He's already starting to build the Western White House, Feisty---gotta plan ahead, you know.

He's already starting to build the Western White House, Feisty---gotta plan ahead, you know

Excellent point SF!

When you're worth 250 MILLION it's really NO big deal...

I know President Obama always believes himself to be "the smartest guy in the room"...no matter who's actually in the room, and in spite of his established record as POTUS.

But maybe he ought to try to hire Mitch Daniels before anyone else does.

Mitch is way too smart to accept an Obama overture...

But, is President Obama smart enough to ask?

lol

I wonder how Mr. Daniels feels about be used by a 'brown noser'.

Besides that, Danial's record as budget director has left a few Americans with a hefty bill to pay.

But, if Mitt thinks that Mitch should be chief of staff of 'virtually anywhere', then I'd have to go along - for the chuckle.

Feisty,

Still haven't contacted Sylvan yet on that reading comprehension stuff, huh?

Romney made a speech about the importance of a president selecting a great team to surround him with.

When shaking hands after the speech, someone asked him about Mitch Daniels. Romney is not putting the horse before the cart, or picking drapes.

Sorry it went over your head.

Now that it has been explained to you, have any thoughts other than cute little liberal quips and attempts at marginalization?

What do you really think about a president that had NOT ONE SECOND of executive or business experience surrounding himself with people who had NOT ONE SECOND of executive or business experience?

How has that worked out ...well other than it being the worst recovery since the Great Depression, the first downgrade in history, the biggest debt in the history of mankind?

Romney says he learned from watching Daniels.

Funny, Obama thinks he is always "the smartest guy in the room" .... yet he never seems to learn anything ... didn' learn the lessons from FDR ..... didn't learn the lesson from Bush ..... didn't learn the lessons from Stimulus ...... just doubles down on what has never worked and tries to demagogue his way out.

So I guess in a way, Obama doesn't need smart capable experienced people around him - Obama can certainly do that himself - he's the best at that stuff.

Hi, Rich-

Care to comment on the "hefty bill" that President Obama is compiling?

Or, do you believe that borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is good public policy?

Everyone at First Read seems to know it's not his fault, but increasingly, the American public disagrees, and is asking themselves what they actually hired him to do...if not to make things better.

Remind me, Rich...

What job did the American electorate hire President Obama to do?

His job approval numbers tell us how well voters believe he's doing it.

Come on, Mixed.

Average time for economic recovery for a recession is 5 1/2 years.

The current one is a bit weightier than average, and a 10 year recovery was forecast for it's turn around.

Now, put that in context with the Presidents charge to make things better.

The public crying 'Obama's fault', are crying out in desperate ignorance.

But, can you blame them?

Thanks, Rich.

But...

No comment on the more than 40 cents of every federal dollar spent being borrowed, or the resultant "hefty bill"?

My blame isn't directed at the public at all, Rich.

I can only hope that, like you, Axelrod and Plouffe call them ignoramuses.

That ought to work.

You did catch the memo yesterday, that investors are moving out of gold to U.S. securities, didn't you?

Ok, I’ll say it … it was clearly the spending appropriated by Congress and the unwarranted tax cuts from 2001 thru 2005 that set the stage for all the current debt problems resulting in too much borrowing.

I could be wrong, but weren't the self proclaimed 'party of fiscal responsibility' working things then?

Reminds me of the group that recently ran on 'jobs, jobs, jobs'.

I wonder where they are and what they're saying today?

Lest they be forgotten, I think a special spot on the national mall is in order.

With separate 'his and hers' entry's.

Bush's 2001 tax cuts were temporary and didn't work. (Yet Obama tries it again and now wants to try it ... again.)

The 2003 tax cuts generated 18.5% of GDP revenue, way above average revenue - they worked.

Bush ran the debt to 40% of GDP - so Obama had to run it up to 100% of GDP to correct the debt problem?

Bush make Obama spend $10 million of stimulus money to sell AKs to Mexican drug cartels?

Bush make Obama give a B+ company a half of a billion to flush down the green rat hole?

Obama spends $4-$5 million for every green job "created". Bush make him do that stupid crap?

