"Untoward" is certainly an unusual word. I guess people can define it as they wish. The unspoken word is "compromise". House representatives need to continue to caucus the explore ways to find common ground.

If Boehner and Cantor continue to believe that compromise is a bad word, then the pending economic disaster lies at their feet. Not a good place to be. Ask Newt Gingrich.

The Divert, Duck, and Destroy Tea Party bill will not get through the Senate. Period.

It is a cynical piece of posturing that should never even have been proposed, but Grover Norquist and his pals put so much effort into writing it up for the ultra-right Congressmen in the Grover's pocket, that they were bounden to do their bit. It was a complete waste of valuable time and a transparent ploy by a tiny minority in not just the halls of Congress, but the country as a whole.

The "Gang of Six" plan, which has a lot problems, may still be an avenue. However, it has to originate in the House and right now, the Tea Party hostage takers will have none of that.

Weekend after this, be sure to hit the ATM and set aside some cash. Your bank may be closed on August 3.

Unbelievable!

NONE of them should be allowed to leave the floor until this is settled!

Are you paying attention yet America?

The Tea Baggers fiddle while the country burns...

PS: Good idea about the ATM John!

Hold your ground Republicans. We need a balanced budget amendment before we increase anything.

I wonder how long it would have taken to pass a debt ceiling increase BEFORE the 2010 election. Was Harry afraid of the political consequences just like he and Speaker Pelosi were afraid of publishing a budget? Of course if they had actually produced a budget for FY2011 they would have seen the need to borrow more money.

Nasty red head

The democrats have fiddled the past three years while the country is burning.

LEAN FORWARD - this won't hurt a bit

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

Harry pulled the same nonsense over the 4th of July Senate vacation, he kept the Senate in session with the reason being so they could figure out a plan for the debt limit. How'd that work out for Harry? The Senate have a plan yet? The farce lasted two days, the first day spend by Harry trying to pass a resolution of support to Obama for his war in Libya. The second day was spent with the Senate Democrats whining about the GOP insisting that maybe the Senate should come up with a plan for raising the debt ceiling.

Harry. What an idiot.

One good thing that will come out of this budget mess is the Dumb A$$ Tea Baggers will be sent home with their tails between their legs come the 2012 elections.

Minority Leader McConnel see's his dream of being Majority Leader slipping away. For Harry Reid to even entertain the thought of haveing Congress havta Vote 3 times in the next 18 months on Raising the Debt cieling shows how Weak, Reid really is.

Abdicating your responsibilty like McConnel wants to do shows he's Not Fit to Lead the Minority either. Conservative Democrats(thats what they call themselves) from My homeState just Reelected this Fool to another 6 year Term.

Sad, to say the least!

Here in 1 of the few actually Democratic Countys in which I live, McConnel is a JOKE!

Where the heck is the Democratic voice in this Debacle, are thier none left after Weiners Stupidity?

"Untoward"? Well. I never.

That's harsh. LoL

Maybe this is why I never much liked Harry Reid.

Well John A., there you go again with the adherence to the Constitution thing. Why should the House originate a bill when they just don't wanna? (Maybe that's a part of the Constitution Boehner decided didn't need to be read to the members.) Why shouldn't they go home and leave unfinished business behind? They still get paid, don't they? And what's at stake? Come on, we're only talking about raising interest rates on ourselves! All we're doing is compounding the debt, whatever that means. Oh yeah, maybe we'll be able to experience a full-blow depression. We can find out first-hand what our parents experienced. Don't mashed potato sandwiches sound yummy?

What's happened to your spirit of adventure? We're talking about taking a plunge into the unknown. We've only been nibbling at the edges of irresponsibility. The G.O.P. is ready to dive right on in to the world of born-again stupid.

By the way - snark key is off - it becomes more clear by the day just how incompetent John Boehner is. He has dug himself a hole and doesn't know how to get out. He could have learned from Pelosi. Only a total partisan hack doesn't understand how masterful she was. Boehner could have learned what leadership really means, but noooooooo, he chooses DeLay and Gingrich for his role models.

It just shows that the Teapublicans don't give a damn about the debt ceiling, the deficiet, or the United States of America. Only their fear of Grover Norquist rules their every waking thought. Words cannot be printed here on what I think of those losers.

Yeah, the snot-nosed Teahadist anarchists ran their little dog and pony show of useless garbage then ran home like the cowards they are. They did NOTHING other than show how totally ignorant and stupid they are - PERIOD!!

Oh one more shot in the foot for the GOP/TPrs, pretty soon they wont have a leg to stand on.

It's all just political theatre. Almost no one in Washington seems really interested in solving the problems. They're too busy trying to score political points. So here's my message to Congress: Shut up and get to work.

JFK 2112:

Maybe you ought to check out the process for amending the Constitution. Even if Congress could get the 2/3 vote, which it can't, the state ratification process is unwieldy and quite time-consuming.

Beyond that, like all Republican measures these days, this is beyond simplistic. Check out the amendments. All are rather short. A balanced budget amendment would of necessity be huge. It simply isn't going to happen.

JH-479998

Nasty red head

The democrats have fiddled the past three years while the country is burning.

LEAN FORWARD - this won't hurt a bit

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

Read it and weep!

> Ronald Reagan's First Term – $656 billion increase

> Ronald Reagan's Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

> George H.W. Bush's Term – $1.587 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton's First Term – $1.122 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton's Second Term – $418 billion increase

> George W. Bush's First Term – $1.885 trillion increase

> George W. Bush's Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

> Barack Obama's First "Year" – $1.573 trillion increase

The American people are beginning to figure out who put us here and who's not willing to compromise. You're right about one thing, come 2012 it's time to clean house.

When they show you who they are...believe them!

I do remember reading somewhere that the President has powers under a law called The National Emergency Powers Act.

The law stipulated that the President of the United States may exercise certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances.

In the simplest understanding of the term, the dictionary defines an emergency as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.” In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934, the Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of urgency and relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation. “It denotes the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being beyond tolerable limits.” Default would be a public calamity and a threat to the continuing existence of our nation.

Therefore, wouldn’t the default of the US on it’s obligations fall under the provisions of this act and allow the President to take whatever measures necessary to end it.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

Uh, this is a pretty lame comment...considering it comes from the "leader" of a Senate that hasn't managed to submit a budget in over two years!

Seriously John, Fiesty and anyone else who doesn't have a fat stack tucked safely away at home.

Government shut down will obviously not effect private banks, there will not even be a default, but putting all that aside - we all know it wouldn't take much to crash the Internet and/or power systems. Hell China is at all times actively engaged in cyber wars against us.

If any of you don't have some cash tucked away at home you are crazy. I have a big gun safe, that is fire proof for 48 hours full to the brim with pass ports, important docs, and $10,000 cash. Oh and of course guns and ammo.

I would also suggest a week's supply of food and especially water. Now because I'm a freak I also got 80 gallons of gas, a big generator and 40 gallons of propane.

Come on - you need to act in advance to protect yourself. Now why is it I bet almost none of you do?

I do this not just cause I live in Cali - you know the big one and all, but our way of life is very fragile, especially now that everything is computerized.

My PSA for the day is over.

A Balanced Budget Amendment is silly because unlike a State budget or Household budget the government of these United States is beholden to ALL OF ITS CITIZENS.

Under a National Balanced Budget approach you would not be able to give disaster relief to states hit by flood, hurricanes, fire, earthquake, etc. You would not be able to respond to international crisis like terrorism attacks, tsunami's, famine, etc.

And as the TeaPublicans well know, any constitutional amendment has to be ratified by all 50 States before it becomes effective law. So, how do you think all those coastal states will vote once they realize the federal spigot will be shut if they need federal disaster assistance? How will all those RED STATES that currently get back more in revenue than they contribute in payments once they understand that the subsidy train can no longer power their economic engine?

Once again the rabid right has created a good selling sound byte but reasonable people have always understood that debt and to some extent deficit spending is what government has to do. Has it reached a point where it threatens our financial standing in the world? YES, Without a doubt.

Are such draconian cuts to spending alone required in order to balance the budget? NO, a mixture of program cuts and revenue generation is what is needed.

Are TeaPublicans willing to close egregious tax loop holes in exchange for modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? NO, this is not about generating revenue because their mantra is "Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem", and then they go on to lie about how high taxes are on corporations and the wealthy. Tax rates are at the lowest point since the GREAT DEPRESSION. Not only that, if Americans had JOBS then there would be more TAX REVENUE coming in and less AID TO AMERICANS going out in the form of unemployment and welfare payments.

And the House is taking the weekend of because of WHY? So they passed the Tea Party's C,C, and B bill which many experts have said is the Ryan Plan on steroids and they feel like their work is done? What about the "Gang of Six Plan" crafted by the Senate? The House is supposed to take up that legislation once it gets to them. What about the "McConnell\Reid Plan"? They're supposed to be around to take that one up too.

President Obama has already said he would veto the C,C, & B bill even if the Senate passes it. So, why even send it up for defeat? Oh, to score some political ideological point with your party's base constituency? Hell, those folks are gonna vote Republican\Tea Party no matter what! No, the idea is not to save/rescue America. Their idea is to play ideological partisan politics with America's credit rating.

Too bad common sense and Tea Party politics are diametrically opposing ideas. The Tea Party is betting on a default since they don't believe it will a)Hurt America's Credit Rating and/or b) forestall the inevitable financial crash that is the result of past spending practices by both Democratic and Republican administrations (that includes Congress, not just the White House).

derek.hinch

Ah yes. Maybe the Senate should have passed a debt limit increase bill. Or maybe a budget for 2011. Wait, maybe one for 2010 too.

Ah, maybe the Senate Republicans shouldn't have clotured (that's the real name for it not filibuster) the bills which did come before them during the 110th and 111th congressional sessions.

Why wasn't passing a budget important to the Republicans back in 2009/2010? Why is it so important to them now?

Why wasn't the debt & deficit important to the Republicans back in 2000 - 2008 when George W. Bush was signing legislation which tripled the national debt? The Bush Tax Cuts have cost America $1.6 Trillion! Why is it so important to them now?

