Where Do We Go From Here?

I watched the President's speech and like many political junkies, I didn't learn a lot of new information. But our President was not talking to those watching politics on a daily basis; he was explaining the debt crisis to the American people. He told the American people how we got in this mess and the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling.

It is no surprise to know that Congress is broken, compromise is a dirty word and party first ideology trumps our nation's interest. And as a consequence, the American people become the collateral damage in this war between the parties.

CNN reports that a spokesperson from the credit rating agency, Standard & Poors, indicated that the Boehner Plan would lead to a downgrade of US debt, thus raising the interest rate for all Americans. The Reid plan would preserve America's AAA rating. But information like that does not deter the Tea Party legislators.

The debt ceiling is not their issue; the debt has become the vehicle by which they can attack Medicare, Medicaid and Social security. The Tea Party attacked Medicare as we know it today with the Ryan (vouchercare) bill; the Tea Party tried it again with Cut, Cap and Balance. And now they are trying to destroy our social network by holding Americans hostage via the debt ceiling.

What will it take to break this deadlock? It's going to take something really big. I believe it will require, yes require, Wall Street executives to tell Republicans to stop this brinksmanship nonsense and pass a simple bill. To not do so will plunge the country and the world in crisis and, by the way, you will no longer get campaign contributions from our corporation. That, Boehner, Cantor and all his merry men will understand.

Watching all the rhetoric from both sides last night and we have not move one inch. The right is still going to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and over 50 Social Safety Nets including gutting Education, Medical Research, FEMA, FDA, Food and Product Safety, FAA, Law Enforcement etc. The richest 2% will have record tax cuts forever and the Middle Class will pay for it. The Radical Right is not going to compromise at all. I keep telling you all this is not about the Debt Ceiling. It is about Power and Greed. The Hostage Party is going to continue this agenda until they have everything they want and we are left with just the table scraps. Our children and grandchildren will have less opportunities in this country than every before.

The Democrats continue to try for a compromise putting everything on the table for discussion including the DOD, Entitlements, Tax Reform and Discretionary Spending to no avail. They put up a Bill that answered the GOP/TP’s requirements for more in cuts than in the Debt ceiling increase, no revenue increases, etc. Everything the GOP/TP claimed they wanted and they (Democrats) got slapped, proving this was not about the Debt Ceiling and never was. It was and is all about “Power and Greed” and nothing else.

How bad is the Boehner Proposal – See below report from CBPP

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548&emailView=1

“The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history”.

“This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. The mathematics are inexorable”.

1. The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it then requires additional cuts that are large enough to produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time.

2. The Boehner plan contains no tax increases. The entire $1.8 trillion would come from budget cuts.

3. Because the first round of cuts will hit discretionary programs hard — through austere discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet discretionary cuts will largely or entirely be off the table when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in budget reductions.

4. As a result, virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come from entitlement programs. They would have to be cut more than $1.5 trillion in order to produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.

5. To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require draconian policy changes.

Policymakers would essentially have three choices:

1) cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan) have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years.

I TOLD YOU THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING AND NEVER WAS BUT IS AN ASSAULT ON 98% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

People, this will have an “immediate” effect on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There is NO 55 or over safety net now. It is gone and come 2013 you will see DRACONIAN cuts that will hit every single beneficiary of these programs – period. The GOP/TP has moved the goal posts to now include cuts for everybody. If you thought because you are 55 now or over you we exempt, YOU ARE NOT.

Read the above report – this is very bad news for 98% of the American People and it will start virtually immediately.

Look, we either pony up now and we all start paying our fair share to get out of this mess or we are going to pay later and the price tag is going to be much higher. And in the mean time this Nation is going suffer big time. Unemployment is going to increase, taxes and interest rates on everything from Credit Cards to Mortgages will increase, the Federal Government will pay more interest on their loans and that will funnel down to us as more taxes. The economy will stall or go back into another recession or worse.

We the people are becoming the “Collateral Damage” fostered upon us by a right wing radical group that just is not interested one iota in any compromise at all or moving this country forward. They want the whole pie and that is it. Nothing less is acceptable to them. People, this is not the ideology that this country was built upon and it is not an ideology that will move the country forward as a whole. Yes it will deliver more Power and Wealth into the hands of a select group of people while the rest of us sit on the sidelines.

Navy: Happy to see you found me. Great post.

Ron:

Right on. We are on the same page today.

I have been saying from day one this is not about the Debt Ceiling. Never has been. It is all about Power and Greed. The GOP/TP is going to continue to hold Americans Hostage for their own political gains and they just do not care what carnage or damage they cause. In their minds the more damage they do the better.

This is what happens when you have a right wing radical group that is more concern about themselves than they are about providring leadership for this country.

The grand tea bagger scheme of things is no longer being concealed:

In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball this evening, tenther Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) admitted that he is using the threat of a catastrophic default to extort the nation into rewriting the Constitution to force a permanent era of conservative governance:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How many days do you think we have, on the outside, to get this debt ceiling through before we have a problem? How many days?

LEE: I don’t know, maybe ten days.

MATTHEWS: Okay, in ten days you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses? That’s what you’re demanding.

LEE: Yes. If possible we can’t change the Constitution just in Congress but we can submit it to the states. Let the states fight it out.

MATTHEWS: And you think you’re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Republican, and in the Senate which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the house to come down?

LEE: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying and I’ve been saying this for six months.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/278811/lee-admits-he-is-an-extortionist/

Tea baggers are NOT patriotic Americans - their despicable traitors who are more than willing to destroy the global economy in their fanaticism!!!

I thought the speech was great. There. I've said it, and I'll say it again. The speech was great.

The President said what needed to be said, except he failed to mention that the revenue enhancements he would be seeking from the wealthiest will not materialize until the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire. There are no revenue enhancements in the Reid plan. Just cuts.

Which is, of course, what conservatives always say they want. Now it becomes apparent that conservatives only want whatever the President does NOT want.

Well, you get what you pay for. Exactly that, and not any more.

Only those whose ears are closed to anything other than their own thoughts failed to hear what the President was saying.

And 6 months or a year from now, you'll all be asking why nobody told you.

And I will no doubt be posting clips of this speech where someone DID tell you.

And then you'll scoff.

In short, nothing will have changed here. But the state of the economy, the world, and by extension all of our lives, will be very different.

Ron:

The site was a little flaky this morning. I tried to move my post up but I got no edit button this AM so I had to post twice. Sorry for the double post.

I didn’t get to hear Speaker Boehner’s reply to the president last night, so I’m going to paraphrase what he said:

“Hey, everybody! Was’ up??

“Dude, did you hear the crap the president was spewing? Man, where does he come up with this stuff?? Seriously, man!

“I don’ unnerstand what their deal is with corporate jets? Was’ up with that?!? It’s not any of those hippie d--- donkey f------ have a corporate jet to tax anyway! So what do they care? Tha’s justa bunch of bulls--- if ya ask me.”

[Takes a swig from the flask in his jacket pocket.]

“Someone get me a martini.

“Anyways, I’m third in line here. (I am, right? Tha's what Nancy said.) I think I deserve some respect! You guys give Nancy all kinds of respect and she molests turtles! I saw it, man. I saw that video of her an’ that poor turtle on YouTube. Tha’s just messed up, ya know? Google it, man. You'll see what I mean.

“Stop askin’ me dumb questions about debt and stuff. I don’ really care about that. All I care about is grummammadebeeniebobamjorkboodlegargle.”

[An aide approaches the podium and whispers in Speaker Boehner’s ear.]

“Get away from me, ya donkey f-----! I’ll say whatever I f------ want!”

[Looks out at crowd and raises arms.]

“SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!”

[Stomps foot.]

“SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!!!”

[Drops microphone and walks off stage.]

That's pretty close to what he said, right?

H/T to blackwaterdog

New York Times Editorial

"The Republican Wreckage – Republicans have lost sight of the country’s welfare”

It’s hard to conclude anything else from their latest actions, including the House speaker’s dismissal of President Obama’s plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America’s economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they walk away.

This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for work grow more out of reach as government job programs are cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the federal government a laughingstock around the globe.

In a scathing prime-time television address Monday night, President Obama stepped off the sidelines to tell Americans the House Republicans were threatening a “deep economic crisis” that could send interest rates skyrocketing and hold up Social Security and veterans’ checks. By insisting on a single-minded approach and refusing to negotiate, he said, Republicans were violating the country’s founding principle of compromise.

“How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?” he said, invoking Ronald Reagan’s effort to make everyone pay a fair share and pointing out that his immediate predecessors had to ask for debt-ceiling increases under rules invented by Congress. He urged viewers to demand compromise. “The entire world is watching,” he said.

Mr. Obama denounced House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal to make cuts only, now, and raise the debt ceiling briefly, but he embraced the proposal made over the weekend by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, which gave Republicans virtually everything they said they wanted when they ignited this artificial crisis: $2.7 trillion from government spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. It is, in fact, an awful plan, which cuts spending far too deeply at a time when the government should be summoning all its resources to solve the real economic problem of unemployment. It asks for absolutely no sacrifice from those who have prospered immensely as economic inequality has grown.

Mr. Boehner will not accept this as the last-ditch surrender that it is. The speaker, who followed Mr. Obama on TV with about five minutes of hoary talking points clearly written before the president spoke, is insisting on a plan that raises the debt ceiling until early next year and demands another vote on a balanced-budget amendment, rejected by the Senate last week. The result would be to stage this same debate over again in an election year. Never mind that this would almost certainly result in an immediate downgrade of the government’s credit.

We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be “offended” by this display and that they “may have voted for divided government but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.” It’s hard not to conclude now that dysfunction is the Republicans’ goal — even if the cost is unthinkable.

___________________________________________

Happy to see Americans answered President Obama's call to contact our reps in Congress and demand that they do something. I would suggest as well that you contact the White House and ask them what "compromises" they're looking to do.

It's important. Senior citizens are concerned about social security. Someone needs to come out and speak to them directly. They are scared.

It's not right. If their SS checks are not going to be cut, and by all I have read their benefits are not going to be cut, then they should know that.

John Boehner needs to work with Nancy Pelosi to get something passed. He needs to let the Tea Party go. They don't give a #### about our country. One iota.

SPEAKER John Boehner, your job is to pass bills. Do it. Find some responsible members of the House, not the nitwits Cantor supports.

And leave senior citizens alone. Period. Same with President Obama.

Cut your own benefits before you cut anyone else's. That's compromise I like. Compromise not from we the people. But compromise from Washington DC.

It's high time you did.

Well, you will certainly will not get any compromise out of Boehner.

The poor dude sounds like a cat *coughing* up a hairball when ever he tries to just say the word & then bursts into tears...

NOW that's what I call LEADERSHIP! lol

Heh heh, Chris, Give me a Dave Chappelle 'Black Bush' to go with that Eddie Murphy John 'Sexual Chocolate' Boehner and we have an Oscar Toney in the making.

Republicans have lost sight of the country’s welfare

Now Pat you realize that any Republican that reads that will take it as someone taking their money. Republicans see welfare as code for giving to the poor and not as the best interest of the country.

Last night watching the President and the Speaker talk to the nation, I came away knowing I saw:

A Statesman, eloquently state the need to vote yes on the debt ceiling and what the damages will be if the deadline of August 2nd is not met.

And, a two-bit politician who is holding the country hostage as he pays ransom to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist.

David Walker:

Another outstanding post. Kinda sums it up real nice. Right now we are sitting in a very dangerous position. What the clowns in Congress do will make or break this country for decades to come. We have one side that is fighting for all Americans including the wealthy. We are not against making money, we just want everybody to pull their own weight. The we have the other side that is fighting just for Wall Street, Big Business and Millionaires and Billionaires. And yes they want us to pull our own weight and THEIRS as well.

It is all about them just like the spoiled little brats they are. They feel they and only they are entitled to a good education, healthcare and a bank account. The rest of us they just told to go to he!!. We are a drag and obstacle to their quest for more Power and Wealth.

This is the new Political Dynamic is this country and it is an ideology that is not compatible with what this country stands for.

AlanNJ:

Why then will President Obama not accept an increase that will last for 6 months? What has changed?

Only the fact that Republicans are using the debt ceiling as a "Sword of Damocles" sort of terrorism in order to hold the President hostage to their social-engineering agenda.

That's what we're trying to tell you, but apparently your ears continue to be closed.

Chris, Cranberry

I did watch the Republican rebuttal, and your summary of Boehner was pretty much spot on. For a non-liberal commentator, you are remarkably clear-eyed about the Republican position. Please don't respond by satirizing President Obama. I know you are in the "all poiticians are to blame" camp, but I think that's a cop-out. The Democrats aren't perfect, but they aren't putting the nation's credit-rating at risk in the name of their ideology.

The President demanded the debt ceiling be raised and Boehner said sure, but you need to do it my way. Same old, same old.

Lot's of nuances in what they said....half lies...which are still lies.

They are as far apart on this issue as they can possibly be and it seems that the only choice the President will have is McConnell-Reid.

But everyone is forgetting the markets...the global financial markets. The markets have been shrugging off the debate and did not believe a default can happen.

As we get closer to Friday....not Monday......the markets will begin to sell off. If there's no deal by Monday a thousand points or more is possible on the Dow. The Treasury market will be decimated. Then the politicians will take this seriously. Money always talks.

The financial markets will be the final arbiters in this unnecessary crisis.

As we get closer to Friday....not Monday......the markets will begin to sell off. If there's no deal by Monday a thousand points or more is possible on the Dow. The Treasury market will be decimated. Then the politicians will take this seriously. Money always talks.

The financial markets will be the final arbiters in this unnecessary crisis.

Down almost 90 yesterday Ira, and almost 70 so far this morning. My mattress strategy is looking better and better.

Only trouble, is that the princess is having some trouble sleeping. ;-)

no joe:

Poor AM. Poor all the liberals.

Don't feel sorry for me, no joe. I'm the one whose money is under the mattress, remember? Feel sorry for all the poor, disabled, elderly, unemployed, and pretty soon everyone else who has money invested anywhere, who will feel the impact of all this foolishness.

By the way, the only reason the 2009 budget deficit was projected to be so low is probably that Bush kep the war OFF THE BOOKS and Obama put it back on the books.

Correct me if I'm wrong, no joe, but I believe that 2009 was the first year that the war was recognized as a budget expense.

@AM

Hey Anna, good discussion yesterday. Believe me when I say those were serious social issues you were bringing up and I for one do not know a good way of structuring or paying for them. In particular the needs of the long-term unemployed should be addressed and not be subject to whims of congress through multiple extensions of unemployment insurance that was designed as a short-term benefit. On the subject vets that Ira brought when I asked if this was caused by homelessness what I meant was that so benefits are related to having an address. I accept there is poverty among vets and this will only increase due to (now both) administrations love of wars of choice.

Only the fact that Republicans are using the debt ceiling as a "Sword of Damocles" sort of terrorism in order to hold the President hostage to their social-engineering agenda.

You may call it social engineering but seriously neither the Administration not the Democratic party will entertain any cuts in the current budget so what other leverage do they have?

So now Obama has given up on his pledge, promise,guarantee of increasing taxes on the productive. That's a little progress. Odd though , isn't it? This is his own party (Reid's plan) that came up with the idea. So Reid is the one that rolled Obama, not the GOP.

