Mark my words.....The contents of the SOTU will be completely irrelevant by Thursday a.m.

Obama blew his opportunity to "wooo" the middle.

Michael, are you in the middle? How do you know?

I am in the middle. I like the idea of our government actually working together. This partisan clap trap - OF BOTH SIDES- has got to stop! The president's beginning with the military and ending with the military is a good example of what should be.

Michael, are you in the middle? How do you know?

LOL....no, I'm as conservative as a person can be but the Mrs. is in the absolute middle and she was yawning.

Fair share - the rich already pay 40%, but only earn 20%.

Not fair!

Seems that if I earn 20%, I should have to pay 20%, which is, you know, fair.

Or the easy way - a nice simple flat tax.

Ah, well Michael, when the Mrs. speaks for herself, I'll believe she actually has an opinion separate from yours.

Ursula-279622

Ah, well Michael, when the Mrs. speaks for herself, I'll believe she actually has an opinion separate from yours.

Wow.....Take a deep breath there....It'll be ok.

I'm not sure which man scorned you for life but a lil bit of therapy should cure ya of your ills. I merely repeated what my wife stated because she isn't like the rest of us losers sitting here commenting on a pointless speech that most Americans will find "ho-hum"

Be cool now....lol

Can I borrow 1.2 trillion dollars? I need a few more bucks to buy more tinfoil hats for the world. If we as Americans can't see what's in front of us blatantly.... I will pray for the scales to be removed from our eyes.

"Washington is broken" and it starts at THE TOP of the food chain.

I can't wait to hear Mr. Obama's plea for ANOTHER increase in the debt ceiling.

Spanky, after reading your comments; can we assume that accounting and critical thinking aren’t your strong suits?

You wrote: If “the rich already pay 40%, but only earn 20%. Not fair!”

I’m guessing here that you mean that the wealthy are paying a 40% tax rate? But what does they “only earn 20%” mean? Does it mean they earn 20% of 100%? What number does the 100% equal? What happens to the other 80%? Did they borrow the other 80% or lend it out? What are you trying to say here Spanky, you’re not very clear?

Next, you wrote: “Seems that if I earn 20%, I should have to pay 20%, which is, you know, fair.”

No, Spanky, I don’t know. What’s more, I don’t think anyone else here knows, because you’ve made it agonizingly tedious for us to figure out just what in hell you’re babbling about. And even if someone could tease out some small particle of articulate thought from your mess, they wouldn’t be able to match it with anything else you’ve written, because none of it makes any sense at all.

It seems rather Arkansas simple minded of you (que the banjo music from Deliverance) to propose that a tax rate of 20% (sic) be used on an income of 20% (sic). That doesn’t make any sense Spanky. Can you see the problem here? The income should be expressed as a whole number, not a percentage. But you don’t state that at all, so we’re left to guess what you mean.

Spanky, regroup. Go back and put together three or four coherent paragraphs that will better explain your ideas to us. Or not.

The question is whether the Chinese will lend you the Trillions required to maintain the wars and welfare.

Otherwise the Fed needs to print more money and that never ends well.

Funny thing about that State of the Union speech, it was all about having to push forward with more "progress" and "fairness" but nothing about "responsibility" nor "reform".

Here's what the President missed: Congress hasn't had a budget for over 1,000 days, our national spending is outpacing our taxes by $1.5 TRILLION/year and growing, the financing of our debt now costs more than our GDP, our national debt has grown from $10 trillion to $15 trillion in THREE years and keeps growing, finally the debt limit is growing by a trillion every couple of months (the President is currently asking for another cool trillion now).

So, what's the big deal? Well, if the President is calling for more taxes on the rich- at some point there won't be much more blood to draw out of that stone. Estimates are a few billion/year, while we spend more than a trillion over.... so that's a bust. The President is promoting government expansion (also includes spending) to create "fairness". If we are over spending now, how are we going to afford spending more on government and government programs in the future (and finance our growing/massive debt)??

The missing answer- Government spending CUTS. Yes it's a dirty word, but without cutting massively, actually having an approved budget, and only allowing new legislation with financial backing (BUSH allowed a $7 trillion prescription program to be created without anything to pay for it= boondoggle). So the President HAS to make REAL cuts to TODAY's budgets (forget that 10 year cutting BS, that's more politician dog squeeze).