If you can answer these questions truthfully, then maybe you'll understand why we are in this mess today. I can tell you this much, the problems didn't just appear on January 20, 2009 they were around long before that date. Too bad those who are ideologically right-of-center choose not to be honest about that fact. They choose instead to tell us the lie that they were opposed when Bush did it, never ever telling us why they remained silent or just barely vocal in voicing their opposition during the Bush Presidency!

One of the elements a lot of people miss, or cover up in their overheated rhetoric about the deficit and debt, is that the debt ceiling itself has largely been an irrelevant artifact from World War I Congressional moitoring of how war bond campaigns financed the war. It was revised in 1939 and 1941.

The debt ceiling is related to the budget - routinely it has been raised to accomodate spending already authorized by Congress. Raising the debt ceiling does not allow the government to go on a wild spending spree like a drunken sailor. Instead, it permits the government to fulfill its obligations as determined by Congressional action.

Before there was any kind of debt ceilning, how the government financed itself depended upon whether there was a budget surplus or not. A great deal of U.S. debt was relatively short-term, and still is - intermittent borrowing to keep Treasury accounts stable compared with the inconsistent and unpredicatble receipts of revenues from taxes and fees. This, by the way, is almost the only way that the government operates like a business - the same kind of borrowing is common for businesses to manage cash flow.

Now the shrill cries of the right suggest that raising the debt ceiling just creates another "blank check" for President Obama. In fact, that is entirely wrong - a piece of propaganda that is utterly false.

The President may not spend one cent of either revenues or borrowed funds for any purpose other than described by law - as established by Congress. The ones who created the liabilities are the members of Congress who appropriated, and then authorized, funds for specific purposes.

The use of the debt ceiling to create a crisis in the government is a cynical ploy by the very members of Congress who created the conditions in which a debt ceiling increase is necessary. Rather than take on specific individual budgetary issues in full debate andnegotiations, by holding the debt ceiling vote hostage, they are hoping to cram down the nation's throat a radical and politically unpopular agenda. And some in the Tea Party are even willing to bring the entire country into collapse to get their way.

Hey David Walker - you say the House doesn't want to pass a bill.

So what was that Cut, Cap and Balance thingy?

But dude so true about Pelosi - never in history has a politician just flat out said she had no clue what was in the bill, but passed it anyway. It really was a masterful strategy and it work out so well for the House Dems.

So what are they all up to these days Dave, you know all those ones that got booted?

Does Harry Reid need glasses, or does whoever does the intake at the Senate notmpass along information to him?

The House passed a budget. The Senate voted it down, but has not even worked on their own version of a budget. Has the Senate Budget committee even met?

The House passed a debt bill. The Senate has not considered it. Do they have a version to reconcile to the House bill?

Does Reid know how this works?

SayitaintSo-628660

Cloture? Lol. You do realize that there wasn't even a budget drafted...right? Sorry, but there was NOTHING the republicans could have done to stop a bill from being presented and voted on. Not a filibuster, and not a call for cloture (which doesn't prevent bills from moving forward anyway...) Cloture simply means that there is a time cap to debate and then move directly to a vote. If anything 'cloture' moves a bill forward.

Some folks ignorance with how congress works is appalling.

Only in America can you find people stupid enough that they can be led, like the sheep they are, to believe that we simply can continue spending more than we have and borrowing the rest from China with absolutely no repercussions at all... just keep raising that debt ceiling and putting it on the credit card. It is people like YOU with your entitlement mentalities that are destroying this country.

Hey Spanky it is a dog and pony show, they knew it would pass the senate, that's the only reason the repubs passed it in the first. Odumbo fell for it too. All Of congress are nothing but a bunch of free loaders, and I mean all of them. Plain and simple.

Diane Hall

Here is a list of the people who comprise the 50% who don't pay taxes:

• Unemployed
• Retired living on limited income
• Students
• People with huge medical expenses
• Low income families with children

Those people pay lots of other taxes, just not income taxes. Usually the reason is that they don't pay income taxes is that THEY DON'T HAVE INCOME.

Meanwhile, the tax rates on the richest Americans are the lowest they have been in at least six decades. The top tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 92%.

So, Diane, what is your point. If you suggest that those with no income or very low income should pay more taxes so that the rich can keep more of their money I think you are very wrong.

The Democrat supporters here continue to follow their mantra of supporting free speech only when it is a voice that agrees with them. I did my best to find a reason for collapsing of the posts in this thread, but the only reasonI can see is what is said in those posts is contrary to the thoughts of those on the left. What a bunch of hypocrites.

In NY metro, Chicago, La, and other major cities, those making $50 k with two kids under 17 are low income.

Most of the country? They are doing okay.

How about closing some of the Obama loopholes? See, in my mind, anybody who can afford to pay $55,000 for a car does not need a $7500 tax rebate, whether it is electric or runs on gerbil poop.

Close that one.

Then go after the billions he gave his buddies (just two of them) who donated hundreds of thousands to get the billions from us to build the factories that make those cars. Tesla ring any bells?

Only in America can you find the people stupid enough to think we can close a 1.5 trillion budget gap in less than 12 days with no rise in revenue.

Only in America can we find the people who are stupid enough to think they're the only ones who want to reduce spending when comparing charts charts tells a completely different story.

Only in America can we find the people who are stupid enough to think returning to previous levels of taxation is too much ask to help get their country through the mess which their influence brought on our political system in the first place.

Only in America can you find the people stupid enough to be able to sit through 24 hours of fox news and not ask a single question.

Only in America can we find the people people stupid enough to imagine a person like a Palin or a Bachmann have anything constructive to offer our country.

Americans are stupid, so here we all are...we should try harder to get along, or if you're too small a person to do that, try harder to ignore each other completely.

don97524 thinks that it is right that 50% of this country's citizens don't pay income tax. The rest of us pay income tax plus all the other taxes that don says the poor pay. And, like most Democrats and some Republicans, don wants others to pay more so he can keep his in his pocket. More hypocrisy from the left.

111pct, you need to pay attention to your last comment about getting along. Apparently your idea of getting along means agreeing to anything and everything the Democrats want. Now that is really stupid.

LRon

Which of the people on my list do you want to start paying income tax? Most don't pay income tax because their income after deductions does not exist. Have you heard the expression about blood from a stone?

don, I would like to see a fair tax system in which every citizen and business pays the same percentage of their income on every penny earned. Matters not to me whether that income comes from a poorly run welfare system or a well run business. No tax exemptions period. That means their are no deductions. In order to live in this country and enjoy the advantages of doing so, every citizen should contribute. There are people who truly need help, but there are many more who have been taught how to live off of the government handouts the rest of us have to pay for with taxes. I suspect it is hard for you to imagine a time when there was no such thing as food stamps. Just 50-years ago that was the case and people fended for themselves and they weren't dying of starvation. Church's were the main source of help for the poor. But unlike our government, you had to prove to the church that you indeed needed that help and encouraged and gave chances for those people to improve on their stations in life with job opportunities, no matter how menial they were. Today, there are generations that were taught how to work the government welfare system from their parents and grandparents and they have no intention of ever getting a job or getting off the government dole. The more kids they have, the more money they get from the government. If you are satisfied that you cannot get blood from a stone, then you have swallowed the government dependency mindset hook, line, and sinker. There will always be some that are in need, but the current socialist government policies in this country have made eunuchs of some that have no reason other than laziness and the inability to put in the work required to better their positions in life. Having said that, a fair tax system would eventually lower taxes for all of us. To answer your question, as a student, I paid income tax on the wages I earned in the jobs I had. When I was unemployed, I would find another job doing whatever I could find. I could have been a low income family guy, but I wanted more and went after it. It's very simple don, if you make it easy for some to do nothing and still be able to get a government paycheck month after month, the population of low income families will grow until there are no longer enough of us working stiffs to support them. I get labeled everytime I say this, but personal responsibility is a positive trait that has been lost on many of us. As I stated, only 50% of us are now paying taxes. Nobody can make me belive that 50% of this country's citizens fall within the categories you listed. Aloha.

Ron

Perhaps all 50% don't fall in my categories, but think about it.

• Unemployed - about 10%
• Underemployed - another 10%
• Retired - 15%
• Low income, with families 15%

What do you think of my estimates? You are using that 50% number only because blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity keep talking such nonsense without talking about the real people who comprise that statistic. Your ideas about the flat tax are not new .... they have been considered goofy by most educated people for a long time.

Your autobiography tells me one thing. You are nothing special. Almost everyone wants a better job and a better income, but the conservatives such as yourself continue to find examples of the minority of people who won't work harder and imply that everyone who is on the bottom of the economic scale is lazy. You are both wrong and insensitive.

I realize that this is a sarcastic post but the actual life expectancy for someone born in the 1930's is 60, and you don't get SS benefits until you are 65. So the thrust of your post is actually what was implemented by FDR.

I do remember reading somewhere that the President has powers under a law called The National Emergency Powers Act.

The law stipulated that the President of the United States may exercise certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances.

In the simplest understanding of the term, the dictionary defines an emergency as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.” In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934 the Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of urgency and relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation. “It denotes the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being beyond tolerable limits.”

Wouldn’t the default of the US on it’s obligations fall under the provisions of this act and allow the President to take whatever measures necessary to end it. The economic stability of the US is at risk and duration and timing are unknown

Seems like this is a very viable alternative.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

See even the libbies know what has to be done. Just a little updating.

You all see the article in the NYT about the little town in RI? It is asking its retirees to take a haircut on benefits.

Like I say to my clients sometimes - better to take a haircut than get nothing.

Or we could just go the Solent Green route. Or better yet Logan's Run.

Can I "opt out" of SS withholding? NO! If I paid into it under certain terms then it better be there when it's due.

Somehow I could see Spanky as a "Sandman" chasing down all those trouble making, long lived types looking for sanctuary.

REPOST FROM COLLAPSED FIRST THREAD:

One of the elements a lot of people miss, or cover up in their overheated rhetoric about the deficit and debt, is that the debt ceiling itself has largely been an irrelevant artifact from World War I Congressional moitoring of how war bond campaigns financed the war. It was revised in 1939 and 1941.

