dangerfield,

All I can think is here we go again. Might be a good time to take a vacation where there is no tv, radio or newspaper. Wonder how Antarctica is this time of year? I will settle for a warm Caribbean island where the only sounds are the surf, wind in the palm trees, steel drums, and people walking around offering "bar service".

Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I wanna take ya
Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama
Key Largo, Montego,
baby why don't we go,
Jamaica

Off the Florida Keys
there's a place called Kokomo
That's where you wanna go
to get away from it all
Bodies in the sand,
tropical drink melting in your hand
We'll be falling in love
to the rhythm of a steel drum band
Down in Kokomo...

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/kokomo-lyrics-beach-boys/dc83409efbfa1ef5482569850010e751

I hear you and I'm already there in my mind...like the Corona Beer commercials...

The time to hold spending in check was last August. It failed, and all of Congress and the President failed the country. Now there will be a phony "resolution of disapproval" coming out the House, which will never pass the Senate, and even if it did, would be vetoed by Obama. The GOPers in the House will have their political cover "We voted against raising the debt ceiling!!", the Senate Democrats will have their political cover "We prevented a default!!", Obama will have his $1.2 trillion and the children and grand-children will pay the bill when they get old enough for a job, if they can ever find one.

The burn rate on deficit spending is increasing, not decreasing. This is obscene.

I live in northern Ohio & we are expecting snow. I am off to pack!!

Ummm, I think I will head to the fridge for a Corona & lime. Thanks for the idea! (BTW, hubby is pushing the idea for Vegas, that could work, too)

dangerfield, I much prefer the Beach Boys to Jimmy Buffet. Hear so much of it around here my left eye starts to twitch when I hear "Margaritaville"!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-10-2012/andrew-napolitano

Very true JoAnna...

According to Judge Napolitano, there's really only ONE party...He's almost as cynical as I am...

df: According to Judge Napolitano, there's really only ONE party...He's almost as cynical as I am..

The Judge is correct. The party of Big Spending and Vote For Me. They just put "D"s and "R"s and "I"s by their names for decoration.

So phinep - yesterday you spoke of your desire to ensure your granddaughter has a and prosperous life.

So how does this fit into that? Obama, the CEO of our country, has do nothing to address the actual debt.

Why do we continue to rob our kids blind to prop up the seniors? They have 47 times more wealth that the young, yet they bear all the entitlement fruit.

It's disgusting what we are doing to our young.

And it's not like they are starting to figure it out, and get pissed.

I wonder danger- you really think 'team blue applauds?'

Sure the powers that be do, but all I hear about around here is about the poor and middle class. You really think adding trillions in debt is what they want?

It seems Obama's numbers with the so called waitress moms is in the toilet. Same with working class stiff in FLA.

Shoot - I bet even someone like Feisty gets that this is absolutely horrible.

Somebody want to please tell me what he did with the last couple trillion?

On a better note- I get an email from a very grim, dour Jim Messina. He's mad. He's disappointed. He has a hard time understanding the problem with people like me.

Seems the fundraising is not up to snuff. They only pulled in a total of $68 million last quarter! $24 million of that has to go to the DNC!

He seems upset that, perhaps, I believe they will be getting a billion dollars- so don't need mine. He seems upset that I might believe what is said about those $38,500 a plate fundraising dinners. Well, he wants me to know, they are not that we'll attended- and he needs my money, too!

He'd be happy with three dollars. Surely, he wheedles, I can do that much to help Obama achieve his vision!

I laughed so hard I cried.

Spend it like you got it!

Spanky,

Nope, sorry, not going to debate the debt ceiling with you. Will gladly debate a tropical island vs. Las Vegas, though. The subject is a lose/lose for all, leaving nothing but anger, name calling and a strong desire for much alcohol in its wake.

Afternoon, WCA, what do you think, caribbean island or Vegas?

WCA: Spend it like you got it!

Lets hope China has enough liquidity to buy the bonds. The Fed is tapped out.

No joe... the last couple trillion went to defense, QE II, and entitlement programs (which after seeing their trust funds raided for years and thus deficits kept looking lower than they actually were in the past, are now ramping up payments to retiring baby boomers).