Lastly, if Obamacare is really what this country must have, why is it that 7 states have no to little participation requirements and huge numbers of companies have waivers from participating?? If it is so clean and perfect, why wouldn't everyone be jumping on board with zeal?? That's because it isn't.

Let's see what America's reaction is to the speech. So far, on MSNBC he's getting an A.

Just adding to his ever growing list of excuses of why his brilliant economic plan isn't working.....It started with ATM's...

I said a long time ago he was going to try to body-surf bin Laden's corpse to get re-elected...

He's reminded us at least Thirty-eleven times already that he killed bin Laden.....

"Mentioned" it 3 or 4 times again last night....

Not as Stupid--------- We understand completely.

We will continue to oppose anything Obama does, in his attempts to redistribute wealth and implode the economy forcing more people into dependency on big government.

We call it have more integrity and self reliance

I'm "in the middle" as in middle class and independent and I liked what the president had to say. I absolutely agree that the fight over the debt ceiling, almost entirely perpetrated by the republicans, is a large part of the reason that this country is not doing better today.

Hey, Joeny, the president offered 3 trill in cuts for a 1 trill in increased revenue via closing loop holes, etc. Your buddies the 'pubs said "no" (I know it's hard to imagine). So, you see, Obama has made very fair, non-partisan offers to cut the deficit.

I know it's hard to be reminded of the truth but, the bright side is, it will set you free.

Eric---------- Try to make others believe that the MSNBC, the presidential cheerleader, are a fair and honest poll.

Small wonder, liberal dems, have zero credibility.

Yes, Bennie,

I can't wait to see how Obama's speech will be rated by Faux!

Small wonder, conservative, rwnj's, have zero credibility.

LOL

Bennie123, yep, right on target: talking point #1 for rightwingnuts: blame the media!!

NotAsStupid, I truly dont understand how maxing out the credit card and increasing the limit would be good for anyone's budget.

I do agree with Senator Omaba's comment in 2006 "The fact that we're here today to debaite raising America's debit limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debit limit."

Politicians, please spend within your budgets and pay off the credit card.

2006 is not 2011. Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling in 2006 because it was a boom year in which a lot of money was being made by people enjoying the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Two unfunded wars were under way. The money to pay for them was being borrowed recklessly.

It was a year to rescind the tax cuts and share the sacrifice, which no one was willing to do. Obama and the others who opposed the increase in the debt celing were entirely right. The burden was selfishly being shifted onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

2011 was different in many ways. The debt had ALREADY been incurred and needed to be paid. The alternative, which some pols like Michele Bachmann welcomed, was defaulting. It would "clear the air" if the US welshed on its debt. Suppose there had been no increase in the debt ceiling in 2006, when Obama made that statement. Suppose, instead of just borrowing it from the Chinese, the American people and their leaders had had to pay their bills on time. There would have been no need for a pointless fight over the debt ceiling in 2011.

Besides, you must know, if you think about it, why that very public argument took place in Congress when it did. There was never any real question of our defaulting. If we'd failed in our obligations, you couldn't have GIVEN US Treasuries away. Inflation would be through the roof. The dollar would have been kneecapped.

The point was to make the president look inept and spendthrift and undermine his influence and the likelihood of his being reelected. Let's not forget. The primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

Bennie123,

You have stated your talking point phrase of 'wealth redistribution'.

Exactly what would you call the wealth of hundreds of millions of middle class Americans finding it's way into the trust funds of Billionaires' kids over the last 25-30 years??????

BTW, a portion of that money was probably your family's....if anyone in your family ever worked.

DUH! Voters understand it - now if only the tea-gop politicians would!

As a non-GOP, non-Tea Party political independent, I'd say yes voters do get it... but I don't think you get what they rightfully understand given your comment. What we understand is that the nation is careening wildly out of control with reckless amounts of debt being pushed and fought to be pushed even higher by fiscal liberals and Democrats who seem to believe there will never be any consequences for their actions.