When you're getting rolled by Reid as Obama has been, you might want to think about finding something else to do.

Hey Anna, good discussion yesterday. Believe me when I say those were serious social issues you were bringing up and I for one do not know a good way of structuring or paying for them.

Think about raising revenue to pay for them, Alan.

Think about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.

If you agree to think about that, I'll be happy to talk to you. Otherwise, you're showing yourself to be just as intransigent, and even more intransigent, than President Obama.

The difference is that the long-term damage to others from the selfishness and greed of those who think the way you do will be impossible to repair. Thus, while I don't question President Obama's motives, I surely question the motives of those who think the same way you do.

Feisty, your post at 1.9 may be the most important thing anyone says here today. A Tea Party hero ADMITTING that he's trying to fundamentally remake our society by CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION and willing to BRING DOWN THE ECONOMY to get it is reprehensible. An individual who would badly damage the nation he represents in pursuit of forced gain through an artificial crisis of his own creation is not worthy to hold office.

That's right, an artificial crisis of his how creation. He and the rest of the Republican Party. Eighteen times the debt limit was raised while Ronald Reagan was President. Seven times while George W Bush was President. Seventy Four times since JFK was President.

But this time it requires an amendment to the Constitution, the document Republicans supposedly hold most reverently, in order to do what's been done routinely for decades.

Maybe reprehensible isn't a strong enough word.

Anna Molly..

Everyone I know is preparing for the "just in case". Serious financial people are beginning to take this seriously. Where default was deemed "impossible" it's been upgraded to "improbable" and by Thursday it will be at "very possible".

People are beginning to pull back...cautiously....but pulling back and there's a ton of short sellers ready to pounce.

I love your mattress strategy but then again we are talking about money...full faith and credit and all that.

In every seriousness none of the two bills, Reid;s and Boehner's, solves the debt problem in 10yrs. All nonsense.

How about our leaders try to show some refrains when facing the nation......I mean, lying about what's not. I think Boehner and his crew got this wrong or maybe GOP new meaning of BIPARTISAN is my way or no other way. Consulting with Rush and claiming a bipartisan vote on cut, cap and balance act they passed is a new low for GOP controlled congress.

where in our history will this guys fit in? Time shall tell.

AM: [Markets] Down almost 90 yesterday Ira, and almost 70 so far this morning

Yeah, that's never happened before. It's highly unusual for the markets to drop a half a percent two days in a row.

Next comes the run on the banks.

I’m just plain discussed with this Republican-Tea Bagger Terrorist who are holding the people of the United States as hostage, in order to get their way in destroying the American Dream and our peoples lives, in order to create a class war of haves and have- nots.

Mark my word, if these Terrorist get their way, we the people of the United States are doomed to be nothing more than a second rate nation.

We the people can’t let this happen and we must stop these Republican-Tea Bagger Terrorist who are holding the people of the United States as hostage, while they play their sick games in deciding who prospers and who doesn’t.

Navy,

Thanks for today's edition of wet panties histrionoics.

The richest 2% will have record tax cuts forever and the Middle Class will pay for it.

Really, I thought Obama extended it only for 2 years.

BTW - How about a quote / cut-in-paste from the idiots at CBPP about how raising taxes with unemployment at 9.2% will help create jobs ....... there are 15 -25 million Americans who would love to pay more income taxes …. They are called the unemployed and underemployed.

How come Obama never talks about that revenue ..... revenue created by growing the economy.

Bush had revenue of 18.5% of GDP in 2007. Obama has been at 15% - almost 20% less revenue with the exact same tax rate. Has nothing to do with tax rates, yet libbies still call for higher taxes.

Funny part that even Obama is calling for the tax hikes he wants to start, not now - but after the election. Why is that? If this is a crisis and taxing would not kill jobs, would really produce all this “revenue” he says it will …… why not now?

Could it be that Obama really does have a clue? Could he really understand how devastating raising taxes now would be to unemployment, what it would do to the economy and revenue, how it would doom any chance he has at re-election?

The Radical Right is not going to compromise at all.

You know, we could do a McConnell, give Obama the money, stand back and let the complete collapse of the economy be blamed on Obama and take the next election in a walk.

Obama inherited 7.2% unemployment and took it to 10.1%. You guys blame Bush, but the fact is that hiring in the private sector was better between the time Obama took office and his passage of Obamacare than it has been in the years since he passed Obamacare, even after spending a trillion in stimulus, OE2, etc!

The fact is OBAMA HAS NOT CREATED ONE NEW NET JOB IN YEARS!

No one with a half of a brain thinks Obama can do the job - he will just demonstrate his cluelessness and make a horrible situation worse ....... just as he has done the last 2 years.

Compromise?

With a leftist ideologue killing the middle class and jobs? Nope - some care about the unemployed, the middle class, the COUNTRY more than political parties and political games.

Too bad you aren't one of them.

BTW - Back to your first line ...... the middle class paying for it?

They always do, how can you not understand what Obama is doing to them?

Obama rails about jets and oil ...... the middle class aircraft workers will lose their jobs - not the rich. The oil field workers will lose their jobs - not the fat cats.

Who does $4 gas hurt, the middle class or the rich?

H

Think about raising revenue to pay for them, Alan.

Think about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.

All for it. Always have been right back t 2001 when I was against them. That does not mean I'm against what Chris Christie has done in NJ. State government wages/benefits were unsustainable.

The difference is that the long-term damage to others from the selfishness and greed of those who think the way you do will be impossible to repair. Thus, while I don't question President Obama's motives, I surely question the motives of those who think the same way you do.

The way I think is that you have to pay for what you want. I am a big believer in living within your means. This has not happened for 10 years in this country. I am all for social services but they have to be paid for, and in hard times some services may have to be cut as the people who are paying for them are also hurting. I am not defending the uber rich but the family who may have lost one wage earner or had their overtime cut or had no increases in pay since 2007. That where the unfairness of the state workers came to light as they demanded their increases from the same members of their communities who were hurting.

So those are my motives. Protect the people who actually pay the bills because they are the majority of people who are providing the money for the social services.

OK, I'm just a receptionist in a travel agency, but I don't get why the commentators keep saying the Republicans and the President are so far apart. They don't look far apart to me.

It's not like the Democrats are saying "we must raise the debt ceiling without strings attached. No spending cuts." It's not like the President is saying "I think we must raise the debt ceiling and spend MORE, because the economy needs more stimulus."

It sounds like Democrats and Republicans actually agree on spending cuts (and is that wise at this point in our recovery?) and they agree on entitlement cuts (perhaps the Democrats more grudgingly.)

The sticking points seems to be on raising revenues. The President wants to raise taxes on oil companies and hedge fund managers and the Republicans are adamently opposed to any tax increases.

Am I seeing this correctly? I mean, I have been following this pretty closely and I watched both speeches last night.

Mixed bag - in listening to a variety of analysis interviewed by bloombergTV on our debt after last nights speeches of why there has been any type of strong market reaction three points of consensus were made.

First that many global and US analysts don't believe that the US will ultimately default. Many also refer to the politicians rhetoric as merely "political theatre"

Second, some think that the politicians won't get serious about consequences unless the market definitely reacts.

Regardless, the US AAA rating will likely be downgraded, not so much on not raising the debt limit, but more because washington appears to not want to come up with a long term plan. Obama wants to kick the can down the road until after the 2012 elections and boehner wants to keep the dialog moving to make a deal before then.

JoAnnaSmith1

AM: [Markets] Down almost 90 yesterday Ira, and almost 70 so far this morning

JS1: Yeah, that's never happened before. It's highly unusual for the markets to drop a half a percent two days in a row.

As I said Joanna, a shrug. No big deal.

Watch what happens by Friday if there's no deal. That's pension funds and 401K's and and the wealth of the nation traded away because our leaders forgot how to govern. Both sides.

It's way past being a joke and no one is listening.

Anna Molly

AlanNJ:

Why then will President Obama not accept an increase that will last for 6 months? What has changed?

Only the fact that Republicans are using the debt ceiling as a "Sword of Damocles" sort of terrorism in order to hold the President hostage to their social-engineering agenda.

That's what we're trying to tell you, but apparently your ears continue to be closed.

AM, perfect. And perhaps you won't mind my tagging another bit to yours:

Reagan was busily running up the national debt with massive deficits every minute he served in the White House. He was putting the Treasury on steroids and needed those votes every 6 months to start his intentional effort to bankrupt the country.

What lots of folk forget is that THIS crisis has been MANUFACTURED by the ultra-right, that the factory for it opened in 1981, and that the ideology behind the GOP/TP has been on the assembly line ever since.

Now comes President Obama, confronted with a global economic collapse CREATED BY THE LIBERTARIANS AND SO-CALLED "FREE MARKET" IDEOLOGUES, doing his best to keep the country from going further iinto the abyss.

But John Boehner and the rigid ideologues WANT TO WRECK THE NATION. They've been trying for 30 years!

And we saw this disaster coming before last year's election. Here's part of a post I put up on Sept. 15, 2010:

The Tea Party shows a theme fused of Libertarians, religious fundamentalists - and more than a trace of the ideology of the militia movements.

Their mish-mash of concepts is all anti-government. Little of what they say is new. Their concept of "governing" is to STOP governing:

- close down a major portion of the Federal apparatus,

- wipe out a vast segment of regulatory oversight,

- close down the IRS and impose either a nationwide ad valorum tax (basically a sales tax), or set in place a flat tax,

- eliminate inheritance and capital gains taxes entirely,

- relinquish most Federal authority to the states (a resurrection of the issue once settled by the Civil War),

- if not halt all immigration then make immigration legally nearly impossible,

- displace millions of undocumented immigrants through mass roundups and deportations,

- impose an "official English" regime and eliminate as far as possible the use of other languages in at least any government operations (including public schools, while they still exist)

- cut off all foreign aid,

- force the U.N. to relocate abroad and drop out of the U.N.,

- privatize almost all public functions, from schools to highways, including the Public Health Service,

- and of course cut off all public social programs including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, WIC, Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Head Start, all public housing programs, and all government subsidies including those for agriculture

Naturally, the agenda just listed takes as a given that virtually everything done during the Obama Administration would be wholly unrolled. It also, ironically, unrolls a great many important programs and reforms created by the Republican Party between 1880 and 1912. These include creating the Civil Service system to replace a very corrupt structure of Federal appointments (not that very many Federal appointments would still exist). And, of course, the Tea Party agenda would essentially wipe out labor laws, union rights, and such niggling matters as minimum wage laws.

Ultimately, the Tea Party agenda could lead to the complete dissolution of the United States. It will lead to massive unemployment, collapse of the middle class, a near-feudal class structure, poverty on a scale not seen since Jacob Riis documented it in the early 1900's, the end of any concept of Civil Rights and equality, starvation and death and homelessness greater than that of the Great Depression, and violent civil disorder.

The kind of America the Tea Party desires to "take back" is a largely rural and agrarian America of the 1840's - which of course today cannot realistically ever be re-created.

It is vital that candidates opposing the various Tea Party nominees explain these things to their constituents. It is understandable that the nation is frustrated and fed up - the years of collapse and conflict since Bush brought on a global crisis have been filled with fear and suffering. They are NOTHING like the disaster that awaits if even a portion of the Tea Party agenda is ever instituted.

WE SAW THE TRAIN WRECK HAPPENING AND COULD DO NOTHING TO PREVENT IT.

Boehner needs a new talking point writer. After complaining that President Obama wouldn't accept the GOP terms of unconditional surrender, he whined incoherently that Obama couldn't take "yes" for an answer. Huh?

I will correct you, AM. You are wrong.

The war(s) were not "on budget", but handled with continuing resolutions. There are very good reasons for that- troop pay is already on budget, as is a lot of equipment, but additional expenses of replenishing, transit, and additional material must be handled by continuing resolutions, due to their variable nature.

That does NOT mean the costs were not counted in the deficit. They were.

Obama exploded the deficit when he signed that omnibus spending bill he did not bother to read. He further exploded it with the stimulous bill, which has served to pay off his campaign contributors. He added to it with his HCR- no matter how the numbers are spun, twisted, rinsed and repeated.

Take a look at unemployment- in two short years, enough people are "out of the labor force" that unemployment, which should be at 12%, is 9.2%. Think those people don't know they are not working, despite the fact that they are not reflected in the unemployment rate?

So, what's his solution? He wants to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires"- who earn $250,000. With those kinds of mad math skills, is it any wonder he needs BLS to spin the data?

Too bad he can't do the same for GDP. Spanky asked me when it goes to zero- in other words, when it declines for the double dip we all expect, given the data. I told him I thought it would be reported as weak- around 1-1.5% growth, and revised downward, since nobody seems to pay attention to the revisions.

The thing is, nobody pays attention to anything Obama says anymore. Too many people know they are unemployed, know how their companies are doing, know the price of gas and groceries.

In other words, they know Obama lies, and they know he fails. Over and over.

Repetitive talking points do nothing to remediate that.

njnbnj: Poor all the liberals.

They spend their days chanting their mantra, "Obama is the only adult in the room", over and over, and how doe Obama repay them?

He takes to the airwaves, by turns sickeningly condescending and childishly petulant, repeating the same lies and rejected talking points

With hero worship, libs want so bad to see their hero's succeed. With Obama though, the Libs have to continually make up stories, myths, and embellishments about him to keep him high on their pedestal. This idea that Obama is the "only adult in the room" is pure garbage.

Obama is the most petulant, moody, sulky, bad-tempered, and complaining President we've ever seen, and he's proven it with his last series of speeches and press conferences to the nation. The Libs think Obama is cool. It's not clear why.

As we get closer to Friday....not Monday......the markets will begin to sell off. If there's no deal by Monday a thousand points or more is possible on the Dow.

________________________________________________________

On the advice of Rahm Emannuel to "Never let a good crisis go to waste", I'm hoping the Dow drops at least 2,000 points due to the stupidity in Washington. I will be ready to buy great companies like AAPL that have no debt and would be unaffected by higher interest rates, at a 20% discount. It's like welfare for capitalists. Free money from Washington's stupidity and I even get to defer paying any taxes because I do my short term trading in my IRAs. Keep up the good work Barry.

Obama spends $4 trillion this year alone,

When you make ridiculous and inaccurate statements like this, you should NOT wonder why libs ignore you. Patently false, on every level.

Obama exploded the deficit when he signed that omnibus spending bill

Sure OBAMA did, because not a single Senator or Representative was involved, right? And NO, that bill did not sink us on it's own, ten years of war, a HUGE tax cut (that did nothing for jobs), and a blind eye to off-the-records bookkeeping by the last President did far more of that!!

AM: [Markets] Down almost 90 yesterday Ira, and almost 70 so far this morning

Yeah, that's never happened before. It's highly unusual for the markets to drop a half a percent two days in a row.

You're kidding right? That's nothing to anyone who actually has a clue about the markets. Yeah, it could be better, but that's hardly 'run on the banks' time!!

Yet another boring speech from nobama! Political rhetoric with very little substance! He reminds me of the Captain on Gilligan's Island.... nice guy, but no leader and way over his head!

The American public is being shortchanged!

@Fred ~ JoAnna was kidding. She was sniping at me. Down 82 now.