Ok, I'll say it …

That's OK Dennis - no law against saying stupid stuff.

Crikey, do we need to make a list of all the Republicans Obama has on his team, and others he asked but declined? I was never a fan of Larry Summers, but then I'm not a fan of purity tests either. It would be nice to end the revolving door--sad the only people who have Wall Street experience are people from Wall Street. But saying the president has not consulted business leaders is not true. What's "The Buffet Rule" for gawd sake?

And Romney, trying to ride Mitch Daniel's coattails to the White House. Win the election on your own merit first Mitt.

Dennis,

How are you this Saturday afternoon? We agree to a point there was to much spending from 2001 to 2005 or even 2007 that is one reason the republicans lost both chambers of the congress. But the democrats from 2008 to the present continued the spending and borrowing spree. The tax cuts were fine, it was the spending the caused the problem.

In somewhat of a defense of President Bush, I keep hearing the left talk about the Clinton administration's balanced budgets and surplus, but they forget to note that Clinton's funding and budgeting was controlled by a republican congress, remember it's congress that writes the bills and controls the purse strings.

Further, Bush had the attacks on 9/11, which required billions of dollars in government spending and then Katrina came along that cost more government spending. The biggest mistake Bush made was going into Iraq.

Both parties are to blame but the solution is not borrowing more money, spending more money or raising taxes. Government spending has to be brought under control and federal agencies need to have better oversight and tighter rein on their projects.

Bob: “That's OK Dennis - no law against saying stupid stuff.”

Bob you are the one here that can only try to defend statements that cannot be defended by demeaning others and flat out name calling – you have been doing this ever since you joined – doesn’t work on me – nice try. That is one reason that few people respond to your comments – not that they are winners.

Actually using GPD as a measure during good employment and growth against time of poor or
negative growth and declining income due to high unemployment is extremely misleading.

Hi Sarge – Why cut taxes when you could cut spending and use the surplus to pay down the debt?
Also why didn’t Bust ask for additional income to offset the cost of the war, especially when he saw it would not be a few months in duration?

Dennis,

My whole point, which I have said in many posts, cut spending and cut out the waste and fraud and unproductive programs, then I would consider tax raises to pay down the debt, but no new programs and no increasing in current programs. The problem with raising taxes is the government will just keep spending.

I believe if any President wants to take us to war, rather required or not, it should be fully funded with a war tax and/or war bonds. The tax would be stopped when hostilities end and the military is brought home. I am sure there would be fewer military conflicts and they wouldn't last so long.

Thanks Sarge,

I agree with the continued spending. Our leaders did a decent job of containing spending until Reagan decided to not only continue spending but to increase it while he initially cut taxes. We were on a path to
pay off our National debt by about 2000 but instead we doubled our debt during the eighties.

Now that you mention it I do recall you would agree to prudent tax increases as long as spending did not increase and hopefully went down and I agree.

The one place we are going to disagree is that I believe that in the short term we should not cut spending until our economy begins to rebound.

I believe that I have said before that a war tax is needed for wars that go beyond one year.

Richard - average time for recovery is 5 1/2 years?? With US recessions historically recurring every 7 - 12 years (based on historical government charts) where does the 5 .5 number come from?

BTW - What standard do you use for recovery? decline in unemployment to a set number? My understanding is that this is the main indicator. After all, we know that economists and politicians define a recessions end as 2 consectutive qtrs of GDP growth.

I will say that many economists look at the current recovery to take about until 2014 for a full recovery, but that it is also dependent on a housing recovery.

Another interesting facet of recovery is when businesses and the populace believe that they can see one coming down the road. Much of that belief lies with the leader of the country to instill that attitude to others and not make excuses.

Notice MB that Mitch was not there with Romney, and if Mitch is as smart as you say he is he will keep it that way, Cain is the new front-runner today, the only consistent front-runner that holds up against Obama in the polls (for what they are worth) is a guy named Generic Republican. I have not yet seen Mr. Generic Republican debate, why is he waiting, when is he gonna get in the race, where is Generic when his party needs him.

