Feisty - you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about point #4!!

From some of the posts on this blog, I see that many have fallen for the okie-doke with the House Republicans, with their insistence that they actually 'did' something when they are throwing rocks at the President for not moving fast enough to do THEIR job!!

Spanky: Me I love how the MSM always seems to find the terrible job and unemployment numbers "unexpected." Really, they been sucking for over a year now, but still unexpected?

First Read: John Boehner is in a lose-lose situation here

Don't you in the MSM get tired of being suckered? Maybe it's time to take another poll, one that shows that all Liberals blame the Conservatives. You know, the usual.

First Read: Now he’s [Speaker Boehner] taking meetings with Nancy Pelosi, after golfing with President Obama

Who is Boehner supposed to talk with? His caucus? He knows where they stand. The man is doing his job, and because he's not being a demagogue to all the Dems plans like Obama has been to the GOP plans, you say Boehner is in a "lose-lose" situation? Unbelievable.

Every President before Obama could get a debt ceiling raised.

Yes, but every President before Obama wasn't dealing with half-wit teabaggers.

Rasmussen doesn't do polls, they do political propaganda.

Real Clear Politics has him at 46 approve, 48.3 disapprove. And they are including the junk numbers from Rasmussen in their average, which drives the number down.

The Tea Party, which accounts for 20% of 51% of the 37% that voted in the last election OR less than 5% of voters in the country, believes it has a mandate to ruin the country. It believes it because Grover Norquist told them so.

Since its summertime, the Republicans must have all its true believers in Vacation Tea Party School, where they learn new versions of old standards from Vacation Bible School.

Sing Along...

"We are the Tea Party, and you know.

We'll ruin the country, but don't you go,

Taxes are bad, spending cuts are good.

Grover Norquist told us so.

Yes, we're the Tea Party,

Yes, we'll ruin the country.

Tax cuts are the be-est,

Grover Norquist told us so.

"Every President before Obama could get a debt ceiling raised..."

Well, hey, then- it sounds like YOU think raising the debt ceiling is a GOOD thing. How could I ever have been so wrong about your postion, UAW?

UAW, this has nothing to do with Obama's ability to lead. This ridiculous stonewalling by the Republican tea bagger fringe is idiotic and un-American. Our government was designed to work on compromise, and the current House members, specifically FRESHMAN TEA PARTY members don't understand that. The real leaders of the Republican party are hiding under their desks, waiting for the tea party fringe to get overthemselves, then maybe they can salvage some dignity. Will be interesting to see how the Republican party cobbles itself back together after the coming implosion. There will most definately be a vote for change in 2012, but probably not the change you are looking for. Sanity will replace off-the-rails nonsense, and none of the Republican candidates will ascend to the presidency. Most are in danger of being committed. Romney and Huntsman are the best you have, and far righties don't like either one of them. Romney and Huntsman are smart and articulate - that puts them right out of the race.

"Every President before Obama could get a debt ceiling raised..."

Thanks for bringing that up!

Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%. Ford... 5 times for a total increase of 41%. Reagan... 18 times for a total increase of 199%. George H.W. Bush... 9 times for a total increase of 48%. George W. Bush... 7 times for a total increase of 90%. That was okay; they were white Republicans.

nisl said:

Rasmussen doesn't do polls, they do political propaganda.

Real Clear Politics has him at 46 approve, 48.3 disapprove. And they are including the junk numbers from Rasmussen in their average, which drives the number down.

Ummmm...let's take a look at the 6 polls completed since the 17th of July (6 most recent):

Poll: Job Approval Percentage

Gallup: 43

Rasmussen: 45

Fox News: 45

USA Today: 45

NBC News: 47

ABC News: 47

Not sure how Rasmussen's poll is propoganda or how their "junk numbers" are dragging down the average, considering they are pretty much right in there with all the others. Actually the RCP average includes a 49 from Reuters and a 47 from Quinnipiac that are well over a week old. Removing the "junk numbers" from Rasmussen from the average gives us a new average approval of 46.1% instead of 46.0%.

Come on Fiesty Obama is no Nixon, Reagan or either Bush.....

Good one, dirp101.

Well said, magnificent50!

Thats a very racist sounding comment UAW!

See Frank you can lead the horse to water, and yet..

So Jody and/or nisl, care to comment on Frank's numbers?

Rasmusen is junk, yet you are good with USA today? And Gallup - a right wing propaganda machine, right guys?

Sure it is. You know, before you spout off about this kind of crap, whick is so easily verifiable [what did that take you Frank all of a minute?] you'd think you'd do a little research of your own.

Or maybe you like looking so, UMM, un-informed?

According to Real Clear Politics the actual most recent results are:

Gallup
7/18 - 7/20
1500 A
43
49
-6

Rasmussen Reports
7/18 - 7/20
1500 LV
45
53
-8

FOX News
7/17 - 7/19
904 RV
45
46
-1

USA Today/Gallup
7/15 - 7/17
1016 A
45
50
-5

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
7/14 - 7/17
1000 A
47
48
-1

ABC News/Wash Post
7/14 - 7/17
1001 A
47
48
-1

Reuters/Ipsos
7/8 - 7/11
1173 A
49
46
+3

Quinnipiac
7/5 - 7/11
2311 RV
47
46
+1

elaine please tell us how saying Obama has exhibited poor leadership is racist.

What did you read?

Or what are you on?

Hey nisl - 'splain that Fox number.

Come on give it a whirl and fit it into your narrative.

The entire TeaParty needs to be thrown out it 2012 for the damage they are causing our country, unless there is some way to have them removed before then.

Of course you could google "Rasmussen Polls" and find many, many analysis of their systemic bias, but why would you do that?

Here is a link which I expect you'll call Liberal because you don't like what it says.

Spanky - Why would I say boo about the Fox poll? As far as I know Fox polls are just fine.

Rasmussen, however, has a long history of bias that has been discussed widely by statisticians and pollsters.

So nisl I just calculated the average of the numbers you gave.

Give it a try, I think you will find it very insightful, especially how far off Reuters is.

Great stuff. Not looking o good, but your argument about Ras. is just plain silly when veiwed in that context.

What else you got?

Sorry, for some reason the link won't show. grrr.

I can't seem to get the link to show up, but 538 had the following analysis. You can find it by googling Rasmussen.

Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

And 538 is a polling company so might have some negative things to say about its competition, right?

Ras. pretty accurately predicted the 08 election.

And really just polls right nisl. Me, I like objective numbers, these we can verify.

Like the unemployment rate. The GDP growth rate.

nisl...I simply looked at RealClearPolitics (a great site as far as I'm concerned) and pulled the approval numbers from the most recent polls. Rasmussen fit right in with everyone else. Had Rasmussen been the one poll sitting at like 39 or 41 or something like that, it would certainly lend some credence. I took your advice and googled Rasmussen polls...along with accusations of bias (in particular from the NYT's Nate Silver and his 538 blog) I also found some heavy praise for them and their accuracy (from Politico, the WSJ) .

(Btw...your link didn't show. I have the same issue sometimes...has something to do with Newsvine considering you a new user).

frostyinak..

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But only a politically naive fool attempts to predict elections a year and a half out.

Just ask all the naive democrats who were railing about a permenant majority in the summer of 2009......

Study up, kid.

John Boehner rode a tiger to the speakership.....it is now about to eat him.

Unfortunately, it is also about to eat the welfare of the country.

frostyinalaska - The numbers are what they are. Arguing with them is silly. That said, any one poll for any race for any seat this far out is relatively unimportant.

I'm actually amazed the numbers are as good as they are given the economy. His approval rating has remained fairly stable for quite a while. Just the other day Ezra Klein said the following:

As you can see in the table atop this post (source: Gallup), Obama is doing about as well in the polls as Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon were at this point in their presidencies. But Obama’s economy is in much, much worse shape. Evan McMorris-Santoro attended a breakfast where Gallup’s Frank Newport expanded on this:

Newport says he’s crunched the numbers as far back as they go in Gallup’s polling archive and found that no one’s done as well as Obama when the public is as unhappy with the economy. “Based on where every president has been, his approval rating now is higher than we would predict it would be based on satisfaction [with how the country is doing],” Newport said ...

The number of Americans who think things are overall going well in the country is extremely low -- just 16% were satisfied in the last Gallup survey -- and history dictates that number is tied to the way people feel about the economy ... That means Obama’s numbers should be extremely low, too. But they’re not.

“He is overperforming,” Newport said. He pointed out that both the Democrat Bill Clinton and the Republican Reagan dipped into the 30s in their approval ratings during their first terms in office. Both men, like Obama, were facing a tough economy and the low level of voter satisfaction with the overall state of the country that goes with that. And yet: “So far, despite similarly bad economic perceptions, Obama has not fallen into the 30% range.”

Spanky.

I like objective numbers also.

Like the overwelming majority of economic analysis that shows the policies of this administration helped the economy.

Also like the economic analysis that shows the GOP policies (such as their original CR) would hurt the economy.

Not to mention all the uncertainty the GOP is causing with thier childish antics on the debt ceiling.

Why is it the GOP spend 2010 campaigning on jobs, jobs, jobs......but they have yet to address jobs at all, and have done nothing but pass garbage that will hurt the economy (and name a few buildings)??