I'm an ex-Democrat. I'm about as socially liberal as you can be. But the Democrats were on the wrong side of the Debt ceiling fight this summer, and the damage done is on them.

Dogma, you know what their response to that is?

The cuts that Obama proposed were cuts to future spending increases and not cuts.

@everyone actually using that as a defense

The people using that line are completely addle-brained. That is the definition of a cut but their own definition does not see spending decrements as true cuts and so they will keep cutting until there is no funding.

Their basic premise is that cutting spending is not actually a cut unless the spending is going on now and not in the future. What they do not understand is thatcuts are cuts no matter when they take place.

If I say I am going to spend $1,500 less on video games next year then I did this year that is a cut in spending. If I say I was going to spend a total of $3,000 on video games next year but now I will only spend $1,000, that is a cut in spending.

A cut in spending is spending less then you were going to regardless if there is an overall increase. This lack of basic understanding of the meaning behind a simple word has doomed their party to the dust bin in 2012 and they are frantically trying to deny it by comparing one metric, which has no control over actual GDP, the debt to how well the economy is doing.

Economies create debt, end of discussion. Capitalist economies create debt, they thrive on debt because there is no other way to buy things when wages do not increase. Unless you follow the standard of living and apply a cost of living pay rate increase yearly you are perpetuating a debt based economy.

Debt is not an active mesurement of the state of an economy, wages and job growth are. The higher your wages are and the more jobs you have the better your economy is doing. This is why out sourcers are fleeing from China at this time. The Chinese economy has gotten to a point where people are moving into the cities and out of their rural villages. They are demanding higher wages to finance their new life styles.

This is a direct process of a healthy economy, wages must increase. If you do not increase wages you are cutting growth potential and also setting up for a recession once the debt generated by a non-living wage economy peaks like it did in 2008.

So yeah, I guess debt is a factor, personal debt I might add not federal, by which you can gauge an economy but it is not the only factor that matters. The only reason it does right now is because that is one of the few tools Republican's have to try and push Obama as the anti-christ of our economic recovery.

Concerning the debt ceiling, it is the law and the President is suppose to abide by it and not just assume that it is going to be raised. In 2006 Obama was against raising the debt ceiling. The President is our countries chief executive. It is his job to run the country in such a way that we avoid financial disaster.

The President said that deficit spending was bad and he vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The last full year of the Bush administration was 2008. The 2008 federal deficit was 458.55 billion dollars. If the President were true to his word then the 2009, 2010, and 2011 deficits should have been well below half a trillion dollars and the government would never have reached the debt limit. The debt limit problem should not have been an issue. For the President to keep his promise, the 2012 deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars but that does appear to be happening.

I do not think that the President really does not understands the meaning of the debt. With over 15 trillion dollars of current debt, I estimate that any more money borrowed will cost the tax payers 9 times the amount borrowed to repay in 170 years. So essentially using borrowed money, the tax payers are having to pay 9 times the going rate for goods and services that the federal government acquires. The situation is outrageous but it is getting worse. To date, under President Obama, the debt has increased by almost 5 trillion dollars with little to show for it.

I don't understand why suddenly we are tearing our hair out over the national debt. Amendments demanding a balanced budget have never worked at the state level. There are always federal grants to help the states, plus loopholes that are built in so that states can work around the mandate.

Also, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with owing some money. Alexander Hamilton realized this when his federal bank assumed all the debts of the individual states. He saw it as a way of insuring their loyalty. When someone owes you money, he's liable to take a great interest in your fiscal welfare.

The same holds true today. Does anyone believe that China, to whom we owe a fortune, would like to see the United States collapse and the dollar knee-capped? Hell, no.

Of course the deficit and the debt are problems that must be dealt with in the long run. It would be much easier to deal with them today if we hadn't funded two wars by cutting taxes and borrowing the money to pay for those wars.

However, the sky isn't falling. We need to spend more right now because we are recovering from a near disaster. We'll pull out of it. (Or maybe the sky will fall and we'll all starve -- who knows?) When we begin to see some pattern of normalcy developing and becoming stable, the next step is simple.

RAISE TAXES!