It's only Tuesday, Fred.

FE: You're kidding right? That's nothing to anyone who actually has a clue about the markets. Yeah, it could be better, but that's hardly 'run on the banks' time!!

Have the Civil Defense troops been dispatched to the major cities? You know, something to defend against the pending riots.

I sure hope the CD's sirens still work. It's going to make for great footage on the cable news shows.

AM: Down 82 now

Historic.

John A:

Great post and Kudo's. We on the left have been saying from day one this was notabout the Debt Ceiling at all, anymore than the Ryan Bill was about "Fiscal Responsibility". The right wing radicals are using every opportunity they can to jam DRACONIAN Spending cuts and Tax Cuts for the 2% down our throats.

This has been their agenda from the beginning and they are ramping it up. They are doing the same thing with the funding of the FAA - holding up funding until they get their anti-union amendment.

People, as President Obama said, it is time to call these clowns, send them e-mails letters etc and tell them to stop dragging this country into the Right Wing Radical Toilet. Look 98% of the people - democrats and republicans alike are going to lose Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security if these guys get their way. Everything you won now will be gone, confiscated by the power brokers. Unless you have the money now you will not be able to send your kids to a decent school, there will be no Pell Grants and any loans you may qualify for will have huge interest rates attached, if they are even available.

The American dream is turning into a nightmare right in front of us. As well meaning as President Obama is and no matter how much he tries to compromisethe radicals are just not interested. Look, he cannot do this alone and we the people who are going to be footing the bills for all the radical righties, since they do not want to contribute they just want to take. We need to get involved now and start letting these people in Congress we are not happy and unless they start working together and move this country forward they will have NO support from us come 2012. We all have a vote and our 98% is bigger than their 2%. Time to step up to the plate and take a few swings.

People, listen, ---- Obama couldn't even run a hotdog stand. He'd be giving all the hotdogs out for free until he ran out. Then he'd borrow some from some other guy's hotdog stand and promise to pay him back. With these new hotdogs he'd start giving half of them out for free and the other half he'd charge twice as much. When the customers started saying, "Hey, why are you charging me twice as much for my hotdog?", he'd say, "You have to pay twice as much to cover the cost of the free ones I give out."

Then he'd start thinking and realize he'd never be able to make a living and pay back the other guy by doing it this way, so he'd try to raise the price of the already double priced hotdogs. When the paying customers saw this price hike, they'd say, "Hey Obama, what are you doing? We already pay way more than enough!"

Great analogy Mark! I get a chuckle visualizing obama wearing that silly Captain's hat with his silly 'Alfred E. Newman' grin! It seems obama is not only losing 'passengers', he's also losing liberals, like rats deserting a sinking ship:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is down to 45 percent, driven in part by growing dissatisfaction on the left with the president’s track record in office, according to a new national survey.

According to the poll, the president’s 45 percent approval rating is down three points from June. Fifty-four percent of people questioned disapprove of how Obama’s handling his duties, up six points from last month. His 54 percent disapproval rating ties the all-time high in CNN polling that the president initially reached just before last year’s midterm elections.

“But drill down into that number and you’ll see signs of a stirring discontent on the left,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Thirty-eight percent say they disapprove because President Obama has been too liberal, but 13 percent say they disapprove of Obama because he has not been liberal enough – nearly double what it was in May, when the question was last asked, and the first time that number has hit double digits in Obama’s presidency.”

“It’s likely that this is a reaction to some of Obama’s recent actions, including his willingness to discuss major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling negotiations,” adds Holland.

So John B, what is so wrong about your example? Thats a tea party person we should detest? I have mine so thats it? Thats the fundamental premise that is so distasteful for the fiscal conservatives in this country. You want to punish success and use the government to take away from the successful and give even more to those who have made different behaviorial choices. Put Buffet and those silly my secretary pays more tax than me examples and lets live in the real world of the working comfortable wealthy who have worked for everything they own like your example. They already pay at least 45% of thier income in some form of federal income, payroll, medicare and state income taxes. The government budgets for discretionary spending have increased by over 80% since Obama took office and you guys want to tax them more to provide even more wealth transfer to 1) seniors who already have 80% of the wealth in this country in the aggregate, government pension plans like the post office that needs another $5 billion to fund their unfunded pension benefits etc. Why are you so determined to punish those who have worked so hard for what they have. There is nothing that is stopping you from starting your own business, stop doing drugs etc. You dont have to choose to be a teacher. You dont have to join a union for a job that prevents you from moving up based on merit with a better lifestyle. People choose the jobs they go into the education they engage in. Thats the beauty of our country and its flexibility. We have a safety net so all this talk about armageddon of poverty and people on the streets is just so silly. Thats the same talk when welfare reform was passed and of course it didnt happen. Instead of being so condescending that people need welfare transfer checks from others why not believe that people with self reliance and personal responsibility for themselves will figure it out. They always do since the beginning of time. This concept that you want to punish success is why you get so much resistance from the american people on this issue and why Obama's approval ratings are so low. Using a few billionaires as examples of going after the rich doesnt work because the vast majority of the working success actually do pay substantial tax and actually do deserve what they get and shouldnt be punished for the good choices and the success they have.

"I'm not saying this Congress is bad at its job. I'm just saying that this Congress is equivalent to a skunk with its head in a jar of Skippy peanut butter." - Jon Stewart

I dont understand why Obama if he feels so strongly that he is on the right side of this class warfare issue and the debt ceiling debate on taxes and spending doesnt just run in 2012 on this issue. Take it to the American people and see how it goes. Stop insisting that it go past the election but truly make it a platform issue and lay out his proposals in clear political positions. He can run on tax increases and say at what income level taxes will go up and he can lay out what spending cuts (or more likely none at all) he would advocate as the reelected president. If my fiscal conservative views are truly in the minority which I doubt, Obama would win by a landslide

I will correct you, AM. You are wrong.

The war(s) were not "on budget", but handled with continuing resolutions. There are very good reasons for that- troop pay is already on budget, as is a lot of equipment, but additional expenses of replenishing, transit, and additional material must be handled by continuing resolutions, due to their variable nature.

Obama exploded the deficit when he signed that omnibus spending bill he did not bother to read.

Actually, no joe, I believe that the 2009 deficit, which technically spans from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009 (the fiscal year), had already exploded before Obama came on the scene with TARP, which was Bush's contribution, as well as the bailouts of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, also caused by the failure of Bush's economic policies.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909010006

Absent from Goldberg's analysis was the fact that before President Obama took office or signed any legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that, based on actions taken by President Bush and economic conditions at the time, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would reach $1.2 trillion.

....

A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit. Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP.

The projected deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO's estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing the cost of the takeover adds about $200 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year, reflecting the long-term net cost of the more than $5 trillion in credit guarantees issued and loans held by those entities at the start of the fiscal year. In addition, the cost of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's new credit activity in 2009 will total $38 billion, CBO estimates.

As for the wars, although they may have been included in the TOTAL deficit, I believe they were not added into the current annual budget deficit until 2009. So I'll stand on what I said earlier.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/xp-25651

Instead, Bush insisted it would be impossible to know how much would be needed, so instead of including anything in the regular budget, he plans to continue the tradition of coming to Congress for emergency supplemental appropriations when war funds get low.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

....

The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is "a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets."

"The president prefers to tell the truth," he said, "rather than make the numbers look better by pretending."

....

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover "overseas military contingencies" — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

(emphasis added)

Keep in mind that these last two articles were written BEFORE the Omnibus bill was adopted, so they are not attempting to excuse or explain away what happened after that.

So, who's wrong now, no joe? I think you may owe me an apology.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Joanna: (AM: Down 82 now)

Historic.

Maybe not. At least not yet.

But I haven't lost a dime today, and I won't lose a dime this week, no matter what. Nor will I be paying higher interest rates, no matter what happens. I WILL, however, collect higher interest when the rates start to go up.

American traders may believe that nothing bad will happen, but American traders won't control global markets if the week advances too far without a deal. As I said, it's only Tuesday.

Good luck to everyone else.

"Large majorities of Democrats and independents said they wanted their leaders to compromise, while a majority of Republicans said they wanted GOP leaders to hold their ground."

Most people instinctively would say "compromise" is a good thing, but without understanding what that really means in practical terms, it can be very misleading.

For example, if "compromise" means letting government spending get even higher, then I doubt that most people would agree that it is a good thing. If "Compromise" means agreeing on which things could be cut from spending without serious consequences, then most people would agree that it is a good thing.

If people are asked which is more important - raising taxes in a recession or cutting spending, I suspect the vast majority would prefer cutting spending rather than raising taxes, especially if it's THEIR taxes that would be raised.

The sticking point is Not raising revenues.....Its that the republicans are not going to fall for another "yea yea we will lower spending in 4 years ...lets just raise taxes now. We promise!

You know....."Of course I love you!"

"Checks in the mail" and of course the ever present " I promise I wont ......well Im sure you know!"

No, Am, it is you understanding that is wrong.

Again.

Budget PROJECTIONS are not the same as deficit tallies. Your original statement about the deficit being higher because the "wars were off the books" is WRONG.

The costs of the wars were ALWAYS reflected in the budget year deficits. In fact, parts of the costs were, in fact, in the budgets, as I explained above. Troop pay, materials, etc., were in the DoD budget. Other costs were covered by continuing resolutions.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

The table gives you the entire costs of the wars through 2011. You will notice that the costs of both wars are a minuscule portion of the four trillion dollars Obama added to the debt.

I cannot believe that you, with a straight face, post something about eliminating budget gimmicks when Obama does not, nor has ever, had a budget. Not one. Two and a half into the worst presidency in the history of this country- and never a budget. If that's not a gimmick, I don't know what is. We see the result- and the whining that is being done because Congress is threatening to cut up his credit card.

As to TARP- well, I avoided it, but since you want to go there. . .

The majority of the TARP funds were repaid- with interest. The bill as written stated that the funds be directly returned to the Treasury.

They were not. Obama spent them, in violation of the law.

So, let him try put his 14th Amendment gambit. The bill of impeachment will be long- and I will just bet yup spending the TARP funds will be there.

Along with Libya.

I'm pretty sipper there are more than a few democratic senators who would be thrilled to run without Obama at the top of the ticket.

As to apologies- you and your band of liberal fools owe one to the country at large. You gave us this disaster, wrapped up in a package of "Hope for Change". That's why you lost the House, will lose the Senate, and the presidency, next year.

AlanNJ:

So those are my motives. Protect the people who actually pay the bills because they are the majority of people who are providing the money for the social services.

Are you saying that you would protect those who pay for the social services by destroying the social services?

I see. Clearly.

By the way, I'm still on the paying end myself, and I still believe in protecting those who NEED the social services.

Because that's what social services are for.

God forbid that you or a family member or loved one should ever need them and they are not there because you had to protect your status as a payor at all costs. And God grant that, if that time should come, you will have the means -- and the inclination -- to buy those same services for yourself or your family or love ones.

Based on everything you say and keep on saying, I don't doubt the means so much as the inclination.

I have a proposal!

Take the members of Congress who have radicalized by either refusing to raise taxes whatsoever, or cut any programs whatsoever, take all the constituents who agree with them, shove them all in a boat with a huge kick in each of their rears, and ship them to the Middle East.

Because that is where all the radicals belong.

The rest of us can then have a country that works.

GOD BLESS AMERICA! :D

no joe:

The costs of the wars were ALWAYS reflected in the budget year deficits. In fact, parts of the costs were, in fact, in the budgets, as I explained above. Troop pay, materials, etc., were in the DoD budget. Other costs were covered by continuing resolutions.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

The table gives you the entire costs of the wars through 2011. You will notices that the costs of both wars are a minuscule portion of the four trillion dollars Obama added to the debt.

As to TARP- well, I avoided it, but since you want to go there. . .

The majority of the TARP funds were repaid- with interest. The bill as written stated that the funds be directly returned to the Treasury.

A table that shows the cost of the wars doesn't respond to my point that the supplemental costs were not included in the actual budgets. I didn't say they were completely off the radar, just that they were off the books for any given year. Obama took the supplemental costs and put them on the books. I cite two articles on point for this proposition, including one from The New York Times, written at the time the decision to do that was made. You ignore them both, and also conveniently ignore the Times article to the extent it discusses Medicare Part D and the AMT as being off-the-books items from the Bush years that were reincorporated into the budget by President Obama.

As far as TARP, I'm happy to go there. It may have been repaid eventually, no doubt thanks to careful management of the money by the Obama administration, but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of the deficit for 2009, even though it was enacted before President Obama took office and can't be attributed to him.

Beyond that, it would be fruitless to belabor this further, except to point out that CBO apparently projected a 1.2 trillion surplus for the Bush budget even before the stimulus was passed. Enough said.

So, I'll stand on my earlier comments, and thank you for calling me a "fool."

Coming from you, I consider that a high compliment. After all, it takes one to know one.

Then read the OMB tables from 2006 to 2007

http://useconomy.about.com/library/FY_2008_Budget.pdf

The supplementals for the wars were added into the deficits for each year. Saying they were not, no matter what left wing loon factory site you use, still makes the statement a LIE.

The costs of the wars were added to the deficit. You know it, and I know it, so stop promulgating lies to make Obama look less of a failure.

It is not working.

AM, I would hope most fiscal conservatives on this board agree with you in concept, but for those of us who have worked and continue to work in homeless shelters and food banks, the extreme examples used to make points on this board dont apply. First, no one is advocating the elimination of social services programs as their budgets have grown by an average of 80% since 2008 (probably necessary with the economic situation) but its also not true that cutting one dollar from these programs is going to send millions to live on the streets. Most but not all of the people who are in these programs are there due to behaviorial choices, pregnant early, drugs alcohol dropping out of school etc. The extremes we use as examples are not conducive to a discussion on the grey areas of where does a safety net stop and become a governmental generational welfare problem that eliminates self reliance and accountability and why is this problem not everyone's not just the 53% who pay all the income tax. We need to stop the class warfare and discuss each of the individual line items and say where is this countries priorities and how are we going to pay for it. Instead we paint it as taxing Buffet and kicking seniors and the poor into the streets. The norm is probably more like, we are taking from the successful person who owns 3 dry cleaners or other small business and paying for a wealthy senior for his heavily subsidized social security or medical benefits, the future pension of a government union employee or the safety net welfare payment for a substance abuser or similar poor choice situation. Because thats more the norm, we need a ton more nuance in our discussion than Obama is providing in national scolding campaign speeches

Kirk:

Most but not all of the people who are in these programs are there due to behaviorial choices, pregnant early, drugs alcohol dropping out of school etc.

You lost me right here. It is evident to me from the tenor of your posts that, although you try to talk a good game, you are not, in general, a compassionate man.

One question for you, though. Why on earth do you work in food banks, et al., when you consider the people who use them to be unworthy of aid?

Let them eat cake.

Have a nice day.

no joe:

It is not working.

Your link isn't working either, at least not for what you say it says.

You have a nice day, too.

Roy Wilson, I like your arrogance to try and explain the word compromise to the American public. However, I believe they know what the word means and you are the one with trouble understanding its meaning.