Dennis,

Bob you are the one here that can only try to defend statements that cannot be defended by demeaning others and flat out name calling

1. Actually, I try to be prettty straight forward, i.e: instead of a partisan biased defense of Bush - I acknowledged right off the bat that the 2001 tax cuts did not work (supporting your contention) while stating that the 2003 cuts did work. Historical data, ( some of which I gave you), more than supports this position. It is what it is.

Every statement is factual and yea, I can defend each one.

2. I didn't call you a name .... I said there was no law against saying stupid stuff.

My bad, I didn't realize you couldn't handle it.

Hi Sarge, how you doing, well I hope.

Sarge Bush did have a surplus, he could have payed down the debt a little or beefed up SS, or any number of things, as I recall he used as his proof that taxes were too high said he wanted to give it back to the taxpayers, he mailed out some rebate checks and used the surplus as an argument for his tax cuts.

Sarge Bush did have a surplus,

No he didn't.

Clinton had a budget, a public debt surplus where revenue exceeded outlay, realized primarily due to the dot.com boom wherein a lot of people were making a lot of money which led to extra/above anticipated SS revenue. The The SS Administration is required to take all surpluses and buy US Government securities - which automatically become intragovernmental holdings i.e. debt / obligations.

At no time did the national debt ever go down under Clinton. It is impossible to have an actual / real / non budget surplus if the national debt grew every year - which it did.

as I recall he used as his proof that taxes were too high said he wanted to give it back to the taxpayers, he mailed out some rebate checks and used the surplus as an argument for his tax cuts.

Most informed people will "recall" that Bush inherited a recession caused by the dot.com bubble bust and the 2001 tax cuts were a failed attempt to stem the recession (just like Obama's temporary tax credits/cuts failed and the same type he proposing now). The 2003 tax cuts worked and added 8 million jobs before the credit crisis / economic collapse. (You do understand that the collapse was not a tax issue, right?)

Bob there is a difference between the nation having a deficit, and an operating surplus for a few budget cycles, if you can't build a surplus how can you ever pay the existing debt, even if you cut expenses to zero. Bob you have to take in more than you spend and then use some of the extra money (the surplus) to pay down the deficit. I said Bush had a surplus and he did, he did not say he wished to pay down the nations deficit with it, he said it proves the government collects too much taxes and he was going to give the money back, and he did, he gave the surplus away, you got a check Bob, I got a check Bob, we got a couple of checks.

Hey Forrest,

First, let me say I don't care about Bush vs. Clinton / repub vs. dem or whatever. It is just important to understand the truth - what actually happened - especially if you want to argue what should be done next and hopefully correct the mess we are in. That's all I care about.

if you can't build a surplus how can you ever pay the existing debt,

Correct, you can't. And likewise - you cannot, it is impossible, to have a surplus if the actual total national debt increases EVERY YEAR as it did under Clinton.

The total national debt (for years libs claim there was a surplus) increased $113 billion for FY1998; $130 billion for FY1999; $17.9 billion for FY2000 and $133.3 billion for FY 2001.

FY2000 when the total national debt only increased $17.9 billion came close, but the fact is that there was never reduced total national debt - hence no surplus.

even if you cut expenses to zero. Bob you have to take in more than you spend and then use some of the extra money (the surplus) to pay down the deficit.

Again - see the above. However, I think your difficulty is that you don't understand intragovernmental holdings which along with public debt determines the total national debt.

Intragovernmental holdings are Government Account Series securities held by by government trust funds, revolving funds and special funds composed primarily of the Social Security Trust Fund, Medicare Trust Fund and Federal Financing Bank securities.

Intragovernmental debt is incurred when the government borrows from federal trust funds to help fund current operations. This is exactly what happened under Clinton - we had alot of excess SS money paid in due the dot.com boom which is a future obligation - a loan from a trust fund. It is not income revenue. It is not the same as income tax where once the feds collect it, it is theirs - they have no future obligation.

he did not say he wished to pay down the nations deficit with it,

Forrest, you don't pay down the nation's deficit with a surplus.

You have either a surplus or a deficit. If you have a surplus, it automatically pays down the debt. If you have a deficit, it automatically increases the debt.

he said it proves the government collects too much taxes and he was going to give the money back, and he did, he gave the surplus away, you got a check Bob, I got a check Bob, we got a couple of checks.