Perhaps you should rethink your spoon fed delusion, no?

The whole story here is President Obama is a FAILURE. He should have had his party submit a budget a couple of years ago. The dems are just lazy liars who figured they'd wait to demonize anything the republicans put forth. I can't wait for the next elections. Goodby progressive/liberals. You have done a terrible job these past 3 years and this country can't afford you any longer.

LEAN FORWARD libs so we have a good target to kick you to the curb.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

UAW,

Don't worry, we Progressives will vote in record numbers in 2012 and get rid of those racist Republican-Tea Baggers, who refuse to raise the debt ceiling because they are just plain old dumb-a$$es.

The way I see it, Obama first gutted Medicare for the Healthcare Bill, The GOP wants to cut Medicare and Social Security. The new Healthcare Bill says we all have to purchase health insurance. Since the GOP and Obama want to kill off Medicare and they want to gut SS, a lot of us will be working until we drop dead, so we might as well get used to it. Oh ya, our leaders will be able to retire with full benefits, so I guess all is well!!

JH.

How is opposite land this time of year?

I'll bet the projection trees and delusion fruit are full of life....

How do you vote for an article having no value whatsoever?

Mike Viqueira may have just written the most one-sided, totally clueless blog posts I've seen.

Hey Mike, did you sleep through the last election? Do you remember that one of the issues that got the democrats creamed was the out of control spending?

And you advocate that it continue? Wow! I'm glad you're only a fiction writer...as a representative you'd be dangerous.

FOr all who quote the Obama numbers, the Republican numbers are far worse. One poll showed Obama at 38% approval, and the Republicans at 21%! What does this show us -- that people are far from satisfied with anyone, that the Tea Party is dragging down the Republican numbers, because while they are a vocal minority, they are still a minority.

But lets return to the main argument in this thread -- point #4. The Founding Fathers realized that a system of checks and balances would (should) lead to each side giving some to get some. The Tea Partiers don't get that, and so instead of settling for half a loaf, they are going to get no loaf and take the rest of the country into a VERY dangerous situation.

Yeah, uh, Republicants. It appears that you don;t quite have a grasp of the word "objective."

Tell you what you can google it, or even find an actual dictionary.

Then we can chat about those economic analysis, and why they are not relevant.

frostyinalaska,

Ever heard of Franklin Delano Roosevelt? His first re-election was in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.9%, when elected for his third term in 1940 it was 14.6%. His fourth and final term after the election of 1944 it was down to 1.2% after WWII started. Do you know how much credibility your statements have? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "Nero".

So from what I can understand from the posting here. You libs want to keep spending, giving money out to all your friends, like NPR, Planned Parenthood, continue welfare as it is now, and any other money hole. You like the President don't want a balanced budget. You want to have someone else pay for your give aways. And really think raising the taxes on the rich will cure all your ills.The fact is. Take every penny from the Forbes 500 and it only pays for 4 months of Obama spending. Then you have 500 more poor people that don't employ anyone anymore.Get new calculators. His whining on the airplane tax. It amounts to $3 billion over 10 years. Michelle spends more than that on vacations.You expect the Repubs to except tax increases on Democratic promises of cuts at a later date. They told those lies in 94 and again during the Bush 41 term. So why should they believe Reid now. He lied then and he lies now. Just like Obama lies about not being able to pay SS unless they raise the debt limit. The gang of 6 proposal is just that a proposal, It has to be written, scored by the CBO and debated. It is nothing more than a outline, and Obama is have a orgasm over it. Why is that? He presented NOTHING. As a Senator he voted against a raise of the Dept. Ceiling. Called it a sign of poor leadership. So which Obama do you libs stand behind? The poor leader?The naive Senator? The guy with no experience who is both?

Unemployment at plus 9% and $4.00 gas sucking what is left out of Americans budgets and you people think this Obama fella gets re-elected?

If Americans are that stupid we deserve what comes next.

We can not pay a 14trillion debt so lets make it 16 trillion.

When interest rates return to normal we are so done.

We need to stop spending by reigning in those job killers like EPA, OSHA, NLRB and shut down stupid things like Dept of Energy and Education that produces no energy and the lesser educated respectively.

Increase the tax base by putting America to work again and STOP THE SPENDING!

The new crop of Tea/GOP

We don't work

So why should you!

Spanky.

I am well aware that in the projection based delusion that has been laid out for you, the analysis of the people who study the economy is far less relevant then the opinions of the commentators that spoon feed you your reality.

None the less, that does not excuse your cognitive dissonance - required to preserve the delusion I realize.

I will ignore the emotionalism and just say that while many Americans want to see compromise, 2 out of 3 Americans don't want the debt ceiling raised.

That means the majority of Americans want the SAME thing as the Tea Party. So why do the media and their detractors call them "fringe?"

If that's the case, then roughly 70% of Americans are fringe nut jobs who think they can walk on water.

2 out of 3 Americans don't want the debt ceiling raised.

Proof please?

You won't mind if we don't take your word for it? Right?

Forty-two percent of Americans say they would vote against raising the debt ceiling while only 22 percent would support such a move, according to a GallupPoll released Tuesday.

The number of people who would vote for raising the debt ceiling are only slightly raised from May, when 19 percent of those polled said they would vote for an increase.

Here's more for you:

By a 47% to 19% margin, Americans say they would want their member of Congress to vote against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, while 34% don't know enough to say. Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling by 70% to 8% and independents by 46% to 15%. Democrats favor raising the ceiling by 33% to 26%. gallup.com

The trend among pollsters appears to be consistent on the question of raising the federal government’s credit limit. A recent CBS poll put flat-out opposition to a debt-ceiling hike at 2-1, and Gallup’s latest survey shows the same dynamic, even if it also shows a third of respondents too unengaged to offer an opinion:

By a 47% to 19% margin, Americans say they would want their member of Congress to vote against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, while 34% don’t know enough to say. Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling by 70% to 8% and independents by 46% to 15%. Democrats favor raising the ceiling by 33% to 26%. …

A majority of Americans (57%) say they are closely following the news about “discussions to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, the maximum amount of money the U.S. government can borrow by law.” Republicans are following the issue more closely than are Democrats and independents; upper-income Americans are following it more closely than lower-income Americans; and those with a postgraduate education more so than those with a high school education or less.

hotair.com

I think you get the point.

Threetogetready,

You are looking at President to Congress, Congress always polls lower than the Pres. no matter which party.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Nice flipflop BO.

Oy-Vay - Even though polls say the voters want one thing or another, but of those thousand or so respondents, how many really understand the dynamics of governmental finances. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything about the governments finances, but it appears to me that most of commentors here have even less a clue than do I. Then consider the rating agencies, stock markets and other foreign governments are saying that to not raise the debt limit will be bad.

Nitemare - Can you tell me how many first time presidents are truly prepared and experienced to be president? Good luck with that question. Oh, and your spending concerns, I bet the energy credits the energy industry is to be untouched. Pork barrel spending is probably okay too. How about novel idea like enforcing the laws against defrauders of social security and medicare?

Old fat guy - Yea, the dept of energy is useless. Their supercomputer experts did all of the computer work to understand the human genome. They are the ones that developed coal liqufaction and so on. They simply have no use in today's world.

And lastly JH - A little FYI, a budget has to be submitted by the President every year which then is voted by Congress. Congress funds all aspects of government and includes the President's discretionary funds. Bush Jr was able to increase discretionary funding more than any of the six previous presidents : http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush.

To blindly follow any party without critically considering what they really believe, makes each and every one who does this, simply civically irresponsible.

Hey bob, you d1p@!$%#, have you ever changed your mind about something when you recieved a different perspective? Damn man, are you that fking stupid to consider that things are different when you sit in a different chair? Your mindset is one of the many reasons the GOP/Tea/Conservatives are frowned upon. You lack common sense of the nature that... in caps... THINGS CHANGE AS TIME GOES ON. For phucks sake man, get a clue!

I suspect that the Tea baggers hope the government defaults because they hope that a default will cause the end of Social Security, etc. Thats their main goal to throw grandma into the street.

Obama, if you agree to cut Social Security, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid you will be a One Term President and we the voters will make sure your next job will be flipping burgers at McDonalds.

And to any Tea Bagger and Republican't Congressmen if you vote to cut Social Security Etc you will be joining Obama working at McDonalds.

We the Voters do not forget and we will never forgive anyone who cuts Social Security Disability Etc and throws Grandma into the street... Those who cut Social Security and the other safety net programs will be voted out of office in 2012.

@old fat guy-1144960

I posted this question a while back and got only a single response, which is kind of telling, I guess. I'll post it again in the hopes of getting some insight into you guys' way of thinking, because it doesn't make whole lot of sense to me.

What is the rationale behind the conservative push to cut education funding and eliminate government oversight over businesses that have, time and again, shown that they absolutely will not regulate themselves? True, the current education oversight and business regulatory structure is flawed, but cutting it altogether will simply make things worse. We'll end up with children falling further behind the rest of the developed world on the education front, businesses polluting the environment to cut costs, putting workers at risk to reduce operating costs, and putting the public at risk in the interest of making a quick buck. This isn't just me being paranoid either. Businesses have shown, time and again, that they're more than willing to put their own employees and the public at whole at risk if it saves them a few bucks and they feel they can get away with it. Why else were these departments created in the first place?