The debt ceiling is related to the budget - routinely it has been raised to accomodate spending already authorized by Congress. Raising the debt ceiling does not allow the government to go on a wild spending spree like a drunken sailor. Instead, it permits the government to fulfill its obligations as determined by Congressional action.

Before there was any kind of debt ceilning, how the government financed itself depended upon whether there was a budget surplus or not. A great deal of U.S. debt was relatively short-term, and still is - intermittent borrowing to keep Treasury accounts stable compared with the inconsistent and unpredicatble receipts of revenues from taxes and fees. This, by the way, is almost the only way that the government operates like a business - the same kind of borrowing is common for businesses to manage cash flow.

Now the shrill cries of the right suggest that raising the debt ceiling just creates another "blank check" for President Obama. In fact, that is entirely wrong - a piece of propaganda that is utterly false.

The President may not spend one cent of either revenues or borrowed funds for any purpose other than described by law - as established by Congress. The ones who created the liabilities are the members of Congress who appropriated, and then authorized, funds for specific purposes.

The use of the debt ceiling to create a crisis in the government is a cynical ploy by the very members of Congress who created the conditions in which a debt ceiling increase is necessary. Rather than take on specific individual budgetary issues in full debate andnegotiations, by holding the debt ceiling vote hostage, they are hoping to cram down the nation's throat a radical and politically unpopular agenda. And some in the Tea Party are even willing to bring the entire country into collapse to get their way.

Spanky-

Not so much as taking a haircut on benefits but rather "means testing"

The term has been bantered around but, I think with little understanding.

I know you know what it means. but to refresh the memories of some, what it means is that in order to receive the social entitlements you now automatically receive, you must meet an income requirement, that is fall below it, in order to qualify. You can make it progressive if you like, but the point is is you're wealthy and don't meet the means test you don't receive SS or Medicare. You don't need it, can pay your bills without hardship and the money that would have been paid to you stays in the pot for others who need it.

Seems fair to me.

Interesting one Yellowdog.

I am very anti-establishment by nature. I am not a fan of the police, the DA or as you can all see, the government.

And you all know Robin Hood was stealing from the Man, aka the government.

But it is always better to be the one with the gun than without. Naa, I'd hightail out the city into the jungle. I would love that - freedom.

Yellowdog-Mark D..

Spanky loves to stir the pot and point out flaws in arguments and, I think, just loves to argue. He is a damned attorney fro god sake.

Deep down, Spanky has a deep and abiding love for this country that he expresses from A GOP perspective.

Most important, Spanky makes you think.

Done...I'm tearing up....sniff..

John A.,

If i could vote more than once for a post i would vote a million times for this one. You have hit the nail on the head. I would like to see any reasonable conservative argue your point. And for you Spanky i said "REASONABLE".

I am actually a "people person" or at least that's what I tell Ms. Spanky.

Ira - means testing is absolutely not fair. No one has a choice in paying in. By means testing you are rewarding failure, at the expense of those who were successful.

The money all goes in at the same value, so why not dole it out in the same manner. Besides, along with means testing comes increased rates for, wait for it, rich folk. So we'd get the pleasure of paying more for something we won't get.

As Ms. Rand said: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Didn't work in the USSR, won't work here. No thanks. Private accounts - let the idiots do what they want.

lol untoward? yea you tell them buddy!

I saw this elsewhere and thought I'd share: "Eat the Rich!" (Enough already, Harry. 'Untoward?')

I agree. Very well said John A.

Spanky - I'd hightail out the city into the jungle. I would love that - freedom.

Logan/Robin, I mean Spanky sounds like you read Ayn Rand's - Anthem

Spanky..

Failure is subjective, isn't it?

For a middle class family who doesn't clear 100 grand a year but pays their bills, sends their kids to college and does all the right things....whatever that means...they may not have put away enough for retirement. They have certainly not been failures...quite the opposite.

If failure to you means you are not in the top 5 or 10% of wage earners in this country and have been able to invest and put away more than you will ever need, then that's a very narrow definition as it probably excludes 80 to 90% of the country.

Failure is just not monetarily based and if we are talking about shared sacrifice then the $2,000 grand from SS that the very wealth will forfeit has been endorsed by the Gang of 6 Deficit proposal.

Now if you want to argue about the Estate Tax beind double taxation, i"m on your side.

Need to agree to disagree on this one.

Actually I never did read Anthem, at least that I can recall. Fountainhead and Atlas in the 9th grade.

Man I was cool back then.

These days I ascribe more to the Lil' Wayne philosophy: "It's my cup. It shouldn't matter what's in it, cause it's my cup. It could be Heroin, but it's my cup and none of yo damn business."

See Lil' Wayne got his. As did all the Cash Money Millionaires.

So Wilberta ...

Are you Wilberta or kathee the great or is it the case that MSNBC has a room with five committed Lefties each having five or six names feed this stuff into Newsvine? Hope you're getting paid well with Obama campaign funds! This is verbatim the same post in another thread but with a different name.

But to the point of this so called article ...

MAYBE IF HARRY WOULD DO SOMETHING IN HIS OWN HOUSE FOR ONCE WE MIGHT GET SOMEWHERE!!!

Democrats ... NO PLAN ... NO LEADERSHIP ... NO HONEST PRESS COVERAGE ... and ALL BS!

I got you Ira - it's why I love having you around. You are a libbie [come on, it's in your DNA] but you get the big picture (most of the time).

I almost married, a long time ago, a lovely jewish girl from New York. She is now also an lawyer [Skaaden Arps no less]. Being a lawyer many of my friends are jewish. I have a decent idea as to how you think. Very conflicted on so many issues.

Failure is of course relative. I know people that make far less than $50k, but have no debt, own the houses outright and live very well. It's all about expense containment, as of course you know.

It's the whole shared sacrifice thing. I ask nothing from you and would take nothing from you.

Gang of six going down. Right now the House freshman control. They will be a deal, they will make some concessions, but they have the power.

They are also right. We are at $14.5 NOW. Can you just imagine the effect of that number on future generations?

Spanky-..

The deficit needs tio be dealt with and that's why I'm for the Simpson-Bowles Plan. Really workable.

Bet you that if I got your GOP butt down to a Veterans Hospital or Center or advocate facility, you'd be doing Pro Bono every week. The Vets I see, from Viet Nam on really are getting a royal screwing and there is no one advocating for them. No money for the long-term care they need or for simple housing and food and they have to fight the bureaucracy of the VA on top of it all.

It's not enough to say thank you for your service now your on your own. Wanna help?

As a matter of fact Ira google "Stand Down" San Diego.

Ms. Spanky is part of that and is directly involved.

Now, back to politics - there will be no default. There is money available. Hard choices will have to be made.

Kicking the can further does not make those choices go away, just harder.

@ John A.

John,

Thank you for you well thought out and articulate post. However, I have one question...

If an increase in the Debt Ceiling is NOT a blank check for the government... and serves ONLY as a means for the government to fund short term debt that is in-line with the budget....

(1) Why will not increasing it force a default? Could it be that our government has ALREADY spend the 'blank check' money and now needs the actual 'blank check' to back it all up?

AND...

(2) Why do we think we even need to increase it if we don't even have a budget yet? We don't know how much debt we need to carry if we don't have a budget... do we?

No sir... I say increasing the debt ceiling will certainly serve as a 'blank check' to our government and they will push our debt all the way up to the new levels established by the increased ceiling.

Rogue,

Its funny to me how conservatives think that presenting a plan that has every single item that Democrats oppose in it is leading. Leading is working with another party towards a goal but not pushing through legislation that is farsical and won't pass through the next chamber just to try to win points. Privitizing SS and/or Medicare will never ever pass through the US government. Get over it....

SOB -

Some corrections: I did not say that the debt ceiling increase necessarily involved short-term debt. It involves any and all insturments available to the government, mainly long-term bonds, to finance the difference between revenues and obligations. I used the short-term debt as one example.

The first of your points is off the mark. Although Congress authorizes the spending, as previously appropriated, the actual disbursements take place over the course of the fiscal year. At the time the spending plans were approved, there were estimates of anticipated revenues and an evaluation of what the difference between the actual income and the actual disbursements would be, the difference being the budget deficit. There was never a "blank check" at any time.

In administering the affairs of the government, the President is basically the bank teller-in-chief. Congress actually ran up the bills, and it's the Administration's job to pay out as the bills come due. That's what's happening now. And these are bills that were incurred in the past, not the future.

However, Congress didn't anticipate the bills might be so high, or that varying economic conditions would alter the amount of revenues actually realized. So the bank teller is now informing the spenders, who are in Congress, that they need to put more money in the vault.

And if they don't put more money in the vault, then when the next band of creditors appears at the teller's window, he has to say that there is nothing there for them. That is default.

As for your point two, we do have a budget for the fiscal year 2010-2011. It is something of an ad-hoc budget, yes, but without Congressional appropriations and authorizations before, the government would already have been shut down. That's how Newt Gingrich, following the "train wreck theory of government," managed to shut the government down in the 1990's. But he did not prevent the Treasury from being able to pay on debt as necessary, so there was no default.

The budget battle now being waged is for fiscal years 2011-2012, which begins in October. THAT is the conflict in which not so much a "blank check," but rather "how big a check, and for what" will be determined.

Raising the debt ceiling simply enables the government to continue doing its job, paying for expenses already incurred or that Congress has already instructed the President to incur. And the debt, some of which consists of lending that took place 50 years ago, is a national obligation that is more than simply a matter of honor - turning away the creditors at the teller window means other creditors will lose faith in our country's ability to pay. When that happens, all hell breaks loose.

Your argument originates from your belief that deficits and debt are simply now insupportable, and perhaps should never have been allowed in the first place. That's a battle you can wage over either what remains of approved expenditures for this year, and certainly for the next fiscal year. It is not the same as the basic issue of meeting expenses alrady incurred.

And you can, by attempting to win Congressional cuts in existing authority for ongoing expenses in the rest of this budget year, attack the amount of debt to come, meaning that therefore some borrowing will not be needed even if the debt ceiling increase would permit it. But you cannot put the country - and perhaps the world economy - at risk by refusing to honor debts long ago created in trust that America would pay up.

