Wasn't Toomey the name of the goat/man in the first Narnia - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?

“We have a spending problem,”

Sure, and that includes the tax or lack thereof on the super rich, loopholes big enough for Corporations to slide through, stop parcing the truth Toomey!

Spending money on the non-job creating corporations, yeah......

Spending money on the poor, un-employed, old, never..........

Feisty, I couldn't agree more with you 'I'm loving it'!...Veto Pen will be operational........

Feisty, Yes,

President Bush had a spending problem with his unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy - the first time a President ever did that in war time, his sweet pharma deal, and two unpaid for wars - also never been done before.

GOPTP/Koch is crying about the deficit now, but MAN, how they like to *spend, spend, spend*.

Silly question here. What ever happened to the jobs the GOP were supposedly to work on for the American people. Seems their so-called mandate was jobs not deficit reduction (which needs to be done, but wouldn't more employed folks help add to the revenue to reduce the debt)?

Your talking points make no sense.

If you moonbats want to close loopholes, support a flat tax.

"Loopholes big enough for corporations to slide through"

Like GE, Obama's pet corporation, who filed a 46,000 page tax return and paid no tax on 14 billion in profits?

Per Joe Biden, Obama's economic policy was drafted by billionaire plutocrat, Wall Street crook, Jon Corzine.

Taste Test Allert (Teabaggers)

Which taste better? AB or C

A. Ben & Jerrys Shweddy Balls

B. Grover Norguest Shweddy Balls

C. David Koch Shweddy Balls

phinephancy,

GOP/Koch voting against 2 million jobs and the American Jobs Act three times,

exposes their disinterest in deficit reduction.

Their goal is to bring down the economy and dismantle government, so they can step and privatize the lot of us - under a feudal system we can barely imagine.

GOPTP/Koch is crying about the deficit now, but MAN, how they like to *spend, spend, spend*.

Like drunken sailors in a whore-house on leave! lol

What ever happened to the jobs the GOP were supposedly to work on for the American people.

Now you did it phine - you had to go and bring out the 'J' word! ;o)

We're supposed to be watching the shiny object- dontcha know?? lol

What ever happened to the jobs the GOP were supposedly to work on for the American people.

Yeah, you don't understand Republican syntax. For Republicans the phrase "Tax cuts for the super wealthy" is shortened to "jobs."

AB or C

That's simple - the tea baggers would chose all of the above as long as there are nuts on it...

Plenty of nuts... ;o)

What are you smoking Fiesty--just because two thirds of america want their neighbors taxes to go up instead of theirs doesnt mean they dont want a balanced budget and dont realize we have a spending issue. Or Backhouse, the GOP mantra is spend spend spend? Are you guys that looney? Bush was a horrible president because of his spending but why dont you compare Bush's spending to Obama and get back to us. Why dont you see how Obama has led from behind putting the standard of living for our kids and grandkids 5 trillion more behind. You can raise taxes on the wealthy and you still dont solve anything. You raise taxes on corporations and all you do is raise taxes on the middle class, unions and the poor disproportionately to everyone else. Provide some evidence of any spending cuts to the poor? The government spends 900 billion on government welfare programs across 80 different programs in the last budget an 80% increase since he took office. He refuses to touch entitlements for seniors the wealthiest segment in the aggregate in our society. They control 80% of the wealth and the CBO analsyis of income inequality showed that one of the biggest drivers of this is because government assistance used to go 97% to the lowest quintile and now its less than 50% because social security and medicare are being paid to seniors who make in the upper quintiles even as retired folks and will get worse as the baby boom ages.

This is the record Obama wants to run on? He wants to walk around the country and say I led from behind and the GOP refused to create a nanny state like Europe which is what I wanted so please reelect me because I like leading from behind?

We do have a spending problem, and it is the money that grover norquist spends on dolts like pat toomey. We need the 1% to stop influencing politics with their tight fisted, squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, sinning, immoral bribes!

Backhouse, we have a problem. I am too old to curtsey to the GOP. Guess it's time for our overlords to go.

President Bush had a spending problem with his unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy - the first time a President ever did that in war time, his sweet pharma deal, and two unpaid for wars- also never been done before.