Yes, yes, I know that "not all businesses are evil", but there are enough bad apples in the barrel to make it completely idiotic to stop inspecting the bushel. So I ask again, what good could possibly come from completely eliminating government oversight on these things instead of making a concerted effort at reforming them to make them more effective and less costly? What am I not seeing? Is there some sort of magic formula that the extremist conservatives have that will suddenly make all corporations trustworthy and our education system the best in the world? I really would like to know, because I just can't wrap my head around you guys' way of thinking...it just seems to fall apart under the most rudimentary examination.

@oy-vay

You're only showing part of the picture. Several polls have found that people who were against raising the debt limit were actually more inclined to raise it once they became aware of the actual implications that a default could have. Their initial reticence was based on a general "borrowing more money is bad" mentality and not based on the actual reality of the situation. I'm actually curious as to how old those numbers you quoted were, because once default talk and the implications of default started making the media rounds, people seemed to be more and more inclined to get congress to get off their collective rears and compromise so we don't go into default. I seriously doubt the majority want to hold fast to the current debt ceiling and risk a second financial backstep simply to prove a political point.

The gop TEANUTS are destroying our country, wake up America.

Obama and the entire Progressive/Socialist Liberal Dems OWN this economy. Live with it and you're goin' down because of it 2012!

Just a very short and "to-the-point" statement of TRUTH!

IF the debt ceiling of the United States is NOT raised in a timely manner, this country will plunge into the deepest and most damaging DEPRESSION ever known to mankind! Those who do not understand this FACT, would be well advised to learn how to survive without many of the modern day conveniences we now take for granted.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-on-the-technical-default-2011-4

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=bvre&pq=moody's%20speaks%20to%20u.s.%20house&xhr=t&q=U.S.%20default&cp=9&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=g2g-m3&aql=f&oq=U.S.+defa&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8a58e93555963d21&biw=1024&bih=536

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/23/us-default-on-debt-could-be-disastrous-choice-for-economy/

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/11/how-a-u-s-government-default-would-affect-consumers/

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110715/NEWS08/307150051/Politicians-debate-impact-U-S-default

So when a conservative stands on a strongly held belief, liberals call that un-American.

When Obama told Republicans "I won" and "sit in the back" that was fine, not left-wing partisan divisiveness.

When Obama and Timmy lie about default and not paying seniors, that is "truth" even when upstanding left wing publishers like MSNBC say that this will not happening Aug 2nd.

The liberal screeching is unbelievable.

The truth is that millions of Americans agree with no new taxes during a recession, and cut first, prove for once in their worthless lives they will actually cut spending - the current plan "caps" spending at 2011 levels, which are completely out of control!!!!! - this is democrat leadership???

As to questions like why cut federal spending on education - the federal government should not be involved in education - this is a local / regional issue. Making it federal insures billions are wasted and DC is involved in yet another local issue with local problems and local solutions.

Cuts of any kind are for two reasons - first, we are spending way too much money. Second, because there are 100's of billions in waste, fraud, duplication and abuse. Only when we cut will we have a chance to find these dollars, as currently there is no incentive to fix any of this.

What I do not hear from all of you screeching liberals are real solutions. Your tax the rich plan will only bring in $70 - $100 billion annually. Tax corporations more, you get maybe another $100-$200 billion.

These FOOLS are overspending by $1.4 TRILLION annually. That doesn't address $1 of the $14 trillion we already owe.

So here is a question I have asked with no real response - what is the liberal plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate deficit spending, and pay down, over time, our debt? You see, most of us believe that spending $200 billion a year on INTEREST is just stupid.

Paul F,

And you probably think YOU are not screeching?

I'll try one more time! An AVERAGE of 80% of all people polled by ALL the major and non partisan polls say that the debt should be reduced by a COMBINATION of budget cuts AND TAX INCREASES. In addition the tax loopholes for major corporations should be closed! Obama has proposed $3.7 TRILLION in cuts and $1 TRILLION in a combination of tax increases and the closing of loopholes! I am NOT screeching and do not intend to get the least bit angry. I have learned in my 68 years that anger seldom acomplishes ANYTHING! I have found that the critical thinking through of FACTS and applied logic will most often prevail! As to your question, if you read this far: The plan espoused by the President and Democrats is as stated above, $3.7 TRILLION in budget cuts, INCLUDING social security and medicare!
In return the tax rate, for people who make over $250,000 per year would revert back to the top tax bracket (39%) which was in place befor the Bush tax cuts of 2001. I remind you that these tax reductions were, BY LAW, set to expire THIS YEAR! This would amount to a tax increase of 3%. ONLY for people making over $250,000! The president's plan would also close SOME of the tax loopholes used by corporations. I remind you that although the tax rate for RETAINED EARNINGS in corporations is, by law, 35% currently, the fact is that corporations pay an average rate of around 6%. These corporate taxes are ONLY paid on retained earnings. Many Corporations such as General Electric paid 0% taxes in 2010! One more point. The plan put forth by President Obama is not THE LIBERALS PLAN, just as the House plan is NOT THE CONSERVATIVES plan. Liberals and/or conservatives do not have plans. Plans should be a COMPROMISE, A COMPROMISE made by the elected representatives of we the people in the U.S. Congress. The Tea Party now controls the Republican Party, which controls the U.S. House of Representatives; they will not COMPROMISE! As a result we have an impasse which if not settled will result in catastropic consequences for OUR economy. Members of BOTH the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as ALL Americans and people throughout the world will SUFFER! ALL will suffer, even the wealthy and for sure corporations and businesses and employees of all size businesses. Have a GREAT weekend!

Finally, someone who sees it for what it is. Would you care to run for Congress?

Thanks for the input, Scrambolo-I agree--you cannot win an argument with the ignorant or the angry. As an Independent and an old man (85) I am completey in awe of the downward spiral our democracy is going. If Obama blinks , he sinks, and we as a nation of free democratic people go with him. The GOP is adrift in their maniacal determination to defeat Obama in 2012--to sacrifice their American and Christian principles to that end is unamerican and utter madness. Hitler won with only about 30 % of the popular vote in Germany-the same percentage of hardcore T-Party and conservative rightwing support for the GOP-Maybe this is GOD's plan-to save America's democracy, in the long run, we may have to first lose it ! Sad !-My pitchfork is ready for the next revolution !!!

UAW, if you mean in comment 1.13 that Obama is not a crook, warmonger, war profiteer, or radical idealog, I agree.

So did Obama "Change the goal line", or is Boehner wrong? Here's a hint;

Obama said recently that they were negotiating $3 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases, but in Obama's press conference, he said that the latest 'deal' he was pushing was $1.65 Trillion in Budget cuts for $1.2 Trillion in new taxes. That's only $1.38 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

I have to believe Boehner on this, and it looks like Obama 'Speaks with a forked tongue'.

How can you 'negotiate' with someone that is not honest and keeps changing the rules.

PS - The Republicans have explained their plans to cut the Budget in detail, and have actually PASSED several bills to increase the debt limit, but we still have not seen a single written proposal from the Democrats, including Obama.

Roy Wilson,

First I respect you and even read many of your posts. However, when is the last time you have sided with Democrats, the President or any progressives ideas? Honestly, I don't remember even one. You are as partisan as I. The difference is I will admit that I am!

@Paul F

"So when a conservative stands on a strongly held belief, liberals call that un-American."

What's Unamerican is absolutely refusing to acknowledge the views of the other side and holding the country hostage until you and only you get what you want (this goes for both Repubs, Dems, and Independents). Majority rule with consideration of minority rights is the basis of our government, and how that works is through compromise. The Tea baggers have completely forgotten this and would rather use bully tactics to push the country towards their narrow view of things and to hell with everyone else. THAT is Unamerican in my view. This is the problem with our two party system. The founding fathers warned us against accepting two party politics, and yet here we are.

"The truth is that millions of Americans agree with no new taxes during a recession, and cut first, prove for once in their worthless lives they will actually cut spending - the current plan "caps" spending at 2011 levels, which are completely out of control!!!!! - this is democrat leadership???"

This is a result of the push to reduce the debt during a recession, which is stupid. Debt management is something you do when you have resources to do it. When the economy is in the toilet, you spend what you need to to get things going in the right direction. Its just common sense economics. You can't pay off debt when you don't have the money to do so. I'm not saying the democrat's intiatives were the right ones, because they obviously weren't and have definitely made things worse, but the current republican push for debt reduction isn't the right thing to do either, given the current state of the economy. Unfortunately, mob politics have pushed Congress to reduce debt in a time when doing so could threaten recovery efforts, and the only way to do it without completely screwing over the most vulnerable of us is by doing both cuts and revenue increases. If we don't want tax increases, stop the push to reduce debt, NOW until the economy is in a state where more drastic cuts won't have such a negative impact on recovery efforts.

"As to questions like why cut federal spending on education - the federal government should not be involved in education - this is a local / regional issue. Making it federal insures billions are wasted and DC is involved in yet another local issue with local problems and local solutions."

