LOL!!!

Actually, if you had examined the issue in depth, and not blindly repeated what cable news or talk radio fed you, you would know the issue is BOTH.

Had you examined the issue, you would have seen that spending has increased the same percentage as revenue has decreased. (In fact, spending increased 1% LESS then revenue decreased.)

Study up.

@Republicants,

And your point is? When is it acceptible to spend more when income is down? And while you are already borrowing an inordinate amount of your spending as it is without any reduction?

So I assume all you Dems that are charging up your credit cards to get by simply increase your spending when your income goes down?

Until spending is inline with income, there is no reason to increase taxes. Either fix the underlying issue or default now. I think a revenue increase would be an easier sell if it would balance the budget to do so. But the tax increases being requested would not and would even come close to addressing the current rate of spending.

I love liberal arguments that spending only increased the same percentage as revenue decrease. And the fact that that is acceptible to your side is an indication of the root of the problem. There is no desire for fiscal responsibilty.

ABO 2012

dsdshem.

And your point is?

My point is, despite your claims that "anyone who examines the issue in depth knows the issue is spending, not taxing", the reality is, the issue is both spending and taxing.

And, had you actually examined the issue, you would know that.

So I assume all you Dems that are charging up your credit cards to get by simply increase your spending when your income goes down?

You asssume because you need to deflect, largely because you don't really have an argument that makes any sense.

But the tax increases being requested would not and would even come close to addressing the current rate of spending.

Which is why we need to increase revenue AND cut spending.

I love liberal arguments that spending only increased the same percentage as revenue decrease.

Huh? Liberal arguments?

Cold....hard....facts.

Spending DID increase the same percentage as revenue decreased. It just did. Do some research.

And the fact that that is acceptible to your side is an indication of the root of the problem. There is no desire for fiscal responsibilty.

Now that is ironic.

You accuse me and the Democrats as having no desire for fiscal responsibility, yet it is you and the ideology you parrot who is ignoring one side of the issue.

It is also the GOP who increased spending at the same time they cut the revenue.

Now, you and the ideology you follow, are attempting to make the argument that only spending is the problem, despite the reality staring you in the face.

LOL!!! Wow.

The Republican party tells us every day that the middle class is not worth saving. They tell us every day that only the wealthy need the help of the government. They tell us every day that even though this crisis was a result of unbridled greed on the part of the wealthy, the middle class needs to pay up. I think the wealthy need to clean up their own mess. Without a strong middle class, many of the wealthy will sink too, because we won't be able to afford the stuff they are selling.

@Republicants,

You asssume because you need to deflect

That is not a deflection, it is a one to one comparison. You make the argument that spending increased the same percentage as the revenue decereased. It is a similar analogy to spending more when your income drops. No family or business does this without collapse, but it is acceptable for the government to do so?

Which is why we need to increase revenue AND cut spending.

We are borrowing 45 cents on every dollar spent. We continue to increase spending. And all the tax increases suggested would not reduce this rate of borrowing. Raising revenue right now would not fix the issue. andy maybe if we get closer to a balance of income to spending, tax increases would not be such an issue. I suspect if a tax increase could be presented to balance the budget, it would be a much easier sell. But the increased revenue being sought would make no step toward reducing debt or addressing the current rate of overspending versus revenue. It would keep it flat, not slow the progression of debt. So it makes no sense to propose tax increases in the face of the current rate of spending to revenue ratio.

Huh? Liberal arguments?

I do not dispute the statistics. I point to the issue that Liberals make the argument that increasing spending in the face of decreasing revenues is acceptable. You tout it like it is a shining area of fiscal responsibility that spending only increased the same percentage that revenue decreased. I say if revenue decreases, spending need to decrease the same amount. Your party line of thinking is what has us looking to increase debt ceilings and has our debt at 100% of GDP. And the rate of debt increase and no plan in place to address the out of control spending is what has our national credit rating being in a downgrade pattern.

You accuse me and the Democrats as having no desire for fiscal responsibility, yet it is you and the ideology you parrot who is ignoring one side of the issue.