David Walker. Good Post. I would like to add a couple chapters of their life you left out. Twice in their life (once middle age and the second as they were entering their most productive earning time of their lives), they were sold on the fact that they were being taxed too much and should take the money back. They did not consider the money their parents borrowed to invest in them, to give them the wonderful life and infrastructure they had. They were too short sighted to know that paying back the money would ensure their children would enjoy the same level of life they had enjoyed. So greed overtook their lives, they stuck out their hand, and took the money. In their defense, they probably did not think that the 400 dollars in tax cuts they got translated to tens of millions for others.

By the way, I'm still on the paying end myself, and I still believe in protecting those who NEED the social services.

Because that's what social services are for.

This is where we differ. You seem to think that Social Services can be legislated into being through good intentions. I think that Social Services have to be paid for by cold hard cash. That cold hard cash has to come from somewhere and a lot it comes from regular working people living from paycheck to paycheck. Yes it would be wonderful if it all came from "rich" people who have dollops of disposable income lying around but unfortunately in the real world it comes from middle class families struggling to send their kids to college, pay their mortgage and usually have both mom and dad working (if they're lucky in this economy). They are just "rich" enough that they will get nothing from their government but SS and Medicare. However, because our government can't live within their means, the 3% or 4% extra they were paying into these programs has already been spent and more, and the government is going to need more of their money to pay off the borrowing, and the fact that they spent the surplus funds in SS and Medicare. They are being told by their President that by simply taxing the rich that SS and medicare will still be there for them unchanged. Somehow, in a feat of mathematics beyond me the President will be able to pay for these programs, which are barely breaking even now, when the number of recipients double because of the baby boomers. And he will do this without raising taxes on those earning under $250K. I dread to think what he would have to raise the tax rate on those earning more than $250K to make this scenario plausible.

Now these folks are being told that they should pay for a cop or teacher or firefighter to retire at 50 with full benefits, as they see their health care costs go up every year. They are being told that Obamacare will allow for free preventative care but will see their premiums rise to pay for this "free" care. As I say, I understand the need for a safety net but tell me, how often are these programs reviewed for effectiveness? Tell me an instance of social program that was ended after being found that it wasn't effective? How often are these programs self-perpetuating?

Basically, as I see it government is broke through spending on defense and social services. Hopefully we will cut back on defense as the wars come to an end but unfortunately we have to cut back on social services as well. We are borrowing to maintain them and even raising taxes by $400B a year (the cost of the tax cuts Bush and Obama), that is not enough to maintain these services at current levels. If you want to raise taxes more that is an argument. Go ahead and make it because we might have to do that as well and it still would not be enough. Go ahead and promote the plan by the Progressive Caucus and see if the American people are ready for that level of taxation to save SS and Medicare.

I don't understand the Democratic Leadership. They are playing chicken with selective subsidies.

Eliminate all subsidies and correct the capitalism equation. Take it to them eliminate their selected subsidies as well.

Subsidies are their to counter the negatives of capitalism so correct capitalism instead of constantly running a federal work around.

Take the bandaid off, literally!

Let me reitterate I will never belong to a party. My faith is for me alone.

I'm having a hard time here, and maybe you radicals can help me out.

In this debt ceiling debate, and consequently the 2012 elections, should I be voting for the Taliban (oops, sorry, I meant Republicans), or the Karzai drug lords (oops, sorry, I meant Democrats)? I can't decide if I want to watch people get their arms cut off, or destroyed by being hooked on opium.

David Walker & the rest of you libs

My father fought in the WWII. My parents raised 6 kids. They sent us to private school at a great cost to themselves because we were not a rich family. I was taught to stand on my own and do everything I can to be a contributing member to our country. I have never taken one single dime of assistance from our government. I have contributed millions to the tax coffers in this country in order to support all of the government programs that help the country to survive. I have no problem with most of the entitlement programs that are helping people who NEED help.

Who am I? I am a conservative who supports the TEA Party. Yes I have mine, I have earned it. You want yours? EARN it.

The reason why the tea baggers want the government to default is that they are hoping, through a default, that they will be able to end Social Security and all the other programs. They hope after the thing falls down, that they will then be able to dictate terms and will then of course take money out of Social Security and give it to their rich backers and the Military Industrial Complex.

In other words what I am saying is that the Tea Baggers want the USA to default because they think that they will then be able to defund every single social security disability and social program in the name of their rich backers and the military industrial complex. The Tea Baggers think the only organization that should be funded by the Federal Government is the Military Industrial Complex... To hell with the elderly and disabled is the motto of the Tea Baggers.

Cry Baby Boehner's plan is simple... Throw Grandma and the Disabled out into the street.

In 2012, lets vote these Tea Baggers out of office... every single one of them including Cry Baby Boehner and the Monster Paul Ryan.

And thats my opinion.

This is me SMDH to the Washington Madness otherwise called the TEA Party...

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.=========`~., ..
. . . . . . . .. . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ../. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. ../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^}
. . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .|. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . .../
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. - ------ . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,----_. ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. ..}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-.(_. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. /
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.(,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,.( . . .`. . . \. . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. \ . . \. . \ . . . . . . ..\. .\/
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . \ . . \. . . . . . . ..|,./.\,___—
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . \ . . . . .|. . . . . . .. _______\
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . .\ . .\ . . . . . . .\ ......._________\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\...... _____________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . .._—
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _

Utter disbelief at the sheer audacity of ignorance represented in America... Bitter TEA only gives America a sour stomach.

A table that shows the cost of the wars doesn't respond to my point that the supplemental costs were not included in the actual budgets. I didn't say they were completely off the radar, just that they were off the books for any given year. Obama took the supplemental costs and put them on the books. I cite two articles on point for this proposition, including one from The New York Times, written at the time the decision to do that was made. You ignore them both

Maybe I can help clear this up. Bush requested war funding through emergency supplemental appropriations and not as a line item in the annual appropriation for the Defense Department. Historically, it's not unusual that wars are funded via emergency appropriations in the early years because the argument is the costs are uncertain and cannot be reliably projected. But what Bush did was to continue using the emergency appropriation route for many years -- until Congress forced him to stop. And Bush was criticized for this approach by both conservatives and liberals.

So, how did that approach affect the calculations for the annual budget deficit? The answer is, it didn't. What it did affect was calculations of PROJECTED ESTIMATES of the deficit: since emeregency appropiations are not subject to the caps of the annual congressional budget resolution, the calculation of the estimated budget deficit as based on that resolution does not include emeregency spending and therefore the PROJECTED deficit would be understated. Also, 10 year CBO projections of budget deficts as based on the Bush budget would also be understated since he did not include war funding in his annual budget requests to Congress. That's where the left hangs its hat regarding their "off the books" charges. But, once those emergency dollars are actually spent they are counted in the ACTUAL budget deficit for that year -- at the end of the fiscal year, neither Bush nor anyone else can hide what the government ACTUALLY SPENT.

As to your NYT article, note that in the very first sentence of the article they speak to defict PROJECTIONS, not ACTUALS. They at least couched their snark accurately on that point, but much of the rest of the article is pure spin: Obama good, Bush bad.

A default would lead to a drastic fall in stock value and the ones hoarding loads of cash will pounce.

Who are you kidding? I am sure they are of all and any party.

Sucka!

The average American isn't average at all! Hate me, I don't care. I don't hate you!

Conspiracy? Nah it is pure capitalism at its finest for them.

We can officially write the TEA Drinkers off. They have shown the electorate they know nothing about how the world operates.

Hardly! Unfortunately, yet again the campaigner in chief has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say other than "let me dig the hole a little deeper". As always in this particular thread the group of committed Lefties scream and holler but never say anything.

"balance approach" - code talk for "keep on spending"

"millionaires and billionaires" - code talk for $250,000 or more (which includes small business)

"raising revenue" - code talk for "I don't want to mention entitlements"

"I have a plan" - code talk for "who do I blame today?".

You Libbies have never understood that TEA party members are not the radical ones in the discussion. In most of our REAL world you only spend what you earn. But I guess you dudes live in a different reality.

haven't taken one dime of tax money, eh? So you've never driven on any street? Never crossed any bridge, never gone to a public library or a public park? How did you manage this? Do you just sit in your house and have groceries teleported into your house because paying for them to be delivered means you used a public street at least indirectly. And for our information, I do EARN my "entitlements." I pay into social security and Medicare and I too pay taxes. I now must work two jobs in order to make enough to pay my basic living expenses. My husband also works two jobs. Meanwhile we're paying more and more for our medical care, more and more for groceries so the second jobs are barely able to keep up. So you sit in your house or should I say ivory tower and stick your head in the sand and ignore the suffering of the many while you have it so good.

Enough with these subsidies are ok but these are not. Either subsidies are all wrong or they need to be paid for.

Capitalism is an equation fix the equation quit being lazy and self righteous.

Pick you party! Average American!

AM, see thats why its tough to have a respectful discussion because you again want to you extremes and totally ignore the comments in between. Alan provided a great response on social programs. I would match my compassion for yours anyday. But my compassion comes from within me and I am not asking anyone around me to do so. I am not about to let anyone eat cake and your references to talking a good game are somewhat sad to me. I was raised with good ole small town midwestern values and sorry but I was raised with a large sense of personal responsibility and self reliance. But that said, you derail the real issue by making a personal attack. Never did I say I wanted them to eat cake or eliminate social services which is the straw man used to attack anyone who wants responsible sensible and accountable government spending. Somehow I am advocating the for taking the food out of the poor babies mouth. Come on thats not helpful.

OMG Holly! Could you possible find any additional pity points? Here again, the left takes a statement that has an obvious meaning to the bulk of the population and then twists it to the maximum extreme soley for the purpose of trying to maginalize an opposing point of view. Code talk for ... propaganda!

Yes, Holly we ALL drive on roads, we ALL pay more for medical care, etc.

And there is absolutely NO WAY you can take any of the TEA PARTY positions and through some stretch of you imagination get to the point that this constitutes "Ignoring suffering". And this thing about "earning" entitlements only speaks to the lack of depth that you have in understanding the problem. In the case of all of us that so called "earn" their Medicare (just one example) ... typically a taxpayer "earns" around $120,000 of benefits through his lifetime contributions but the problem is we take out though payments around $300,000. Most of the complaints of "earning" this or that don't really match up to the cost of providing it. THAT MY DEAR IS THE PROBLEM!

Ok you want to be reasonable?

All the cuts will lead to less spending in the private sector. How does this help?

Neither parties or parties within parties have a viable solution. Same old Same old.

I agree with all of you! You must adjust the economic system not fix the outcome through government subsidies.

@ Alan NJ and Kirk:

You know what the difference is between paying taxes to support social services and giving money to charity, which many wealthy people do?

1. Tax deductions. If you pay less in taxes one year because social services programs are cut, you can pay some of that back out in charitable contributions, taking a neat little deduction on your next tax return.

2. Charitable contributions, including volunteering, looks good in the community if you are seen as being a charitable sort of guy, even if you have no real compassion in your heart. Visibly participating in charities is great for business development and is used frequently for that purpose.

And finally,

3. Charitable donations are not as effective as tax money for delivering needed services because donations are not necessarily targeted where they need to go. Who is opposed to giving to food bank? No one, but food banks won't help that Wisconsin Works (welfare) single mother who is trying to retrain and get a better job to support her family. Yes, she needs food aid, but she also needs day care subsidies while she IS participating in those programs, and she may need general assistance to pay her rent and other expenses during that time as well. A food bank donation doesn't help the elderly person who can't afford the cost of cancer or Alzheimers treatments. A food bank donation doesn't help the disabled person who needs in-home nursing care and housekeeping assistance so that person can lead a productive, dignified life.

Where do you think that stuff comes from, anyway? Like manna, directly from Heaven? Think again.

And ironically, when times get hard, food banks and other similar charities are the first ones to suffer. What happens to people then, when both safety nets disappear.

Only organized programs, supported with government money to the extent necessary, can do all the things that are truly necessary on a wide-spread and consistent basis that helps everyone in need. Otherwise, you may think you're doing good in your small way, but you're really just leaving it to chance.

The tax deduction is sure nice, though, isn't it?

holly

Go ahead and twist my words. Typical liberal BS. When I say I have never taken a dime of government assistance, I am saying ASSISTANCE. Can't you understand english? Do you even have a clue why you and your husband have to work two jobs? Take a look at all the taxes you pay and you might just get a clue! Yes, you pay into social security and Medicare, who the hell doesn't? You also pay property taxes, income taxes, state and county taxes, taxes on the food you buy, taxes on your phone, taxes on your cable bill, taxes on the car you drive, taxes on every damn thing you do. It goes on and on, yet it isn't enough for you libs.

I don't live in an ivory tower. I live in a very nice home that I have purchased with the maybe 50% of the money I earned after paying taxes. I will never actually own my home because even after I have paid it off I will continue to rent the land it sits on from our government.

You just keep your head in the sand and let your liberal politicians continue to tax you. Enjoy your two jobs because until you get some balls and tell our government enough is enough you will never get ahead without working much harder. It's your choice, vote progressive/liberal or vote for more freedom.

Anna Molly-

"Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times."

-President Obama, June 23, 2011-

Not to in any way minimize the nation's sacrifice, in both blood and treasure in fighting two wars, but the deficit for the current fiscal year alone will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

That is one and one-half times the 10-year cost of the wars, as outlined by the President.

More than $1.5 trillion...for ONE year.

Again...we're talking about the deficit for ONE year.

@no joe, no bo, nj

President Bush did not include the war costs in the budget, therefore they were not calculated at part of the annual deficit. President Obama includes the war costs.

Christian Science Monitor - January 16, 2007

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.

CBS News - February 11, 2009

(CBS/AP) The Congressional Budget Office is projecting this year's deficit at $368 billion – a near record number, but one that will surely rise, reports CBS News Correspondent Bob Fuss. That's because the estimate, along with a broader 10-year projection, doesn't include the cost of the war in Iraq or the costs associated with President Bush's proposed changes for Social Security.

The numbers come on the same day President Bush is asking Congress for another $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – money the administration has consistently refused to put in the regular federal budget...
...Besides lacking war costs, the budget office's deficit estimates also omitted the price tags of Mr. Bush's goal of revamping Social Security, which could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion and dominate this year's legislative agenda; an estimated $1.8 trillion price tag of extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts and easing the impact the alternative minimum tax would have on middle-income Americans; and other expenses.

There are plenty of mainstream sources that mention war costs not included in the annual deficit under President Bush.

Dave ...

There are plenty of mainstream sources that mention war costs not included in the annual deficit under President Bush

Apples and Oranges, my friend!

The term DEBT (what we're talking about here ... as in "increasing the DEBT limit") includes EVERYTHING YOU'VE SPENT as in "We have incurred a total of $14.4 Trillion in DEBT". The term DEFICIT (as in a Budget DEFICIT) is what you've spent against your planned spending. So, to say the accumulation of DEBT was off budget is just plain inaccurate. The money for the wars (yes I know you deny any part of the responsibility!) was, and is, always included in the amount of DEBT we owe.

And before you feel real sanctimonious here ... it would be good to note that AT LEAST HE HAD A BUDGET!!!

Great read (from the teleprompter) by BarryO last night. Let's see, who didn't he blame for the debt mess created by that pesky $4T he 'invested'. Right, he didn't blame Barry O!

The number of mistruths put out by this guy was incredible. Those on SS will be paid. Entitlement programs are still funded. Funding to pay the debt is there. Perhaps the massive workers in government may miss a check, but so have many in the private sector.