I see what you're saying, and I can kind of see why, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. The educational well being of the younger generation is not something that can only be handled on a state/local level, because the disparity between educational standards across the country would be IMMENSE. The success and failure of the education of the youth have nationwide implications, and anyone who says otherwise is myopic. Federal standards need to be created and upheld to ensure that ALL children across the nation get a competitive education compared to other developed countries, and it's up to the local governments to ensure that schools meet those standards. Relying on local governments to create their own standards will result in wildly disparate educational levels across regions (more disparate than what we have currently), and will further divide the rich and the poor as the richer communities and governments be able to put more resources towards it, while the poorer governments will continue to pull back on standards to balance their budgets with no federal body to stop them in their tracks when their cuts threaten the education their children receive. We aren't a confederacy for a reason...the founding fathers new that they needed a strong central body to make sure that the needs of the smaller bodies were met, and to protect them from themselves, if need be.

The current structure of the Department of Education is flawed and ineffective. Anyone can see that. But we should be reforming the department, not cutting it altogether. Doing so will just push our kids further and further behind other developing countries who have strict, centralized, standards that all their schools must adhere to.

"Cuts of any kind are for two reasons - first, we are spending way too much money. Second, because there are 100's of billions in waste, fraud, duplication and abuse. Only when we cut will we have a chance to find these dollars, as currently there is no incentive to fix any of this."

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but thinking that cuts alone will be enough is a pipe dream, especially given the current state of the economy. Sharp cuts now will simply lead to more unemployment and will put undue pressure on those that need the most help, making the economic situation worse, reducing revenue even more, requiring more cuts, etc. It becomes a recursive negative feedback loop. This is why I think the conservative push to reduce debt NOW is idiotic.

Should we cut all non essential spending and work to eliminate fraud and waste? Yes. Should we do it now? Absolutely. Should we make an effort to reduce the nation debt? Of course. Do we have to do it NOW? No, and only an idiot would push us to given the current state of things. You don't go in and give a ship a major engine overhaul while it's out to sea in the middle of a storm, taking on water. You make sure the ship isn't going to sink, first before you dig in and rework its guts.

Just by way of a little sanity here, you Republicans do understand that the reason Obama has "spent" so much as you put it, is to compensate for the unfunded spending Geo W did and his disastrous little fling with the banking industry?

He's spent it to keep the economy from running off the rails. Hello? Do any of you get that? Does that sink into your brains?

And I'm telling you, you are bickering over something that is never going to happen. This is all political posturing. Neither party is going to let their corporate masters suffer a day of discomfort. Default would upend them and it will never happen. It's all about Corporations and their inconvenience and this default would be horribly inconvenient.

Bill Clinton told you what will happen. Obama will raise the debt limit using the 14th Amendment. The Republicans will go after him like rabid dogs and there will be yet more fiddling while the country falls down around our ears.

I think this was a pretty well written article and describes the situation quite well. All four points are very relevant to the issue.

One thing that I would point out and wish the Republicans would remember. When you are elected to Congress, a subset of the people in your district go out and vote. And then a subset of that subset, cast enough votes in your favor and you are the winner. The thing is that the Republicans behave as if their only constituents are that subset of a subset who voted for them. When these people took office, they took an oath and I'm not talking about the Grover Norquist one. The job of these Congressmen is to represent their constituents. That's all their constituents including those who strongly opposed and voted against them and including the entire population of their district, even if they didn't cast a ballot. That's what the job is about, not the winner take all - losers be damned, approach that these Republican Congressmen have taken.

Congress is not designed to be an organized version of mob rule, but in fact that is what the Republicans are turning it into. Congressmen need to remember that in reality, they got elected by somewhere around 25-30% of their constituents voting for them. And in most cases, there were close to an equal number who clearly opposed them. So to take the approach that what about a quarter of your constituents support is a mandate from your district, is absolute lunacy. In all but a few rare cases, Congressman should be representing their constituents by a moderate position, slightly to the right or left of center. There are no truly Red or truly Blue States. The reality is that they are all different shades of purple. But Republicans tend to see issues as only black or white with no shades of gray. This is worse today than at anytime within my lifetime and very likely, judging by historical references, worse than it has been since the Civil War.

Love the right wing, BS

2 out of 3 don't want it??? WHere do they come up with this @!$%#?????????????????????

80% does

MJL-3:

The statistics data analysis methodology of the GOPigs and TEAboogers is best defined as their method of:

"Picking straws out of their asps"!

Only an idiot would pay attention to the MSNBC feisty shill. The wrond want to destroy America. The wrong wants to get welfare payments for doing nothing. The wrong will always vote for the wrong to keep the status quo. Feisty is the wrong, bought and paid for by MSNBC. Only the wrong gets the first word every time a thread starts. Only an idiot wouldn't see that fact.

You fools who continue to believe the MSNBC wrong deserve all the hell you bring upon yourselves. You will go to the grave beleiving bs and no one will miss you. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

BTW, the community here who collapses threads is a couple of MSNBC shills, They don't want the truth to come out, much less free discussion. They are aligned with the leftists, the wrong. They will do everything they can to destroy America and ban those who reject their idiocy. They are the enemy. Those who goose step to them are too.

I am not afraid to speak out but they will do their best to shut up those that do. Watch and learn. Ignore and become subjects. They will ban me for speaking the truth because they cannot handle it.

GE and Bill Gates are the enemies of the state. You wrong bought into their bs and now you are reaping the rewards.

Well. Steeler Fan, let's hope that the electorate is more AWAKE this time and will not vote against their well-being as they did in 2010!!

You can say what you want, but this is the ULTIMATE buyer's remorse!!

First Reaf: Finally, isn’t it ironic that those who cast themselves as the stoutest defenders of the Constitution and who promote the genius of the Founding Fathers are the same ones who can’t accept that there is a Senate controlled by duly elected members of the other party, not to mention a House minority that opposes them?

What a rant. One of the best.

So, where are these Great Plans from the duly elected Democrats in the Senate, and when do they plan on voting on these Great Plans of theirs? It's about time the Senate Dems got off their backsides and did something productive, don't you think?

This author must have had his head up his arse.

JoAnna, I believe you have the Democrats confused with the Republicans. The Democrats have put forth plans, but the Republicans have rejected everything without any consideration or discussion. The Democrats have been off their proverbial backsides for a very long time - the Republicans have made it clear that the answer will be simply NO to anything and everything proposed by Democrats, with no further discussion. Republicans are pushing the country as we know it off the cliff by their lack of ability to compromise and their one word vocabulary - "NO". I know you will continue to be Republican and defend the indefensible, which is your right as an American. And for the moment, it is my right to completely disagree with you.

If Republicans were articulate and their thoughts made sense, maybe they could sell their load to more of the American people. Some of us still see the rhetoric from the right for what it is - lies, misinformation, bigotry, selfishness, inability/unwillingness to consider the reality of our future as a nation, rewriting of our nation's history, war against women, war against minorities, war against the poor, war against the elderly, and the creation of a nation that benefits the wealthy and crushes everyone else. Good luck with that JoAnna, let us know how it all works out for you.

It is all the GOP and their pledge signing ways. Nearly everyone of them signed a pledge to not raise taxes with NOrquist and seem to feel they can not go back on that pledge. Pledging should be made illegal and it certainly seems undemocratic for your congressperson or senator to sign pledges with special interest groups and destroying negotiation possibilities. Are all the internet writers bloggers writing and calling their congresspersons and senators and letting them know what you are expecting from them? I am even though my congressperson and one of my state's senators have signed with NOrquist and have voted the straight NO for all goods things, medicare, SS, PBS, NPR, EPA, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, etc. It is on my agenda to make sure they are NOT reelected!

For the life of me whether GOP or Dem why any politician would be so stupid as to sign a pledge to anyone for anything period......it ties your hands and creates gridlock and this is a good thing ????? Am thinking NOT !!!

@ Mag 50,

What do the democreats do for you? What is their plan for the debt ceiling? We are already at 14.3 trillion or more, and he wants it raised another 2.4 trillion???? What is wrong with Cut, cap, and balance? There is nothing better then keeping these crooks in check by making a constitutional ammendment making them have a balanced budget from here on out like 49 of the states do. He has been at or above 1.6 trillion the last 3 years, and wants it raised more. You must not have children, or you would want them to cut their spending. It is completely out of hand, and I for one don't want my children to have to pay for these irresponsible democrats debt by keeping the poor under their wing by handing out so many entitlements. It is rather sickening. I know you'll say the millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fare share, bla bla bla, but the top 2% already pay 95% of the taxes. It is completely insane. How about the other 47% of the population that pays no taxes and gets free handouts from the Democrats. The only people the Dems help anymore is Union Thugs, and they are destroying the country, not the Tea Party who is trying to keep this country in check on their spending. Get a Clue people! I am so sick of Obama's demagoguery and scare tactics toward old people and people on social security. I don't think there has been a speech at all in his Presidency that he hasn't lied or at all! I jus hope more people wake up to what is going on, before Moody's and S & P gives us a bad credit rating for accumulating so much debt. It is pretty sad that they are thinking about selling 50 square Miles of Idaho to the Chineese to help pay off our debt. That would just be great, let me tell ya.