It is you and your party who continues to increase the spending. And as always, the plan is increase taxes now for promised cuts 10 years down the road. We have been playing this game too long now. Time to dig in and cut spending now. And when we have cut as much as possible, lets regroup and see what has to be done to balance things up. But to propose tax increases when they will have no impact on balancing, rrducing the rate if increased debt or reducing any current debt burden is fools play. Massive cuts to the current structure is what is required as a first step.

I dont not pretnd that spending is the only solution, but it is what caused the problem and continues to cause it. I am not opposed to an even handed across the board tax increase to reduce this level of debt we have built up, as I do nto pretend we can address it any other way as it has already grown too large to address via conventional growth. But it most certainly is spending that has landed us here. So until a plan is in place to controll and reduce this spending that brought us to this point I am unwilling to offer up tax increases to cover this out of control spending. I support the GOP position on this. We cannot tax enough to make the current spending sustainable, let alone reduce the debt. Massive cuts are needed first, then address what additional revenue will be required to make up the difference. And this was my original point. Anyone who looks at the big picture knows that HUGE cuts in government spending are the only thing that will get this fiscal house even close to in order. While a revenue increase may be needed to heal the aftermath, the first part of the solution is to cut up the credit cards. Spend what you bring in, not a penny more. Then start bringing in more in an effort to reduce the amount we owe. If you are not willing to get to the point where you do not outspend income, then bringing in more revenue is not a solution.

ABO 2012

B.S.!

Stupid,

BS? That is your best rebuttal? You may not agree, but at least I put thought into my post.

In regard to your name, you couldnt possibly be.....

ABO 2012

dsdshern.

That is not a deflection, it is a one to one comparison. You make the argument that spending increased the same percentage as the revenue decereased. It is a similar analogy to spending more when your income drops. No family or business does this without collapse, but it is acceptable for the government to do so?

Spending did increase the same percentage as revenue decreased. It did so because of the policies from the GOP, and the recession.

Do you disagree that spending increased the same percentage as revenue decreased?

It is not acceptable, btw.

We are borrowing 45 cents on every dollar spent. We continue to increase spending. And all the tax increases suggested would not reduce this rate of borrowing.

Which is, once again, why we need to BOTH cut spending and increase revenue.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

I do not dispute the statistics. I point to the issue that Liberals make the argument that increasing spending in the face of decreasing revenues is acceptable. You tout it like it is a shining area of fiscal responsibility that spending only increased the same percentage that revenue decreased.

You are ignoring what I said, and projecting what you want to believe onto me, and the Democratic party.

And I point you to the FACT that the GOP increased spending AND decreased revenue, leaving us less able to deal with the recession, which by nature, led to more increased spending (manditory) and decreased revenue.

You are using as your argument a projection that does no hold up, and thus, neither does your argument.

Your party line of thinking is what has us looking to increase debt ceilings and has our debt at 100% of GDP. And the rate of debt increase and no plan in place to address the out of control spending is what has our national credit rating being in a downgrade pattern.

Again, this is your projection, and nothing more. The reality is, your party line of thinking is what led to most of the debt, which wasn't helped by the recession.

In addition, what led to the downgrade of the national credit rating was the fact that the Tea Nuts presented the possibility that they would prevent the U.S. government from paying our debts.

S&P all but named them as the reason.

It is you and your party who continues to increase the spending.

Patently false.

It is you and your party that put us in a position where we had such massive debt, which was made worse by the recession, that we have to be careful with spending while dealing with a recession and recovery.

There have been NO real revenue increases under this adminsistration.

However, there have been plenty of cuts.

And this was my original point. Anyone who looks at the big picture knows that HUGE cuts in government spending are the only thing that will get this fiscal house even close to in order. While a revenue increase may be needed to heal the aftermath, the first part of the solution is to cut up the credit cards. Spend what you bring in, not a penny more.

This is the ideological solution you were told was needed. However, it is not what the plethora of independent and moderate and bi-partisan analysis of the problem suggests.

