico, August 10, 2009:

And immigration remained a sore spot. While Obama has said he'd like to start crafting an overhaul that legalizes millions of Mexican immigrants, there's little chance of Congress acting this year, since even top administration priorities like health care and climate policy are moving slowly amid heated partisan debate.

According to Documentaries of Illegal Aliens (interviews) the majority of Illegal Aliens have NO intention of becoming US Citizens as Immigrants, as the cost of Living in the US is too high. Their intent is to make the most money they can in the US so that when they return "Home" they can live like Kings. To minimize their expenses they have their Families with them, on US Public Assistance. Usually, to evade their own Nation's Taxes the money sent home (another Nation) is sent to a Relative as a "Non Established Financial Institution" (aka a shoe box).

AND:

President Obama's Meeting with the Mexican President, April 2009, "US Military will not be used to secure US Borders".

President Obama's Meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, August 2009, "US Military will not be used to secure US Borders".

(please to not let everyone know how uninformed you are, by US Military we are talking about Federal Active (returning from the Wars) NOT the State's Militias (aka National Guard).

@david-475776

How about this you spend about 15 years of training to enter the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces.

Still with the “Holier than thou” routine. It detracts sadly from your points. Furthermore, it has zero bearing on the topic being discussed as it wasn't about strategy, tactics, or even warfare of any kind. It was a factual point about who authorized the raid that killed Bin Laden. 115 years of training does not make you better qualified to answer that question than the people that were in the room when the decision was made.

President Obama stated “"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

There is no factual evidence, nor any reported contradiction from the people involved in the decision, that this statement is in any way untrue. As Commander In Chief it was his decision to make and he made it.

Without President Bush amending the US No Assassination Policy, the US could not even consider terminating Osama Bin Laden (per President Obama).

I was unaware that President Bush had authority that President Obama does not? If President Bush had not amended it, President Obama could just as easily have done so.

Marc, your grammar does need improvement. That being said I agree with you 100 percent. If you want me too, I would be happy polish your post and make it more legible.

Don't be sorry, get educated. I do have to ask you though, what crossroads are you referring too?

who leads the rich and special interest or the people....

an screw you on the spelling i've taken enough hydro cut for my workout i have no ability to stop run on sentences......

Hydro cut? Do you mean Hydroxycut? So you're ramped up on Hydroxycut while you're typing? It's not a roid dude. You're better off drinking coffee, it's the same thing.

So who leads the rich?

say marc, all you have to do is click on the spell check icon, find the underlined word and choose the best option, then simply click the post comment button.

Surely as a non- righty you want to give a good presentation of yourself, right?

hey paul, you shouldnt dis someone for spelling or grammar and then end your sentence with a mispelled preposition... just saying ;)

jim, you misspelled "misspelled." :)

Paul-Florida - So who leads the rich?

Do you want a real answer or is that a rhetorical question.

The person that leads the rich is "Mr. Corporate America".

"Mr. Corporate America's" Major Constituents and Major Campaign Contributors are:

(My List from 2005) Delaware: Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, Bank of America, Wilmington Trust, First USA / Bank One / JPMorgan Chase, AIG, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays plc, GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ISDA, and those States with Corporations Incorporated at Delaware.

Over 50% of US publicly-traded corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware;[1] the state's attractiveness as a corporate haven is largely due to its business-friendly corporation law. Franchise taxes on Delaware corporations supply about one-fifth of its state revenue.[2]

1. Delaware Division of Corporations
2. Delaware Fiscal Notebook - State General Fund Revenues by Category

The list is important because in order to obtain January 2009 Electoral College Votes in time the November December 2008 Bailouts (TARP) had to be passed by the Democratic Party Controlled US Congress as "Time Sensitive" (no Public Scrutiny). (reference the physical locations of Bailout Recipients at Businessweek and the correlation to Electoral College Votes). This is another reason why the Electoral College must be eliminated.

Yes, Bush got a piece of that TARP too, from Businessweek:

8. University Park, Texas
Share population in finance and real estate: 18.83%
Nearest large city: Dallas
Population: 24,582
Median Household Income: $110,976

Have any of you figured out who "Mr. Corporate America" is. Do I have to spoon feed you and change your diapers.

The list is important because in order to obtain January 2009 Electoral College Votes in time the November December 2008 Bailouts (TARP) had to be passed by the Democratic Party Controlled US Congress as "Time Sensitive" (no Public Scrutiny).

Now remind me Dave, which President signed that bill into law????? If I remember correctly, it did NOT pass with a Veto-Proof majority.

w bush - I seriously doubt the republicans think people like Barney Frank, Herb Moses, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, James Johnson (made 100 million while at Fannie Mae) or Jaimie Gorelick should be immune to any sacrifice.