Really? How about a link for that quote?

BTW - Is Obama saying the same thing for the same type of tax cuts?

You weren't aware that Bush inherited a recession? Don't think that might have had something to do with it?

Anyway, if you honestly want to help the country either please refrain from misstating historic fact.

If you are only concerned about promoting your own self interests at the expense of other Americans .... keep repeating the lie.

Thanks for your comments Forrest.

Man that was nice Bob, but no I did not know Bush inherited a recession there was so much work in my industry in the late 90's through 2000 it was not funny, I never noticed a recession, not until after 9/11 and Iraq. Bush did have a surplus no matter how it got there, and even if you don't want to call it a surplus, I remember a lot of talk about putting it in a lock box during the debates, and I know for a fact I got a tax rebate check. So what I think you are saying is that now we have to collect a hell of a lot more taxes, so we can have a surplus which will then automatically pays down the debt, and if we don't we will automatically add to the deficit, I would agree with that Bob.

You can't refute or challenge anything I said, other than to say you "remember a lot of talk about putting it in a lock box during the debates"?

Oh well I tried.

BTW - Do you remember a month or two ago when Obama was saying if he didn't get more money ...Granny wouldn't get her SS check because there wasn't any money to pay it?

Why would he say that, Forrrest?

Was he just trying to scare Grandma and bully old folks to get his political way, or ..... is the only thing in the lock box an IOU - no money in the box?

See ya in the FR funnies Forrest.

The civility of your response is welcomed Bob, thank you. Bob they play games with the money, take out of the left pocket put it in the right pocket, and other shell games. Still the bottom line is we have to increase revenue, we have spent enormous sums on war, we have an obligation to Seniors, and we have an obligation to young people to insure a bright future for them. We need to cut waste and fraud, we need to cut back on some things, but we can never cut enough, an increase in revenue will be required for our problems to be solved. We can solve our problems, not overnight, but they can be solved, it will take both cuts in some areas, and revenue has to increased as well, but we can do it if we really want to. See ya in the FR funnies Bob, have a great day Bob, I am going outside on the patio, it is a beautiful day where I am at.

Hmmmm - isn't that what politicians do?? Play to the audience?

If obama had a speech attended only by company owners and CEO's, think he would be telling them how he was going to increase their cost of doing business?

American, the home crowd I was referring to was the governor's home state Indiana.Your analogy does not work.

Your discussion with Ricard and Dennis about the current recession is not realistic. I agree with the following economist. This is a whole new ballgame.

http://www.twincities.com/lotterman/ci_18671888?nclick_check=1

Off to dinner with friends , check back with you later tonight.

Have a nice evening.

Hmmmmmm Maybe Obama should ask them "where are the jobs? Where are the trillions of dollars that we allowed you to keep instead of taxing you? Job creators?? If the economy is soon bad why don't you use some of those trillions of dollars and give your employee raises or bonuses since you aren't hiring? Wouldn't that help the economy??? Where is the money???

northstar, I am sorry, but romney's home state is Mass. isn't it?

Regardless really, when someone is running for POTUS or speaking as POTUS every crowd spoken to domestically has to be considered a home crowd. Politicians target their audience for best affect, based on the majority of those attending. Simple politics really.

You disagree with my frequency range of recessions historically occuring in the states?

You disagree with my asking richard what criteria he is basing his average recovery time to be on?

You disagree that consumer and business confidence in the future won't play a part in any recovery?

You disagree with how economists and politicians define a recessions end to be?

What benchmarks do you propose to use? Humans like to see some factor applied to an event that defines when an event starts or ends. You know, that "feel good" moment.

I really hate to break this to you, but many times in the past months I have declared that no economist or politician has ever devised an effective plan to predict or minimize a recession or how to effectively recover from one, and I don't hide my comments. That being said, from my past posts it looks like I am in agreement with the fundamentals of what your link says.

IE if recessions can't be predicted with certainty, each one must be unique, right? Since each is unique it stands that there exists no proven course of action to end it or to recover from it. Even your link places caveats on recessions.