What has been suggested is a comprehensive, long term approach that both cuts spending and increases revenue, while taking into account we are still recovering from a recession.

the first part of the solution is to cut up the credit cards. Spend what you bring in, not a penny more.

That simply will not work. Sorry.

You would destroy what is a fragile recovery, and likely end up with a depression. You would then end up with MORE debt, not less, and would be even farther from dealing with our debt and deficits.

Seriously. Think it through.

Are Dems winning the message war?

No. They just aren't losing as badly as Republicans. I'd guess more and more independents see both parties as hopelessly childish and motivated by concerns other than the national good.

@Republicant,

Do you disagree that spending increased the same percentage as revenue decreased?

No, I do not disagree. I also find it unacceptible, but you used it originally as a supportive argument against the idea that spending was the problem, so when did you change your mind and also find it unacceptible?

Which is, once again, why we need to BOTH cut spending and increase revenue.Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

I dont find it hard to comprehend, and even conceeded revenue increases will eventually be needed. But the revenue increases being sought right now will not address the borrowing on every dollar of expenditure. Until such time as we are willing to cut the borrowing rate, we should not be willing to increase revenue as it just masks the problem which still exists.

You are ignoring what I said, and projecting what you want to believe onto me, and the Democratic party.

Your original post said: Had you examined the issue, you would have seen that spending has increased the same percentage as revenue has decreased. (In fact, spending increased 1% LESS then revenue decreased.)

This appears to me to be an attempt to justify the spending increase and not a projection onto you. If you did not make this point to try and rebut my argument that spending was the issue, why did you make the comment at all?

In addition, what led to the downgrade of the national credit rating was the fact that the Tea Nuts presented the possibility that they would prevent the U.S. government from paying our debts. S&P all but named them as the reason.

Did not the S&P also say that if Cut Cap and

In addition, what led to the downgrade of the national credit rating was the fact that the Tea Nuts presented the possibility that they would prevent the U.S. government from paying our debts. S&P all but named them as the reason

I agree the S&P named the bickering and no solution as the reason, but they also said that if the GOP House passed Cut Cap and Balance measure had passed, it would have satisfied them and the downgrade would have been avoided. It was tough medicine to take, but required. And it was prior to all the bickering. If your party had complied with the requirements of the S&P and passed the already GOP supported legislation, the downgrade would have been avoided and more than likely the upcoming future downgrade. You party owns responsibility of this issue. And every argument that the GOP is responsible for the spending could also be addressed by passing responsible legislation such as the GOP proposed bill, as it would cap the amount of spending the federal government could do as a percentage of GDP. It would not be permitted to spend more than 15% of GDP. Our side wants it. The Dems fight it. So obviously we are not as attached to the spending as your side is.

However, there have been plenty of cuts

Not enough obviously. Government spending in relation to GDP is 25% and is unsustainable at that level. If there have been cuts, how is this level achieved? I understand the GDP has not been growing fast, but the level went from 19.6% GDP average under GWB to the 25% it is today. GDP has been flat to anemic. If you contend the spending under BHO has not increased, how did we arrive at 25%?

That simply will not work. Sorry.

And your solution to continue unsustainable spending and masking it by increasing taxes wont work either. Government spending should not exceed 15% of GDP. Bush spent too much at 19.6%. Currently it is at 25%. Your solution is to continue to prop up a system and policy that cannot be sustained and continues to build debt to a level that cannot be paid. And I do not agree that it will destroy the economy to drastically cut government spending. It will hurt, and wont be pretty. But it is what is needed to get us back to a lean environment that can be maintained. Even the cuts your side are proposing are not going to reduce this 25% of GDP spending. It is a reduction in the proposed growth. The government will still grow, just not as fast. There is nothing being proposed from your side to reduce its size. How about your side propose we go back to spending at 2008 levels? Or better yet, back to Clinton levels? But your side wont even consider reducing the level. The best you can come up with is to still grow, just not as fast...