We keep hitting ourselves over the head with a big revenue problem. We keep thinking that the only way of dealing with a problem is cutting spending, preferably, according to Grover Norquist, by making government so small that it can be plunged into a bath tub and drowned. Thinking that austerity is the only way to deal with growing debt is like entering a wrestling match with a powerful opponent while having one arm tied behind your back.

We really ought to keep our poise. The highest marginal rate is somewhere around 35%, isn't it? (Not that anyone pays that much.) In the 1950s, under Eisenhower, it was more than 90% and somehow the rich managed to stay rich.

I forget when paying taxes became a mortal sin. Nobody likes them, but they're a necessary irritant. Unless you're willing to forego the government services they provide. Yes, why don't we try that? No taxes at all. Then everyone will be happy, right?

I have to say also that it's getting pretty tiresome to hear the economy of the United States compared to a household budget -- despite the etymology of the word "economics." Running the US isn't really much like running a household in which the problem of debt can be described as "spending more than you're taking in." The US isn't a nuclear household. Let's not forget that we have a teen-aged drop out living in the basement and playing video games all day. And then there's that millionaire uncle who occupies the upper floor, eats his meals at home, and contributes not a penny to the household kitty -- partly because he's so often on vacations to Cozumel.

Lazy thinking is easy and gratifying but it leads to logical dead ends.

Step 1:

Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts which will bring debt as a percentage of GDP to below 50%.

Step 2:

Fix the miss aligned interests of Wall St and the American citizenry. We currently have a system in place which incentivizes dolling out debt to the American people, as opposed to investment and innovation. Transparency, capital requirements, fiduciary duty on the part of lendors, and limiting bank size will fix this.

Step 3:

Instead of taking advantage of China's human rights violating labor market, using it as reasoning for devaluing American labor, and having zero penalities in our tax code for doing so, and zero incentives to not do so, let's incentivize American manufactoring and penalize Chinese manufactoring. Why are we racing them down to the standards of the guilded age? We should penalizing that, not trying to beat them there.

Step 4:

Stop the currency manipulation, take back their "Most Favored Nation" status, and equalize the tariff rates.

Conclusion:

We build jobs, end our dependancy on China, and rebuild our country.

Robert Maxwell Look at the tax receipts and spending over the last 10 years and tell me again that our deficit is due to tax cuts!!! The Bush tax cuts were about 370B dollars a year and our deficit is over 1T/yr! Spending has exploded. And when the full provisions of Obamacare and the increases in entitlements are in place, this year's spending will look like a good deal!

The Bush Tax Cuts expired on December 31, 2010. Why did Obama sign the extension for those cuts?

The President is right - the debt ceiling stunt by the GOP hurt this country. They need to put country over party.

Disastrous Presidency-Day1102-new excuse of the day: "It's....it's.......the debt ceilings' fault!......yeah......yeah!.......that's it........the debt ceiling! (Spending more money than all previous Presidents COMBINED in just three years had absolutely nothin' to do with it!), so.... uh.....let's just move on so I can get back to spending and giving the American people something to work for,for the rest of their lives,(like, trying to pay off my bills!).

Rick,

Because the Republicans held unemployment benefits hostage until he did.

Sarah On one hand Obama calls them "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" and on the other hand when he allowed them to continue he calls it the largest tax cut for the middle class in history!! Which is it??!! He and others think it is fair to give a tax cut to the majority (only 22% went to the top 2%) and then take it away from those who pay a majority of federal income taxes! This only sounds fair if you are on the receiving end!

Tes,

This is why it's fair...

The top 20% in America own 85% of the wealth (with 34.6% of that 85% going to the top 1% of the population), while the bottom 80% in our country own only 15% of the wealth. Think of it this way, 1% get's to share a slice of pie that's more than double the size of the piece 85% get to share. Wouldn't it make more sense to tax the wealth instead of the people?

Now, I'm not begrudging them being rich, but those taxes, which I pay at a rate higher than Mitt Romney, have been used to pave the roads that 1% uses and profits off of. To pay for the public educations of the people who go to work and earn money for that 1%. To provide for the protections they get from the police and fire departments.