These the same tax cuts that the current President extended with the help of a lame-duck Democratic congress? This the President that gave pHarma a sweet deal as part of ACA?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/19/pharmaceuticals-obamacare-reform-business-healthcare-washington.html

This the same president that escalated the war in Afghanistan and expanded the use of drone attacks throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa? This the same President that passed an unfunded 800B stimulus program?

Just checking if we're talking about Bush or Obama because without the D or R they look pretty much the same.

Closing loopholes doesn't require a flat tax Bob. It only requires legislation to remove them. But of course the right loves corporate welfare so don't hold your breath.

Wow -- the looney left still haven't figured it out

the problem is too much spending not too little taxing

it's only 10 words....

But of course the right loves corporate welfare so don't hold your breath.

Get rid of the corporation tax and tax dividends and capital gains at the same rate as income.

This will remove tax-breaks for corporations and lobbyists influence, corporate welfare, provided we don't actually hand taxpayer money to corporations, remove the hedge-fund loop hole, and encourage corporations to invest more as retained earnings will be tax e

Did Mika Brezeznski get suspended yet for her totally unprofessional tirade on the air the other morning regarding Newt Gingrich's comment on the hygiene of Occupiers?

DON'T BATHE ME, BRO.....DON'T BATHE ME, BRO....

Rob - numskull on the right, if we've got spending problem, why don't GOP fight to end bush tax cuts and other tax loopholes because those two are costing us money in term of revenue. any sense in that? The veto pen is out waiting for your nonsenses to come up.

@PEN

The gop resists because the 1% loves their money more than their country, and the rest that vote republican are 1% wannabees, but they won't let them into their club, and laugh at them for suckers! Let the Bush tax breaks expire Mr. President, all of them!

past performance is the best indicator of future performance.

When deals of spending cuts coupled with tax increases have been made in the past, the taxes stick and the cuts never materialize or they disappear a year later.

Negotiate the cuts first (entitlement reform) and after the election look at tax reform.

Rob, you are a 1% wannabee. I am not sure why all of your support goes to the Koch brothers and their ilk, but what you espouse is against your own economic self interest. The billionaires thank you for your ill advised views.

Negotiate the cuts first (entitlement reform) and after the election look at tax reform.

What kind of crap is that? How about we increase revenues NOW, and leave spending cuts til after the election?

We have a revenue problem and a spending problem, and a balanced approach is the ONLY way to move forward for the good of the country.

Alan -- I'm still wrestling with your idea. There is a smidgen of truth there possibly. But because they use a great deal of resources provided by government they should have to pay something. Giving them a flat rate without the ability to socialize losses might work towards that goal.

@Alan - The Bush Cuts had to be renewed to pass the Zadroga bill...you know the ones that gave health benefits to the first responders on 9/11? The bill the Republicans wouldn't pass until those taxes were renewed? That's why. As for escalating the war in Afganistan...you know...the place where Bin Laden originally fled to? The place we had troops go into many years before? The place most people thought we should of gone into in the first place? As for the drone attacks...you know...the drone attacks that only costed ~2 billion dollars as opposed to the trillions spent in Iraq and Afganistan? The drone attacks that cost no lives and eliminated key terrorist figures? Yeah...those military actions. Quit having selective memory...

@Rob: Most people agree that we have a revenue problem AND a spending problem. Most people see us spending money to preserve the Bush tax cuts. Most people want it gone. Secondly, Mika has nothing to do with the economy...Thirdly, I'm really tired of the "tax increases stayed, but the cuts never happened" arguement. Seriously...taxes for corporations have dropped from the Clinton years (aka Bush tax cuts). If tax increases stayed, there would never have been a Bush tax cut. Meanwhile NASA, the Department of Education, and several other places have had reduced funding.

So please...keep saying that taxes only keep increasing and spending cuts never happened.

(Feisty) The GNOP was out flanked at every turn by President Obama & I AM LOVING IT

* * *

Feisty, it is strange when I agree with you, but on this one, I do agree. Obama put $4T worth of cuts on the table and the Republicans balked. Now, we are going to cut $1.2T one way or the other. Lipton Anyone ! ! ! Lemon ! ! ! Prefer "hot tea" or "iced tea" ! ! ! Now we can only hope that Obama has the balls not to cave and forces these REAL CUTS.

Most people see us spending money to preserve the Bush tax cuts. Most people want it gone.