That's the functional reality of what is going on now, and why at bare minimum the debt ceiling must be increased in time.

The other fights, the ideological fights over policy, over what kind of government you or I or someone else wants, what programs deserve to be funded and which ones should be brought to a crashing halt as soon as the political power to make it so is mustered, and what the future of America will be, those fights should not be holding this country hostage.

Last I heard SS was safe for several decades.

I feel the wealthy should give a fair share, that tax loopholes should be closed,(I mean, all the average non wealthy American has left as a deduction is house interest (and the republicans are trying to take that away) and the children we support.

This idea that paid government servants (and they are servants, there to servant the people needs) will take a weekend off to R&R as many Americans go without and now our very economy (as well as the effect this devistation will have on the world economy) is in absolute desperate peril...........Fire them ALL!!!

Fire those who do not see this situation, which they have created, as a priority as it gets down to the wire ...... not important enough for them to work till it gets done...fine..............fire them and let them sit at home and play with the remote. Only serious public servants need attend.

We, the people should be able to sue the congress for damages as they seek to destroy our livelihood...taking away all that we have worked lifetimes for, just so they can fulfill some extreme ideological wet dream..............this is not the time for politics but the time to collaborate to save the nations (as well as the worlds) economy.

The President should take measures to raise the debt ceiling and take it out of the hands of the infantile, ignorant, arrogant conservatives............................the fact that the conservatives created this situation and now seek to take it to a totally destructive end when they have power to stop it in its tracks and reverse the situation they will not.........for the conservatives so not work with liberals....they will destroy the US before they cooperate with liberals......the same behavior they exhibited while Bush was in the White House and the conservatives OWNED all branches of government-----all the conservatives did was shut out or shut down the liberals and pass their own agenda...........there was no cooperation, as there is none now.

So, vote conservative and bring about the destruction of the US economy...........the reason conservatives act as they do is because they have not accepted the FACT that this is the 21st century not the 19th or 20th.........they are taking us back into the dark ages.

Look to the liberals to save us..........as usual.

RogueAmerican, if you really are a "Reagan conservative", as you claim, then you must surely be aware of the fact that Reagan raised taxes quite a few times during his presidency as a way to deal with the deficit. Today's republicans won't even consider raising taxes on billionaires. One would think that a "Reagan conservative" would have something to say about that.

Why should you give "your money" to the government to pay for social services that all use? Well, how about the fact that the wealthy ***USE*** those services far more than the average person does. If you're the CEO of a large chain of department stores, your company:

1. Uses thousands of delivery trucks all over the US -- and those thousands of trucks damage the roads (you know....the roads that *MY* tax dollars paid for) far more than a single person's car ever could.

2. .Your store makes extensive use of the court system (to prosecute shoplifters, to deal with countless lawsuits, etc) -- FAR more than any individual person ever could.

3. Your store's use of police and fire departments also dwarfs that of any single family.

In short, the wealthy do not earn their wealth in a vacuum. You get your wealth on the backs of the rest of society. That's great! However, don't moan and groan when the time comes to pitch in by paying higher taxes.

CEOs made their money by using public services to extent that dwarfs -- by several orders of magnitude -- the use attributable to a regular family. In spite of this, some of the biggest corporations essentially pay NO taxes on the billions that they earn from using social services that *MY* tax dollars paid for. On what planet would that be seen as fair?

John A - You have some well thought out and reasoned points. However, I disagree slightly on a few points. You alluded to the fact that the Tea Party is willing to use the budget process as a means to get their political points across. Wasn't the same type of tactic employed by the administration and the democrats to enact the health care bill? Why didn't the democrats pass this budget when they controlled both congress and the white house?

Also, you said that congress doesn't use the "blank check" method of funding but rather they spend according to what they expect to receive in revenue. Isn't that like a person expecting a certain paycheck and then obligating themselves to expenses before the paycheck is received? The old adage that comes to mind is "counting you chickens before they hatch". When one realizes that their paycheck doesn't meet their obligations, one can request a loan from a lending institution to cover the shortfall. However, continually requesting loans undermines credibility with the lender and not reducing the financial obligations reflects insincerity in trying to live within a budget.

Further, you stated that the fiasco being realized now is the budgeting process for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. I believe that this is a budget for 2011 fiscal year - soon to end. Hasn't the congress been working under a CRA for nearly a year?

I agree that debt ceiling and deficit spending are not synonymous. But continual deficit spending is what has gotten us into this position. Paying off past obligations is one issue but once one realizes that their paycheck does not support existing and anticipated debts, one should not consider remodeling one's home, buying a new car when the old car is still functional, hiring more gardeners, etc.

Social Security is not part of the budget. Paying back the money"borrowed" from the social security trust fund is!!!

Thinker -

I have a number of corrections and esponses. Unfortunately, I am out of time today to craft them.

Come back here tomorrow (Friday 7/22) at about 10 am Eastern, and I'll put up the responses.

I'm saving your post so I can write up the comments this evening. Basically, my point all along has been that the debt ceiling by itself is not a "blank check," that it does not encourage or allow spending not approved by Congress, and thatthis is merely a crisis of convenience for the Tea Party ideologues. As for the health care bill, it was not at all handled in a fashion comparable to this newest episode of "disaster captialism."

You haven't passed a budget in over two years and you're pointing fingers at the House for taking two days off? You've finally developed a sense of humor.

I called Speaker Boehner's Office and told him that Congress should work this weekend too. In fact, they should stay in their damn offices until they figure out HOW we will raise the debt limit.

I am so tired of this BS. They pass laws at the last minute that no one has read and then we really get F'd over.

Social Security is not part of the budget. Paying back the money"borrowed" from the social security trust fund is!!!

I agree. Tell CONGRESS to NOT CUT OUR SS AND MEDICARE. I am 50 and they can not wipe my 34 years of contributions off the books. I still have 25 more years to work.

As for the health care bill, it was not at all handled in a fashion comparable to this newest episode of "disaster captialism."

What? I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. See 2.33

I AGREE that WE SHOULD ALL contact our Congressman and tell them to get to work this weekend. After all, we are the boss.

Here is the House website so you can figure out who your Congressman is.

http://house.gov/

Why should you or I be forced to give OUR money and sit idly by as they create more waste, fraud and abuse that they readily admit to? Progressivism has created an incredibly weak society. Taxes, regulations, laws that don't get enforced (especially against the ruling class) and massive economic malfeasance for nearly a century is why we are here.

Well, RogueAmerican, I see that everything is all about you, you, you.

Well, if I was to take the same line of thought as you, RogueAmerican, then why are MY tax dollars being spent on the useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems to me that Conservatism has produced a frightened society, willing to spend any amount of money and give up liberties in the name of safety.

You see, RogueAmerican, there are a lot of things that I do not want to pay for. In American society, we BOTH end up paying for things that we don't particularly want because it is NECESSARY for our society to FUNCTION.

I see you are having a hard time dealing with that.

And your diatribe rooting for the 'ruling class' - believe me, they could give two $hits about you. Heck, that same ruling class that you are so enamored with are stealing YOUR retirement as we are bickering here on this blog. Funny how you are OK with that, but you begrudge the sick and elderly the monies that they paid into all their lives calling it an 'entitlement'.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, RogueAmerican.

Really.

The house passed a bill and Reid won't allow a vote on it in the senate. Who is the obstructionist?

The house dems didn't even try to come up with a budget when they had control so it is their fault that this crap is going on.

Junicon, Those thousands of delivery trucks you are talking about last time I checked those trucks don't drive themselves, there is one or two people in those trucks making deliveries, so for example that big rich evil man you are talking about has 100 trucks making deliveries each person is getting paid $15 an hour, 8 hour days, 40 hour weeks at a 16% tax rate that would be a total of $998400 in taxes taken by the government and that is not including the taxes they are getting from the evil rich man. So one man created 200 jobs, those 200 people paid their taxes as well and had given more then you would in more then half your life. 2) the court system to prosecute shoplifters and countless lawsuits etc... Okay well the shoplifter that is being prosecuted if found guilty will pay fines and court fees and lawyer costs, so the court fees get divided to certain costs, the fines samething and if the merchant seeks anything that will go to pay their lawyer to an extent and back to the store. Countless lawsuits let me see those would be people that slip or go into stores looking for an easy way to make a quick buck, and who is responsible for the ability of idiotic lawsuits we see today, yep the liberals and democrats. 3) Use of police and fire men, well what about it the stores taxes, the stores employees taxes the rich mans taxes and your taxes go into paying their paycheck, but if you want to look at it if the rich man has 50 stores in a location that would mean more police are needed to do patrols at night and response to those shoplifters etc... so that would mean the need for more police officers which mean more jobs for people, you know the jobs that one single person like you can't create but complain about the people that create the jobs. So in short you complain about the wealthy and the companies that pay very little taxes compared to the rest of us, okay I see your point it would seem unfair, but let me ask you this, could you start a company, become rich, build industry in the USA and higher lots of your fellow americans and even if you are creating a product or products that the American people and the world want would you be able to increase your wealth with the salaries you have to pay to your workers, remember now they are legit americans not illegals so that means you have to pay them a wage where they can have an average life, then you have to pay for the factories, the machines, the materials, repairs for all sorts of things, then EPA down your throat every fiscal quarter they make 10 of their previous regulations even stricter and add 5 more regulations and now your company does not meet the standards so you have to pay big hefty fines and then pay for the updating to your factories, then shipping your merchandise, the extra workers that drive and deliver, the trucks, planes, boats, and fuel costs, not including EPA will be on you again to see if your vehicles meet their standards. So after all this, my money would be on that you'd be closing shop after just a couple of years because you were losing money then making it not even breaking even. So ask yourself that then complain if you could accomplish that.

In short, the wealthy do not earn their wealth in a vacuum. You get your wealth on the backs of the rest of society. That's great! However, don't moan and groan when the time comes to pitch in by paying higher taxes.