The concept that fairness equals everyone being treated the same, is, literally, the mentality of a four year old. This isn't a question of dollar for dollar, it's a question of percentage of earnings. Yes, Mitt Romney paid way more in taxes than I did, but the percent of what he paid out of what he earned, was a lot less than the percent I paid out of what I earned.

Bush wanted and did raise the debt ceiling and the Dems call him CRAZY....

What says you now? Is Obama CRAZY???

I think both presidents and congress needs to get a grip that it is the DEBT that is hurting the US (and other countries as well) and until we take steps to CUT spending AND raise revenue (and that may require ALL Americans to sacrifice- not only the rich); we are destine to have an ACCOUNT OVERDRAWN......

Sarah We are talking federal income taxes. This has nothing to do with wealth. Much of wealth has been taxed as earned and some of it will be taxed when you die!! You seem to think that tax codes are the reason some people are wealthy. I can tell you there is much more involved. You can tax me until I have nothing left in this world and you will not bring me down to your level. You see, net worth and self worth are not even remotely related.

You are actually very incorrect on "much of the wealth has been taxed as earned" and you know it.

You cannot tell me that your company's retained earnings, the amount you effectively paid taxes on, is all your company is worth, ah, that would be "wealth".

Now tell me I am wrong, tell me that your company is actually worth less than your retained earnings.

Even those without a formal education, that would be the 47% you talk about, intuitively know this. That you are only being taxed a "fraction" of your total wealth "growth" comparatively to their "wealth" which was paid for by their meeger after tax compensation dollars. And now, to add insult to injury, you and your Republican friends want to exclude that wealth growth from not only estate taxes but also income taxes. Next thing you'll know, your accountants will tell you to not take any salary, have no taxes on any income whatsoever, after all that would d d d definately, definately, shift all of the tax burden onto your employees now wouldn't it?

Balance between labor and capital is key. Labor was out of control from the late 50s through to the late 70s. Capital has been out of control from the late 90s through today. Balance must be restored to maintain a good economy. The tax code is the only mechanism to ensure a stable balance.

Jay I am in the same position as many in that much of my income is earned income. It is taxed at marginal rates. Before you lecture me about how I need better accountants, I will tell you I have excellent accountants. (probably better than you, even tough you probably think you are the best) Not all wealthy people have only investment income.

Yes he did make some interesting points. Right now I am listening to david stockman's analysis on bloomberg TV. His economic analysis is more to the point on what obama spoke on. Then again, daniels is a politician and stockman an economist.

Have to agree, except for the shifty-eyed, negative intro...

Wow, I thought I was the only one to see that.

Mitch Daniels IS shifty, deceitful, mean-spirited and as big a flip-flopper on policy as Mitt Romney could ever be accused of. He has mortgaged our major toll-road, built with public tax money, to privateers while giving them the freedom to profit from a public asset. An idea that got its start in Texas and you should look for it coming soon to your state, if you have a Republican governor.

He has cut assistance to the handicapped, elderly and mentally ill and is trying to push the obscenely-spun "right to work" legislation through our legislature without the referendum on it that 70% of our state's citizens want before it's passed into law.

The whole folksy, reasonable, plain-talking shtick is an act that he has honed to perfection, but it's the sheep's clothing that doesn't disguise a wolf, but rather a snake in the grass! He can't run again here in Indiana and so he's hoping either to be drafted for the presidential nomination at the Republican convention if the already-declared candidates damage each other beyond viability, or to be the VP candidate for whoever of them ends up the 'ultimate Survivor'. Beware America, you will wake up with the same buyer's remorse we are feeling here in Indiana if "My Man Mitch" gets on the national ticket.

not too shabby.

Nice spelling. Anyway, Daniels is just another shill for the wealthy.

Mitch Daniels. What a joke. I especially liked his comments about Apple creating an abundance of jobs. You notice he didn't say where those jobs were created. (China) Just like those Republicans....they distort the truth and omit important facts so that the unknowing and weakminded will buy into their warped way of thinking in an effort to promote their twisted agenda of everyone else paying for their mistakes and fortunes. Just like they did with the financial bailout. You know, like when the housing market collapsed from predatory lending, then knowingly hedging their bets on investors (credit default swaps) taking the loss which would be covered by insurers like AIG, then sticking it to the taxpayers with TBTF! Yep, they like their free rides but nobody else should get one! Nothing more than Republican sponsored corporate welfare and entitlements. All in the name of Capitalism, free enterprise, privatized profits and socialized losses.