Wrong Goose --- Most people do not want THEIR present tax rate gone. People may want other peoples (1%) taxes raised but not their own. If the Bush tax (now forever known as the obama tax cut) cuts go away everybodies taxes will go up. In fact a good chunk of those 47% of americans that don't pay taxes will have to pay taxes.

Even Obama doesn't have the sack to say he's for eliminating the bush tax cuts.

@Rob - It depends on how you ask the question. 60% of people want them to go away on the wealthy, another 20% want all of them to go away for everyone. However, if the question was "Do you want the Bush tax cuts to be extended?" then only 26% of people are in favor of that. So, most of the people want the Bush cuts gone (in retrospect I should of said expired...but hindsight is 20/20).

@Goose289

Plaudits to Kirsten Gillabrand for steering the 1st responders bill through the Senate. She is the only senator worth voting for in the tri-state area.

So let me get this straight. The Democrats, who had a majority in both houses of congress, and the White House, could not muster enough support for this bill to pass on it's own merits? All I can say to that is if this is the case then the President sucks as a politician. This is the same President who garnered all the praise above as he outflanked the Republicans on the super committee. You're telling me that he gave up on one of his main campaign promises because he couldn't push through a bill that helped the first responders at the Trade Center. Maybe if he had passed it in January 2009 when it was first proposed he wouldn't have had to give up so much in December 2010.

Or maybe he wanted the tax cuts to stimulate the economy to help his re-election bid?

Which do you think is more likely? He's couldn't push the bill through or he's just an opportunistic politician?

Now we can only hope that Obama has the balls not to cave and forces these REAL CUTS.

On this Greg - we can agree! ;o)

Why the right wing didn't take the deal offered over the summer still leaves me dumbfounded!

@Alan - A majority does not necessarily mean that everything will pass. They still need 60 votes to get things through the Senate. If the Democrats had 59 seats they still need 1 vote from the Republicans to pass something. If none of the Republicans vote in favor, stuff doesn't get passed. Plus I think the main driver of the bill was Anthony Weiner...not sure though.

Which campaign promise? (I honestly don't know which one you are referring to in this instance, and yes he has broken quite a few). Regardless of that, the people in Congress are all adults. They can all think for themselves. They decided to postpone it, and the president pushed for the health care reform bill (not wanting to open up to that discussion, just mentioning). His focus was in other areas, and besides...its not his job to pass laws, thats for congress to do.

Besides, the main reason that the Republicans opposed the bill, was because they didn't want it to cover people who responded and were not legally in the country at the time. Regardless of you sentiments on that part of it, they decided to deny 95% of the people who desperately needed treatment and payment assistance, because maybe 5% of them were in the country illegally. Zadroga died and at the time could not pay for any more medication, and more people were dying until those tax cuts were extended.

Also, if you remember, this was the time that the president wanted everything to be bi-partisan when passed...and that slowed a lot of things down.

Critics said Toomey’s plan wouldn’t put much of a dent in the nearly $15 trillion national debt.

“I don’t think we should be damaging our economy with some job-crushing tax increases,” Toomey said.

So apparently cuts in spending as proposed by Toomey can't reduce the debt alone -- Not even remotely. Yet he continues to parrot the squawking point that we have a spending problem only. Good heaven's Toomey, give it up!

And as if that's not bad enough, Toomey adds insult to injury with the second bumper sticker lie that tax increases would hurt job creation. Demand creates jobs, and demand comes from the middle class, not the richest 1%.

These are such fundamental, economics 101 concepts that most people know and understand. Yet these so-called leaders show such a low level of intelligence, or they know it's a lie and say it anyway -- Both are unacceptable.

republicans like to keep things simple, and they give the public simple answers to complicated problems. They get a simple hook, like "Obama says Americans are lazy," usually out of context if not totally fabricated, an beat it into the heads of Americans who don't pay attention to anything at all or just pay attention to fox. It's a simple system that often wins elections, but it is beating the heck out of this country and the economy because in the long run, if they keep their wealthy benefactors happy, they could care less about average Americans. It is time for Americans to think this thing through. I was talking to one of my janetorial staff members, and he told me that he is now paying attention. That sort of thing is bad news for republicans, who want to spoon feed what they want their party members to think and how to vote.