You all realize that we pay 40 cents on every single dollar we spend. How will this country everrrrrr pay that back? If we raise it another 2.4 trillion, the interest alone that we have to pay back is $960,000,000,000 (that's right 960 billion for the interest)!

Steeler Fan-380417

.....an entire nation & its economy can be held hostage by a small group of people who refuse to compromise...

If by "compromise" you mean giving the "OK" to more uncontrolled spending by this prez....then so be it! Seems the only way he can win another election is to BUY votes.....enough of this man's spending spree!!!

NATIONAL DEBT STATISTICS

President Barack Obama (higher now...only till Jan.)

• Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
• Jan. 4, 2011: $14,025,215,218,708.52
• Days in Office: 493
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 22.82%

President George W. Bush

• Jan. 20, 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
• Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
• Days in Office: 2,922
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%

President Bill Clinton

• Jan. 20, 1993: $4,188,092,107,183.60
• Jan. 20, 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
• Days in Office: 2,922
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 3.99%

President George H.W. Bush

• Jan. 20, 1989: $2,697,957, 000,000
• Jan. 20, 1993: $4,188,092,107,183.60
• Days in Office: 1,460
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 11.62%

President Ronald Reagan

• Jan. 20, 1981: $934,073,000,000
• Jan. 20, 1989: $2,697,957, 000,000
• Days in Office: 2,922
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 14.18%

President Jimmy Carter

• Jan. 20, 1977: $653, 907,000,000
• Jan. 20, 1981: $934,073,000,000
• Days in Office: 1,460
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 9.32%

President Gerald Ford

• Aug. 9, 1974: $481,792,000,000
• Jan. 20, 1977: $653, 907,000,000
• Days in Office: 1,239
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 9.43%

President Richard Nixon

• Jan. 20, 1969: $362,629,668,607
• Aug. 9, 1974: $481,792,000,000
• Days in Office: 1,315
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.21%

President Lyndon B. Johnson

• Nov. 22, 1963: $308,567,018,756
• Jan. 20, 1969: $362,629,668,607
• Days in Office: 1,135
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 5.35%

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10959884/7/national-debt-a-look-at-presidents-tabs.html

@anthony -- you are so right! Pledges are horrible because they limit the future action you can take. For instance, pledging to be faithful to one's spouse limits future access to lots of good booty. Pledges of allegiance to the country limit opportunities to take payments from foreign governments for spying. And pledges to uphold the Constitution of the United States (if taken seriously) would limit one's ability to appoint unelected and unvetted czars, sign laws that mandate the purchase of certain commercial products and services, and socialize automobile companies. Thankfully, not many people take silly "pledges" seriously, so we can continue our headlong dash away from all the principals upon which this nation was founded.

This is what Obama inherited.

"The Bush administra­tion created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administra­tion and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."

Source(s):

http://dat­a.bls.gov/­PDQ/servle­t/SurveyOu…

4.5 Million jobs were lost under GW Bush.

3 million created under GW Bush. Do the math.

Comes out to a -1.5 million job growth under Bush's regime!

The Republican­s can never do justice for the people because, Big Business's and the Rich are their ONLY concern, Has anyone ever heard of Herbert Hoover?

Obama is expected to fix in 2-3/4 years what took GW 8 to screw up.

No Obama is expected not to make a bigger mess than the one he inherited and he screwed it up. He inherited roughly $8T deficit and managed to almost double it in 1/4 the time the last deficit got ran up.

He can't even maintain!

Good luck getting the Democrats to make a concerted effort at reducing the debt. After they drive up taxes on the rich dry up the armed forces and close all the tax loopholes, it would be interesting to see what they'll do about the remaining $10T deficit.

Hate the rich all you want but that ain't gonna stop politicians from giving away every govt dollar until there's none to pay pensions. That's been the way for the last 50 years.

Wilberta Berry:

4.5 Million jobs were lost under GW Bush.

3 million created under GW Bush. Do the math.

What you have shown is the very essence of numbers and how they can be distorted by the person managing them. While 3 million jobs may have been created while President Obama has been in office (I haven't checked any sources; I'll just go with what you have posted), unless they were all government jobs, he didn't create them. Second, the unemployment rate has gone up since he took office. Although there may have been 3,000 jobs created, there were far more than 3,000 jobs lost; simple math. The unemployment rises if more people lose their jobs than those who find work.

justoneguy: GREAT POST and comeback to the steeler guy. BUt you're probably wasting your time trying to present facts to a democratic donkey. They are, after all, stubburn headed critters.

OY VAY,

Obama did not inherit an $8 trillion deficit, and he has not doubled it. Bush's last budget had a $1.3 trillion deficit. The next year Obama's deficit was less than Bush's. Do you know what a deficit is?

Also if you want to complain about someone making things worse, you should be complaining about the republicans. They are the ones that are doing harmful things intentionally to "make sure Obama is a one-term president". Obama has kept spending under control much better than Bush did, however he has to fund the two wars Bush started, and he wisely chose to spend money to stimulate the economy when we were in the recession. Also, unlike Bush, Obama's stimulus was not just handing out cash with nothing to show for it.

The only thing President Obama inherited was an out of control spending plan that he helped create. Remember he was in the Congress when it approved all the spending.

@oy-vay

Politics aside, the fact of the matter is, when the economy is in the tank, it's up to the government to do what it can to try and drag it back into the black, and that requires spending money. Cutting services to people in a tough economic situation when more and more people are falling into that category doesn't make any sense either. You end up in a situation where you punish the very people you're supposed to be helping.

I'm not saying it was done the right way in this case, but facts are facts. When times are bad, the money has to be spent to try and get things back into neutral to good territory. Paying off debt and eliminating deficits are tasks for when times are good and there's an influx of money available for those tasks. Trying to do that when people are out of jobs simply leads to more people losing jobs and making the overall situation worse. Obama inherited a ship that was already taking on water. There was NO WAY he could have worked to reduce debt and eliminate deficits in that situation without dragging the economy down further. He and the dem controlled congress probably did make things worse with some of their initiatives, but saying they should have been able to reduce debt and eliminate deficits when the economy was on a quick slide is refusing to look at the economic reality of the situation.

Justoneguy - Last time I check there are 365 days in a year, so from Jan 20, 2009 to Jan 4, 2011 would be 714 days, which would lower that growth rate to 15%, but nice job of exaggerating. Of course, you also failed to include the annual deficits/surpluses that each president inherited, but that information also would fail to support your argument.

The problem that I have with what is being reported is that spending cuts are agreed to, but we only have a promise of future tax increases. A promise from a party that has already made a promise to never increase taxes. I tend not to take promises from politicians seriously, but when you have promised both sides of an issue, that is ridiculous even for politicians.

Additionally, if you look at what has changed from the Clinton annual surplus of 2000 to now, we have a lower tax code and the cost of 2 wars. Move those two items back to 2000 levels and our annual deficit would be much smaller and would only need pruning of waste to balance, as opposed to slashing a program like Social Security that is fully funded for 15+ years and does not impact the budget in a positive or negative way. This is a program that working Americans have paid money into with the expectation that the benefits would be there for them when it was time to retire. Any politician, from any party, who screws that up should be kicked out of office without their retirement benefits

JustaGrunt, so Obama's one vote created the out-of-control spending? He is one of the few who voted against the Iraq war, funded almost entirely by the US.

If Boehner gets 'boned' by his own party there will be a certain amount of justice in that. After all, he has spent years boning the eye candy supplied by lobbyists in his Washington digs which, by the way, are also supplied by these same special interest groups.

In his quest to try and make Obama a one term POTUS, he'll end up holding the gavel for less than one term himself. Way to go!

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?

Side note: Exxon and BP paid 0 in taxes last year number of US Jobs they created 0

President George W. Bush

• Jan. 20, 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
• Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
• Days in Office: 2,922
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%
• 
  

President Barack Obama (higher now...only till Jan.)

• Jan. 20, 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
• Jan. 4, 2011: $14,025,215,218,708.52
• Days in Office: 493
• Compounded Annual Growth Rate: 22.82%

@justoneguy

you took the Jan. 20, 2009 amount Bush left office giving to with Obama :$10,626,877,048,913.08

and then you started Obama's term in office Jan.20. 2009 with that amount: $10,626,877,048,913.08

That is the VOODOO economics everyone talks about, you Teanuts attributing to Obama. It's not slick to anyone paying attention.

READ YOUR OWN MATH! YOU STILL PROVED OBAMA INHERITED BUSH'S ECONOMIC DISASTERS!

Bill C,

I never said that Obama cast the lone deciding vote in this matter, but rather to point out that when people on this site complain about Bush, they say that it was all his fault, but then blame the republicans in Congress about this current mess. All I want to know, is why blame one President, but not the other, or blame one Congress but not the other.

Wait, I got it. It's because of the stupid little letter that is after their name, isn't? The current President was in Congress when the major spending took place, so yes he has some part of the blame. Him and the rest of the members of Congress, both those with D's and R's after their name.

Ben-636050

"This author must have had his head up his arse."

The author has no head or arse to put it up. It is a computer generated article to incite division. The wrong will believe it as the gospel of their atheist god - Obama. The right will see it as it is, a third rate wrong headed piece that was meant to divide.