Why didn't Barry talk about the waste in Medicare, or fraud in Welfare programs? How about talking on the other waste outlined in Tom Colburns documents about gov. waste?

On one hand, Barry told the nation he wants to cut spending, while the other hand is out for another $2.5T! But Harry Reid will cut a $T from ending a war early?

OK folks, did Barry O tell everyone about his plan? Does he have one? Maybe he informed the SF Giants about what he wants when he did the photo op. Oh, and Barry, the autographed shirt belongs to the taxpayers, don't take it home with you when you leave next year.

Forget compromise, take care of business.

Average unemployment under Reagan was 7.51%, under HW Bush was 6.35%, under Clinton was 5.59%, under GW Bush was 5.54%, and under Obama is 9.42%.

The President’s no. 1 priority is to take care of business, and "Take Care of Business" means keep the American people in their jobs working productively to grow the economy and paying income tax.

Congratulations Tea Partiers--you've already lost, your leaders know it, and the next manipulation is already in place.

While the Conservative echo chamber has been telling you there's a massive groundswell of support for killing Medicare, privatizing Social Security, closing down a vast swath of the Federal government, and defaulting on the national debt if necessary to make it happen, anyone who considers other sources of information has wondered why the GOPTP would put itself into such an untenable position. The MSM has been shocked at every turn that Republican leaders continue to dig themselves in even deeper. The stock markets are just waking up to the possibility that a default might be possible. The Speaker of the House is pushing a plan that ratings agencies have ALREADY TOLD US will downgrade our debt.

Now we know why. The Tea Party organizers already know they're going to have to cave. They won't tell you that because their credibility disappears like fear of the Wizard of Oz. How do I know this? They've already announced their next move. Tea Party groups are now announcing efforts to mobilize for active protests at town hall meetings during the August recess. They would NOT do this if they weren't already planning to lose the debt ceiling battle. They intend to use your manipulated anger to produce an energized base and a perception in the media that approval for their position is much higher than the actual number of 21%. So here's your notice MSM--don't be surprised when Tea Party astroturf groups try to duplicate the same level of furor they achieved during the Affordable Care debate.

Conservatives will no doubt want to demand to know which Liberal rumor mill is propagating this outlandish tale. Huffington Post? Think Progess? Nope, try Glenn Beck. He announced on his Tuesday radio show that Conservatives need to go to the web site of one of the Tea Party groups and sign up right away for town hall protests. It was an interesting announcement, to say the least, between two segments about how it isn't too late to get everything Conservatives want including a balanced budget amendment.

JH and Astonished:

We can spin all day about the meaning of assistance. When it all shakes out, in the main we will agree. (Not you Astonished. If you haven't run a business or actually attended government meetings, you don't have a clue, just like all the others who casually toss off the wonderfulness of private enterprise and tout their non-existent knowledge. You might learn something here.)

JH, as you may be aware, most businesses go belly up within 10 years. Most proprietors simply don't know what they are doing. Those who succeed, do it with perseverance and constant attention to what they're doing. It's work.

Is the system perfect? Hell no, a thousand times no. Are there people who beat the snot out of the system? Yes. Try this some time. Find yourself a fraud or a wasteful operation. You know it's not all that hard, which makes it all the more frustrating. Tell your Congressman OR tell a rock. The result is the same. My Congressman insists I don't live in his district, so I can't contact him by e-mail. He doesn't return calls. His staff is useless. Besides he's too busy trying to kill the foremost pro-life agency of the government, the EPA. Yup, he brags about it. (Huelskamp is his name - a totally incompetent and ignorant legislator. He's a Koch lackey.)

Meantime, consider this. Those of us who have made our living in self-employment are in large part dependent on the government, whether we like to admit it or not. Many of our customers are government employees. Yup, we're participating in a redistribution of wealth. We may have contracted with the government. We more than likely used the roads far out of proportion to others who do not work for themselves. (They get in their car to go to work.) We need them to transport goods and services. Most of the goods we use in our businesses come to us via truck - roads again. The communications infrastructure is there thanks to the government. Computers and the Internet exist, in the main, thanks to the government.

Virtually all of our food is subsidized. Electrification is in large part courtesy of the government. Power generation comes in large part thanks to the government. We simply don't realize how far-reaching the hand of government is. I could go on and on.

Yes, you will always rent your land, even when we hold the deed. That reality has rankled me for a long time. Still, the fact that we have succeeded was made possible by an infrastructure we were smart enough to use. That's the reward with which you must satisfy yourself.

By the way, lighten up on those nasty folks you sneer about - you know, liberals. Many of us are still bound by the oath to protect the Constitution that allows you to voice your displeasure with a government that simply isn't perfect. Why not work to make it better instead of killing it?

Democrats are the ones making all the compromises... the first was their own integrity.

"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

President Barack Obama said Wednesday he wants a deal with Congress in the next two weeks to tackle mounting deficits and allow an increase in the federal debt ceiling, but he didn't rule out using a constitutional argument to (force) increase how much money the government can borrow.

-CNN 07 JUL 11

Children fighting over the same toy (subsidies).

Choose freedom and eliminate the NEED for subsidies.

Screw the parties and free yourself.

Too big to fail companies or Too big to fail government! What a choice!

Dependency!

AM, not sure if you are referring to us in that we only donate money because we get a tax deduction. Well, my deductibe cash donations are skewed to church, college (helps me get basketball season tickets so its not really charitable) and animal shelter (where my wife is heavily involved). So the tax benefit from these really only are subsidies for these organizations. My time however, goes to the other organizations and quite frankly they need more of. Of course they would take the money but the time is a precious commodity. If you are trying to get into my motivations.

However, I know you are a very smart woman and have read your posts, so your intentional avoidance of the actual points we are making is an obvious one. I know you understand it better and by avoiding our points by attacking our personal motivations are unfair and a diversionary tactic. I never said that there arent social services or government programs that arent necessary and Alan didnt either. Again, using extremes such as no more medical help for the elderly or such bogus extreme examples avoid all of us from sitting down and having an honest discussion on priorities, effectiveness, abuse, rewarding behaviorial bad choices, getting weaned off of welfare living. No one is against getting that single mother a path to a better life but lets discuss the most effective way to do so instead of just throwing money at and giving more and more without any accountability and investment. In addition, we need to also address the fact that in some awful and unfortunate manner, it was her choice to have a baby. We as a society need to figure out a way to stop rewarding via government handouts behavior that is statistically going to keep you in a low income life style as a result of that choice while at the same time providing a safety net. You as well as I know that our entitlement welfare system for low income people have created a generational issue and its a cycle that is very tough to break. So instead of impugning our motivations why not address the issues and stop diverting it. I cant speak for Alan, but I dont think he was advocating the elimination of social services.

ps by the way, the spending savings fromt his area is fairly puny and if you were really trying to be fair to the lowest in our society, you should be advocating cuts to social security and medicare as thats where the real spending cuts have to come from over the next 25 years to make a dent in the deficit and given the wealth and assets concentrated with that seniors in the aggregate, why are we providing such a wealth transfer to them? Why arent we means testing? Since so many on here talk about wanting what they paid in, why arent we talking about Bush's private plan options? That way you will get what you paid in instead of benefits at 3 to 1 from what you contributed?

David Walker,

Well you pompous bufoon, I do own a business and I do also earn a subsistence on my own! Aside from you egocentric feeling of self importance, you simply cannot understand that someone who disagrees with you (who incidentally I'll match credentials with anytime) MIGHT just be your GD intellectual equal. Now that we're past that ... NO ONE has indicated that government has zero purpose. What we ARE saying is that it is simply TOO expansive and TOO intrusive on all parts of our life. Finally, I might add, there are very few things that CAN'T be done better on the private side. We could get into a whole secondary arguement there about what the GOOD parts are but certainly government is an extremely inefficent delivery system.

Just keep dreamin' buddy!

President Bush did not include the war costs in the budget, therefore they were not calculated at part of the annual deficit.

False. If you read your sources more closely you will notice they are addressing ESTIMATED budget deficits and not ACTUAL budget deficits. Actual budget deficits as reported every year by OMB in support of the president's annual budget request include all dollars that were actually spent -- whether they were included in a previous estimate or not.

David, I hope you didnt mean to sound as condescending as you did. Certainly Astonished felt it and I ahve felt it as if our opinions and views are below your learned knowledge and intellect. I was raised in a small business environment and have worked for Fortune 500 companies to having my own small business so I understand all the dynamics very well. Being theoritical or embellishing the extremes have nothing to do with real world examples. If you understand small businesses as you say you do, you must know then that someone who owns lets say 10 Dunkin Donuts and shows on his tax return that he made $500k of taxable income, probably paid $200k in taxes that year. You probably also would know then that much of a small business owner's profit is invested back into his current business in the form of new inventory, nicer fixtures etc or expanding and opening that 11th dunkin donut shop. What you are advocating by using your extreme examples of secretary's paying more tax than Buffet, or Stupid saying I am just making RNC talking points, is that this person pay more tax in order to subsidize the social services growth, social security growth, Obamacare to provide subsidized health care and the huge growth in government spending way beyond any ability to defend based on reasonable growth projections. You want to punish success while saying Gates can afford it. Thats silly. Do you really believe raising taxes on the working comfortably wealthy will improve the economy and increase jobs?

David Walker:

Nice posts today and I agree. Astonished you completely missed the points of David's posts trying to misrepresent what he wrote to satisfy your own sniveling crap. Nice try, but most of us here are wise to you guys. You have no intention of making the government leaner and stronger financially. In fact you would like the government to disappear to be replaced by your corporate Gods. Just admit it.

I also was a small business owner for over 20 years and sold it to my employees - gave it too them actually, took a small allowance for 1 year to help them through the change over and they are still in business today doing fine. . And I still am sworn to the oath that I took to defend the constitution. Being US Navy Retired does not terminate my responsibility to my oath - nor should it, ever.

Navy

You're almost as pompous! All I can say is don't try to put words into my mouth.

"corporate Gods"! Jeez real bright Navy! So, you're retired from the Navy ... then you ran a business for 20 years, then you gave it away ... your point? So just exactly WHAT does any of that have to do with your oath?

Cut, Cap, and Balance! Only way to go.

@John B, Des Moines, IA

Congratulations Tea Partiers--you've already lost, your leaders know it, and the next manipulation is already in place

John, the taxpayers are the only losers in this Spending Party crisis. Last time I checked, we are the ones paying the freight for the 'investments' of this administration. Old remarks John, get some new stuff.

@Navy, Nice posts! Please. I read several of your during the past few days, and you also are providing old information as most are. This budget deal will get done, and they old professional gov crowd will sell the taxpayers down the path again while they all attempt to take credit for the deal. It happens all of the time, and the taxpayer is the one to suffer the burden of their actions.

Navy, when you and the Progressive NewsVine Fan Club next meets, please come up with newer talking points. I will agree to attempt to find new ones also.

See, it isn't hard to compromise!

Navy as usual when you cant defend and have no ability to support your case or position, you resort to deflection and bring in the corporate god argument. I am surprised thug wasnt used as thats your normal word of choice but I guess sniveling crap is not much better. So instead of debating and discussing the actual substance, you would prefer to call his opinion sniveling crap (thats mature for retired service man) with no offer or opposing view as to why it was sniveling crap and then your only ability to create any of your own views is to say "your owned by the corporate gods" again where do you guys get this stuff. I dont even know what that is nor am I quite sure being owned by a corporate god is bad. If I worked for Hertz rental car or McDonalds, Sears, Abbott all corporations that seemingly sell products that people use and enjoy with happy employees would I be owned by a corporate god and would that be a bad thing?

Its great that you owned a small business for 20 years and gave it to your employees. I am not sure what that has to do with us and you obviously didnt take much out of it or expand and open up new places or you paid enormous gift tax when you gave it to your employees. So you didnt really face any of the issues we are discussing nor have to pay any tax preventing you from opening up your next location? If you are defending the constitution, I would assume then you are socially conservative? I wouldnt think you would be very popular on here with those kind of views? Or do you mean you defend the living breathing constitution that changes with the progressive times of the era?

Kirk and Astonished:

First Astonished: You can take your credentials and stuff 'em. Teachers have credentials. Doctors have credentials. Lawyers have credentials. I'll bet Kenneth Lay's walls were plastered with 'em. They mean nothing. Performance is what counts.

If you are going to tell us that government is too expansive, why don't you note that it is actually smaller under Obama than it was under Bush? Why don't you note that enforcement of immigration laws is more vigorous under Obama than under Bush? That would clearly indicate doing more with less. Facts carry far more weight than credentials.

You can't possibly defend your contention that private enterprise performs better than government. The two are vastly different. About those apples and oranges! But there is one place you could look and match apples with apples. Enlighten yourself. Check into the performance of private enterprise at Arlington Cemetery. By golly, there was a story about citizens having to clean up the mess of private enterprise. You could check that out yourself when you aren't chanting your little mantra.

Government, too intrusive? It's your "culture warriors" who want to get into everyone's bedrooms. It's your "culture warriors" who want to control women and their very private decisions.

Kirk: For sheer pomposity, you might want to check post 1.80. It might also give you some insight into classical projection. I'll take the risk of sounding condescending. I'm far more concerned with accuracy. I don't hear any rebuttal to what I said, just deflection.

As a matter of fact, the profits that are plowed back into a business are an investment and are deductible as expenses/depreciation! Taxable income of $500,000 is nothing to sneeze at. Taxes are actually probably more than you suggest. Still, the guy isn't starving. As I said, our government isn't perfect, but we need it, and killing it isn't the answer. It needs repair - desperately.

You have me confused with someone else. I didn't bring up the issue of Buffett and his secretary, although you must admit that is a rather disconcerting fact. Along those lines however, I have no problem bringing up these damned hedge fund managers and their 15% tax rate. "Carried interest"? Are you kidding? Didn't it ever bother you that there's a distinction between earned income and "unearned" income. What the hell is that? Income is income.

What are reasonable growth projections? We are entering a new phase of our economy. The old consumption model is obsolete, and the few who understand this fact are given short shrift.

I suspect that you have confused my post with someone else's, but I'll answer your question about "punishing" the "comfortably wealthy". They are not being punished. They are comfortable. They are not wealthy. If they are competent, they recognize what has happened. If they are also very smart, they know they aren't wealthy. The are simply upper lower class. An honest statistical analysis will show that there is an upper class and a lower class. That's the way it is. The only question is whether we are going to tolerate serfdom. Wealth continues to concentrate at the upper end.

We have been on an irresponsible spending spree for years. Much-needed regulation has been repealed or stymied. Republicans truly exacerbated this mess when Bush took office. That's an arithmetical fact. Suddenly they've seen the light......or more accurately, they've seen the dark. Please don't insult me by telling me that there isn't a serious element of racism in this equation.

This mess can be solved. but not overnight. The Tea Party lightweights don't have even a rudimentary grasp of arithmetic or how government works. I've been to many, many government meetings and the public turnout is abominable. It is not uncommon to find no one there. That's why we're where we are. Where were those "activists" then. I know where they are now. They're the very unwelcome cacophony of ignorance that pisses me off. To hell with them.

Oh and by the way Astonished - Check out the process for amending the Constitution. Cut, cap, and balance? Pure idiocy.