Lemmings.

The GOP has resisted every opportunity to compromise with the Democrats. I heard Boehner in an interview on the radio and couldn't even bring himself to use the word. The American people aren't as easy to fool as the right wing lunatic fringe and they are not going to tolerate such behavior when the future of the United States is riding on a reasonable solution to this problem. The GOP is self destructing and this will just add gasoline to an already hot fire.

Read 'em and weep.

If they knew where to cut, and they were really devoted to getting those cuts, why couldn't they offer a balanced approach, of both revenue increases and cuts to get the damn job done? The only way to save America is to vote out the Tea Party. AND the conservative GOP. What do u have left? A whole lot of Democrats and some level-headed Republicans.

"Per their analysis the optimal tax rate on the super rich is around 70%"

Economic ignoramuses....makes sense only to a genuis like Paul Krugman, who was a consultant to Enron.

Class warfare socialist haters who want to steal, is all that figure reflects. Bottom line, it doesnt work!

A 70% income tax rate means...tax attorneys will get work sheltering the income...or the income wont be made in the first place...

When income tax was confiscatory in the past, the income was sheltered, or the rich stopped working .

No sane person will work just to pay 70% to the government.

nisl, have your heard of Dr. Jeffrey Sachs? His thoughts are if get the cost of health care down, really down, we can start to get a handle on the debt. The biggest cost now in the future to the deficit is the cost of health care. Very interesting guy - he really knows his stuff. Both parties should listen to him.

Bob - Not to put too fine a point on it, but Krugman is 100 times more intelligent than you could ever hope to be.

I'd encourage everyone to go read Krugman's analysis. Just Google "Krugman Taxing Job Creators."

OK, I hear loud screams from the right side of the room. Parsing those screams, I hear the following arguments:

1. Theft! Tyranny! OK, I hear you. This can’t be argued on rational grounds; I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money, but whatever.

2. They’ll go Galt! This amounts to saying that D&S’s estimate of the “behavioral elasticity” is too low. Maybe, but they’re pretty careful about that, and your gut isn’t better than their econometrics.

3. You’ll kill job creation! This is where it gets interesting.

Right now the official rhetoric of the right, and a fair number of people who consider themselves centrist, is that high-income individuals are “job creators” who must be cherished for the good they do.

Yet textbook economics says that in a competitive economy, the contribution any individual (or for that matter any factor of production) makes to the economy at the margin is what that individual earns — period. What a worker contributes to GDP with an additional hour of work is that worker’s hourly wage, whether that hourly wage is $6 or $60,000 an hour. This in turn means that the effect on everyone else’s income if a worker chooses to work one hour less is precisely zero. If a hedge fund manager gets $60,000 an hour, and he works one hour less, he reduces GDP by $60,000 — but he also reduces his pay by $60,000, so the net effect on other peoples’ incomes is zip.

Of course, he doesn’t actually lose all of that $60,000, since he ends up paying less in taxes. So there is a loss of revenue from that withdrawal of effort. But that’s precisely what the Diamond-Saez calculation takes into account, and the reason the optimal top tax rate isn’t 100%.

So, are conservatives comfortable with this analysis? I would guess not, that they have a deep-seated belief that the 1%, by working harder, are doing the 99% a big favor, creating jobs and raising incomes — and that this gain isn’t fully (or even largely) captured by the money they’re paid.

My point, then, is that this claim — and the lionization of high earners as people who make a vast contribution to society — is not, in fact, something that comes out of the free-market economic principles these people claim to believe in. Even if you believe that the top 1% or better yet the top 0.1% are actually earning the money they make, what they contribute is what they get, and they deserve no special solicitude.

Thirty percent of $1.0 billion, an income level achieved by a few hedge fund mangers, is $300 million. I am confident that there are a number of sane people who would work hard to achieve $300 million in income, even if $700 million went to the government.

Jeffrey Sachs is a bigger joke than Krugman.

You people are rich......and I'm not talking monetarily.

It will help, although spending cuts are necessary as well. That is the point. If Republicans don't "get it," they'll be thrown out of office in 2012...just as many Democrats were thrown out in 2010, when they failed to note the polls running against Obamacare.