Will be interesting to see if the Tea Party/GOP will hold the country hostage yet again cause a crediting rating downgrade yet again, cause s near shutdown of the government, yet again .. yet again .. seems to be a recurring theme.

Paul M: No joe... the last couple trillion went to defense, QE II, and entitlement programs (which after seeing their trust funds raided for years and thus deficits kept looking lower than they actually were in the past, are now ramping up payments to retiring baby boomers).

Good thing the Democrats and Obama "won" that fight with the GOP last month over lowing payroll taxes for Social Security. Take less money in, push more money out. That will help keep things solvent.

RedDevPS: Will be interesting to see if the Tea Party/GOP will hold the country hostage yet again . .

The scam is covered Red, for details see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/obama-asks-congress-for-12-trillion-increase-in-nations-borrowing-limit/2012/01/12/gIQA7QT7tP_story.html

Got kids Red? Let them know they're paying for this.

phinephancy: "The subject is a lose/lose for all, leaving nothing but anger, name calling and a strong desire for much alcohol in its wake."

But, but phine.....anger, name calling and a strong desire for much alcohol are the three pillars of political discourse on First Read - would you leave us nothing to do but discuss things rationally and (shudder!) actually listen to each other for a change?

By the way, does it have to be the Caribbean island or Vegas? What happened to Antarctica?

JoAnne,

I could do Antarctica. Also, did you know Princess Cruise line has a cruise on the Amazon? Now THAT would be neat!

I get it phinep - it hurts to even think about. But for me, everytime I hear the idiots [and that includes all of them] talking about jacking up the debt I wonder how in the world my kids will ever have a good of a life as I do now.

Absolutely shameful - they are flat out stealing from the young.

As for the other - I'm headed to Vegas for Valentine's day [cause I'm romantic like that]. Well, cause Ms. Spanky went and booked and then e mailed me the itinerary, god bless her heart.

For a long time we pretty much only went to Vegas - it has everything and is way cheaper than anywhere else. a great room at the Wynn, The Hotel, Palazzo, or Aria is only about $200-300. Anytwhere else in the country it'd be $400-500.

But now days we hit Cancun every year. I totally love the all inclusive, adult only resorts. I always win on the alcohol 'tab.'

So I'll have to go with both.

Spanky,

I am thinking of booking the new resort in Barbados. Hilton has some great deals going on. However, the Amazon thing does sound cool.

Let's be honest here.

The only time republicans care about deficits is when they're not in the white house.

And the only time democrats care about the poor and middle class is when they're not in the white house.

But seriously, really getting into the republican nomination process. I'm becoming a Paulista since he actually has facts and figures to back up his policy (though his followers range from normal to absolute loons), but if he doesn't win it I'll vote for the most conservative party candidate.

Obama.

/truth

That's the Big spending party tek.

Seems like the sweating masses are starting to pay attention.

Being broke sucks.

That's why I say whoever wins this time, there will be a Ron Paul type who will win in 2016. Debt will be a cool $20 trillion plus by then.

Here's what I have to say on the topic, it is an election year and both sides are going to grandstand and show off and do nothing. Enough said.

Well Phine, since you live near the Ocean, I suggest Vegas. I have never been there myself. I have this problem with giving my money away to people I don't know. I'm a math guy and don't like the odds. I can't seem to get past "The House always wins" thing.

If it were me though, Tasty waves and a Cool Bud and I'm fine.

Big, big snowstorms in Alaska. Don't know about the North Pole, but I bet it sucks this time of year.

Spanky, long time no see.

They're both big-spending parties, man.

But here's a little test. Let me give you a hypothetical match-up, party a and party b.

Let me know who you'd vote for.

Both candidates suck, but you tell me which is the most 'conservative'.

1. raised taxes on certain luxuries
lowered taxes on corporations and individuals
Cut funding to public health
Signed public insurance mandate w/no single-payer option
Did not enact same-sex marriage laws

2. raised gasoline and cigarette taxes
raised taxes on corporations
signed into law taxpayer funded abortions
signed public insurance mandate with single-payer option
Enacted same-sex marriage laws

Spanky, Maybe rather than Cancun you should try Cabo if you drive up the baja coast along the sea of Cortez maybe i'll run into you and Mrs. Spanky.