@Rick-312779

w bush - I seriously doubt the republicans think people like Barney Frank, Herb Moses, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, James Johnson (made 100 million while at Fannie Mae) or Jaimie Gorelick should be immune to any sacrifice.

Unfortunately, those are only a few of the people that contributed to the Bipartisan attack on the poor and middle class by the wealthy and corporate America . As I mentioned earlier, the Glass-Steagall Act was amended by a Republican Congress and a President that was a Democrat. This isn't about Party, it's about Class. The rich have been waging a quiet, and remarkably successful war on the poor and middle class for 30 years. And the reason that they have been so successful is because they have successfully managed to get us fighting among ourselves and blaming each other rather than uniting to fight back and defend ourselves. Why do you think that politics has become SO divisive and antagonistic? They only win while we stay divided.

Northstar say's : It means that as voters we elect politicians that work for the common good of all, not a puppets of special interests of any kind.

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

That's how it should work, but honestly how many politicians on the national level could even mount a campaign without having buckets of special interest money backing them? I am not saying that's how it should be, but it is undeniably the way it is.

if everyone that filed income tax return checked a box that donated 4 dollars to public financed house and senate races each gets a milliion. that is the only way...take money gift trips donation ...you know what they call are system in england bridery

w bush, totally agree with you. That is the state of affairs today. So I just do my part. Check the box on my tax returns to fund fed. election. Donate to the candidate of my choice. Work my butt off to get out the vote and then vote myself.

I would love a level playing field but it is not going to happen in my lifetime.

marc huff says: if everyone that filed income tax return checked a box that donated 4 dollars to public financed house and senate races each gets a milliion.

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

That sounds good to you and I, but the very people who directly benefit from the bribery system of politics we have now are the same people that would have to change the system, the money people have our political sewed up from top to bottom, that's why a political solution won't work, and why a non-political remedy will someday be employed to right the ship.

how bout we just cap the entire thing at 1 mil per campaign without the outside groups putting up ads trying to sway votes? lets get this down to reasonable where people who could actually do a good job get a shot at it rather than just those backed by 100+mil of donations... lets face it... if youre getting the kind of money needed to have a half assed campaign then you are indebted to those donatting that kind of money. tv time doesnt cost THAT much and most of it should be in the form of actual debates... not paid spots pushing your agenda with your lies.. .both LEFT and RIGHT... i mean seriously... its worse than ads for bud light showing a perfect party day when in fact it ruins lives... there is something fundamentaly wrong with our country that no president of either party is going to be able to fix. we need drastic changes all the way down to how our officials are elected or else we are going the way of PAST dynasties... enjoy your lives, but fear for your childrens futures... enjoy =)

in a interview last night the question was raising the min age is great if you wear a suit and tie on wall street but what if your a 40 year old steeler worker that already got a bad back and knees....obama agreed it aint such a good plan but what can you expect from the g.o.p.

To ask people to try and maintain a job until 68 is not the answer, people who can maintain a decent job up to that age are the exception by no means the rule, the age limits set now are difficult enough to achieve, people who say otherwise are the people who are wealthy enough to live without these services to begin with, which brings up another good point, maybe only the people who need it should get it, means testing. I realize that's not how the programs were designed but if funds are limited it doesn't make much since to reduce the funds dispersed or raise the age limit just so that the wealthy can get a check they don't need at all and the less fortunate get a check they can't survive on, who's that helping?

w bush,

Means testing is only part of the answer, and it's only part of the answer for Social Security, not the deficit as a whole. I'm pretty sure that twelve years from now when I reach my official retirement age, means testing will be part and parcel of the SS landscape, but that won't solve the deficit issue for the annual budgets, nor will it resolve the accumulated debt of the United States. I'm actually for means testing, it will mean less money for me, but I'm preparing for that by self funding a 401 k retirement account. The bigger problem is the spending pattern that we as a nation have entered into, and our unwillingness to pay for the programs that our elected officials seem to believe that we want. If our elected officials said to the nation "We are going to vote on an additional program that will benefit the poor and needy, and it will cost each of you $1,000 per year, how would you like us to vote?" How many of us would say "vote yes"? If it was only $1,000 more of us would say yes than no (I think), but what if it's $10,000 per person, I expect that the no votes would far outweigh the yes votes. This years deficit is $1.5 Trillion dollars. If we have 200 million working people in the U.S., that represents $7,500 each. Our accumulated debt is $14 Trillion, using the same 200 million people, that's $70,000 we each owe on behalf of the U.S. government. How many of us want to pay that much money, in addition to the taxes that we already pay, for the government that we have elected?

@Living in L.A.