Once again Bob, we have a REVENUE problem as well as a spending problem. Need to raise revenues (not this low since the 1950's) AND cut spending (and economists say most of the spending cuts should not happen until we are out of this recession). Government spending cuts during an economy like this will lead back into a recession/depression.

Bob I suggest you read about Greece and how they got to the bad place they are now. They did it with the austerity plan that the republicans want to stick us with. It is a downward spiral that just makes itself worse and worse. Cutting jobs and services create less demand and more people lose their jobs, even less money coming in in taxes and the debt continues to grow which leads to more cutting and the cycle repeats itself until the destruction of the country. Is that what you really want for America?

The only dumber thing the republicans have done is give tax cuts during war time and grew a huge debt and want to blame the debt on the people and not the republicans that voted for the tax cuts. Now the republicans want austerity with no tax increases to finish our county off. Norquist must be proud.

(Bob) We have a spending problem

* * *

Bob, we have 3 problems: spending, priorities, and fairness.

1. Point well taken, we spend too much -- BY FAR.

2. Priorities, not all "spending" is created equal. Some of it is vital, some of it is a collosal waste. People know this. Congress has not "fixed" this.

3. Fairness, if a man making $40K pays a significant amount of tax and one making $400M pays nothing, then we have a "fairness" problem. HOW we tax is a matter of policy. The notion that EVERYONE MUST PAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION, LOOPHOLE, TAX SHELTER; no, that one is a fairness issue and it is breeding social unrest. Not everyone is treated equally and the natives are getting restless.

Bob,

Don't you read any of the answers to your post's. Everyone agrees spending must be cut back along with new revenue in the form of taxation. So this constant thing of yours about just cut spending oblivious is not what the majority think will help our deficit problem. That is why the "super committee" ended up doing nothing. Cut, cut cut! It's not the only answer.

As far as your claim that Obama is causing class warfare, my question to you would be "which party doesn't want to increase but lower the highest tax brackets and at the same time take away all the safety nets the average American has paid into over a lifetime." Sorry, but it is Tea party/Republicans. And believe me, I'm not a "lefty" but a moderate Independent and even I can see this.

Whoa, hold on there Bob. If we only have a spending problem, why is revenue collection less than the historical 18% of GDP? I admit, we gotta cut spending. And we gotta cut it by a lot. BUT, we also have raise revenues to also make an effective cut on the debt without harming our economy. I mean, if a wealthy person making over $300,000 gets a 40% tax rate, how is that gonna hurt jobs? I though demand stimulated jobs, not the wealthy only. I say we raise taxes on the highest income bracket to 42% and raise $1 trillion. Then we could eliminate a lot of the Bush tax cuts except $1 trillion for the middle and lower class, saving a total of $2.7-3.0 trillion over ten years. Then we could focus on cuts, like $600 billion period on defense, $1 trillion in SAVINGS from entitlements, and about $2 trillion from the rest of the budget,and extend all of this over 12 years. Why can't we make an even, balanced deal? Every economist says that cutting spending or raising taxes in a bad economy is bad, but if you have to its best to do both to cut debt more effectively. Stop watching Fox, Bob, and get a life.

But it would be worthless in about 6 years when entitlement costs and defense spending balloons. We gotta do all three: gut discretionary spending, reform entitlements to keep costs under control while cutting unnecessary defense spending, and go back to pre-Bush tax rates. Problem solved, debt & deficit reduced, and we can focus on the economy. Just wish the GOP would get out of their fantasy world and come back to reality...

Leona***The Dems have indeed tried, Did Obama put 4 trillion in cuts & revenue on the table? Why yes he did! THE house Speaker walked away! Before that his mini me Cantor walked out... Who told them too? That is what I would like to know...

They (Dems) in the SC were willing to cut! BUT The repubs are hamstrung by their Grover Pledge they sold their souls for! And evidently ours as well!

Come on out of your fantasy land of Oz & take a look around Ok?

Leona who sold out to Grover- your republican friends! If you like corrupt politicians the republicans are for your- the rest of us want to see a better country

Well you do not need to worry because the President has promised the American people that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars so in 2012 federal spending will have to be reduced by more than 1 trillion dollars in that year alone. The President always keeps his promises.

A budget? The Dems don't believe in a budget.

They have not had one in over 900 days.

Hey Harry !!! Do your JOB !!!