The ignorant/wrong will accept it as truth because they are too stupid to do their own research. The right know it was bs from the start and dismiss it as such.

America needs a wake up call. If defalt is the ansswer, then bring it on. The only ones who will really feel the pain is the wealfare crowd and they need to feel the pain as they are dragging America down like the dems have for nearly 50 years.

Maxwell

you are suffering of selective blindness!

@RamFla

you need to expound upon your claims. Otherwise they just sound like the angry rumblings of someone who dislikes the truth.

When you get a chance, point out something inacurrate or false in my comments.

I keep hearing that all the dems want to do is keep spending. Why don't the repubs call their bluff & vote in the 4 trillion in debt reduction that the Pres has proposed? Perhaps they would rather fight then win.

Brundo, The President never outlined WHAT exactly those cuts would entail.

The House can't agree on what specifically to cut so they can't generate a bill to vote on.

This President is a master of empty sound bites. He makes comments about unnamed cuts, and then you fault the House for not making those imaginary cuts reality.

Uh, fellas the House passed an actual bill.

Time for the senate to step up and give it a whirl.

Boehner rode a tiger to the speakership, as someone said, and now it is eating him.

Unfortunately, it stands to eat the wellfare of the country as well.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb......

And you are not, with that sophomoric reply? Senator Obama truly stated, on the record, that needing to increase the debt ceiling (George W was prez) was a failure in leadership. That knife cuts both ways, RF. Our successive congresses have kicked this debt can down the road until they have run out of road. I have no idea why now the line was drawn in the sand, but it has been. Debt is a killer, and we cannot allow it to kill our country. If leverage has to be used against an unwilling, tax & spend president, it is understandable that the senate Republicans would use it. However, trying to inflame the situation among the poor and the elderly by threatening their social security checks is deceitful. Social Security is in a trust fund and is NOT a part of the general budget. It has money going in & out constantly. Threatening those who can least afford a delay in getting their check is despicable, and unworthy of a president of this great country. However this plays out, I hope that Congress will do its job and work for people, not party.

Yes, Bushes failure! Look at the mess Obama inherited!

Sandy, you don't get the point.... Presidents do not create budgets, Congress does. They propose & he signs or rejects. That is why congress is called the legislative branch and the president the executive branch. My point was that SUCCESSIVE congresses have failed. It is their duty to propose budgets and write laws that are fair and that adhere to their oath to protect the citizens of the USA, from all enemies foreign AND domestic. Pogo's "We have seen the enemy, and he is us" is never more true. We citizens sat on our hands while our federal government passed laws & spent money like we had it. All the president can do it motivate, threaten and compromise. But above all, he or she must lead. Our country needs a good, solid leader now more than ever, and lies to the people from the president's podium are uncalled for (the SS threat he made). He is not the real problem: congress is.

Dasher: You are VERY wrong about social security being in a trust fund. All it's funds were put in the general fund and the government has issued IOUs. Who will will win in the payouts. Foreign debt or social security recepients. You know that answer. There was PAYGO legislation up until 2002 at which time is was allowed to expire, then we had tax cuts for the wealthy, then we had 2 unfunded wars. So guess what we have today! Huge debt that no one wants to pay for especially corporations (filed overseas) and the wealthy! Who will pay? That social security recepient whose money was put into the general fund. Thank you very much!

Sandy,

Even if the debt ceiling is not raised, there is enough money coming in monthly to cover the interest payment and social security and medicare with a bit left over....

of course that means much of the rest of the federal government is unfunded...

I guess Obama is just saying he thinks things like the department of transportation is more important than social security checks...

Not to mention, there is enough in social security until 2037! I got a statement not long ago that said if it isn't fixed by then, it will go to 75%

OK Overseas and U.S. based military and families or social security recepients? There is a lot to decide. Which is more important? I am guessing grandmas and grandpas are a ways down the list! Transportation waaaaaaaaaaay down the list. Just think of what the government does pay for and you can decide what will happen.

Maxwell's Bachmannesque parody of what the resulting catatrophe of a default would look like is simple-minded.

A collapse in U.S. Treasury prices would destroy bank balance sheets. There would be no "safe haven" of investment which would result in a massive run into cash as during the Great Depression. Private credit would disappear and GDP could fall 20 to 30 percent—the magnitude of decline witnessed when credit suddenly dries up. Consumption and investment would decline sharply and our ability to export would fall due to the affect on foreign markets and lack of credit available to export firms. The private sector would contract much more than the government which has access to the Fed (cash to pay wages), and unemployment would quickly pass 20 percent.

I concur with phillynona's suspicion that this is little more than a choreographed show, but I think that if the crap really is allowed to hit the fan--the people responsible for the spattering (Republicans) will pay dearly at the polls.

MAX - nice one. MSNBC needs to send that character to the bench or to Huffington Post.

Good point Spanky.....the House has passed a bill. Harry Reid and his merry band of Spending Democrats in the Senate will never acknowledge anything from the GOP House. Harry Reid is just another puppet for Obama, using the same game of tricks to scare the population into believing the POTUS lies.

Sandy,

The only thing Obama inherited was the mess he helped create while he was in Congress.

Repulicants

"Boehner rode a tiger to the speakership, as someone said, and now it is eating him.

Unfortunately, it stands to eat the wellfare of the country as well.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb......"

Providing weaqlfare to the dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb is what caused this mess.

There is a simple rule that is universal - if you don't work you don't eat.

Nice job Jody, carefully considering an article right in front of your face, while at the same time not only ignoring everything else, but you own arguments from just this morning and yesterday.

You remember those - basically there is nothing the dems can do, everything is at the control of the GOP/TP?

But then again, you all declared teh GOP dead for 40 years back in January of 2009.

Yes - JAS1, this is the critical thinking by libbies that inevitably gets them back to it all being "unexpected."

Unemployment is "unexpected." When it hits 10% [and it most certainly will in the short term, that too - "unexpected."

At this moment the GOP can't control it's members. Yet when the deal gets done and it leans heavy on cuts and little if any tax increases, yep you guessed it - "unexpected."

Must be hard always being in the dark. Do your faces get hot from always having all that wool over you eyes?

Spanky, Both you and Jody agree on your statement that "At this moment the GOP can't control its members" I too agree. I also agree with Jody statement that moderate Republicans are on their way to extinction because of thier rigidity due to the groups she listed.

I also agree that the debt ceiling will be raised before Aug2 and a 2011/12 budget deficit deal will get done sometime later.

>>>>>>>>>>>> PROBLEM SOLVED! READ HERE! <<<<<<<<<<<<<
.
.
.
.
.

HIKE TAXES ON IMPORTS. That will do two things quickly and swiftly. Create more viable manufacturing, distribution, regulatory and service jobs here in the USA and it will also create a windfall of tax revenue. A move of this nature will also bring a balance to our national debt we have incurred from many countries around the world, especially China. Also, it will break the backs of those corporations we trusted with our hard earned dollar only to turn their backs on us and move their jobs abroad. Taxes on their products will be higher which means we will buy less of them, which also means we will invest in domestic production of that product, which means we go back to square one, when America was top dog. We still are, but we MUST not bow to international pressures or treaties. We must look after the food in our own bowl before we start to figure out how to keep the rest of the world clothed, bathed and fed.

And if China gets pissed, oh well. You had a good run, but your low-quality, sub-par manufacturing standards were good while they lasted, time for Americans to bring quality and safety back to the household!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

And if anyone in high-level government doesn't have the balls to make this happen, well I think its time to kick them morons out. For, contrary to their mandate, they are in the disservice of the American people.

.

.

.
.
.
.

>>>>>>>>>>>> PROBLEM SOLVED! READ HERE! <<<<<<<<<<<<<

It's hard to create jobs when one party refuses to help and instead goes about slashing jobs with spending cuts.

Barb and Jody, I've had a job since I was 14 never been w/o healthcare or gotten unemployment. I would like to stop my money from "Trickling" down to the Unions and free-loaders of society...

Jody please tell us everything you know about creating a job.

Surely you must be an expert, or have some vast information on the subject which allowed you to post your comment about how hard it is.

Does spending money create jobs Jody?You are the absolute best Jody - please keep the fun coming.

I've had a job for the past 30 years and never been w/o healthcare. Did have to take unemployment once for 5 weeks. I am tired of my tax dollars trickling up to subsidize those who have benefited from what tax dollars buy (national infrastructure: standing military and guard, internet & interstate, educated workforce, etc), but refuse to pay their fair share. My effective federal tax rate is about 12% of gross income, and I don't get to offset my operating expenses from my income or carryforward losses. I'd love to see the big corporations contribute at least as much as I am.

@JODY

The government doesn't create jobs. It cannot just throw tax dollar at the problem and make it better.

In the immortal words of FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.

(Emphasis my own)

UAWPLEEEEEEASE I have had a job since I was 14 as well (unfortunately that's 48 years) and I don't want to see my money trickling down to Exxon-Mobil, GE, 2 unfunded wars and tax cuts for the richest among us.

Cause if it did Greece would be a Super Power.

Poor Jody. It bet she is stoked on Wisconsin right now. It it kicking ass in job creation.

You are happy for Walker and the crew, aren't you Jody?

"Jody please tell us everything you know about creating a job.