CEOs made their money by using public services to extent that dwarfs -- by several orders of magnitude -- the use attributable to a regular family. In spite of this, some of the biggest corporations essentially pay NO taxes on the billions that they earn from using social services that *MY* tax dollars paid for. On what planet would that be seen as fair?

Thinker (numbers) -

I'm a little late. Working from home today, have to use roomie's PC. I'm going to compose my answer to you now.

Thinker (numbers) wrote - and in between paragraphs are my comments in bold:

John A - You have some well thought out and reasoned points. However, I disagree slightly on a few points. You alluded to the fact that the Tea Party is willing to use the budget process as a means to get their political points across. Wasn't the same type of tactic employed by the administration and the democrats to enact the health care bill? Why didn't the democrats pass this budget when they controlled both congress and the white house?

As I wrote above, we are working under a budget "of sorts." There have already been many back-and-forth discussions here about the conditions of 2010 and how things went, I don't see any need to dig back into that particular hole. There were Defense Appropriations Acts and some other specific segments passed individually, however. The point remains that Congress, in whatever manner it chooses, sets the spending parameters, not the President. There is no line-item veto. The various Departments are obligated under law to do their jobs, and sometimes they even have money left over (certainly the case in this particular period). Interestingly, unlike most years, the extra money was not frizzled away in some last-minute activity so that the coming year's budget would be kept stable or increased, the usual pattern of bureaucracies and their budgets. But that's entirely beside the point.

Also, you said that congress doesn't use the "blank check" method of funding but rather they spend according to what they expect to receive in revenue. Isn't that like a person expecting a certain paycheck and then obligating themselves to expenses before the paycheck is received? The old adage that comes to mind is "counting you chickens before they hatch". When one realizes that their paycheck doesn't meet their obligations, one can request a loan from a lending institution to cover the shortfall. However, continually requesting loans undermines credibility with the lender and not reducing the financial obligations reflects insincerity in trying to live within a budget.

Pardon me, but your citation of my text is inaccurate. I said in terms of anticipated revenues but also realizing that those revenues may not (and for the past decade and more DID not) reach forecasted levels vs. spending. You cite a household example - but households are not governments of major world powers. I wrote about this some time ago - you can find the article on my 'Vine home page. Essentially, our government has operated at a negative balance since WWII and has always had debt to pay off. In fact, even in some of the heyday budget years of the post-Civil War 1800's, despite balanced budgets, there was a national debt. Trying to oversimplify this matter only introduces misconception into the discussion.

As for the idea of credibility with the lender - the credibility gap (SEE: Newt Gingrich, Tiffany's etc.) only arises when there is serious doubt on the part of lenders that the creditor can repay. That is the very crux of the debt ceiling increase vote now, in fact. I wrote about this some while back. Historically, you see how that particular element of credibility helped wreck the Spanish Empire under the Hapsburgs, whos era saw the country default three times on its national debt, albeit at a time when any kind of sophisticated banking system did not exist. England, on the other hand, beginning in 1694 with the founding of the Bank of England, ran up relative debts that dwarf ours today - and managed to sustain over a century and a half of war a strong and winning position. SEE: Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, chapters 2-3.

Further, you stated that the fiasco being realized now is the budgeting process for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. I believe that this is a budget for 2011 fiscal year - soon to end. Hasn't the congress been working under a CRA for nearly a year?

See my first comment above. The matter is - as revealed in reports today about the debt ceiling negotiations - party immediate cuts, which Congress may seek at any point in any budget year, but more about the budget years ahead.

I agree that debt ceiling and deficit spending are not synonymous. But continual deficit spending is what has gotten us into this position. Paying off past obligations is one issue but once one realizes that their paycheck does not support existing and anticipated debts, one should not consider remodeling one's home, buying a new car when the old car is still functional, hiring more gardeners, etc.

Your point actually focuses on budgets, not debt ceiling. The debt ceiling serves two purposes - to regulate repayment of bills already incurred, and as necessary to allow or forbid further government expenditures not covered by "current receipts" to be paid. In both cases, Congress is the body which established the liabilities. The negotiations now do address both short-term approvals of spending, as well as categoris of longer-term spending by addressing budgetary matters. However, simply increasing the debt ceiling without any of those changes still only permits such borrowing as necessary to pay bills for approved expenditures - nothing else.

My contention here is that it is unnecessary to conduct budget talks, which have - as you point out - been going on for 18 months without much resolution, at the same time as we take responsbility for our bills with the debt ceiling vote. That is holding the country hostage to an ideological position from the right. These budget debates are literally about what kind of country we will have as we move ahead over the years. I don't, and most Americans don't, believe that sort of massive decision should be crammed through under cover of a crisis manufactured by a tiny minority of the House.

If these comments are not enoough to deal with your reply, then we have reached an impasse.

And for some of the screwball conspiracy theorists around here who think I'm part of a group of liberal posters paid to do this writing - let me repeat: I am a maritime historian, employed in private industry, unaffiliated with ANY political action or pressure group. I do my work alone, do my thinking by myself, do my own research and produce my analyses independently.

The reason I usually don't post at night or over weekends is simple - I have to have access to a more recent computer. I am fortunate that during intermissions in my work assignments, I have the freedom and privilege to visit here. My home machine is old enough that the software now used here will not recognize my browser edition. It's quite frustrating, really, because my older machine is perfectly fast and stable enough; just another victim of planned obsolescence.

why the numbers after your name?

My question is why is the POTUS negotiating with terrorists? That is what these freshman House members amount to. They are holding the nations credit rating hostage for political points. Not because they care about the country, because if they did they would pay our obligations and begin debating rationally like adults.

Not a single plan that has been passed includes seniors losing Medicare or Social Security benefits. That is a lie.

Of course it's a lie GO USA. That is how they get support. A majority of their supporters don't do research, they just listen to the one liners and believe it.

I decided today that if the republicans cave and allow the democrats to continue on their path of having the government responsible for everything, I might just join them. You see, I personally, saved the taxpayers over $10,000.00. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but something none the less. My 80 year old mother had to have surgery. After the surgery, the doctor came to talk to me and explained that he had set up a spot for her at the rehab clinic (read Medicare paid for). I said, no, that is not necessary. He said she needs rehab and someone with her 24/7. I explained to him that I already had all of the necessary equipment (hospital bed, walker, bedside commode, etc) and that between my daughters and myself we could handle it. The only thing I needed was for a physical therapist to come to house a couple of times a week. The doctor looked at me like I had three heads or something. He said no one ever refused 100% paid for care. I looked back and said, that's why this country is in the shape it is. I had to fight the hospital admin and doctors to take care of my own mother! It has not been an easy road and it's not even close to being over, but if there is a next time, since you all want the government to take care of everything, I might take the easy road and stick the taxpayers with the bill!

You see Mr. President, when you call for sacrifice, what you don't know is how many of us do it and have always done it without thinking twice and certainly without being asked. It's called personal responsibility, something you and the democrats so desperately want to do away with.

Go USA-851295,

You might want to read Paul Ryan's Road to Oz Plan the House passed, you know, Premium Coupon Care? You know, the one that adds $6.5 trillion to the deficit? The one that repeals the Affordable Care Act? The one that gives an even a larger tax cut to the top brackets? The one that increases co-pays immediately for seniors? That one? There is much more paving his yellow brick road...yes, he calls it a Path To Prosperity alright, it is paved with corporate dollars leading all the way to Wall Street, Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Industry. Just another means of privitization. The Cut, Cap & Balance Bill is Ryan's Plan x 10. The GOP/TP would like the country to develop mass amnesia by November 2012....nope, not gonna happen.

I have read Ryan's budget plan and I agree with it. The tax rate proposed is the same for all. 10% of the first $100,000 and 25% of all other earned money. Working adults get a $12,500 personal deduction each and each member of the family has an exemption of $3500. No other deductions whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that. Those who make more would still being paying more.

A family of four making $60,000 would pay $2100 in federal income tax. A family of four making $125,000 would pay $8600. A family of 4 making $500,000 would pay $100,250 in federal taxes.

I hope the SCOTUS finds Obamacare to be unconstitutional as I don't think the federal government can for citizens to buy anything whatsoever. As far as vouchers go, I think that I am in a better position to choose an insurance plan that is right for me. And your claims about the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill are wrong. The bill doesn't even affect Medicare or Social Security. Look it up - the bill - not the commentary about the bill.

That should be I don't think the federal government can force citizens...

OH My, Harry Reid must be an elitist he uses big words like untoward. The illiterate masses don't know what it means. lol

un·to·ward–adjective

1. unfavorable or unfortunate.
2. improper.
3. Archaic.

I think it is a pretty accurate description of house republicans not working the weekend. I know when we have a deadline coming up fast, we work until we finish the job at hand.

Shouldn't our elected officials do the same?

ANY DEAL, AS CURRENTLY SHAPED. CANNOT PASS THE HOUSE....R­­EALLY?
The numbers don't add up. Boehner unable to wrangle as few as 43 votes.

The 112th Congress: 435 Members
GOP (240); 60 members in the Tea Party Caucus; with 20 more aligned
Democrats (192)
Empty Seats (3)

Majority: 218 Votes to pass a debt ceiling bill.

IS THE GOP LEADERSHIP CLAIMING THAT 60-80 TEA PARTY MEMBERS CONTROL THE MAJORITY? THAT THEY CAN BLOCK A VOTE ??????

Pelosi can deliver 175 votes.
That means the GOP has to deliver 43 votes. Just 43 out of 240.

I think that the problem IS the leadership­.
IT IS BOEHNER AND CANTOR.
THEY CANNOT LEAD.

Grover Norquist is the main problem. He was NOT elected by the people!

WHY ARE THE TEA/GOP FOLLOWING HIM?

Tax rates are lower overseas - raising the corporate rate is counterproductive to your argument. It is easy to have someone else pay the taxes - but at some point no one will have money to pay the taxes - then what is your brillant suggestion? Spending must be cut! The Repubs and Dems have equal blame on the spending. Obama has increased the debt - no one can argue with that - and made a bad situation worse. The issue is that the tax code does need to be revised and edited. A flat tax would work. Right now we have too many non-paying tax payers. Guess what, when the corporations move out due to high taxes, and rich move out of the country, who gets to pay the bills? Have you looked at your property tax bill? Have you noticed the increase in sales taxes, state income taxes? As the proverb says, there is no such thing as a free lunch! The goverments (all levels) cannot pay the obligations for pensions and social programs. Cut the spending!