And that is where the stalemate occurs. Why should we bend our beliefs and allow for tax increases when the best your side can propose is to slow the growth of government that is already 40% too large? We do not have the time to gradually bring this under control. We increased spending 5% of GDP in 3 years. And the best plan you have still has it growing, just at a slower growth. Because at this point we only pay interest on our debt. The years it would take to get to a balanced budget would have a debt number that is so large that it could never be addressed if we chose a slow gradual approach as you suggest. And the growth has been less than gradual under BHO. And we are not recovering from this recession. We are taking displaced private sector workers and adding them into the public sector. Every proposal is to add Policemen, Firemen, and Teachers with temporary money. But how are these long term employment prospects when it is temporary money? The private sector cannot support this type of expansion of the public sector. It is better we make the tough decisions now, or we may never get out of this recession.

ABO 2012

Republicans spent more money building Iraq than it would cost for President Obama's tax cuts to be extended for 4 more years.

dsdshern.

No, I do not disagree. I also find it unacceptible, but you used it originally as a supportive argument against the idea that spending was the problem, so when did you change your mind and also find it unacceptible?

I did not. You projected, and did not read.

From my original post"

"Actually, if you had examined the issue in depth, and not blindly repeated what cable news or talk radio fed you, you would know the issue is BOTH."

I dont find it hard to comprehend, and even conceeded revenue increases will eventually be needed. But the revenue increases being sought right now will not address the borrowing on every dollar of expenditure. Until such time as we are willing to cut the borrowing rate, we should not be willing to increase revenue as it just masks the problem which still exists.

This is extremely illogical.

Both are needed as part of a comprehensive plan that both lowers the long term debt and deficits, and takes into account the current state of the economy.

Not including both in a plan will only prolong the problem.

I agree the S&P named the bickering and no solution as the reason, but they also said that if the GOP House passed Cut Cap and Balance measure had passed, it would have satisfied them and the downgrade would have been avoided

Had the GOP been able to bring the Tea Nuts to the table, we could have gotten $4 trillion in much more balanced cuts.

Cut, Cap and Trade is an ideological wish list that would, according to the independent economic analysis, hurt the economy, and thus made it harder to deal with the debt.

Not enough obviously.

We are also still recovering from a very deep recession.

And that is where the stalemate occurs. Why should we bend our beliefs and allow for tax increases when the best your side can propose is to slow the growth of government that is already 40% too large?

Your side has done little to bend anything. What revenue have they agreed to?

Zero. There have ben ZERO revenue increases, only cuts.

Not too mention, you had no problem bending your beliefs when you increased spending and cut revenue.

Now, you want to fix the problem your party created by not bending your supposed beliefs.

Really?

And we are not recovering from this recession.

Um....why is it then, the independent economic analysis all shows we are recovering from this recession?

We are taking displaced private sector workers and adding them into the public sector

Huh? Odd, then, that while the private sector has seen two years of positive job numbers, the public sector is consistently losing tens of thousands of jobs a month, and thus, is a drag on the employment numbers.

But how are these long term employment prospects when it is temporary money? The private sector cannot support this type of expansion of the public sector.

The point is really to preserve the jobs of the Firemen, Policiemen, etc, or rehire some that were laid off, until the economy does recover to the point they can be sustained. The point of the stimulus and other similar legislation is to cusion the recession and recovery, and to add some energy to the recovery.

The private sector will get there and will have to do so largely on it's own. But that does not mean a little help to boost demand isn't benificial.

----------------------------

I want to say this nicely, for you have been civil. Judging from your posts, you are trying to understand this issue, but are not there yet. I do think you have been influenced by sources not fully based in as much fact as ideology.

My suggestion would be to attempt to ignore the cable news type outlets, talk radio, and right wing think tanks. They generally are only good for telling people what they want to believe.

@Republicants,

I also appreciate your civility and admit I am not an economist, but rather a realist. I feel the government should run as any normal business or family and live within their menas. I see spending by percentage of GDP jumping to astronomical levels. I see an overall unwillingness to reduce this growth. And feel untill the growth of government spending is reduced to levels that are sustainable, adding more funds will not fix anything. And I agree with you that it has to be a combination of spending cuts and increases in revenue. But I have the "You First" view that has been imposed by the hsitory of tax increases on the premise of spending cuts that never realized. And I think the government has many programs, departments, and grants that are not needed, so should not be being propogated by deficit spending.