Surely you must be an expert, or have some vast information on the subject which allowed you to post your comment about how hard it is."

I never flew the space shuttle. I have many views and opinions about the space program. According to Spank-logic, I must now sit down, and be quiet about the space program. Because, you see, I never flew the space shuttle.

Things must be going badly for the righites, though, based on the increased efforts lately by them to swat down whatever anyone on the left posts......

" I've had a job since I was 14 never been w/o healthcare or gotten unemployment. I would like to stop my money from "Trickling" down to the Unions and free-loaders of society..."

We sound exactly alike on this. Only one difference- I, too, don't want my money trickling down to Unions and free-loaders. BUT- about those people that are down and out through no fault of thier own? Can't seem to make myself say to them "Tough Sh!t, slacker- ME first!".

No Drive By, but no one would listen to or take your advice on how to fly a space shuttle. Even you must understand the distinction. Fact is you, like Jody have never hired anyone, had to make a payroll or even ever read even one section of the IRC code. Not exactly experts on the subjects, eh?

And yet here you all are spouting off, as if you had any idea abot which you spoke.

Not a swat, just a reminder that she, like you have no idea about job creation. A fact. Unless you would like to tell us about the business you have created, the employees you have hired. Hell I bet you have never even run income through a schedule C.

Go ahead and ask Ira, hell tell you what one is.

I love you libbies. Super funny. Worthless on the job creation front, but fun to have around.

How'd that work out in Greece Noid?

Was that what they had, or what they wanted?

See you have to govern based upon the income you have, not the revenues you want.

Are we in Greece, Spankster?

Uh, not yet?

But hey, let's keep increasing the debt. We'll get there sooner or later.

Oh, and I unfortunately am - Hello, I live in Cali, remember. It's getting bad here. Cops laid off, courts closed. All parks and recs closing.

Spanky is in Greece, apparently.

Spanky, don't feel sorry for your place of residence. I live in MN. OUr state was shut down for 19 days. Everything is back up today but the state parks. They nned to clean up all the trash etc tht was left there for 19 days. I never flet like I was living in Greece, but I will let you know after I return from Greece this fall, if it feels like MN, Cal or the US.

What changed id Obama got in office, after criticising the Bush era spending, and decided he wanted to deficit spend even more to placate a significant portion of his voting base so they would not sit out the 2012 election and, thereby, doom his chances of reelection. So he has decided to go against what he knows has to be done (see post 9 below)

Why is raising the debt ceiling now anymore important than it was in 2006?

Why not ask Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and Kyl? During the Bush Administration, the debt ceiling was raised 5 times.

June 2002 - Boehner, McConnell and Cantor vote "YEA". Kyl votes "NAY".

May 2003 - All vote "YEA".

November 2004 - All vote "YEA".

March 2006 - All vote "YEA".

September 2007 - All vote "YEA".

The debt ceiling is more important now because these 4 gentlemen, who voted a combined 19-1 in favor of raising the debt ceiling during the last administration, now say there is no way they can do it this time.

What changed?

Obama and Reid's mind changed.

So who was right and when were they right cause they all seem to be a little upside down.

Oh, and of course circumstances - like the amounts owed have changed.

Noid

How much debt can we continue to build before the weight of it sinks the entire ship? Should we continue to engage in bad economic practice simply because others did in the past? That is like a child crying to his mother that he should be allowed to play with guns because little Johnny three toes down the street is allowed to play with guns.

DA NOID:

All this talk about it being raised before is moot.

It has nothing to do with Obama...heck it was raised under Obama already...

It has to do with opening our eyes and seeing what too much debt is doing to other countries around the world, and deciding we do not want to be like Greece, or Ireland, or Portugal....

THAT IS WHAT CHANGED

It stinks for Obama that he is in charge when it all hit the fan, but it is partly his fault for accelerating the already out of control government spending.

If Reid and Biden had won, the PAYGO would have been extended, the huge medicare donut hole wouldn't have happened, two wars would have not been funded (maybe they would have still been keep off the books). taxes would not have been decreased and the debt would have been paid down or off as was projected at the end of Clinton's second term. Rewind anyone?

Sandy

The Dems WON pay-go

then conveniently EVERYTHING after that was "emergency" spending and not subject to pay-go rules.

It was an empty political gesture that you apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Paygo? You are joking right.

Silly.

We have the poor and the unemployed or underemployed and jobs are missing. The banks got rescued along with the auto mfg. but the middle class got pushed into the lower or loosing class equals government for the rich.

Woe to the city folks

Wow! Well, my eyes are open now. And all I thought I had to fear was the upcoming zombie apocalypse! Gonna need LOTS more ammo, apparently!

YOda You sum this up very well. This cuts to the quick and gets to the heart of the matter. It touches on realities that many on primrose paths refuse to acknowledge. Very cogent and accurate

Thanks

The largest chasm the world has ever known?! Ladies and gentleman, can you believe that? And Tea Partiers are extreme?!

in 2005 the Dept of Energy issued a nifty graph that showed that more than half the poor in this country had microwaves, Playstations/Xboxes, cellphones and more than one TV. The horror!

You gotta be kidding!

Well Kevin, the Blalance Budget Amendment, as proposed, puts too much power in the hands of a small minority. It calls for ANY tax bills to require a 2/3 majority to pass. The House is already in disarray with the open Tea Party people being less than 10% of the House. If you add in those who have signed the drank the tea, signed the pledge, but are still in the closet, they are well over 1/3 of the House.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to cede that much control to a minority.

As to your other questions, tax bills are required to originate in the House. Since all of the plans I have read about include provisions related to taxes, they are "tax bills." Therefore, the only bills you will see are Republican bills, since all bills in the House are controlled by Republicans.

Don't it hurt when the same arguments used for the Republicans not issuing budgets last year are used for the Democrats this year?

A bit misleading - Obama recognized that the problems can't be solved by tax increases only, which is why he has proposed both spending cuts, closing tax loopholes, and tax increases. Unfortunately, it is the Republicans that now control the House who insist the solution is "spending cuts only", and absolutely refuse to consider any tax increases or even closing any tax loopholes!

We cannot solve our fiscal problems by spending cuts only. None of the budgets proposed by the Republicans actually "balance the budget", in fact the much vaunted Ryan plan actually increases the annual deficit by giving even more tax breaks to the rich.

If tax cuts actually stimulated the economy and lead to lower unemployment, then the decade of Bush tax cuts should have resulted in very low unemployment and a booming economy, instead of the severe recession and rising unemployment that we got. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are still in effect, and the tax rates are still the lowest since 1950, but the Teapartiers are still whining that their taxes are too high.

Obama's plan called for 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 revenue increases, with most of the revenue increases coming from closing unethical tax loopholes, ending corporate tax subsidies, and increased enforcement and collection of overdue taxes. Oh, but the Republicans absolutely refused to end tax subsidies for the oil companies, in spite of their record profits year after year. The Obama plan may not be perfect, but it will come a lot closer to actually balancing the budget and ending deficits than anything the Republicans have proposed.

CM show me any specific cut's Obama has proposed? Anything.

dirp that is not any tax bills, only tax increases. But if there are objectionable provisions in the current version of the Balanced Budget Amendment why not seek to amend them rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Here it is:

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), [Struck out->] That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->]

‘Article-- [<-Struck out]

‘Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed one-fifth of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. [<-Struck out]

‘Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’. [<-Struck out]

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

‘Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.

‘Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

‘Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

‘Section 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

‘Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

‘Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

‘Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

‘Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’.

House Calendar No. 49

Softdude Because the Dems did the same thing in 94 and again under Bush 41. Then they kept the tax hikes and never cut any spending. So why do you think they would follow through now? They want to increase spending. Obama stands at the podium and lies daily. And those that support him here repeat his lies as if they were fact. You and others fall into the Bush tax cut fallacy, of thinking it will make a large difference in the income of the nation. The amount is $115 billion or $105 billion it's all according to which fact check you use. Thats less .09% of what Obama wants in debt ceiling spending. More Democratic smoke and mirrors. Yup thats gonna really cut the deficit.

Applause, applause!!

You have your political history soooo mixed up - like most conservatives. Nazis were far right reactionaries, communists and socialists are on the far left and were the radicals, the centralized government styles of governing. If you're going to sling insults, at least know what the heck you're talking about and keep your insulting comments straight...

sbv better check your history the KKK was and still is a largely Democratic org. Remember your beloved Senator Byrd who just passed away was a grand wizard. Also check out who owned the most slaves. Survivalist are neither. They are completely anti any govt. So I guess you don't have a clue as to anything factual.

You could have already done that with the house!

Legislation has to be voted by both houses. The House voted. Now it goes to the Senate.

Don't you know that?

Christ, all you right-wingers who throw out "communist" and "marxist" whenever you want to talk about the democrats have absolutely no perspective. Look at the political spectrum in other democratic countries. The democrats are only "leftists" when viewed in the limited spectrum of US politics. Compared to what's present in Canada, Europe, etc, the Democrats would be considered a center-right party, at best, with the republicans occupying the extreme right (and sliding further in that direction thanks to the TP crew). The Democratic party line is neither communist, marxist, or socialist. There may be some influence, but nothing to warrant the labels that you right wingers like throwing out. If you talk to an actual marxist or socialist, they'd laugh in your face for thinking someone who marches lock and step with the current Democratic party line is one of them.