The goverments (all levels) cannot pay the obligations for pensions and social programs. Cut the spending! Tell your CONGRESSMAN and SENATOR to STOP raiding the Social Security Trust Fund for unfunded wars, EARMARKS, building roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan. Build them here, put construction workers, heavy equipment operatiors back to work. BUY the steel and McAdam from U.S. companies, NOT CHINA or MEXICO.

readbetweenthelines - Do what you tag names says.....yes the president raised the debt but why did that happen? It wasn't because he felt like it. He had no choice. The Republicans nearly collapsed this country and now they are on the verge of doing it again. They are a cult now not a second party.

The argument that our tax is too high is ridiculous. I am a tax accountant at the largest tax provider in the world. Most of my clients use trickery to move their profits to foreign countries and never pay a dime of tax in America. A flat tax would only help if it was placed on sales for corporations as Americans are generally taxed on most of their receipts (sans their itemized deductions).

The tax code today is inadequately skewed towards taxing the middle and lower class folks. Two examples: If I took out a loan to pay for a car, the interest paid would never be a deduction for me on a tax return. Alternatively if a corporation did the same exact transaction, their interest would be deductible as an expense of doing business. Isn't the person also getting the car to "do business" by going to work? I mean its the same situation in my mind but the form.

Second example: Say I make 200k a year doing tax work for a company. I would be taxed at the highest tax rates by the federal and state governments where I work. If a day trader earned that same amount in dividends or capital gains through the ownership or sale of stocks, they would be taxed at a much lower rate due to the reducitions put in place by Bush. Why does day trader get preferential treatment compared to a teacher, or doctor, or McD's worker? Its a joke.

basedrum, I have asked about that repeatedly. A guy breaking his ass doing manual labor gets taxed higher than a person that simply invested, it does not make sense!!

Andie469,
Investment income was taxed at the source first then again when received.

The definition of compromise is that all sides must make concessions. What concessions have the Republicans made or been willing to make?

Reid is correct to slam the house for taking the weekend off. Where's the sense of urgency from the house? Obviously there isn't one, because the new brand of conservative thinks defaulting on our debt (money we've already spent) is no big deal, and they aren't willing to raise the debt ceiling no matter what conditions are attached!

Perhaps the economy totally crashing will be best in the long run. Maybe if the pain reaches the top, then something will actually get done. It's going to be very, very rough getting there, however.

Robin above made a good point, but it got collapsed:

dirty Harry and Obama got us into this mess.... so far they've been pretty ineffective getting us out of it! Nice try at deflection Harry!

The last thing Harry Reid should do is reprimand anyone! If he had class, he would apologize to the country. Old Harry is the best argument for term limits I've ever heard..... he's made his millions, now he should just go home!

So, you are all for the house taking the weekend off then..."When the going gets tough, the House takes the weekend off". Bunch of cowards.

it would be a shame to do something constructive now! It would be a shame for the House to stay in session this weekend, After all it is more important for them to go home to their district and NOT hold Town Halls, because they just might get an earful. Instead they will just go to TEA PARTY gatherings and play to the base. They don't give a rats A?S about the poor and middle class. They want them to go away.

you call anything whatsoever that the teagaggers have done that is constructive in any way ???? If so you are more off the wall than they will ever be.....

Bill T,

These same republicans that are refusing to raise the debt limit are the ones that appropriated the spending. If they don't want to raise the limit, they shouldn't have approved the spending. Not only should Reid be angry with them, but so should the entire nation for damaging our credit rating!

The House has passed a budget and Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Senate has not passed a budget in over 2 years. Harry Reid and the majority party are breaking the law.

The democrats has offered spending cuts. Would someone please tell me what has the Republicans offered except decreases in SS, medicare and medicaid?

Cut, Cap, and Balance doesn't affect Medicare or Social Security.

Here's more info:

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Cut_Cap_Balance_Act_Summary-FAQ--07-15-11.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/debtceiling.htm

So, you are all for the house taking the weekend off then..."When the going gets tough, the House takes the weekend off". Bunch of cowards. Tim Why are you and Harry upset if the House takes the weekend off. They have done their job and passed legislation. It is in Harry's court to debate and vote.

Go USA Absolutely correct Cut, Cap and balance does not affect ss, medicare, veterans and debt interest yet the libs still try to say it does. Just a guess but maybe the are like their icon Nancy Pelosi and waiting on a bill to completely pass both houses and the president before the read it and figure out how inane they sound.

Tim Why are you and Harry upset if the House takes the weekend off. They have done their job and passed legislation. It is in Harry's court to debate and vote.

WOW, Richard. The House has done their job????

Really?

If the House members have the same mindset as you, NO WONDER they 'went home' for the weekend!!

Add this all together and the Republican plan seems to be to turn the USA into the Republic of China's twin, All for the rich and let the workingclass have 16 hr days at $1 an hour

At least little Stevie Wynn will be happy with that result!

Funny DA! Trashing a liberal who voted for Obama (and supports Reid) because he has realized Obama is not what he claimed to be. He spoke truth.

BO-1925019, you are so right. I guess you and I was born to have common horse sense. I know the majority of people in the U.S. are not in the middle of the middle class and up in income to being very rich. The majority of people in the U.S. are below the middle of the middle class in take home income per month. Why would the majority who voted create a majority Republican House that is screwing over at least 75% of the people in the United States???????? I made a mistake myself and voted for a very Right Wing Democrat President Obama. We need a working peoples (like Teamster Union leader) President and vote all Teamsters into Congress. They always have looked out for other Teamster members.

They have a plan but the republicans won't pass it! It cuts 4 trillon You know there is 3 plans and not one will play because of the republicans. The party of NO no matter what! We are tired of them and they will go next elections.

Teapublican right wing B.S. Republicans are not doing their job. They are avoiding responsibility at every turn, not making any worthwile plans that are anything more than theatre. CC&T is a total waste of time and they knew it... The right love 9.2% unemployment and the economy tanking and they are doing everything they can to keep it that way and make it worse...why...Why blame the President for everything? Because they want the White House back...They hope with all their heart that things are worse come election day, and they obstruct, cut off funds, delay, filibuster...lie, cheat, and steal trying to get the power back. Vote them out, all of them...Vote them out locally and Nationally... Take our country back from these Corporate lap dogs...

Jody dear, those irresponsible SOB your refer to actually passed a bill.

You are aware of that, so why lie about it?

Jody, ignoring something you don't like won't make it go away.

So what else do you have Jody? In what way has Reid or Obama proved responsible? No plans from either, let alone an actual bill, or even a piece of paper with some writing on it.

Jody?

Jody, from what I can see, the Tea Partyers and the Republicans in the House really believe that they 'passed' this legislation, so they deserve some time off, notwithstanding the August 2nd deadline.

Looks to me like the Republicans in the House are going to crash the American economy because there certainly no sense of ANY urgency.

I guess they figure that the Senate will 'just go along' with what was passed in the House.

Did they REALLY think that they would be able to get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed and ratifed before August 2nd?

ignoring something you don't like won't make it go away.

Funny Spankster, you are finally right about something.

You tee'd it up bro. I knocked it down the fairway.

amen TIM...its time to take the gloves off and throw everything we have at them

Now if only that would get through to Jody.

Cause I think it is just much easier for Jody to ignore, than to think about stuff.

Jody, how about you throw back a response? I know you can do it. You say the reps are not serious, yet the House has passed not one but two budget bills.

And the Dems have the Schumer plan. Your thoughts?

Everyone knows that the republicans and tea baggers are trying to bring President Obama down and blame him for the country going into default, that's why they won't cooperate, but this little stunt of theirs is going to backfire on them..Most people in this country are not stupid and they see whats going on..This may very well be the demise of the republican party if they allow this to happen...I sure hope so..I've had about enough of them....

the GOP is going down the toobs next year...they have blown it with their tea bag crap and have proven than can't govern. They will be thrown out by a landslide next year. I hope so bad the republican party disolves

UnitedStates1776 POOR WALL STREET. They know they are going to crash, they know the world stock markets will collapse. The RICH investors will be boo hooing. Sorry folks you hired these TEA/PUBLICANS, suffer the consequences.

Rob - Romney's mormonism is a problem for the GOP. Michael Steele said so himself.

"It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism."

- Michael Steele, guest-hosting Bill Bennett's radio program - 5/8/2009

That's why MSNBC keeps bringing it up.

ROB: FYI, Harry Reid is NOT running for the Presidency.

Unless you are a religious bigot, what does that have to do with anything?

Tim - it's MSNBC that employs the religious bigots. Like I said in my post I have no problem with Mormons - I'm just pointing out the MSNBC can't talk about Romney without Morman, Morman, Morman in the story.

If he is MORMON, he didn't miss out on the common sense, missing from anyone in the Republican/Tea Party.

Rob - You must not have been paying attention to MSNBC during Reid's last election campaign.

Harry Reid is not running for the highest office in the land. And unlike Romney, he do not wear his religion on his sleeve. Romney is a opportunist.

Dan T-880865 get a balanced budget amendment going. You do realize that is never going to get through the Senate. Even if it did, and Obama signed it (NO chance in h//l). Now if the House and Senate would go back to payGo, it will immediately start cutting the current budget, and at first still increase the deficit, but eventually lowers the deficit. One problem. The House Republican/Tea Party can't stand that. They talk about Cut, Cap and Balance. What they want to CUT are programs that have NOTHING to do with the DEFICIT. They don't want to cut funding for REGIME CHANGE WARS, they don't want to cut subsidies to OIL COMPANIES, they don't want to close overseas Military Bases. they DO want to INCREASE DEFENSE spending by $18 BILLION over the budget submitted by the White House, for stuff the Military DOESN'T WANT. They don't want to do anything about the theiving banks, and the Wall Street speculators and so on and so on.

A balanced budget amendment might not get through THIS Senate but if it is presented over and over eventually we will get a Senate that is more interested in their Country than they are in their re-election.