I definitly agree with your link that the 2007-2008 reccession is one of being financial in scope, hence my recovery timeline extending out to 2014. Am I smart, in some regards, but I am not an economists but I can listen to economists and business leaders to get a fair idea of what can be expected.

As you may have read in news reports many businesses have a boatload of cash that they are sitting on and they are just waiting for something to do with it. Oviously they want something that promotes continued growth with more jobs, stock bybacks or increased dividends to investors who took a risk with them. Basically, they have the cash because they have de-leveridged themselves from debt and await investment opportunities and increased demand for what they offer.

The American consumer is much in the same boat only they are carrying far more debt that just sucks up their discretionary income in interest payments and food/energy price increases that further reduces discretionary income. Until consumer discretionary income increases don't expect demand for goods to return anytime soon. Yes I know, it is a cruel catch 22 when it comes to increased demand and increased job growth. Think companies sitting on cash should pay their workers more? That is an even crueler catch 22. For a business to maintain say a 5% after tax profit to cover exogenous events or future expansion, they have to raise the prices to their end customers to make up for the cost of added wages.

If the consumers hadn't bought off on easy credit, increasing home prices and treating their homes like an ATM machine the mortgage originators probably wouldn't have promoted so many loans and in turn the banks may not have played games with derivatives and ignoring good risk management.

All in all quite the finacial mess from the consumer on up. BTW democrats and republicans also played their own parts as well. No one escapes.

Might I suggest that you go to your local university or community college an take a course in micro and macro economics or at the very least find out what their course books are and check them out of your public library or read them online. Pehaps even check out bloomberg.com for economic and business news occuring both domestically and globally. Sorry, don't expect much in political attacks against either party.

American, thanks for reading the link I posted and your lengthly reply. This recession is unique. The financial crises of 2007-2008 was at bottom all about greed. The catch 22 you describe can also be seen as a fundamental paradigm shift on a global scale. While the economists retool their models, people are hurting. Joblessness, wage stagnation, consumers have nothing to spend after they pay their bills as you say.

Meanwhile, congress is going on a week recess without sending a bill to the president for funding for the recent disaster aid after hurricane Irene. How can they tackle some of the big things needed like a jobs bill if they can't even do disaster relief which should be non partisan.

I do know the difference between macro and micro economics. I tend to concentrate on the micro part of my life. Got out the stock market in the fall of 2010. I sleep well at night. Now if my house can only be worth what I paid for it ... but it is not a loss until I do sell..

I am not interested in being an arm chair economist, my interest currently is the Age of Pericles, Athens and the beginnings of democracy. It might help me make meaning out of the mess we are in today.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend...

northstar, I understand the reluctance of armchairanything, but individual studies must be done to maintain at least a modicum of understanding the vagaries of events around us.

Feisty, what is it with this board?

LOL

Sorry to report Mark but I believe you've caught First-Read-itis!

I was first diagnosed 3 1/2 years ago and still haven't found a cure! ;o)

My thoughts about this board are NO matter how contentious it can get at times, the participants (for the most part) generally tend to lay out a cognitive argument with facts.

I found an interesting study last week on blog participants that came to the conclusion; CNN bloggers will 'call you an idiot' whereas MSNBC 'will take the time to explain why you're an idiot'...

Welcome to the family! ;o)

Ha that is crazy! Now let me tell you why it is crazy...............................................................................................moonbat!

Ha I like First Read just fine

Okay, so Romney has found one possible person to put on his team. Then who? There's not a lot of right-wing talent out there, thus the "unsatisfactory" GOP/TP presidential field.

ROTFLMAO, true patriot. Sounds like you want the republican candidates to now state who they will name as WH staff and departmental heads. Better come up for air. lol.

Since your vote seems to be locked onto obama, why even express caring about how the republican debates, speeches or primaries are carried out for those running for POTUS. None of the candidates are the incumbent.

What's sad is I and others who are not Republicans follow the GOP/TP primaries more than conservatives do (thus the term "low-information voters"). Actually, what concerns me is preservation of at least two parties. The Tea Party is NOT a viable version of the Republican Party, and how this minority, which has always been a fringe group in the Party, has been allowed to dictate not only the Republican platform but policies overall is disconcerting. It is the most egregious perversion of our constitutional democracy witnessed in modern time.