Blackhills...is Daniels not a second term governor? how did that happen if he is so shifty and deceitful?

Tjohn...why did Apple create jobs in china?

Does Mitch's response even go with what's being said on the campaign trail? I didn't think so. It was much more middle of the road than the rhetoric of the primaries.

Mitch Daniels: DOOM and GLOOM! What a beautiful message!

BARF!

BARF? .... eloquent

Sorry, american. Disagree with you there. BOTH parties have the attitude of "my way or the highway" And the poor schmucks in the middle be darn!

X never mind...;-)

Egilman,

I posted the answer, but your not going to like it.

How about this, one side gives up a bunch of the regulations of today and the other side agrees to the tax rates at that time? And you better be sure about going back to those policies. Lots of regulations on banking and such back then. But today's regulations about clean air and water and food safety and job safety - hey, if your okay with it, so am I.

But I still love you!

I won't dispute your argument at the congressional level phine, one should have expected compromise. However at the potus-congressional level obama showed a lack of wanting to find common ground for congress to work together and his constant threats of a presidential veto did no one a favor.

It is hard to say that obamas ignoring his own debt commision report, publicly castigating the republican FY2012 budgert proposal as being without merit and then ignoring the S&P warning, as not having a negative impact on the economy being less so than the debt ceiling

Even obamas reluctance to have a firm FY 2011 budget in place before oct 2010 speaks volumes.

Not good phine, especially when he campaigned on "hope and change".

phine and egilman, do you need a room? ;)

american

Egilman is one of my great friends on this site. I truly respect him and I believe he respects me. We differ politically but are respectful. And, horror of horrors, we actually agree on some things. So, please grant me a little poetic license with my friend.

american-2051576

No we don't need a room, why is it that everyone thinks in such terms?

We respect each other, we agree on some things and disagree on others but we feel that they can be discussed without resorting to outlandish attacks on each other or anyone else... WE do not lose sight of reality or the humor in the political situation, we take the optomistic viewof the situation, but understand reality, A lot of people on the vine would benefit from the same approach...

If that is to hard to accept, tough!

Egilman,

Now that we set him straight, I will meet you at the Motel 6! LOL

interesting responce egilman, why not look at the last few charactors in my comment.

phine - wax poetic all you want, but words do have meanings and on a public blog one can never assume that others won't respond with a touch of humor themselves.

Damn! you slipped one in on us there? My apologies if I came across a little hard... But I assumed I needed to defend a friend.... My mistake..

american,

You can stop by the Motel 6 lounge, Egilman & I will buy you a drink. :)

apologies accepted.The drink sounds good. :)

Absolutely, more than one!!!

So now a threesome? Interesting.

I think Obama is really oversimplifying the problem here. The economy is still performing poorly because of gridlock in Washington? If only if were that simple as to just agree on economic policies, then magically have the economy strong again? Why would we be arguing in the first place?

Boehner walked away from the 4 trillion dollar deal that would have prevented the Tea Party downgrade. In fact, republicans walked away 3 times.

Civility between people of opposing opinions....NOT allowed on here!

You might start a trend...

First it was not the Tea Party downgrade. The downgrade was because the democrats refused to deal with excessive spending. Second, Boehner agreed to Obama's deal but the Obama came back and asked for more money in the form of a tax increase. So far the democrats have asked for immediate tax increases in exchange for future spending cuts.

Broke-est nation in history. $3 billion in new debt a day. Obama needs another $1.2 trillion right now just to keep the lights on.

Yeah, everything is great. No reason to be concerned at all.

Not so much doom and gloom as it is pointing out what we need to overcome,. Did you get all the references obama made about increasing governments influencing our daily lives and then a little ways further down the road wanting to streamline government. Quite a disconnect...