A term limit law would help speed things up.

This country is too big for a balanced budget to work. We have devasting natural disasters throughout this country. A so called balanced budget will not be able to meet these obligations. Social services , social security, Medicare, environmental protection, inspecting our borders, inspecting imports, Making sure we have safe food and water to drink, Education will be third world for everyone except the rich, our court system, etc will be crippled or none existence. This country could not be shut down every year as some states. You cannot grow as a country by cutting services to its people. Ths country have a middleclass, let's keep it. The balanced budget amendment would insure that the rich get richer and everybody else sufferes. Unless you are filty rich, you have been fooled ijnto buying into this lamebrain approch instead of truly governing. Truly governing means solving problems and cut and run.

Lynn-300649

Budgets come from the HOUSE, it is their job and the junk they have been "Symbolically" voting on is just deflecting and trying to force blame. Why waste time on a Bill that they themselves said had no hope of passing? The Cut Cap and Balance and also the Ryan Plan, they knew and said they knew they had not chance. Is that how you do your job? Be Unproductive on purpose, Hell I would lose my job if that is how I did it. And when you have a deadline and need to work the weekend you just don't blow it off and take your weekend, not unless you plan to work on your resume that weekend!

Robert, it is the job of the Senate to offer counter proposals, that is how the negotiations are supposed to work. If you go into your employer and say I want a 300% raise you know there is no way in he11 that is going to happen but you then expect the employer to come back with a counter. You can't negotiate when the other party is only saying no and not offering anything at all...which is what the Senate has been doing for over 800 days. Now THAT is being unproductive.

JJMurray

Like I mentioned to Lynn-300649, it is the House that does the budget not the President or the Senate. So far they have come up with nothing acceptable to America according to each and every poll out there. American want cuts in spending, raise taxes on rich and corporate welfare cases and they want jobs, between 72 and 82 % everywhere you look. They do not want the TP slash and dash plans. WE the people have spoken.

And I hate to keep disagreeing but all money matters come from th4e house. The senate and the president can suggest and try to sway but not present a bill regarding the countries money. Like the plan the prsdient has expressed he would back from the Senate, it has to go through the house and it will never make it. Hell they need to be in town to deal witt it

Robert - The House create a bill which they send to the Senate. The Senate can then send the bill back with their changes which might be an entire rewrite of the original bill. Then the bills are supposed to be taken up for reconciliation to iron out the differences. THAT isn't happening. Instead the Senate is simply saying NO and then going back to twiddling their thumbs while they wait for something else from the House to come up that they can shoot down again. If they want a different approach then they should have crafted their own counter-proposal which would have gone back to the House who of course wouldn't accept it and then real negotiation can begin. Again, not happening.

As for increased revenue - why? Revenue is already increasing as the economy slowly grows. So they have already gained more revenue than they expected. What will more "new" revenue gain? The only thing it will do is allow the politicians to spend even more money while making it look like they cut into their deficit spending. Give me $1B more and I'll use $600M to pay for programs already not paid for and the other $400M I'll use on totally new SPENDING and I can tell you I cut deficit spending by $600M. If pressed on the numbers I can even fall back and say I actually cut deficit spending by $200M...but what have I actually done? I've just increased spending.

Since no party has been able to stop spending more money in this country since 1945 why in the world would you think that THIS time everything is different and they are somehow going to reduce their spending when you give them more money? How many times does someone need to get hit in the head with a brick before they realize it hurts?

Robert - The House create a bill which they send to the Senate. The Senate can then send the bill back with their changes which might be an entire rewrite of the original bill. Then the bills are supposed to be taken up for reconciliation to iron out the differences. THAT isn't happening. Instead the Senate is simply saying NO and then going back to twiddling their thumbs while they wait for something else from the House to come up that they can shoot down again. If they want a different approach then they should have crafted their own counter-proposal which would have gone back to the House who of course wouldn't accept it and then real negotiation can begin. Again, not happening.

JJMurray - Robert is absolutely correct. All budgetary legislation has to ORIGINATE from the House.

Period.

Check your Constitution if you think I am not correct.

Also, the Senate is under NO OBLIGATION to 'bless' the House bills. The three House bills that have been produced were roundly rejected by the Senate. So does that mean that the House is off the hook?

No.

That just means that the House needs to WORK WITH the Senate to come up with something that can pass both Chambers of Congress.

From what I am seeing, it looks like the House is on another sojurn when we have work to do.

the Senate is saying NO to a Bill that the American People do not want and will not accept. They are doing the right thing for America. They send back a bill with changes but the changes include raising taxes which the TP/GOP have said they will NEVER back. This is why nothing is getting done.

The normal way a budget works, it goes through committes in the House with changes then goes before the full House. Unfortunately, NONE of the bills concocted by the HOUSE have gone through COMMITEES. Written by Ryan and Cantor, presented with a closed rule, NO AMENDMENTS can be offered. Has to be their WAY. It then supposed to go Senate Committees for markup, amendments offered and accepted or rejected. NONE of the THREE cockeyed budgets submitted by the HOUSE have gone through COMMITTEES. It has to be an up or down vote on the REPUBLICAN PLAN. That is an easy choice for the Democrats. H//l NO. Send it back, rewrite it with SHARED SACRIFICE.

Fine, you guys keep insisting that the Senate has no role in the budget if you want but that isn't reality. I never said budget bills don't ORIGINATE in the House, I in fact agreed with that. What I said is once they get to the Senate there is SUPPOSED to be a counter coming from them if they disagree with it. Seriously, how many appropriations bills, laws, budgets, whatever have gone from the House to the Senate and directly to the President without going through reconciliation to come to a compromise? Yet now you act like that is the way it's supposed to be and always is. WRONG! Bills are constantly being amended, marked up, changed, and negotiated between the House and Senate before they go to the White House but not now. Now they go to the Senate, get voted down and that's it. Again, how do you negotiate when one side is not proposing anything? Tell me EXACTLY what will the Senate agree to? What have they said they will accept? Show me a link to something the Senate has put out that says what is acceptable to them that they would pass without mark up or negotiation. It doesn't exist. So exactly what is the House supposed to send to them that will go through hmm?

And this is why the Democrats can get away with just saying "NO" and not doing their job of working on a version of the bill to counter the House, people will blindly jump on the band wagon, ignore the facts, and spew useless information about "it's their fault!".

I don't think the House should be taking the weekend off but it's just sad to see people to lazy or blind to bother holding their own party accountable for the mess they've caused.

caseydt - Finally! Someone who actually gets my point! Thank you!

What I said is once they get to the Senate there is SUPPOSED to be a counter coming from them if they disagree with it. Seriously, how many appropriations bills, laws, budgets, whatever have gone from the House to the Senate and directly to the President without going through reconciliation to come to a compromise?

I dunno, JJMurray, how DOES someone negotiate with those that want things done THEIR way - or else?

You wanted an example - here is one. The Senate has stated that they would consider the debt ceiling bill if there were cuts AND increases in Revenue. The Senate sends the bill back to the House with that stipulation.

The House looks at the stip and says - NO. Absolute not. We will NOT raise taxes.

So what happens to the bill now? We have a standoff - the Senate says 'raise taxes' and the House says 'no taxes'.

Now, mind you, the House has the power of the purse, so it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to get budgetary legislation prepared and passed so that the President can sign or veto the legislation.

So what say you, JJMurray?

If the House is not going to budge on the increased revenues, and the Senate is not going to budge on passing legislation that doesn't have increased revenues, now what?

The House has decided to tell everyone to FU, this is how it is going to be, and screw you if you don't like it. The Senate says, fine, have it your way. This is why the President has taken his case to the American people because we have such intransigence in the House.

And here we are, with a August 2nd date looming and the House members have taken off for the weekend.

I find it kinda hard to argue FOR the House members if they have gone home for the weekend when there is a SERIOUS issue that needs to be resolved. This signals to me, as part of the electorate, that they are NOT serious about this whole debate and are happy to see the American Economy crash.

But, you can Carry on, JJMurray.

How are they destroying our country? Our country is financial trouble because we spent more than we had period. Now it is time to cut spending across the board including entitlements, wars, everything. Tax Loop holes need to be patched and a balanced budget needs to be presented.

Do you realize that Clinton had raised taxes several times and our country was growing and paying down our debt.

Then bush was elected and first thing he had to give tax cuts to his rich friends and in 10 years almost half of our debt is the tax cuts to the rich. bush's ideal and the republicans ideal was to borrow, borrow and borrow. No tax increases just borrow and borrow.

Now that we are in this mess, the republican plan is to make the poor and old and middle class pay for the tax cuts and wars. The beloved balanced budget only promises to never raise taxes on the rich and cut, cut on the poor. Remember tax cuts are almost half our debt.

The republicans even forced the democrats to continue the tax cuts for the richest in American if they wanted unemployment payments for the poor. Remember almost half our debt are the tax cuts.

Being a republican means never having to say you are responsible for anything. So after the republicans were spending like drunken teenagers for 8 years, its President Obama's fault.

Because the tax cuts are almost half our debt we should cut social security and never raise taxes on the rich again.

It could not get any clearer how much republicans hate American, they even signed a treasonous pledge with Lord Norquist to put the needs of the rich above the needs of our country.

What!! Obama simply put the cost of the two wars that Bush/Cheney neglected to put on the books and the Republicans gladly voted to support with emergency stop gap measures. If Bush/Cheney had put the cost of the wars and tax cuts on the books, the deficit would have exploded, but they were cowards and kicked the cost down the road for the next administration just like the two wars of convenience.

By the way, the rich don't pay almost all the taxes either. The poor actually pay more in federal taxes than do the rich in percentage out of their paychecks by way of SS and Medicare. In the income tax bracket, the rich simply use the loopholes and end up paying less percentage wise than the average middle class person. In fact, 42,000 households making over $250,000 last year did not pay any income tax at all after their "deductions." So, stop saying poor people don't pay taxes. Hedge Fund managers pay 15% income taxes before their deductions on their $1 Billion or more earnings when they should be paying 35% as their income isn't derived from capitol gains taxes.