Spanky so worried about the deficit then you should advise congress to pass a jobs plan and get people back to working again. Is is really too much to ask the richest in our nation to invest in America and get the people working again? Better to let the deficit grow than ask for a small tax on the second million you earn in a single year.

Better to let the deficit grow than ask the richest to give up their sweet, sweet Bush tax cuts. What's more the republicans all care so much about the deficit that they want to give more tax cuts and create an even bigger deficit. Add that to the wars the republicans want to start.

Just like wars and tax cuts caused this huge deficit, the republicans seem to think that more wars and more tax cuts is what America needs and will somehow lower the deficit.

The first thing someone who really cares about the deficit would do would be raise taxes especially on the rich until our economy gets a little better and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts entirely. Until the republicans raise taxes we all know they could not care any less about the deficit. The republicans want to whine and pretend they care just not really care.

Republicans put up or shut up. Oh, I know you are more than willing to take the food our of peoples mouths you just can't bring yourself to ask the rich to pitch in and assist their own country.

Hey AF, didn't you write this exact same thing 4 years ago?

I disagree with your entire premise, Americans First.

I can point you to Nobel-Prize-Winning work which says the New Deal was an extension of programs initially implemented by Hoover, and was the cause of elongating the Depression.

FDR just had much better PR than ole Herb did.

Austrian Economics has yet to be proven wrong.

Keynesianism, on the other hand, needs people to make constant excuses for it because it's showing to be complete voo-doo.

And Austrian Economics is telling you you're worth market-value. Which, right now, is less than what you're asking for (or the government is forcing you to ask for)

teknishan - you are right on hoover, his initial actions were to let the economy recover on its own accord, by the time he changed policy it was too late and the 1932 campaign was on the horizon.

As far as economic policy prior to the 40's was there one other than lassez-faire?

AF - doesn't more jobs require more demand?

I can point you to Nobel-Prize-Winning work which says the New Deal was an extension of programs initially implemented by Hoover...

Please do...I am always open to new information (revisionist history Cato style that is...), and that is certainly new. Who knew Hoover was a disciple of Eugene Debs or that He embraced the model that had already been in practice in New York State since the Al Smith administration...oh no wait that isn't what Horwitz is really saying, is it?

It's to AGAIN try to discredit FDR and the New Deal from the grave, and a piss-poor one at that; And all for this;

"Hoover's big-spending, interventionist policies prolonged the Great Depression, and similar policies today could do similar damage."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/30/herbert-hoover-father-of-the-n

=============================================================

It's revisionist agitprop, not history, and typical Team Red think-tank being in the tank for their corporate masters....

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

The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were Roosevelt's responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is, Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

Historians distinguish a "First New Deal" (1933) and a "Second New Deal" (1934–36). Some programs were declared unconstitutional, and others were repealed during World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

No.

Murray Rothbard.

//mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Out of the Ludwig von Mises institute.

You see, the 'New Deal' was a new spin put on an old project. Herbert Hoover was known, and even cited by Calvin Coolidge, as 'The Great Meddler'. People pretend he didn't do anything because FDR said so, and politicians are charismatic (and your average citizen is ignorant and listens without fact-checking).

Contrary to Democrat Revisionism praising FDR, Hoover in fact did quite a bit of meddling and even adapted a fiscal policy propping failing institutions (Republicans bailing out Failing banks!? Madness!!!)

FDR continued the program, but just had better PR.

I never go into battle half-cocked, good sir.

I do invite everyone to read the book, though. Good stuff.

Please don't cite wikipedia though. It's not a commonly accepted nor reliable source.

Crazy right? we have a republican president bailing out failing banks, only to be displaced by a democratic president who expands and continues their programs (thus taking the blame and the glory if it succeeds).

Whew. Where have I heard this story before!?

/Truth

Addendum:

And a normally 2-4 year economic downturn which, in a vacuum rights itself as institutions are killed and others born rapidly, instead is dragged out for a decade.