The bigger problem is the spending pattern that we as a nation have entered into, and our unwillingness to pay for the programs that our elected officials seem to believe that we want.

Unfortunately, this is the myth that has become accepted. Discretionary spending at the Federal Level has decreased by 3.7% since 2001. It is Defense spending and tax cuts that have created the current problems. I would gladly vote to increase my own taxes to pay for the programs for the poor and needy once the rich and corporations start paying ANYTHING. Why is the first solution ALWAYS to cut the programs that benefit the most needy? Everyone agrees the rich should pay their fair share but just accepts that they won't? They need to be forced to do so. I assure you that they have no trouble insuring that you and I pay the maximum. As long as we roll over and just accept that ONLY the poor and middle class are going to contribute, to the solution will never be obtainable. Let's figure out what is left by way of a deficit AFTER we have closed all the loopholes and ended all the subsidies for the wealthy and Corporate America and start making them actually pay their fair share.

Really marc, where did you hear that, where it will cost a million for each Soldier? Yes, TBI is a serious issue and it's something new, diagnose wise. I know this very well, I have MTBI and it didn't ruin my life. Go back to the post earlier, get educated and learn the facts, just saying........

due your an idiot getting injuried sucks you want my mri'ss the average back injury for a firefighter is 6 months and a 100,000 , the tbi is off the charts especially when the average age is 25 years old....and has the rest of a hopefully long life.....good for you good for you as a paratrooper and firefighter i seen em all and your damn lucky...oh yeah i do it for a living......eight knee operation broken back...i see the worst cases dude and your lucky oh an it's not a projected million over average soldiers lifetime...really wrong ....

I think you been hit in the head a few times there Marc. So let me understand what you're trying to say, you're saying that I'm an idiot for getting injured because what I did in the military, but your not an idiot for having eight knee surgeries and a broken back by 25 years old? Did I read that right?

unreasonable people becoming reasonable quit making excuses they are nothing more than admissions of guilt....the only thing is repb...loving there country more than party an raising hell...i'm blaming you not the bought and sold leaders....

I think you're right REB

You know perfectly well they have been meeting on this with Vice President Biden for weeks and the sticking point is raising revenues. THe Republicans are throwing away the chance to cut 4 trillion from the deficit in order to preserve some pidding tax loopholes.

REB and Paul, that is why the republicans walked out of the Biden talks. They will not even discuss any thing related to raising revenue. And I believe the president has said that everything is on the table and as Amy said, they have been discussing this for weeks and have mostly agreed to the cuts.

I wish it really was as simple as eliminating subsidies for corporate jet owners and cutting tax loopholes. First of all the corporate jet depreciation idea was one Obama bragged about (you know when he was for it before he was against it) And all these big revenue raisers would only amount to about $40 billion. The real question is what would raising taxes RIGHT NOW do to the already fragile economy. And everyone here seems to forget that we had 4 years when Dems controlled House, Senate and Presidency and they couldn't even come up with a budget. They had to use a continuing resolution loophole. Their OWN PARTY had a monopoly and they couldn't agree. The only thing they ever agree on is BLAME BUSH! But during Bush's last years in office Pelosi and Reid controlled the purse strings. Hows all that hope and change working for you?

drive by observer

Palin, Gingrich, and Bachmann have no value.

Thats the beauty of buying them for they are worth.

Don't any of you right wing zellots out there ever get sick of dreaming about the good old days of the Cheney/Bush dictatorship ? I know it's hard for you to swallow but without the Cheney/Bush tax cuts to their rich buddies, BP and Exxon we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

democrats have made promises like that before Marc only to fail to deliver.

It would be interesting to see what the percentage of a cut it would take applied to "all" federal government expenditures to balance the budget, you could then take half of that percentage and increase revenue by that and problem solved, true "shared sacrifice"

How can you say the problem isn't social security when payments will exceed gdp in 30 years?

what are you smoking? where did you dig this up Beck U?

@Rick-312779

How can you say the problem isn't social security when payments will exceed gdp in 30 years?

That's a myth. More propaganda to try to end a program that Republicans have fought since its creation.

There is nothing anybody can do. There is no good solution. The debt problem of an economy that runs with debt based monetary system is VERY different than an individual's finances. At national level, one cannot, I repeat, cannot top borrowing and expect that budget will be balanced and all will be fine. This is because the money to pay the total debt does not exist, thus bankruptcies are guaranteed without further borrowing:

www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/web-of-debt/

So, why not keep borrowing? We cannot because sooner or later the interest payments on debt will exceed tax revenue. Why not increase tax? Even if you tax at 100%, there will come a day when tax revenue is not enough to service debt. Debt based monetary system is a dead end.

We need a financial revolution in our definition of how money shall be created and how interest should be regulated.