I watched the address on bloombergTV, After daniels responce, david stockman made his own observations and obama definitely had stockman scratching his head on what he was proposing. Unfortunately for todays GOP, stockman was also scratching his head on some of their current tax policies as well.

Spanky,

Are you always this ridiculous, or only on this site? Of course everything is wrong. And BOTH sides are to blame. When will you get that most of America is sick to death of this bs from both sides? We KNOW we are in trouble, problem is no one (and I mean BOTH sides) are willing to work together.

So, save me from more of YOUR bs. Say something productive for once. Or at least pleasant to me. Or say nothng at all. I am done.

I got a better idea there phine - it's late, go to bed.

Then tomorrow the sun will come out.

Of course we will still blow throw $3 billion in new debt tomorrow, and still owe over $15 trillion, but you'll feel much better.

I,on the other hand, will likely be even more ridiculous. :)

Spanky,

The bed part sounds good. But somehow I have to move the hubby and the cat over to get some space! (And it is a king sized bed)

actually phine it is more like the politicians won't tell the populace the truth on what will be required to move forward. Easy to understand as politicians have become more interested in only looking forward to the next election cycle.

BTW - why are you afraid to acknowledge or at least dispute spanky's numbers or observations?

american,

Long story. Let's just say I have a long history with Spanky, and it hasn't always been pretty!

And your right about the politicians. That's why I called a pox on both sides of the aisle. I am an equally ticked of with all of them!

Spanky

I know I am a little late to this, but the numbers you talk about are paying the bills on what Little Bush and the Rep's spent the 8 years they were in control. 2 wars that were not paid for, Tax cuts for the rich that were not paid for. What about that Spanky. And you seem to be a smart fellow so you should know the President can not spend one red cent. " Ronald Regan" It is congress that spends the money, lay the blame on them.

So Bush's bills amounted to 5 trillion in 8 years and now Obama's bills are amounting to 5 trillion in three years. Apparently you have not noticed that Bush has been out of office for three years now yet you are still blaming our lack of fiscal responsibility on him. WHY?

american-2051576, "The house wanted a full year...." The house was grandstanding for crying out loud! They just wanted to get it on record so that people like you would do what you just did. They knew it was crap when they passed it!

Max, once again you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

In September, 2011, Obama told Speaker of the House, John Boehner that anything less than a full year of “tax relief and UI benefits would be inexcusable” (Obama: Fox News, 2011).

In November, it became clear to Obama that he couldn’t muster enough votes in his own party to support a piece of legislation that he had deemed important. Liberals, like Nancy Pelosi, kept attaching rinds of pork to the bill, and the Republicans kept rejecting it. Remember this was Obama’s pet project and he couldn’t push it through.

Max, at least try to know what you’re talking about next time, instead of looking like a colossal, horses ass.

Arkius, Fox news? That's where your getting your news from? I should have known. Don't you think that the Fox news network is a little tilted? PBS news is the best. Along with NBC, CBS and ABC, CNN and MSNBC. Try to expand your news media a little.

What I saw was the Speaker of the House pushing through a bill that they knew full and well wouldn't pass the Senate just to show everyone they were for a full year. If I remember correctly, Mr. Boehner and associates were quite humbled by the GOP Senate leaders.

Max, the source of my news intake is irrelevant. The fact is I was able to corroborate my claim that it was the President who originally demanded that tax benefits and UI relief be extended for a full year. Try to stay focused here; your mind is wandering.

The House Speaker, Mr. Boehner was able to show that the President was weak within his own party; that the President had gone back on his word; that the President was trying to play politics with tax relief, and doing it badly. If anything the President was quite humbled by his own ineptitude.

the source of my news intake is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant if the source of news does not present all relevant information. Leaving facts out to promote a point of view is akin to propaganda. That's what "news" organizations are now-a-days, just big propaganda machines; they really should be called "opinion organizations". And Fox News is one of the biggest culprits.

Whoever the hell you are, the source of my news intake is irrelevant in this instance because I was using the news source for a quote.

Maybe if you took your head out of your ass long enough to actually read the exchange of comments between Max and myself, you would have noticed this and wouldn't come off looking like a fool.