You say our side as provided Zero revenue, but only cuts. I contend there have been Zero cuts, and you want revenue increases without any real cuts. You want revenue increases in leui of slower growth, but growth none-the-less.

I dont suppose we will ever reach agreement on the issue, but do appreciate your position, I just do not agree with it, as you do not agree with mine.

But I have to admit, you are fun to banter with and appreciate your equal passion for your side of the argument.

But I remain steadfast in a desire to change and reduce the overall size and scope of government. Because for me, I believe the solution starts there.

ABO 2012

dsdshern.

You say our side as provided Zero revenue, but only cuts. I contend there have been Zero cuts, and you want revenue increases without any real cuts. You want revenue increases in leui of slower growth, but growth none-the-less.

1. The debt ceiling deal was $2.1 Trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. All cuts.
2. While the CR does not contain much in actual cuts, it also contained no revenue.
3. There has been no revenue that has passed, period.

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12357

Dems should be proposing an increase of the FICA ceiling to make up the difference in the cuts. Increase the ceiling to $1 million, and start taking the deduction out of capital gains.

how do you explain Senator Casey's notable absence yesterday?

The same way YOU explain Republican's failure to over-ride the Democratic Governor's veto of anti-union legislation in New Hampshire yesterday....

DUH

GOP has actually lost all bearings. They'll proctect the rich tax cut largess but ready to layoff 200,000 government workers (the common man) or freeze their pay for 3yrs. This is insane to say the least.

Democrats are winning the message because it's the truth and their road map make more sense. Though, tax cuts don't grow economy this will be paid for by taxing the more able hands. GOP look forsaken by their ideology and lost in the wilderness of thorns.

They'll proctect the rich tax cut largess but ready to layoff 200,000 government workers (the common man) or freeze their pay for 3yrs. This is insane to say the least.

Yes it is.... typical Republican illogic; but wait 'til we hear their sales pitches and excuses defending that position (in their minds.)

Sick is what it is.

One of the few times, Yellowdog, that we see eye-to-eye on something.

I think a better way to fund it is to remove any and all caps.

7,000,000 a year paycheck?

6% for FICA on all of it.

7,000,000 a year pay check?

6% for FICA on all of it.

BBBUT, but that violates Grover's pledge..... (which is probably why he called Congress repubs to huddle with him today.)

Smitty,

If that man has a family and makes 25K a year, with deductions he will end up not paying a penny. But Biden says, "It's patriotic to pay higher taxes". So do you think the person making 25K should pay his fair share or not pay anything at all?

Paul what if you have no deductions, you still have to pay. Not everyone gets deductions. I know people who don't have kids, who don't own much, who make very little and pay there taxes. I guess you don't know anyone who has that misfortune. Again your in your reality bubble. I gather your in the 1%.

Smitty,

So that person is paying about $315 a month in Federal Taxes, based on 15% for 25K. But here's the point, a person that makes 25K now will not see his taxes go up if the tax cuts expire. It was 15% under Clinton and 15% under Bush. The people that will be hammered is people that make 60K.

You republican/tea baggers really get me The President wants to do something that you all want.

See --- THAT is the point. Even when it is something they favor, they STILL oppose it because the President wants to do it and they are afraid it may make his administration look successful

Paul Oh I see your point make the guy pay more who makes less, and the guy who makes 35k more pay less. How about this make people who make more than a million pay more and have the guys making 60k and 25k pay the same or less. Damn I keep forgetting they are the "job creators" & they need more pampering. Tell me Paul does 25k or 60k buy what it use to? Get out of your bubble.

No Job1, the message is the Dems are spending twice what they are taking in and destroying any chance of saving the country.

Have you seen the latest Florida numbers? It wont be long before BHO just writes that state off as lost.

ABO 2012