David Walker

You're one of those progressive/liberals I speak of. You clowns will never understand the meaning of "taking too much". Just what would you consider too much? Please put a hard figure out there for all to see. As far as my business using the roads more than the average person, BS. At least my use of the infrastructure is enabling people to have jobs and collect paychecks that will be taxed to cover that extra use. Maybe everyone who collects unemployment and owns a car should pay more in taxes because they aren't contributing to the upkeep of the roads. Sound good?

David, sorry if I confused you with someone else probably John A or B, you realize the examples you provide your not going to get any argument from me for the most part but thats not what we are talking about. First, government isnt smaller under Obama, the number of government employees has grown substantially and the clearly the costs have which is the biggest factor. But employees will only drive up the future costs as federal employee benefit packages are much more lucrative and the dismissal rate that was just in the WSJ is the lowest of any enterprise. So once hired you have a job for life regardless of merit and competency. There are plenty of things I will give Obama credit on as I am not a Obama hater and I have no problem calling out all the crappy things Bush did. Its purely about fiscal policies for me. As for private versus government, there are plenty of examples in which outsourcing to private institutions made more sense just like there are plenty of government services in which private enterprise would be worse. But when it comes to profit making enterprises, government should play no role. I am not a culture warrior and I am socially moderate. Thats why I dont get the people who want republicans out of their bedrooms in off the woman's body but have no problem letting democrats stick their grubby fingers in other peoples pockets. I would think thats inconsistent too.

As for closing loopholes, I have no problem on the hedge fund carried interest and changing that but the current proposal goes too far and would hit the entire real estate industry along with the hedge fund guys. Whether dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates, thats a policy decision that impacts the super wealthy and seniors more than anyone but past history shows that a lower capital gains rate does impact investment. I would doubt that a guy making 500k would pay more than 40% total tax rate but maybe. Your comment on reinvestment with depreciation etc is wrong as thats a future benefit and a small business owner is only concerned with cash flow and if its not there who cares what a future deduction might be worth. I also think its disengenous for you to decide that his success is ok with you but maybe he shouldnt make any more than that and his sucess provides him a level of comfort thats just about right to you so any extra should be taken away. Thats BS and counter to this countrys work ethic and views of success. I find your throwaway comment on race having something to do with this as offensive as I could give a flying F*&^^% if he were purple, Obama's fiscal understanding of basic economic behavior if nonexistent and his basic arithmatic is as bad as the tea party who dont want tax increases but dont want any cuts to their social security either. Yes you are advocating punishing the small business owner because nobody who has worked hard for what they have earned sits back and says oh I understand take what you need as I dont really need the money I make. They want to decide where their money gets spent.

JH: I don't know what rate would amount to "taking too much". Do you? I've never pretended I do know. However, I can tell you if I ran the show for the time being the rates would revert to the 2000 rates. I would go over the code with some people - ordinary folks, maybe people like you - and see why we aren't letting more people feel the pain. (As a business person, you know you are just a tax collector for the government, so it's not wholly accurate to say that 47% don't pay income taxes. They send money to the government via successful businesspersons.) Still, I would like more people to actually understand that it costs money to run a government, even if it means writing a check for only $10.00. I would lay surcharges on at 1/2-million, one-million, etc.

Calm down buckaroo. No one is suggesting that your use of the infrastructure is destructive. To the contrary. It is that infrastructure, as you correctly point out, that allows you to expand your business. When you succeed, other people succeed. That's the name of the game isn't it?

Nope, you want to be aggrieved. Yup, you've been victimized. Everybody should pay taxes for use of the roads, not just you. Really? Is there a tax on gasoline for that purpose? Have you ever asked yourself why local governments have no incentive to hold down gas prices? Could it be that when prices go up, so do sales tax collections. Did you ask yourself why local governments had no incentive to look into the insane real estate market? Could it have been increased property tax revenues?

You probably didn't look. But there were people like me - what's your term? progressive/liberals - who did raise those questions. No one listened. Why? Conservatives were making lots and lots of money! Governments were making lots and lots of money. Why by golly, even liberals were making lots and lots of money.

Spare me your umbrage, and stuff your labels sideways.

Kirk:

My mistake on the federal employment. I should have stipulated, per capita.

Representatives from Standard and Poors and Moodys have both said that if the US government bonds are downgraded, it will have nothing to with the debt or budget. It will because of congress' refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

Last night President Obama gave an excellent speech. He held out the olive branch for reconciliation, admitting that Democrats as well as Republicans are jointly responsible for the debt. He laid out in simple terms how we got to this place. He made a great case for a balanced approach to debt reduction, down to explaining clearly why the wealthy and corporations should share in the pain of this with the rest of us.

John Boehner, by contrast, began his speech with a bald faced lie. At the opening Boehner claimed to speak for ALL of the House of Representatives, Democrats included. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He slapped away the hand of compromise, hardening the Conservative Republican position that it will be his way or no way. He looked angry, small, and petty, a reflection of the Tea Party he represents.

Afterwards the Speaker was said to have muttered under his breath “I didn’t take this job to go mano a mano with the President of the United States.” Here’s a hint for Mr. Boehner, as well as the rest of his party—it’s a lot easier when you’re not on the wrong side of the issue.

Obama would have already had a debt deal if he wasnt such a poor leader. Even liberals would be better off with a better President. YES WE CAN VOTE FOE A BETTER LEADER IN 2012!

John B: Right on the money. President Obama gave the GOP/TP just about everything they wanted and got nothing in return. In fact they said NO to his every proposal - NO surprise there as this is the only promise the GOP/TP has kept - NO COMPROMISE EVERY.

The Right Wing Radicals are redigging the ditch that got us into this mess and it will be a deep and wide ditch. We may not get out of this one next time.

This site is acting weird again.

John B:

Yes indeed, the President got it right. He explained clearly what the debate is about. Those who post here regularly lose sight of the fact that most Americans have no idea what is going on in Washington. I truly believe if we went into default tomorrow, the majority of Americans wouldn't have any idea what was happening.

Still, the fact that calls to Congress crashed the servers should be an indication that he got through to many folks. Who knows, this may spread.

I also believe Boehner is still in a state of shock. He is genuinely flummoxed by the fact that so many Republican freshmen just don't understand the debt ceiling and the consequences of default. I don't think he knowingly lied about the "bipartisan bill" he told us about. He just repeated a talking point. Once the right picks up their talking points, nothing moves them. Facts are nothing more than a burr under their saddle. However, this exposes another weakness in the Speaker. Pelosi is his superior in virtually every respect.

I'm reminded of a joke with respect to Boehner's over-sized gavel. It seems a wife was making a pair of pants for her husband. She asked if he had any suggestions before she started cutting. "Yes," he said, "I need a bigger zipper - at least 12"." She looked at him and said, "You're like the guy across the street. Big two-car garage, and out comes a bicycle."

Yes, John Boehner is many things, but he understands politics. That can't be said of many if not most of the Tea Party fringe that now runs the Republican Party. This is by design. In 1980 David Koch ran for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket in a mostly self-funded campaign with his hand picked Presidential candidate Ed Clark. His platform, sometimes referred to as Anarcho-Capitalism, would have abolished;

Social Security
the Federal Reserve Board
welfare
the minimum wage
corporate taxes
the SEC
the EPA
the FTC
OSHA
the FBI
the CIA
the Dept of Energy
public schools

Any of this sound familiar? Koch couldn't become the shadow master of his puppet President, so he and his brother spent vast sums from their fortune to buy a political party instead.

Hmmmm, isn't that the job of the speaker to speak on behalf of the house? Perhaps johnB is a political neophyte in assuming that the speaker needs 100% agreement from all reps to speak for the house.

What a wonderful world that would be, every one in agreement! Looks more likely that boehner was standing on what he believed the majority in the house thought.

BTW - it's 2011 not 1980. Sad to see that one or two men can shape your opinion johnB. Talk about poor correlation of points. Seems that all those agencies are still here and will be for quite some time to come, unless of course the left spends us into oblivion.

american:

"Poor correlation"? You have the nerve to talk about poor correlation and then you all but state that the left spends us into oblivion? Try some facts for as change.

When George Bush and the Republicans took over the government ten years ago, the Congressional Budget Office said we would retire the national debt this year. This year, chump! That was a signal to start spending like wastrels and that is precisely what happened. We were treated to a largely Republican Congress and eight years of a Republican President who never saw a spending bill he didn't like. Boehner was there. McConnell was there. Kyl was there. Cantor took office in 2001. Tell us about their responsible spending!

That spending accelerated and thanks to the virtual collapse of the economy, the federal government upped its spending. There was no alternative. Obama had no choice.

Bush and the Republicans left behind a disaster. Correlate that. Lay out a trend line. You spew pure BS. If you had even a fifth-grade understanding of arithmetic, you would be embarrassed the tripe you post.

The gov't spends more than their income. Two options: reduce spending, raise taxes. That simple. I am all for reducing spending as I trust no one in DC.

Ron,

How can you people be so blinded by someone who in two years has almost destroyed our country. Everything is worse than it was. You want to blame everybody except Obama. Destroy, blame everyone else, and then he wants more of my money! More of the same lies! I might not have a choice in this because you have the same solution every time. Take more money from everybody but you.

Sorry for the double post - system would not let me move it again.

Gremlins are busy this morning...

FR is acting all weird again...

Definitely Gremlins at work.

<<Gremlins are busy this morning...>>

Someone must have fed them after midnight!!

Someone must have fed them after midnight!!

Wasn't me! lol

I'm just plain discussed with this Republican-Tea Bagger Terrorist who are holding the people of the United States as hostage, in order to get their way in destroying the American Dream and our peoples lives, in order to create a class war of haves and have- nots.

Mark my word, if these Terrorist get their way, we the people of the United States are doomed to be nothing more than a second rate nation.

We the people can't let this happen and we must stop these Republican-Tea Bagger Terrorist who are holding the people of the United States as hostage, while they play their sick games in deciding who prospers and who doesn't.

Please stop the rape of the United States.

Job1 seriously thank the tea party for not letting Obama turn the USA in to a Greece or Portugal...

UAW, that's EXACTLY what will happen if the Republican plan to default on the national debt comes to fruition.

UAW >>>justs exactly at what point in time do you grow the hell up and use that brain god gave you in an adult way other than to just run your teagagger mouth and sound a fool ???? One thing for sure, you got stupidity down pat dude and it shows in such a large way except to mabey some peabrain like your own self........

JohnB - Guess you didn't listen to obama last night at all, when he said this was a Washington problem. Just because he latter went off the deep end to spin and blame the right on some issues doesn't make it any less so.

While I haven't followed portugal, greece is a perfect example of what can happen when a government promises more than it can deliver to its people. America has (I think) the time to change its economic path with less pain than the people of greece are experiencing.

You know what will turn us into a Third World nation? Obama and his fanatics constantly playing class warfare. If that jugeared pinhead makes one more false choice like "we can have corporate jets...or...starve school children", I'm gonna puke. The Dems have a strategy of pitting successful people against less succesful people. Just like they have a strategy of pitting races against each other. Actually, pitting all minorities against whites. He's an idiot and is one of many liberals out to destroy the social fabric of the nation for leftist political gain.

And once again, would someone please explain to me how the Republicans hope to ever be elected to anything if they are out to "destroy 98% of Americans" as one of the above imbecilic posts said? If they are only interested in 2% of the population, how will they continue to be successful at getting elected?

They cannot answer the questions, damage, because they do not, ever, think about what they are saying.

It "feels" right.

We live in a country where the top ten percent pay 70% of the taxes. Somehow, that it not enough door liberals, who assume that they are "not rich" because someone took something away from them..

In a country where some very wealthy people, like Buffet and Obama, whine that they are not taxed enough, but never do the one thing available to them- write a check to the government to make up their perceived arrearages.

Some people call that hypocrisy. I call it typical liberal double speak.

Job1 seriously thank the tea party for not letting Obama turn the USA in to a Greece or Portugal...

Yeah right, just wait and see what the right wing radicals turn this country into. When you guys get done destroying the economy Greece will be a step up.

Anybody like bananas

You're right. Why don't ALL the people who want higher taxes, including all the filthy rich liberals (Lord knows there are plenty of them), sign up to kick in the majority of their incomes? The Kerrys, Kennedys, Obamas, Clintons, Gores, ALL of Hollywood etc... can easily afford to donate millions. They all fly in private jets, don't they? They all have multiple homes, don't they? And somehow, they all participate in the class warfare of the Democrats yet never, for some reason, volunteer to be the ones to start an example. Why? Are they trying to deflect attention from how rich they are? We all know that Republicans give the most to charity. Why can't rich liberals put their money where their big mouths are and fork over enough to pay for food stamps or other programs. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

US Navy- You continuously compare conservatives to nazis. Your credibility is suspect...at best. You were saying the same thing when Reagan was president. I'm positive you were. You're lack of faith and belief in the American spirit and the American way of life is sad. Year after year we listen to you fringe liberals say that we are just one flag pin away from nazism. Each time you're wrong. Do you ever get tired of it or feel strange repeating the same ol' tired disproven BS?

If anything, you liberals have had your way with America for many decades. Millions of fetus' slaughtered every year, out of wedlock birth rate is now around 50%, large areas of our country don't speak English. There were just some of the goals you liberals worked for so very hard and for so very long. Can't you just relax and be happy for a bit?

Damage123:

You are the are the one that keeps bringing up the "N" word not me. I guess the shoe must fit like a glove huh Damaged Goods.

Nice try but you are a liar, I did not use the "N" word as you imply. Show me anywhere on my posts above that I used the word "Nazi" show me or crawl back under your rock.

My credibility is fine it is your honesty that is in question here.

Anyone who thinks Republicans are the reason for the debt crisis is so dumbed down they would believe anything. Let's put the blame where it belongs. You cannot SPEND your way out of insolvency. We got ourselves into this, and then made things worse by electing Barry Sotoro(the first non american born president).Barry wants to keep us drinking the Kool Aide so he can get re-elected next time around. Hummmm.

I'm sorry roxi, anything past "I'm a Birther" failed to register. If you aren't smart and sane enough to figure out the President of the United States is an American citizen nothing else you have to say has credibility.

Sorry about the double post. When I hit Post Comment the first time, the message said try again.

Don't feel bad. That happened to a lot of us last week. It looks like here we go again. If you get there in time, you can always delete the content of the double post, anyway.

I did not get an edit button to delete my post. So I ended up with two. This keeps flipping in and out of test and xhtml. Post disappers for a second or two and them comes back with parts missing.

Trouble is, I didn't get there in time because I was busy reading the terrific comments above mine.

BTW, our President gave a great speech last night; Boehner, not well thought out or honest. Obama gave credit to Speaker Boehner, Boehner dissed Obama. It seems even in an address to the American people in prime time, the GOPTP cannot say anything nice, it might upset their base.

There is something really weird going on here today on this site. This site has gotten slow and flaky. Must be throwing a GOP/TP hissy fit or something.

I keep seeing weird stuff scrolling across the bottom. Like it has lost its way in the cloud and does not know where to go.

Just got another one for the AdServer local.