I say it all the time, William F. Buckley, I miss this guy. If ONLY the Republicans had a candidate like Bush Sr. or Reagan--both would be booed off the stage in debates now for being too liberal. I voted for Clinton, but now I would be delighted to see Bush Sr. running. When we say Teapublicans are crazies, we mean crazies. The only person remotely close to traditional Republicanism is Jon Huntsman, and even he is to the right of that.

I hope someone like Bachmann runs as a third-party candidate. The establishment Republicans, what's left of them, need a wake-up call. Republicans like the Bush/Rove camp, individuals like Sen. Alexander, or even Chris Christie realize this. Even Gingrich, who was spot on in what he said about right-wing social engineering.

But the right-wing riff raffpost all the time how President Obama is dumb, incompetent, etc., and now how he is surrounded by dumb, incompetent people, which they have absolutely no basis for (and can't cite on piece of evidence for)--the president brought together a phenomenal team from Hillary Clinton to individuals like Elizabeth Warren (who's nomination was blocked, but of course). Hypocrisy thy name is Teapublicans.

You were about to remind us that corporations are people too, they have feelings, they need love like everyone else... Or maybe how Romney knows hardship from living in his son's unfinished basement? Perhaps about how he is unemployed so knows how that feels? How wealthy corporate raiders are "ordinary Americans?" No?

Talk about the rich getting richer - The Koch bros are now worth a cool 50 bill. Up from 7.5 bill seven years ago.

Bet we won't hear those guys complaining about anything.

Tax cuts and less regulations are the same plan that put our country on the path to destruction,

Yet, Bush's revenue for 2007 was 18.5% of GDP - higher than the average revenue since WW II.

Bush created 8 million jobs between the 2003 tax cuts and the crash. You do understand that the crash was a credit problem - not a revenue problem - right, you're not just playing stupid?

So, just how does above average revenue lead on the path of economic destruction?

Wanna explain that?

While you are at it, how about explaining how increasing taxes and regulations creates jobs. (Careful - this isn't Yahoo)

Republicans don't care that the people suffer and the rich get richer.

I don't know about the rich, but Obama certainly doesn't care about people suffering ..... 9%+ unemployment year after year, $4 gas, etc. ...... spending millions per every green job ..... proposing bridges that everyone knows won't be built for years .... his war on business, the job creators .... killing energy jobs ..... preventing companies from opening plants in right to work states .....

You guys really rag on the rich, even loathe the rich.

America is the richest country ..... hate it too?

Obama seems to ...... isn't he doing exactly to America what you want done to the rich?

(BTW - You do understand that the people of this country made it the richest country - not the government, right?)

Seeing as how 48% of the Congress are millionaires, they are fair representations of 'the people of this country'.

And, I have to agree - Above average revenue does lead to economic destruction.

BTW, you might want to vett The Heritage Foundation before you go throwing their W tax revenue bs out here.

Yes, Richard -- That's why congress thinks millionaires are "ordinary Americans."

Bob I read a report that was claiming an extra 23.3 billion dollars in revenue for the 10 years of tax cuts. Only problem we lost 2.7 Trillion dollars in revenue due to tax cuts in 10 years.

Only in republican land is spending 2.7 trillion to add 23.3 billion in revenues is good.

Here is an interesting thought, If obama said he wanted to eliminate his tax cuts on the lower 98%ers, do you think that the republicans would still insist on not wanting to increase taxes.

After all, increasing taxes on the top 2% only increases revenues by $800 billion over ten years..

However, increasing the taxes on the lower 98% will increase revenue by about $2.5 trillion over ten years.

Such a fun fact to know. Btw thanks to Ira lapin for sharing this info and my verifying it by searching what the bush tax cuts cost.

In the 80's I was dissapointed in reagan for going along increasing taxes after cutting them in his first term. I wonder how many FR libs will look at obama (if re-elected) when he doesn't extend any of his tax cuts in 2013.