I know this is a tough question, but maybe someone can answer it for me: assuming, just for the sake of argument, that we NEVER increase the amount of revenue that comes in (i.e. we follow the Grover Norquist pledge) how much would we have to cut spending in every other area of government to pay off the national debt, including the IOU's to the post office, Social Security, and Medicare ?

dirp - anarchy is the simplist answer.

We Democrats need to reeducate ourselves about the nature of money in this national debt and deficits business. After Nixon went off the gold standard in 1971, because there was not enough gold to back the money needed for a growing economy, fighting a war in Viet Nam and building a Great Society, we had fiat money. That is money created by a sovereign government backed only by the full faith and credit of the government. A whole host of assumptions are now obsolete. The idea that we must have balanced budgets during recessions and depressions is false. We need to get new money into the hands of consumers who will spend and encourage businesses to expand to meet demand. Our government can only do this by deficit spending, which introduces new money into the economy beyond whatever money is collected in taxes and recycled in spending. Actually government doesn't need taxes to spend, because it could create all it needs by coining and printing it. It needs to tax to make people want its money so they can pay their taxes. Taxes take money out of the economy and are deflationary. But when you need more money than you currently have circulating in the economy, the government needs to spend with deficits, spending more than taken in by taxes. But government should also cut taxes, so that there is more money circulating. So we need to support both deficit spending, raising or eliminating the debt ceiling (it's not really debt, but that is for another post), and lowering taxes on everyone. We need to support the tax holiday on FICA SSA taxes but demand that no new taxes or penalties are implemented to "pay for it", because that achieves nothing but cancelling the effect of cutting the taxes. Later if and when we get full employment again, we can turn to worrying about inflation. Taxes are the way the government can control inflation by taking money out of the economy. But we don't have inflation now, but deflation and rising unemployment, people losing their homes to foreclosure. Everything the tea party supports on the issue of debt and deficits is the opposite of what needs to be done. Their policies would drive us deeper into the recession into a depression.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I'm not sure why we need a glaring headline over this...

Of course you didn't want a glaring headline. In fact, if the libbies had their way, it would be buried on page six, never to see the light of day. Fact is, Obama, can't help but spend, spend, spend.

Obama, can't help but spend, spend, spend.

President Obama is a member of the House of Representatives?

*gasp*

WHO KNEW?

[While his com-padre in the Senate Mitch McConnell was bragging about how effective their hostage taking scheme worked out...]

And it isn't getting any better for TurtleMan...seems Warren Buffett has a bet he'd like to make with Mitchie-poo...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/01/11/warren-buffett-throws-down-gauntlet-to-mcconnell-gop-challenges-them-to-donate/

Mitch is for lower taxes. Buffet is the loudmouth fraud out there saying he should pay more.

Pay up Warren. But he won't because he's a true 1%er like Obama. At least Mitch has intergrity

Yeah, this isn't going to go well.

Boehner, McConnell, remember to whom you owe loyalty. It isn't party first...it's country.

Let the games begin.....

And I bet your head spun around three times when you typed that. Mitch? Integrity?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.. thanks I needed that

Feisty, you're right. The comings and goings of campaign stooges is much more newsworthy than a presidential request to raise the debt ceiling.

The comings and goings of campaign stooges is much more newsworthy than a presidential request to raise the debt ceiling.

All I'm saying is, this is part of the deal that was agreed upon.

Whipping up drama in unnecessary.

The game of hostage taking is growing old along with the 'what about the children' BS I hear every election cycle!

...'what about the children' BS...

So glad to see that you are OK with sucking the government teat dry today, leaving nothing for the Americans of tomorrow.

Anyone for a trip to Barbados? A new Hilton resort has opened up there.

So glad to see that you are OK with sucking the government teat dry today, leaving nothing for the Americans of tomorrow.

Like I said, I am sick & tired of this worn out lament every election cycle!

You had 8 years under 'W' to save the 'children', instead you decided to send them off to die in TWO bull@!$%# wars!

Save your faux poutrage for someone who might believe it!