Keep supporting the Republicans and all their lies, I will meet you in the soup lines and you can cry yourself a river as I laugh in your face for your stupidity.

Since when is 6.25% greater than 20%? Only in the liberal math.

BS don't throw me in with the right... they do not represent my beliefs. The Republicans and the Tea Party are the problem... We all see it...OK. The middle class republicans and teapartiers are a Cult...Brain washed zombies. You are part of the problem, you are helping them to bring down our way of life. This is on you guys.... I didn't vote for the idiots... you did.

"Rich" i.e. producers, pay almost all the taxes. Is that why 7.1% of NON-PAYERS were people who had income in excess of $168,000?????????

Lynn-300649 You have to have a party that is willing to COMPROMISE. That word is NOT in the Republican lexicon. It's my way or the highway. I dare them to keep suicidal til August 2nd. I am sure there will be heavily invested stockholders who will be in literal shock when all their portfolio is gone. Don't forget the Foreign Governments heavily invested. Yup the Republican house of cards is about to collapse.

So Chuck, EXACTLY what is it that the Senate Democrats have said they will accept in a budget bill or to raise the debt ceiling, either one, I don't care. Show me EXACTLY what they have said that they will accept. Show me where their marked up bill in response to the House proposal is and what they have added and subtracted...or did they just say No in response? How do you compromise with someone who doesn't tell you anything?

If this double posts I blame my internet service provider for hiccups today!

Well, JJMurray, we know that the Senate has asked the House to include language that will eliminate tax cuts for the 2%, and the House has flatly said 'NO'.

How can ANYONE negotiate with a group of people in the House that is not willing to put anything on the table?

Can anyone explain why people like Doug Ponders seems to FORGET that there are TWO Chambers of Congress and that legislation has to PASS THROUGH TWO Chambers of Congress before the President even considers it?

Can anyone explain to Doug Ponders why the inability of the HOUSE to provide legislation that the Senate can agree to is a failure of the Senate when all budgetary legislation HAS to originate from the HOUSE?

Can anyone explain to the American electorate why the House is rejecting and not evening attempting to compromise on the changes that the Senate sends back to the House on the bills that they have passed and forwarded on to the Senate?

Carry on, Doug Ponders.

Doug Ponders you do know Harry comes from a town that has prostitutes. I think he spent to much time with them and caught something that is eating away at his brain. That should cover the senility.

For the record when he was a state senator he was excellent then he went to d.c. and it definitely changed him, because I used to vote for him.

The last time they gave more revenue President Clinton managed to grow jobs and our economy with tax increases. Our country was getting healthy and unemployment was low and we were paying down the debt without killing social security and if we had stayed on that path we would be out of debt today.

This was not 60 years ago, this was 10 years ago. In President Clinton's last year was the only year that the debt ceiling did not have to be raised. If we could do it then, why is it we can't do it again today?

Being that almost half our debt is the tax cuts for the richest in America it certainly makes sense not to raise taxes. Lets punish the people who did not make the debt and let the rich get off scott free.

Americans First - Sheesh! Okay, let's take your approach. Tell me, which jobs did Clinton "create" or "grow" and which ones were created or grown because the economy was growing strong under the dot com bubble (you do remember that right?)? You agree that the economy was growing strong under Clinton which means without any increase or decrease in taxes revenues are going up because more taxes are being paid. They also had the Clinton-rea drawdown in the military which eliminated a lot of positions and resulted in even more revenue being freed up. So the government had a lot more money coming in than when they started with and what did they do with that money? Hmm? Why didn't the debt go down but spending went up with all this extra revenue?

The answer is simple. All they did was reduce the percentage of spending that was DEFICIT spending. That means they applied that extra money not to paying down our debt but instead to paying for programs that they weren't paying for already. Looks good on paper but in reality it means you are still spending more than you have and growing the debt...and the debt DID grow each year under Clinton just like it did under every President since 1945 as I have noted and given government links to.

Now the economy is slowly growing and as noted just last month, incoming revenues are higher than expected...in other words more revenue is coming in again as the economy slowly grows stronger but once again DC is telling us they want more revenue. Tell, me, where is the plan for that revenue to cut our debt? Or is it all just planned once again to pay for programs we cannot afford and are not paying for right now?

JJ and friends

Imagine a world where the ice-cream truck driver was an elected position. The driver cannot be fired, and gets paid even if his route is losing money. The driver likes the job and wants to get re-elected. The driver is happy to give away all of the ice-cream for free, and promises more for tomorrow when it runs out. The ice-cream company has an unlimited credit line, and keeps borrowing to stay in business.

How do you fix this problem? Here are some ideas:

1) Restrict the company's credit line and bankrupt the ice-cream company

2) Add a clause to the driver's contract to fire him immediately if ice-cream is missing or given away

3) Fire the president of the company if they don't make a profit

Other ideas? TeaParty folks chose #1. Republicans want #3. I vote for #2. Any legislator who votes to spend money that requires borrowing is fired and that state loses it's representative until the next election. When no reps are left, they can save money and turn the lights off.

The only problem I see is that some of our current reps don't know how to compromise and could never agree on what to spend the available revenue on. So if there is no agreement, the government shuts down, and we are back to option #1. Voting to continue spending 'the same as before' (where we are at now) is not an option due to the new rule.

I suspect that most voters would agree with the new rule (#2), but I don't think any of the reps are responsible and ethical enough to make it law. But it's fun to think about!

I'll make it simpler.

If the 10 years of tax cuts to the richest is almost half our debt, how come they owe America nothing to help pay it off?

they either are all skipping town to avoid having to accept responsibility for anything. They are almost being pushed to do the job of a Representative and that is not why they are in Washington, they have made it clear their goal is "Blame Obama, Get Obama" Nothing more and they can't focus on that if they have to do the work the house is supposed to do.

OR

Kind of like you said they may have been recalled by their corporate master since Wall Street is selling off Bonds, they may have had to go back in for reprogramming.

The Uncertainty in Washington DC is keeping the economy down, business leaders across the country have said. Not taxes, not cuts, UNCERTAINTY

Wow, since Democrats control the wealthiest districts in the country I guess you figure their constituents (the wealthy) are giving all their money to the people they voted against to represent them?

Wake up. All you partisan hacks here are doing exactly what the politicians want you to do. You are so busy pointing your fingers at the other guys that you're not even bothered by the FACT that the politicians you support are picking your other pocket. If one party is SO much better than the other then explain why the debt has gone up every year since 1945 no matter who was in charge. Explain why government spending has gone up EVERY year since 1945 no matter how much or how little revenue was coming in. NEITHER party is doing ANYTHING to actually bring down the debt but they've got people like you standing up and supporting them while vilifying the "other" guy and the whole time they're just laughing at you.

JJMURRAY - 100% agree with this statement. Oh, not a Democrat just an observant Independent.

Explain why government spending has gone up EVERY year since 1945 no matter how much or how little revenue was coming in. NEITHER party is doing ANYTHING to actually bring down the debt but they've got people like you standing up and supporting them while vilifying the "other" guy and the whole time they're just laughing at you.

Robert - Partisanship isn't in DC, it's out here in the public. The politicians get up and go to work with the guys from the other side every day. They have lunch together before they pass their pay raises together. They're all on the same page in DC....do what you have to do to stay in DC, get your perks, and ensure your own guaranteed retirement all the while hoping you die of old age before the whole thing collapses.

JJ Murray,

The National Debt both in dollars and as a percent of GDP steadily declined from 1945 to 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Dennis - If you like Wikipedia as your source then try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt

Maybe you can reconcile the differences. Personally I prefer a dot gov site:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

JJ Murray,

The only fair way to truly compare the debt over time would be in constant dollars. The closets of any graph I can find that does that is the comparison to our GDP.

I see the talking point today is that we have raised the debt ceiling every year since 1945. Those politicians are going to spend, spend no matter how much we give them.

Just like most of your talking points this is just a lie.

President Clinton raised taxes several times, our country was growing, unemployment was dropping and we were paying down the debt. His last year was the only year that the debt ceiling did not have to be raised. It was done with a combination of spending cuts and several tax increases.

This was only 10 years ago and not 60.

I know just because it worked we should ignore that plan.

Dennis - Actually year over year across a relatively short period comparing straight dollar figures works just fine because the dollar doesn't change value THAT much over say a period of 3-5 years. But to point is that DC NEVER actually reduces how much they actually spend. Without doing that the only way to get out of debt it to raise so much more revenue that you overcome your deficit spending...in our case currently they would need to raise 40% more revenue. How do you think THAT would impact the economy?

American First - Please read before commenting. I never said they raised the "debt ceiling" I said they increased the DEBT. I posted the links which show that is FACT but of course facts apparently don't matter because the only thing you want to do is spout your partisan points no matter what is said.

You of course have fallen hook line and sinker for the taxes create or kill jobs line when in reality they have a minimal impact compared to the health of the economy. In a hot economy like Clinton had you can raise taxes without hurting job growth because companies can easily recoup the lost tax money through ever increasing profits because people are buying and they are buying a lot. In a weak economy like now cutting tax rates doesn't spur much job growth because the amount of money a company saves doesn't make up for the decreased profits and is not enough to cover the extra expenses of hiring more people.

But you just go ahead and stick with your partisan talking points and defend one side over the other. That's fine because in reality while you are screaming about one side stealing your money or wasting it or whatever the side you back is screwing you just as badly and you're smiling about it the whole way. You just keep giving one side a pass for their over spending and bad behavior and when things go to he11 and you wonder what happened, just look in the mirror and you'll see the reason.

Wouldn't you agree we were heading in the right direction by not having to raise the debt ceiling in how many years?

Then to counter the economic growth the republican party pushed through tax cuts for the richest in American and started digging the hole.

Now almost half our debt is in those 10 years of tax cuts the republicans pushed through. Now putting the blame at the feet of those poor republicans is partisan politics because the other side spends too.

Am I understanding your point don't blame anyone, it's both sides, just don't raise taxes. (Totally ignoring that almost half of our debt is tax cuts to the richest in America)

If I was a republican that would work for me. I wouldn't want Americans talking about what I did either.