Liberals equate tax cuts as something bad for Americans. On the same token, they never look at the spending side as bad. It's OK for the government to be wasteful, or giving away too much money in the form of entitlements, or giveaways. Blame the republicans for lowering tax rates as if that is something the liberals don't also benefit from.

In liberal land, making statements like we've spent $2.7 trillion to add 23.3 billion in revenues is good... are not only off the mark, but illogical logic. They forget who is in charge of this country. Obama continues the policy they are so against.... their own chosen president is doing the same thing yet they still revert it back to the republicans that control only 1/3 of the government. Talk about insanity. Liberals can't come up with anything better than that to gripe about?

Increasing revenue in stages according to economic recovery is best. Some tax increases are less hurtful than others, for example increasing the tax base by closing loopholes on capital gains, write-offs for corporate jets, and ending subsidies to profitable corporations. We could and should do this right away.

Some tax cuts are better for economic stimulus than other cuts, for example payroll taxes and breaks on capital investment. Remove sales tax on basic needs and crack down on fees being added to utility bills and rent too. These additional expenses are cutting into disposable income that could be used to create demand in a more stimulative way.

Some spending cuts are less hurtful too, for example ending the wars. We have made progress, but too slowly. We should not be nation building abroad or giving money to corrupt governments overseas. If Teapublicans want an off-set for disaster relief here at home, that's where they should cut.

We must continue to invest in education, infrastructure, renewable energy, research, and all the things necessary to compete in a global economy. If China is doing it, then how is it that we're too broke to do it?

We should start with these things. Getting the Teapublicans in congress on board with anything reasonable is the real challenge.

True patriot, what obama and many libs/progressives ignore is that long term spending programs don't give the results desired and are etremely bad when revenue is down. Spending has to be brought more in line with revenues. Spending cuts, do not imply permanent cuts, but until our debt load is reduced to something more manageable they might as well be. No problem with broadening our tax base with reform either. The biggest caveat here lies in the definitions between tax cuts, increases and closing loopholes/deductions. Politicians (LorR) do it, the media does it and blog posters do it, they intermix the words and muddy the waters.

Payroll tax cuts? Maybe, but remember how all those tax rebate checks worked during the bush administartion? The SS payroll tax cuts? The first round has the federal government making additional payments into the ss trust fund to prevent SS shortfalls, I don't know about his new proposed cuts.

Sales tax cuts? Not likely, as local and state governments have been squeezed, need them to support public services. Not a big fan of potholes in my town.

Nice inputs on your part tonight. But getting the lis and progressives on board will be even harder. lol!

I didn't mention long term spending programs, or anything about SS payroll tax cuts. As for sales tax, I mention only basic necessities, you know food, shelter. I do agree with you that SS payroll tax cuts are not a good idea. If anything, we should be raising the cap, currently at $106,000 up to at least $150,000, preferrably to $250,000, and everyone should start contributing more.

Fareed Zakaria's program on CNN about restoring the American Dream, for example, talks about Kay Bailey Hutchison (Republican and former bank executive) wanting seed money for a bank that could provide loans for construction. In addition, the president has worked with business to set-up an organization to promote tourism to the US, which has plummeted since 9-11 due to strict visa and security that followed, but also because unlike other countries, the US has done nothing to promote tourism. The president has also worked with manufacturing, because it is being learned that innovation goes where manufacturing goes, and that the work force in America is actually better.

But none of this is getting support from the Teapublicans--not even Kay Bailey Hutchison's idea. For two reasons: 1) The Tea Party is obsessed with "starve the beast" and shrinking government to the point of blindness, and; 2) The Republican Party in general is so determined not to give President Obama one iota of support they not only block such measures, they actually undermine and sabotage any and all solutions.

Sales tax for basic needs are already lower than taxes on luxury items, but this needs to be even more the case. The fees that utility companies and landlords are adding to make up for less customers or raising the rent are questionable in relation to profit margins and bait and switch consumer protection. It's getting ugly out there, and I marvel at Teabaggers who think we need to get rid of regulations.

In any event, getting to work on job creation is what we need, and Teapublicans are the reason we have a Do Nothing Congress.

I don't think tax cuts for Chevy Volts are bad.