See if this one posts

Jody, I listened to the address on CBS and afterwards Mr scheaffer (?) of CBS comment on how obama looked like smoke was ready to billow out from his head. Sad that obama hasn't held political office long ehough to learn the art of compromise.

To think that he even tried to emulate reagan was also telling on his lack of political expertise. However it is heartening to realize that obama thought enough of reagan's abilities to at least try.

american, Obama hasn't learned the art of compromise?! Really?! You meant Boehner didn't you? Boehner even said he would not compromise. You are unbelieveable.

Fielden, you're forgetting that to Republicans in office now, compromise is giving them everything they want and then some. We have two actions, cut taxes and reduce spending. Instead of the normal definition of compromise (do a bit of both), Republicans in office think compromise is to cut every single program they want and don't touch taxes at all.

never met a politician who didn't look at increased revenues as anything but a means to spend money on new or existing programs. Increasing taxes is easy compared to spending cuts. Can't obama produce a written plan?

Yep obama threatening vetoes is a sure sign of effective compromise. I especially liked it when obama invited paul ryan to sit in the front row at a news conference this spring in responce to the rights FY2012 budget plan. What did obama do, skewered ryan and the right and then refused to provide any numbers to his budget plan 2.0.

Yes sir, that's a good sign of compromise by the left. ROTFLMAO!!

BTW - thanks for the compliment

I'd rather not.

I prefer to visit Sen Mark Warner's website. He's actually in office and involved in the gang of six negotitions. I also just like him. http://warner.senate.gov/public/

Agree, it is the long-time legislators who must retake the reins from the newly re-minted Tea Party brigade. Divided government is only good when after the elections, both sides work together instead of one side going to its respective ideological corner.

Honestly though... what did you expect to happen. Whenever people start screaming the phrase "boot all incumbents out" they seem to forget that what usually replaces them are people that are shifted drastically towards their base as opposed to the center. The incumbents at least recognize the benefit of compromise while the new politicians only see what got them elected, their base.

21% approval for the way Republicans are handling the debt ceiling.

So much for your "vast majority."

UAW: You don’t get those items thru entitlements

But you DO get those items through entitlements. If you had to pay what health care and defense and infrastructure and food safety REALLY costs, out of your OWN pocket, you couldn't afford any of those things you mention.

We're voting for change in 2012 all right. We're voting out all of the Tea Party crazies and the Republican ideologues.

So I'm suppose to call congress and tell them to raise "soneone elses" taxes?

Have you heard about Walker's latest scheme to close DMV offices in Democratic neighborhoods Anna Molly?

Earlier this year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became one of the many GOP governors to sign a law disenfranchising voters who do not have a photo ID — a law that disproportionately affects elderly voters, young voters, students, minorities and low-income voters. Having disenfranchised tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Walker is now making it harder for many of these voters to obtain the ID they need to regain their right to participate in the next election:

Gov. Scott Walker’s administration is working on finalizing a plan to close as many as 10 offices where people can obtain driver’s licenses in order to expand hours elsewhere and come into compliance with new requirements that voters show photo IDs at the polls.

One Democratic lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts. [...] Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, called on the state Department of Transportation to reconsider its plants to close the Fort Atkinson DMV center. The department plans to expand by four hours a week the hours of a center about 30 minutes away in Watertown. [...]

“What the heck is going on here?” Jorgensen said. “Is politics at play here?”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277592/walker-closes-dmvs/

Yes, that's another little bite in the apple of voters in the name of fiscal conservatism.

Politics are ALWAYS in play here nowadays.

Thanks for the link, Feisty. I couldn't find one in the local paper for this.

no joe will be along shortly, no doubt, to attack the source, rather than the facts.

Anna Molly:

Did I see a piece yesterday that Walker is closing down about a dozen DMV sites in democraticdistricts to further help disenfranchise citizens from voting in WI?? Where do they go now for their picture ID'S? They keep closing places that provide them in democratic districts.

What a political party on the right. Corrupt and moral void.

Politics are ALWAYS in play here nowadays.

Just make sure you keep those recalls rolling...

PS: I got a call from the Obama campaign yesterday wanting to know if I would be interested in heading up your way again to do some canvassing!

My running shoes are ready & waiting! ;o)

Scott Walker is a failed governor in that he is no longer trusted by a big portion of his constituents to do what is right for the entire state. It seems to me, the first job of any leader, whether it's a supervisor at a call center, or an elected official, is to carry the mantle of authority with some integrity. Authority springs from the perception the leader, at the very least, is making decisions for the benefit of the entire group, and not just his own interests or in the interests of only a portion of the group.

The only constitutional amendment I would like to see before the voters. The Amendment to set term limits on the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. One 5 year term for each, then go home. No more need to run for re election and raise huge sums of money from lobbyist. The office of President, also 5 years.

Did I see a piece yesterday that Walker is closing down about a dozen DMV sites in democraticdistricts to further help disenfranchise citizens from voting in WI?? Where do they go now for their picture ID'S? They keep closing places that provide them in democratic districts.

What a political party on the right. Corrupt and moral void.

Oh, no, Navy ... that's just a coincidence. Surely you don't believe that our fine governor and his dedicated band of merry marauders in the Legislature would stoop to such a trick.

Of course, they would.

Amy:

Scott Walker is a failed governor in that he is no longer trusted by a big portion of his constituents to do what is right for the entire state.

In fact, 59 percent disapprove, according to the latest poll.

Feisty:

My running shoes are ready & waiting! ;o)

Good for you. If you're in my vicinity, be sure to look me up. ;-)

Great post, Anna Molly. Modern-day version of chain gangs. The more Governor Walker does, the more I think Wisconsin voters will recall him in January.

This is how 2 faced the teagaggers are.....ever sinse Obama got elected from day one the nutcases been hollering comunist, marxism, socialism, every last word made up B.S. Then they get one of their own elected to governor of Wisconsin and whats the 1st thing that happens ??? Probably what is the biggest socialism move ive ever seen in this country in my 55 yrs by taking away the rights of real american workers to bargin in good faith towards what it is they work for......if that aint socialism i dont know what is......but one thing i do know for sure the teagaggers are as 2 faced as any group out there and they have proved it to be so through their own actions.........

Looks like it's full speed ahead for Imperial Walker on the Conservative plan to increase unemployment and drive down wages.

Remember all those arguments we had on FR about changing voter ID requirements? All the posters who said "drivers licenses and ID's are easy to get"? Many of us predicted at the time the GOPTP would have that covered as well. We were right.

We have term limits, Charlie R, it is the vote. It isn't the politician's fault if the voters keep sending them back to office. There's a risk to losing politicians who understand how government works, we'd be left with every five years and with five years of freshman like the Tea Party legislators who have no clue.

What I do think would help is that after an election, 95% of every politician's campaign war chest cash goes to charity or to pay down the US debt, thereby leveling the playing field for the next election.

There is no tactic too despicable for the Republicans to use to enslave America.

There was a time I could understand folks not grasping the sciences; the laws of Physics, chemical reactions, Algebra, Geometry and the like. But it always seemed to me we could ALL handle English, History, and the liberal arts. That's so very, very wrong.

We see writing here every day that is loaded with spelling errors, horrible syntax, abominable punctuation and more. Many writers can't even use their native language properly. That's not important they tell us. The mere fact that they can't handle their own language doesn't mean they don't understand EVERYTHING else.

We see people who have almost no knowledge of history. Love 'em or hate 'em, the unions played a very valuable role in our work rules. Too many don't seem to know that America's infrastructure is the product of a progressive view of government. In Oklahoma, more than three in four high school students cannot identify the first President of the United States. The lessons of history are buried or forgotten. Hell, in Texas they just re-write history to suit the right-wing narrative.

What we are not seeing, what we are not learning, or what we forget is that the subjugation of a population is a constant. The extremist right wing has always been with us. It comes in the guise of religion or identity politics. Their tactics never change. Never. Even as they toss about heavily-freighted words and trumpet their love for "freedom" and "liberty" they are doing everything they can to take it away. There is an appropriate lyric to describe what we are seeing, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." This is the "freedom" that the right-wing crazies promise.

What we dare not forget are the words from one of America's greatest thinkers - Thomas Jefferson. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

From Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The Republicans must not be allowed to take the reins of government. There is within that party a clear and - right now - an overpowering element of evil. They must be beaten.

Jody: Thank you so much for your voice of sanity. Yes, we currently have term limits and we've had them since the founding of the country. We have a vote.

California has had term limits for some time. They're a disaster. What has happened is to take the institutional memory from legislators. That memory is now owned by lobbyists. They run government in California.

AM-

How about a story "from the Heartland" on how Walker's Budget Repair Bill is actually resulting in most school districts in good financial shape"?



Here's a great example of a school district that is actually projecting a $1.5 million surplus due to the Budget Repair Bill changes:

The sky is not falling. There are not mass layoffs. And Wisconsin is now in great financial shape compared to 7 short months ago and the mess that was inherited by Democratic Doyle.

Bravo, Mr. Walker! If Americans had a better understanding and knowledge of history, they would realize that President Obama is the closest thing we've had in decades to the worldview and philosophy of the Founding Fathers . His oft-mocked phrase "the audacity of hope" is the optimism of the Enlightenment, in trusting that the common people are more united by common needs and desires than separated by different ideologies. The "audacity of hope" is the "smile of reason" that characterized Voltaire and other visionaries of the Enlightenment, and the USA could not have been founded without it. The Founding Fathers also knew that compromise would be an essential part of making a representative democracy. Now the USA is blessed with the opportunity to show the emerging democracies "how it's done", how the most diverse people on earth in this great "experiment in democracy" make democracy work. Unfortunately, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is lost on the TP Republicans, who would destroy America's economy, and, indeed, that of the world, rather than compromise on their shabby ideology.

NorthstarDFL: That is what I'm expecting to happen. But not until about Friday.

Ron, Another expample of congress and "crisis "governing.

Just heard on MSNBC: The server for the House of Representative is still down this a.m.

Obama's suggestion last night to call their elected officals must be catching on !!!

Deadline America: Revised...(again?)

There have been several previous "deadlines"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-25-2011/armadebtdon-2011---nonfiction-captain-america?xrs=share_copy

So maybe it isn't August 2nd...

U.S. could avoid default a few days longer, new reports say

"...several new reports — from UBS, Barclays and Wells Fargo — have cast doubt on that estimate. Analysts have said that daily tax receipts have been higher than anticipated and that the Treasury has quite a bit of cash on hand.

As of Friday, according to the Treasury, the government had $85 billion in cash.

UBS estimates that the government will run out of money to pay all bills starting no sooner than Aug. 8. Barclays suggests Aug. 10. Wells Fargo Securities said the government might have to cut back on some spending but could pay most of its bill through August.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-could-avoid-default-a-few-days-longer-new-reports-say/2011/07/25/gIQAUqocZI_story.html

Northstar:

I wonder if they have the same IT department as over here. This site is weird today, wonder if we have any connection to their net and because they are down we are slow and weird.

Who knows how they got this thing routed.

August 2 is the best guess date, waiting to see if it might be a few days later is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

Didn't watch Stewart?

March...June...July...August 2nd...the end of August...

"It's the latest "best guess"...anyway...

Then is setting alleged "deadlines" that keep shifting irresponsible and just plain stupid too?

dangerfield, it is you who didn't pay attention to Stewart.

The date has always been in flux, but it has been August 2 for some time. It would be far easier to predict if the right did not constantly change their positions.

And why are we so worried about the exact date rather than the huge issue it represents?

thats what happens when your a puppet leader ......the man cant even control the minority in his own party and what does that say about the GOP when a minority group within the party is running the show.....no wonder the teagaggers hated Pelosi so much, least she had the cajones to keep her party in line......she got more balls that Boehner ever had or ever will and it shows large........

Even though both were reading from teleprompters', Obama knew what he was saying as he helped write his address. Boehner on the other hand, was just reading the script handed to him.

Deer in the headlights anyone?

What a great summary of the situation, Da Noid.

Thanks for posting this DaNoid. David Gergen's comment is the best summation of the two speeches last night made by analysts. It certainly explains what Boehner's Tea-publican party represents.

Cut it out steeler, your making way to much sinse......your gonna cause a teagagger to choke !!!

That would be an unexpected bonus, Anthony!

by balanced you mean tax more and spend more, right? BTW - Significant tax increases are scheduled by law for Jan 1 2013 and I have no problem with raising the income tax accross the board.

Got any thoughts on why obama wants to pass a debt ceiling that goes into 2013? The discussions will still be the same as today. Seems that the right wants a long term plan in place before the elections and the left is more than willing to kick the can.

On Sunday, Bob Schieffer commented about the FAA partial shutdown. He said he almost wished the FAA had shutdown completely because maybe the politicians sitting for hours on a bus to get home would have time to think about it. Not his exact words but close.

Actually, what I see is that four thousand government workers got furloughed. . . .

And no one noticed.

How many other government agencies could do with that kind of reduction in force?

I'll bet the unemployment offices will notice.

ANd then you'll blame it on the President. Rather than the Congress who deserve the blame.

fielden

I'll bet the unemployment offices will notice.

Yes. And nojonob will rant about how Obama is to blame for the increased unemployment caused by the Republican obstructionists killing those "useless" government jobs. And by the way, it's not just government jobs as nojonobo so ignorantly believes. Construction workers with private contractors for the FAA are also losing their jobs. But it's OK, since they were only doing make-work stuff like improving the runways and radar installations that even keep teabaggers safe when they have to fly.

Wm - I think reid is purposely waiting for the house vote to decide what to do next. Ever notice how the right have always had to lead the way this year, while the left lies in wait to attack?

american, the Constitution, you know, that document read on the floor of Congress last fall, specifies that the House produce a bill first, followed by the Senate. Then, the differences in the two bills are resolved.

fieldon - so why hasn't the senate written any bills addressing the FY2012 budget ryan presented or to the rights plans on addressing our debt ceiling and long term debt? Is the democrat controlled senate waiting for christmas?? Perhaps you need to ask them.

BTW - The constitution does not prohibit the senate from generating their own legislation, but it does require that both the house and senate come to agreement before it is sent to the potus.

Seems that you should rethink your statement....

the Constitution, you know, that document read on the floor of Congress last fall, specifies that the House produce a bill first, followed by the Senate

american, fielden passed the quiz on Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. You failed. http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html

johnB -apparently you missed the first line of article 1 section 7...

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Too bad feldon didn't word his statement correctly.

Section 8 is also telling....

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Would you have been happier if I used the word write an "amendment" to ryans plan?

Seems that both you and feldon have failed as well.

Apparently you're entirely ignorant of the way that's been interpreted since the founding of the Republic and passed up the opportunity to enlighten yourself.

Read the link, it's all there.

johnB - seems that your reading comprehension is off. Article 1 section seven text is quite clear. Section 8 is more ambiguous without knowing what the writers meant by "lay".

Regardless, feldon didn't specify revenue bills only, even if he did, section 7 specifically states that the senate has the right to offer up amendments to any house revenue bill.

but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

This quite clearly states on what the senate can do. Clearly if we follow your links thinking on article 1, section 7 (and ignoring what the constitution says the senate may do) the house would have to constantly submit revenue bills until the senate says ok. From a historical perspective I doubt that this happens.

Then again, one has to ask the question on if a budget is really seeking approval to increase revenue or just authorizing what expenditures goes where. If just expenditures then the senate definitely has the obligation to make a counter offer.