[Mitch is for lower taxes. Buffet is the loudmouth fraud out there saying he should pay more.]

Raab...idiot...

Mitch is for Mitch...nothing more, nothing less. Mitchie-poo has no integrity. But you just keep reaching for the stars, Sparkie.

And, suddenly, Buffett is a "loudmouth fraud" for having the balls to admit that he should, and could, pay more? Nothing like having an ideological, emotional opinion on this, right Raab?

Now you hate Warren Buffett because he tells the truth...

Why not just admit you hate people who tell the truth, and would rather they lied to you? But then, again, there's always Fox "news"...they L-O-V-E to lie to you...just make sure you ask Sean Hannity to kiss you while you watch. After all, most people like to be kissed while they are getting screwed, right Raab?

Mitch is for lower taxes. Buffet is the loudmouth fraud out there saying he should pay more.

Pay up Warren. But he won't because he's a true 1%er like Obama. At least Mitch has intergrity

Really?

You are aware of the challenge that Mr. Buffett made, yes?

Who is the true 1%er? Dollar-for-dollar he'll go with the same Congressional GOP that now mocks him. If the Washington fat-cats won't do it then why should he?

...and Buffett is a "loudmouth fraud"?

...but you'd vote for Edward Lewis Mitt Romney, right?

Feisty, it really is BS about the children. TeaPeople in congress do not care about 'the children', they only care about themselves, and those cushy government jobs. If they care about 'the children', then:

Pass the jobs bill......parents make money to care for their families!

Raise the minimum wage; increase education funding; provide healthy food programs; etc....'cause the children of the 1% will never be deprived of anything since they have trust funds and mega bucks provided by the taxpayers since their parents scamed their way to wealth.

Further, the children of the 1% will not mingle with the children of the 99%, unless they are an exceptional child and choose to 'give back' to a country that allowed their parents to gain so much!

Remember, it's time to care about the born, not the unborn!

feisty, just because the $1.2 trillionm is available doesn't mean it should be used. I would say though that obamas idea of a FY2013 budget will use it all.

Golly chilled...

We increased spending for education ever since the 60's, yet we keep dropping in k-12 world ranks. At least foreign students still think our university and graduate programs are top notch.

So , you think that increasing debt will save the children, really? How does that work out after we pay out interest to our creditors on our $15 trillion debt.

Yep those 1%er kids sure are lucky, somewhere in the past their family made a decision to take on risk.

Time to care about the born and not the unborn

Really, I thought progressives were all about moving forward into the future? Nice to know that you have the attitude of "me first" and let others take care of next year.

noid, I also read mcconnells response "Let's include obama, senate and house democrats" as well.

Actually buffet and the other 1/10 1%'ers should take the lead, at least that is what obama wants.

Yes, American.....

Move Forward...... with policies that ensure at least a chance, that success is afforded to all, not just the priviledged few.

"attitude of "me first" and let others take care of next year."---That's the attitude of TeaPeople in congress representing themselves and the 1% .......attempting to shift blame when they use 'the children' phrase. If me, you, aren't doing well now then how can the future even come into mind.

Nice to see american lots of numbers has returned after her well deserved 'time out'! lol

feisty, as if you haven't enjoyed them yourself. lol..

Chilled - I was raised in the late 50's and 60's in a family of 7. By todays standards we were probably considered to be lower middle class, not hungry per say but definitly no meal leftovers and every one brown bagged it. We kids all prospered in our own way because we chose to, not because our parents were prosperous.

If me, you, aren't doing well now then how can the future even come into mind.

We always need to look to the future and a growing debt of $15 trillion plus will seriously weigh us and our kids down, especially when the FED raises interest rates. We can't be like the parable of the ant and the grasshopper.

If this is already a already an agreed upon deal, why is Obama needing Congress to approve increasing the debt ceiling again ?

I'm sure that he's not decided to all the sudden be courteous. If it was already a done to deal he would be - Dam the torpedoes full speed ahead ?

Part of the "done deal" was to have a vote of disapproval, i.e. more pandoring to the Tea Party faction, a/k/a more useless politacal theatre by the Republican House.