Stop parroting the conservative talk-show hawks who serve no purpose other than to spread vitriol and lock our country in an unproductive "my way or the highway" mentality. They've never done anything for this country other than to make it worse (same goes for the "liberal" talk show nuts as well, btw).

I blame the Dems because this budget should have been in place a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately for us the 1799 clowns were far more intelligent than anyone today. They saw the damage that government could do and put into place rules to keep government from becoming the behemoth they knew it would. But, because no one in this country that is in politics cares one whit about the Constitution or following it, we are now in the predicament that was in fact predicted. John Adams said that they had given us a Constitution for a moral and upright people. Since we can't follow it and you seem to think it is antiquated, perhaps you are no longer a moral or upright person. I cannot for the life of me understand why there are people who think it is all right to live in a country that does not pay its bills, who want the government to hand them everything on a silver platter, and not feel any pain whatsoever. Government or private family, if you get into debt, you are a slave to that debt. We need to get out of debt and live within our means. Only traitors to the country would want to see it crash and burn in economic ruin and become a slave to other countries. Do you fall into that category?

One thing about it. If everything DOES fail, a lot you republcians will lose much MORE than us lower middle class. We have little left to lose. Would THAT make us equal?

As a middle class conservative, why would it not affect me? What makes non-Republicans not equal to Republicans?

You sound like you dislike someone you've never met.

As a middle class conservative I find your remarks ignorant and useless to the conversation. To remind you - the wealthiest members of Congress just happen to be Democrats. And what have they done for you lately with their millions? Absolutely nothing. And I venture to say, that given the opportunity to give a large portion of their wealth away to the poor, they would not do it.

And one of those employers just happens to be the Government. Excessive spending cuts would force the Government to lay off more employees, which would increase unemployment.

Now I know the Conservative theory is that if the tax rates on the rich were reduced, they would take that extra money and invest in job producing businesses. But as the past decade of Bush tax cuts clearly shows, that theory doesn't work in practice. Instead, the Rich spent that extra money on imported luxury goods, fine art and collectibles to show off their wealth, invested in businesses that offshored jobs, and most of all, bought up Treasury bills as a nice safe investment. That's why most Republican supporters remained blissfully unconcerned about the 4.9 trillion dollar debt acquired during the Bush Jr. era - they were busy buying up the T bills sold to finance that debt! BTW, that's also why, in spite of all their posturing, the Republicans wouldn't dare let the Government default and will cave and let the debt ceiling go up as much as necessary. I hope Obama realizes that.

WHY would Obama cave in these radicals? It Bush Jr were president, he would just say....we are NOT going to make the middle class pay for THIS ANYMORE. (IF that were HIS position) Of course, George Jr wanted to do away with social security and medicare. ALL republicans want an end to the safety net that Americans have. YOU know...like if a woman is left alone to rear several children and she has a low paying job, no job, AND probably NO healthcare coverage. Or a family has a child with disabilities and it takes REAL money to help that child progress OR...you have ALL the OLD people and VERY few could pay their way through retirement, especially after Bush's policies BANKRUPTED retirement plans ALL over this country. These are AMERICAN workers who worked their whole lives and have seen their retirement STOLEN from them. Republicans would say...get on the street or live with your children. WE DONT CARE what you do. AND THEY DONT CARE. They want smaller government...so they can have MORE control over peoples lives. As long as we have a government with social security and medicare....it FORCES them to pay (which they can afford easily) for SOME coverage for someone else. BUT...so do poor middle class families. HOW much of our tax money goes for YOU RICH greedy nothings in the form of subsidies? Do I owe YOU anything? We can NEVER get rid of social security and medicare. It keeps our elderly from STARVING and DYING. You can call them ineffecient all you want to. With all its ineffeciency, its cheaper than some insurance company screwing them every time they turn around...like what they have to pay for the other 20 percent that medicare does NOT pay. That 20 per cent costs MORE than the WHOLE 80 percent covered under medicare. They are the BEST things and ABSOLUTELY needed and WANTED by the MAJORITY OF VOTERS. So republicans should shut their mouths and try to REALLY cut out wasteful spending...that is NOT necessary. Cut out some UPPER crust do nothing jobs. EVERY company has tons of them. CUT from the TOP if you want to save money. That person could live on a lot less. WE at the BOTTOM know all about giving up to make ends meet, although we are fighting a losing battle. I will blame EVERY snot nosed republican brat that was elected if ANY part of this results in TAKING away from the middle class. We have suffered under republican rule...AND it is TIME to end it. The best thing would be to throw out TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS. They REFUSE to make billionaires pay MORE taxes...when they make MORE money than others. The military has to keep YOUR wads of money SAFE from terrorists. So YOU should pay MORE to keep that military going. We are angry. We are sick of millionaires paying all these crazy people to put out cheap lying propaganda. Rupert Murderer needs to get OUT of this country. His filthy hands are into many many dirty things. I hope it all comes to light, but I guess when he had the man killed that talked, it was a warning to the rest to keep quiet. We need ANOTHER deep throat, a real hero. This republican dirty tricks are the SAME people...SAME type of people trying to control the WHOLE country. What dispicable dead spirits they are. Do NOT cave into them Pres Obama. The people KNOW who the scoundrels are and we know they are acting like rabid dogs to get you out of office. Please do not abandon the MIDDLE CLASS. We have given ALL we can give.

Is that what everyone was saying during the Bush admin. Where was all the concern for the "children and grandchildren" then? And before you say I should deal with the present, past debt is present debt.

So how much debt do you propose we continue to take on before everything comes to a crushing halt? 40 cents of every dollar the Feds presently collect is devoted to servicing the debt. At the rate the debt is increasing it won't be long before it is 60 cents. The debt is obviously affecting the ability of the government to spend tax dollars on all those programs the Dems want. So it would make sense for the Dems and Obama to want to get rid of the debt, not make it bigger. But, they "stupidly", as Obama would say, want to continue debt building and deficit spending. Reason = Obama doesn't want to lose a significant numbers of his base voters between now and next year by cutting the entitlements to pay down the debt. That will cause many of them (Dem) to sit out the next election. And Obama knows he is going to need every vote he can get if he has any chance of remaining in the white House. It's all about trying to keep Obama in office, not what needs to be done to keep the country from sinking into the abyss under the crushing weight of the ever increasing debt. Enough is enough. Do the right thing. Cut spending to free up the revenues to pay down the debt, stop deficit spending, which increases the debt, and get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed, so we don't have to continue dealing with this crap for decades to come.

Why are we even talking about reducing the deficit at this point in the game? The debt ceiling has nothing to do with reducing spending or reducing the deficit. People keep missing the real point - the debt ceiling is simply allowing us to pay debts we have already obligated ourselves to - and by us, I mean Congress over the past 10 years. This is not debt from the past year we're paying interest on, almost all of it is debt and spending decisions made during a previous administration. By not raising the debt ceiling we won't be rescinding those decisions, we'll just be making the United States a liar because we said we would pay these obligations and now we aren't.

Yes, the increasing debt is a big, big problem that needs to be dealt with, but debt going forward has absolutely NOTHING to do with the debt ceiling being raised to pay old debt. People keep trying to equate debt and deficits in government to household debt and spending (which by the way is comparing grapes and watermelons), but if we keep that analogy for argument's sake - you made the decision to buy the house, the car, incur your student loans, buy furniture, replace the air conditioning system that went out, send your kids to college, etc. Now you have to pay for it. You can't undo it, you just have to do what it takes to pay that debt, probably decide not to incur so much in the future, but if you don't have the cash immediately, get a HELOC, put it on a credit card and after you have paid your current obligations get a second job, negotiate lower interest rates, start spending less on eating out. That is the responsible thing to do. You incurred the debt, you pay the debt....or, you can be like Donald Trump and when it gets slightly unpleasant and you're tired of paying the bills you promised to pay, just go to the courthouse and file for bankruptcy. Only problem is, if the country files for bankruptcy - the ultimate equivalent of not raising the debt ceiling (obligations to pay SS, Medicare, service men and women's salaries are debt, too) - there are millions of people who go down and in a big way...not the limited effect of one person filing bankruptcy, but a multiplicative effect. The states of Virginia and Maryland would be decimated if federal employees weren't paid - no sales taxes, no mortgages or rent paid, no utilities able to be paid, no state income tax paid...those states are just a microcosm of what would happen all across the country.

and I am white.

And this matters WHY?

From the sound of your hysterical rant I would fathom to guess your GREEN!

Talk about stereotyping?

Nope, just white and really sick of paying for those who are a different color and sit on their behinds and collect welfare money, my tax dollars, for each of their 10 - 13 kids with different dads. I know perfectly well their are legiment people collecting welfare who don't make enough money to pay for groceries or doctor bills. But those who come to this country, get their family members on welfare and Social Security and have not paid a dine into the entitlement get me really mad. And believe me, I do not live in a glass house and I don't throw rocks at anyone. I just wish there was give away money to those of us who are working, paying our bills, getting our kids into college. I sure like some give away money that I don't have to pay back and I am sure there are others losing their homes that would like some give away money too.