Regardless, your link specifically has it right on who originates a revenue (via hamiltons wording of 'originating money bills'), but fails to mention the caveat of the role the senate can play. I seem to recall a lot of push and pull between the house and senate in getting the FY2011 budget passed earlier this year. To bad the person offerring up this opinion didn't reference section 8 as well, it would have offered up constitutional support of his last paragraph.

BTW - spin as much as you like article 1 section 7 clearly states what both the house and senate can do.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So do you still comtend that the senate can't offer up changes to any bill passed by the house? Even your link and any resulting scotus opinions cited does not preclude the senate from offerring up amendments.

My reading comprehension is fine, american. Even accepting your premise, any "amendments" to the Ryan budget would need to go far beyond tinkering and into writing an entirely new bill, which wouldn't be accepted by the House as constitutionally-acceptable behavior. The Ryan budget fundamentally changes EVERYTHING about how the federal government brings in revenue and spends that revenue. It isn't a budget, it's a redesign of the entire government.

I am going to call my crazy Congresscritters like my President asked me to.

Me too Nash!

They've actually tripled down on the crazy!

Who else is up to the challenge?

PS: Don't forget to pass the *popcorn*

PPS: How's the daughter feeling?

Nashville: Like you, I have zero respect for Independents.

As far as the President signing whatever lands on his desk, this concerns me. His compromises are killing me. As furious as I am with Senator Sanders, at least he's fighting hard. Why is it that he's never invited to the table on behalf of progressives?

I am 100% behind President Obama, but these compromises are really troubling. We'll see what happens. They should just vote for raising the debt ceiling and work on a more pragmatic budget later on.

Desperation may win the day and we don't want that. I don't like Sen. Reid's plan. At all. There's no revenue in it. And if President Obama can't get any revenue, then I hope he doesn't sign anything.

He needs to hear that from us. Loudly. It's very hard to defend him day in, day out - when he keeps giving the GOP whatever they want just to get a bill signed.

I hope he stands strong. I hope all the Democrats do.

Just say No.

The GOP forget all this deficit stuff happened under the irresponsible governing of the GWB Administration. And what's sad is they haven't changed, haven't learned a thing.

They are just as irresponsible now as they were back then.

Feisty:

Girl, it is amazing to me how folks don't even bat an eye as these bought and paid for politicians stand up for the powerful against the weak. So sad.

(My daughter has moved on from one illness to another, but she is hanging in there . . . thanks for asking!)

Pat:

I echo your comment 100% . . . it is indeed difficult to watch the President of the United States have to continually choose between bad options because of the stranglehold the "corporate people" have on this country. But I don't blame the President for the situation because he sure as hell doesn't have a lot of choices . . . he is just trying to get crumbs for us human people at this point, and I am sure those that need it most . . . the unemployed . . . the uninsurable . . . appreciate it. But it sure as hell is a sad testimony to what this country will accept in the name of narrow dogman and ideology.

Pat - I don't like Sen. Reid's plan. At all. There's no revenue in it. And if President Obama can't get any revenue, then I hope he doesn't sign anything.

He needs to hear that from us. Loudly. It's very hard to defend him day in, day out - when he keeps giving the GOP whatever they want just to get a bill signed.

___________________

Pat, I agree. I don't like Senator Reid's plan either for the exact same reasons. There is no revenue in it and flys exactly contrary to Obama's balanced approach ie. cuts and increased revenues. It is hard to defend Obama when he keeps giving the GOP everything they want. Normally I would agree 100% but a default could play out as an economic catastrophe.

There are no good choices, it is too late as the Repubs have beligerently refused all compromise. President Obama must be a leader and sign the best deal he can get. I personally like Bernie Sanders but he is wrong in refusing any reforms to entitlements. The best deal should include some reforms/cuts to entitlement programs. It has to be a combination. If we only increase the debt ceiling and don't make reforms/cuts we will be in the exact same place in 2013. If we only increase the debt ceiling and don't add increased revenues there is no way to cut our way to a deficit nuetral position.

That said, at this point the only thing that matters is that we avoid an economic crisis. The GOP have won and the Dems and Obama will be forced to take their bitter pill.

This is a game of chicken. I would rather Obama blink and dive out of the car as it zooms toward the cliff, accept the House plan. Hopefully that will be enough to avoid an economic disaster. Let the idealogical fools in the GOP drive themselves off the cliff. The other option is that a deal is made after our economy is in ruin.

If not on August 3rd the markets and the world will react; some will lament others will cheer. However they will all think - "O How the mighty have fallen."

A house divided against itself can not stand. Divided we will fall.

Yellowdog:

Here is what I don't get:

Why is it considered a "win" for Republicans to continuously put what they prefer ahead of what is best for the country?

Why do folks continue to treat these folks as "professionals" when it has been demonstrated time and again that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

Why is the Speaker of the House given a pass on his lies? Why is the President always held responsible for the failings of the GOP?

Why do "independents" continue to vote for folks who have proven to be not worthy of the positions they hold? When did it become okay in America to lie? To deceive? To steal? To rig the game in your own favor?

And in the face of all this, why do folks continue to blame the person attempting to bridge the gap and make excuses for those who aren't?

Nashville - at this late date if a plan is passed by both the house and senate and obama does veto it, obama will pay the price big time.

Keep in mind that what is on the current agenda does not adequately address long term debt reduction. This is a known criteria that the rating agencies will look at to determine the US rating.

Any hope for a proposed "grand plan" should have been started back in January.

Nashville - I don't know.

I can't speak for independents or the GOP. I believe that a majority of Americans support Obama's approach but right now, sadly, a plan with his ideas will not pass. We've talked about this before on other political issues/fights. In this case I'm not blaming Obama or the Dems. IMO he has been more than reasonable, 3 to 1 cuts vs. taxes. I mean look at the Reid plan, all cuts and no revenues. I would hope that the population whether they be D, R or I would see that he is negotiating in good faith.

I will only blame Obama if he draws a line in the sand and uses a veto against a passed plan and we default on account of that. Right now my concern for who wins this politically is very, very low. We need the debt ceiling limit raised.

nashville (post 19.5) apparently the majority of people don't think the same as you, which I take as a good thing. Better to have differences of opinion to create choice.

Pat- Us Independents don't really care if you "respect us" or not, in the end we're the ones who make the final decision.

Bravo, Nashville. I'm letting my CongressCritters know what I think as well.

Independents need to decide what they believe in and stop swinging left or right depending on mood. There are some who think being "independent" means they think for themselves which makes sense but I'm a former republican and now a democrat who thinks for herself but I choose to identify with the party that most represents my views. Either one has convictions or they are just "blowin' in the wind."

American 205,

So you think that a $3 Trillion cut plan over ten years will solve our deficit issue? You think that $300 billion yearly reduction in our deficit will do anything. You don't believe that increased taxes would help balance things?

"A grand plan should have been started in January" - I agree, but I don't think it would have done any good. I have grave concerns about the country if the parties can't resolve this.

A word about independents, Obama's whole messaging and compromises have been to garner the independent vote. Unfortunately there are no independents in Congress.

Jody and Nashville, I share your disdain of Independents, they really do have a high opinion of themselves and their perceived importance in the electorate. To me they are wafflers or fence sitters.

In my state of Fl. you cannot vote in either primary if so registered, so they have no say in who will be the candidate, what good is that.

The press and the pundits give them far too much attention, none of them have the courage of their convictions....but we knew that anyway,lol.

f-in you just give me jobs

In case anyone is having difficulty taking care of their 'house' work today:

The US Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121, please contact your Senators and Congressperson and let your voice be heard on the Debt Ceiling and subsequent potential fallout! This link will help you find your representatives. The email servers have been inundated,...so use the phone lines if that works best for you. I think they don't think we're paying attention. Let's show them otherwise!

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Yellowdog, of course it is not enough enough to bring down the debt. We need something north of $4trillion and we definitely need tax reform.

I have said it in the past and I will say it again, I have no problem with raising taxes or seeing the obama tax cuts expire across the board. After all, isn't that what "shared sacrifice" should be? The real issue should be reducing the 1000's of pages of tax codes. Who can blame Americans from having to pay $$$ to tax preparers or for corporations to have their own in house tax lawyers and accountants to minimize what they pay.

I will include a caveat for raising income taxes and that is that politicians and the electorate will only look at increased revenues as something they can spend today rather than paying down debt. Recently in the opinion pages of the Des Moines Sunday register editorials were written on how iowans could spend a projected surplus, forget infrastructure, forget about adding to our rainy day fund, rather what programs can we spend $$$ on. Seems that very few want to look to future needs or costs. I doubt that increased federal revenues would have any different objective, I got cash, let's spend it. Paying down debt is so boring.

BloomberTV once did an analysis of what party spent the most $$ freely. Their conclusion was that whatever party in power spent the most freely.

I can easily support boehners current plan in that it keeps the issue before America and congress and doesn't push it down the road until after the 2012 elections. The debate will not likely be any different in 2013 as 2011 or 2012. Nor will the markets be any less volitile than past markets. One thing is for sure, the rating agencies and foreign investors are right to be skeptical on the ability of our current potus and congress to go forward. Keep in mind the old saying "as goes the economy, so goes the jobs"

But when you have a pack of pit bulls running wild, how do you get them to let go of your leg? Maybe we should get shock collars for this bunch of animals or ?

With obama threatening vetos doesn't that imply his attitude of my way or else?

My husband and I pay taxes... What is considered wealthy? We make 200K plus a year, live a very comfortable life and pay taxes.... Taxes that support the lazy asses that have never worked a day in their lives but pop babies out left and right for tax payers to support. I have 5 kids because I could AFFORD to support five kids. And when we were younger my husband and I worked two jobs if needed to financially support our family. American's are lazy fat slobs!!!

Mom2Five:

Your bigotry is showing.

Contrare navy, mom had a plan with her husband, developed that plan and implimented that plan. Kudos to her family. Hope that she and her husband taught the same lessons to her kids. To bad your parents/guardians didn't show the same due diligence in your upbringing.

wbush:

If President Obama vetoed the health care legislation because of no public option, the result would be no health reform, which is just what the corporate people wanted. How does that help average Americans who are suffering under the status quo?

It doesn't.

And despite much hand wringing to the contrary, the simple fact is that there were not enough votes to include the public option. I was optimistic about Olympia Snowe's idea of a triggered public option at the time, but if I recall, many progressives did not like that idea because they didn't like the fact that it came from "President Snowe". And so we got no public option.

Once again I will say it: blaming President Obama for Congressional failures is convenient, but ultimately, these folks are getting paid to do something, and it is not the President's job to lead them around by their noses.

Nashville Fan, A lot of people think no health-care reform bill would have been better than the one we got, without the public option all you are left with is a government mandate to by insurance from a corrupt greed driven corporate entity with no cost controls, the corporations got just exactly what they wanted. The Presidents indifference in the whole matter is what irks me, how many times did he say that the public option was essential to the bill? Then he signs it into law anyway. I have always supported President Obama, I voted for him and I still think he is a good man, but why is it the Republicans can "stand on their principles" and he can't? Obama means well but if he give the Republicans everything they want what good does that do the country? Compromise just for the sake of compromise is losing position.

wbush:

Corporations purchased our government and media long ago. We can either make what progress we can or be professional gripers. Holding our breath until we die does nothing to hurt corporations. Doing symbolic things that make us feel "tough" does nothing to help anyone.

President Obama is about getting US involved and paying attention so that WE can use our COLLECTIVE power to get something done. Waiting for our bought and paid for "representatives" to do it is what the corporate people want us to do. Blaming the ONLY person trying to have our government work as it was DESIGNED to work is what the corporate folks are counting on.

Only by staying FOCUSED on the actual problems and who is causing them do we even have a chance. We have wasted way too much energy on analyzing "Obama" instead of "policies". The way forward is to identify what/who is blocking progress and attack them, not "Obama".

Then you better start attacking your self because the blame is on your self's not looking at the policies as you so said. Corporate America didn't buy any government except for their hidiuos votes and Money. President Obama allowed the Clintons run him from the start, he was placed on the butcher block not only buy congress but by the people also. Being the President doesn't mean we throw shoes at them and business as usual.... All Presidents and congress including every one grabbed a hand full of the S/S Pot and we allowed the use of it through other agencies while that Money was ours the people of the United States the tax payers.... it belonged to us. 8 years ago our 401 k became half of what was in there over night and now there is talk it will happen again in a few day's this Money is ours not our Government.....

Listen to the pot calling the kettle black. It's the Republicans that are trying to molly-coddle their Tea Partiers and freshmen Republicans who think they're running the city since they got to D.C. I hope they're all sent packing next election, along with trouble-maker Scott Walker. Wisconsin, all of America, deserves better than these incendiary pseudo-political obstructionists. The Republicans should change their name to Obstructionists because that's all they're about. Like a spoiled child stamping its foot, screaming and crying til they get their own way. Time for a big fat time out for them, and I hope it hits them Big Time next election. The second they win any election, the Republican ego blows up the size of Texas on steroids. Sick, sick, sick of them and the Tea Partiers - who are these trouble-makers anyway?

ROTLMAO mrsbuzz, so far the right has written, submitted and voted on two plans, one of which was the FY2012 budget, with yet another in the works. Care to enlighten us on what the left has submitted this year to a vote concerning the economy, other than rhetoric?

Speaking about ego, seems that obama's is even larger, all talk with little to no numbers except to constantly threaten to veto any republican financial legislation. To think that it took a republican controlled house to get a FY2011 budget passed, says a lot about the effectiveness of obama.

jock59801

The budget deficit is a completely separate issue without the same deadline.

100% agree it is just too convenient to use the urgency of the debt ceiling to hold America hostage to their ideology! The deficit needs a careful and a fair balanced approach and a one week deadline is just not it.

The problem can be solved exactly like you said. That is exactly how Republican proposed bill is written. Why did Obama reject it ? Because the Big Democrat Chiefs got him in a corner and told him NO Way ! He threw thetaxes in to please them and figured he could make a case that it only effets those earning over $ 250,000 Which is Small Business. We all get hurt. The big hold up is that they want to keep spending the big bucks. However they will approve it at the very last moment . So Obama is playing Chicken he figures the people will back me. There is by all means enough to pay SS Medicare and all of the curret entitlements but they slipp the LIE in that Senior will be hurt, Children will starve etc. STOP OVER SPENDING

The President first asked for a "clean" debt ceiling raise. The American people were against that. So, next Obama says "raise taxes and cut spending." That is when the Repubs said "No new taxes." Now Obama uses the word "balanced" because he can beat up Repubs with the word . Hey Mr.President.......YOU were the one who wanted a "clean" debt ceiling raise" .So don't pretend now to want a "balanced" approach. Some of us pay attention and are smarter than you think.

Leona, I think you're going to have to show us some proof that the American people were ever against a clean increase in the debt ceiling, as opposed to deep cuts in all non-defense discretionary spending and dramatic changes in Medicare and Social Security.

63% of Americans Do Not Want Debt Ceiling Raised CBS News/New York Times

Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Poll: Voters Don't Want Debt Ceiling Hike

Ever wonder how much savings there is if the State Department programs were deleted. How many taxpayer dollars are supporting other nations while ours is in a crisis mode?