Dude, we've had a "Big Spender" in the Oval Office since the friggin 70 and the 2 largest had big fat R's behind their names. Where you been...

Carter - $718,943,000,000 to $930,210,000,000 - 42% Increase

Reagan - $1,028,729,000,000 to $2,684,392,000,000 - 189% Increase

Bush Sr - $2,952,994,000,000 to $4,177,009,000,000 - 55.6% Increase

Clinton - $4,535,687,054,406 to $5,662,216,013,697 - 36% Increase

Bush Jr - $5,943,438,563,436 to $10,669,804,864,612 - 89% Increase

Obama - $12,311,349,677,512 to $15,125,898,976,397 - 41% Increase

allen -- what are these numbers? the debt? please clarify

So Allen - what happened to the missing $2trillion?

You got Bush ending with $10.6, but Obama starting with $12.3.

Plus, bro - you gots to give O some time - that's 41$ in just three years, and you are missing the $2trillion.

The reality is he starts at $10.6, and at the end of 2012 he'll be just shy of $17.

Got a calculator? I bet you do.

james-historical debt, not really sure that the % increases have much meaning as allen hasn't correlated historical and economic events with each administration. Regardless, until the tea party started making noise about debt in 2010, both sides of the aisle had no problem with spending (aka, deficits don't matter). Obama and company just haven't gotten the message yet.

[So Allen - what happened to the missing $2trillion?]

...and here we thought you were done with conspiracy theories...or is that the new parrot talking point for this week?

Allen Omaha

To go along with your list of percentages, why don't you include the number of years each President served in office and the dollar amount spent during each Presidents' oval office service ?

That may not be as advantageous for argument.

As a matter of fact it might even look like your playing smoke and mirrors when it comes to who's the big spender. Amazing at the pictures that get painted on here by the DemocRATS !

Ideology,

I think I may make our friends (team Red) angry. Refuse to argue the debt ceiling with them, but I am willing to debate caribbean island vs Las Vegas. Wonder how this will go?

Carmel-by-the-Sea and do go to Eastwood's Mission Ranch.

There will be a lot of hair pulling and gnashing teeth.

Ideology,

Carmel is nice, but I am kind of in the mood for Barbados. New Hilton resort has opened up there.

And I just had dentist check up and got my hair done, so I would like to stay looking nice for awhile.

Oh, and to be on topic. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts, get rid Medicare Part D, means test social security and medicare, raise retirement to 67 for all those under 50, cut defense by 10%. Then fight about it all over again another day.

I hear Barbados is really lovely this time of year.

The last time I went was in may 07 ... Nice pink house on a beach with a chef.

Hilton has a new resort there. Also, did you know Princess Cruises has an Amazon cruise? Now, that would be a little different. Think it would be great fun.

Amazon ... BUGSPRAY!=)

Interesting that you think that discussians can only take place in a noisy environment or is that another excuse for progressives to say "I didn't say that"?

Corporate debt ceiling??

It just hit me that what Romney did at Bain, Bush and Newt did to our country by driving us into huge debt and now the republicans want to shut our government down. By still refusing to raise taxes on the rich they hope to bankrupt our country.

They have tried to shut us down a couple of times and even managed to get our credit rating lowered. Interesting that the huge debt that Bush and with Newt in charge of the house created is now the reason why the Democrats need to stop spending?

Maybe instead we should look at the republicans quit beating their chest and wanting to go to war and raise taxes that they should have been raised when they started two wars like every other time in our history when we were in a war. How on earth do you pass republicans off as responsible after pulling such a stupid stunt that has gotten our country in such a mess?

Don't forget to thank Newt as he was the speaker of the house when the republicans were running amok and charging wars and tax cuts to the deficit credit card.

The only question I want answered is when this OWS bowel movement is going to get squashed like it deserves?

Bunch of rabble that contributes nothing but whining and pointing fingers at everybody that they hate for causing the problems.

Tell the truth, all parties had a part and all the politicians had a part in creating this mess.

Sit in the park, block the ports, big help OWS ! Grow a pair, take the fight to Wahingto D.C.

Get a job and quit whining !