Bravo June, Fl. President Obama is the best example of the belief that anyone can become POTUS that we've had in a long time. He IS the self-made American. It is those born into wealth and privilege who tend to be removed from the world, who only care about prosperity for themselves. Oh, and it is small business that creates jobs, not the rich. Mitch Daniels and your supporters, who live in your echo chamber and cone of silence, if only you would inhabit a different planet.

Yeah? Show me Obama's school records. I want to see how smart this guy is. I want to see his grades and GPA. Show me where he attended Columbia University. Where are Obama's grades?

Why, he's hidden them. He's taken them from public view. If this guy was so smart, he'd be hanging them on the wall for all to see... but yet... they have disappeared. Why would that be liberals? Be intellictually honest for once... why would Obama hide his school records if they were so good?

I always love how those who know nothing about Ivy think they do. Who says President Obama's school records were good? Harvard Law for one: Obama Left Mark on HLS; The Harvard Crimson, Jan 19, 2007. www.the crimson.com/article2007/1/. I doubt this link will post, since I am now considered a newbie, but you can Google the article without it.

Now, if you have doubts about how good undergrad grades must be to get into HLS, why don't you apply yourself? And then we can all laugh hysterically.

cool, if one is a liberal, progressive or democrat every one gets a pass. If your lean right, not so much.

I would rather work with someone who has common sense and knows how to work with people of various backgrounds. A lot of successful and prominent politicians and business leaders have less than stellar GPA's or university degrees, but they all know how to work with people of various backgrounds and inspire others to strive towards greatness.

Perhaps the only really great presidents have been washington and lincoln. Everyone else, including obama have been just mediocre. The republican hopefuls? Really won't know until one of them becomes potus.

Brianb: "Be intellictually honest for once... why would Obama hide his school records if they were so good?"

Obama hides his college papers because he is a left wing radical ( Saul Alinsky style/ check it out) who would rather destroy the country than build it up !

In business, you get REVENUE by selling a product or service the public wants and is willing to pay for.

Not sure American voters are willing to pay for what the Obama Administration is peddling.

Fortunately, we'll know for sure in a little more than a year.

robert - one thing about CEO's and upper level management, they are not afraid of making tough decisions and they know that their job security and pay will be based on their performance. They also know the value of getting others on board with what they propose or modify plans based on others input.

Obama wanted the job and said he could handle it. It is not anyones fault but his own in not being able to rise to the challenge he accepted. Excuses don't count, but results do, even when taking on $10.7 trillion in debt

Wow, what a skewed perspective. Arguing against a high bar for the leader of the friggin' free world and ignoring all the many olive branches and concessions President Obama has made to work with Republicans. There is nothing the president, and probably any Democrat can do to get Teapublican cooperation. But somehow this is due to the president failing to rise to the challenge, and not the Grand Obstructionist Party that has broken every record in history from filibusters on. But hey, we don't need no stinking facts, opinion editorials from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and all the college drop-outs, along with a few right-wingers here at FR is the truth.

TP - more excuses I see, and I thought robert was your friend!

Not to mention that Glenn Hubbard is/was a professor at Columbia and Greg Mankiw is a professor at Harvard; Vin Weber is a long-time Minnesota politician and GOP operative and Jim Talent is a Missouri legislator turned lobbyist.

Romney: "Well, [Obama] chose politicians and academics. No business people. Can you imagine such a thing?" Not only can we, we see it on the economic team presented to us.

Flotsam and jetsam can be found at the GWB sewage waste recycling center in SF.

Hold your nose, and check your wallet.

Riiight. Where are those jobs, jobs, jobs Teapublicans promised before the 2010 election? Well there is the one bill by Louie Gormert consisting of only one page with an outline for a corporate tax rate of zero--the same thing Bachmann supports -- you know, along with claims of $2 gas and building a fence on the border with no tax revenue. Puleeeze. Put the clowns back in their car and drive them far, far away.

TruePatriot, get out from under the rock and keep up with whats going on. The Republican House passes bills and they sit in the Senate because Harry Reid won't bring them up for a vote!! He's afraid they may get passed ( and with Democrat Senator Votes too!).