You're kidding right... there is a shortage of jobs that people can acquire and adequately support themselves. In case you don't get it...people are supposed to comment. Blogging is just another way to be heard. Believe me...your comments are monitored.

baldeagle, with the exception of a few years in the 1800's the US has always carried debt with only a few occasions of a fiscal year surplus. Obama wants to increase our debt (what we owe). Think of maxing out all your credit cards.

I find it hilarious that G.W.Bush can take the nation from a surplus to record deficit and there's not a peep out of our friends on the right but let Obama ask for so much as a dime and you'd think the world will end soon.

American I thought you missed the part about Bush taking us from a surplus to a record deficit as you still pretend it is all President Obama fault. If it weren't for Bush and Newt giving tax cuts during war time our country would not be where it is today. To this day we are borrowing money to pay for the Bush and Newt tax cuts. Money being added to the deficit everyday.

The republicans aren't worried they want to give more tax cuts especially to the rich. Does it sound like they are worried about the deficit?

Like Romney's plan the poor will have their taxes increased to pay for the lower tax rate for the rich. Are there really people who aren't rich, dumb enough to vote for higher taxes for themselves while protecting the richest in our nation?

Can't forget to give credit to Newt as he was speaker of the house.

nothing bad obombo does is new in the liberal media or for you left wing liberals!

Job 1 is the sign Obombo and the radcial socialist progressives big unions use on their

websites so you can guess who this bozo is!

Yes, Mr Ron Paul who says one thing and then votes another. A pacifist that voted with the republicans to continue the Iraq war with no end in sight.

A man for the people that voted to not increase the minimum wage.

A man against corporate take over and voted to keep the special tax cuts for the billion dollar oil companies that gave them both more power and more money to influence elections.

A man who talks against the deficit and yet voted for every tax cut that created a large part of the deficit.

Check out his voting record and you will see that the things he says do not match how he votes. Paul always votes for the 1% just like the rest of the republicans. Paul has a couple radical ideals to bring in the younger voter, but you can be assured the republicans will never let any of them pass if he were elected.

To top it off he thinks that if you don't have health insurance you are free to die. Just another Ron Paul freedom brought to you by the party of the greedy 1%.

get over the war thing that's all you got? anyway your occupy name says it all!

go get a job!

The biggest problem is that nobody is willing to do the right and unpopular things necessary to get the economy back on track.

Quit spending, quit borrowing, no more pet projects, no pork, end most foreign aid, quit supporting these loon organizations that hate the U.S., streamline the bloated government, give the hardened criminals, drug dealers, murderers and child molesters swift and final justice, allow peaceful protest only and hold protesters responsible for any undue cost to the taxpayer ( Payable in U.S. currency, work, or blood ) but most of all, PAY THE BILLS AS WE GO !

NO MORE DEBT !

You are aware we go more into debt every day for the bush tax cuts especially for the rich. The tax cuts for the middle class need to continue but the tax cuts for the richest need to end and money needs to be invested in Americans to get them back to work.

Or are you of the belief that everyone needs to sacrifice except the 1%?

Make the people pay to protest? That is as about as Un-American as you can get. That sounds like a slimy trick one would hear about in a dictator run country who doesn't want the people to be heard. First he takes their jobs, their homes and then their food and then tells them they have to pay to protest.

Who is Mochie?

He started raising money for his campaign as soon as they put the Bible down at his inauguration.

Don't you just love the "regular" libs on here that want to discuss going on a trip to warm weather instead of addressing the topic? Sound just like their idol Obama don't they? Five most dangerous words in the English language, "Maybe it will go away".

J.E.P.: actually, Ron Paul is to an extent, correct. The 18% inflation under Jimmy Carter was a direct result of the actions of the FED under Richard Nixon. Nixon eliminated the gold standard in 1971. In 1972, with the election under way, he requested and received, an easy money policy from the FED.

As a direct result of those activities, most often now the FED has become less politicized. Its true focus is the economy. Unfortunately, what it does often reflects a view of the world economy, rather that a view centered on the United States.

I wonder what those who want to "end the FED" would replace it with ?