I find it odd that since the late1970's, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR and more recently CNN, and the Internet the news media were considered to be liberal biased and no one even raised so much as an eyebrow. Now, FoxNews comes along with their conservative trend and suddenly it has become chic for America's socialist celebrity class to criticize Fox, without any real justification I might add, solely because of their conservative tendencies. The Left's incessant and gratuitous derision has mesmerized weak minded sheep, such as you, who'll happily flock together to commiserate each others fraudulence.

If you're not willing to genuinely scrutinize the liberal left's critique of FoxNews, then you're just a "propaganda machine" for the socialist celebrity class, and you shouldn't be lecturing anyone on "opinion organizations".

You obviously don't know what leftist really is. Look at the RT news network, and then come back and tell me those others are liberal biased.

You on entitlements- expected voting for those morons.

Nobody 2012

I vote for the dirt.

noladude, you scare me, you are an example why common sense is becoming a rare thing .

Noladude

You are as dumb as a rock. Anyone that would make a statement like you just did can't have the brains of a piss ant.

I'm reasonably certain you didn't know Mussolini, or see him when he was alive.

When you get blinded by hate, it is understandable that you can't see anything objectively. Uneducated Americans are the cause of our current problems. They know something is wrong, but that's where their critical thinking skills fail them. They listen to King Rush, and he tells them it is Obama's fault. Case closed, just like their minds.

Back to the original theme of the article. Of course, the gridlock hurt the economy. It is not opinion; the downgrade by S&P cost us money immediately.

Obama hurt the economy..he is dumber than dirt.

See, this is exactly the great thing about America.

The Tea-Republican party can put Dubya in the White House, support and allow him to take the balanced national budget and decimate it, give the nation's wealth away to his family, friends and supporters, mis-lead us in to un-funded and un-necessary wars, institute sever deficit spending causing the worst depression since they did it in 1928 with Hoover, bringing America to the verge of bankruptcy... Then turn around 3 years later and have the freedom to spin the illogical, imbecillic rhetoric that all of that harm is Obama's because he is the President (even though he has avoided a total economic meltdown, as mentioned in the SOTU, and strengthened America globally in foreign relations, and thankfully prevented complete disaster and began improvements.)

Isn't American Freedom fantastic? It even allows citizens to take such assinine positions as that and even spew untrue spin and lies and to re-write history in this manner (for personal gain in all likelihood,) without fear of censorship or retaliation from the government.

Gotta love this country!

idiots!

You are an idiot. The Repukes have absolutely REFUSED to work with the President in ANY WAY.

He has tried over and over to cjompromise with them, and they absolutely refuse to work with him on ANYTHING.

Get over your right wing claptrap.

door stop maybe.

We do not have a Representative government anymore. Big money owns this government, lock stock and barrel. Thanks to the High court. One thing I seem to be seeing is people have rejected the ones with the most money. I hope these corp.'s and other country's spend themselves into bankruptcy and then loose. then there would be no one to get them there money back. A few elections like that and money will be taken out of the elections. come one people wise up.

chuck, We need to vote out every GOP incumbent to get out of this ridiculous stalemate in congress. All of these new GOP and tea party far right extremist congressmen are hurting the nations recovery. The GOP has done NOTHING for two years waiting for this moment to blame "everything" on the president. This has been Carl's plan all along. Even to the point of hurting you and me.

Chuck, I hope you don’t mind if I do a little critical thinking analysis of your comments? OK?

You begin with a wide open, audacious, premise: “We do not have a Representative government anymore. “ Well…big balls are certainly nice to have, but big brains are even nicer. Your next premise: “Big money owns this government, lock stock and barrel”, doesn’t support your first premise; it’s an independent argument all its own. Question: Why is the R in representative capitalized, Chuck?

“Thanks to the High court”, is a fragment. But which sentence does it belong to Chuck? Does it belong to the preceding sentence, i.e.: Big money owns this government, lock stock and barrel, thanks to the high court.

As you can see I removed the period at the end of the first sentence, added a comma, and a lower case H on high. Question: Why is the H capitalized in the first place, Chuck?

Or does “Thanks to the High court”, belong to the next sentence, i.e.: “Thanks to the high court, one thing I seem to be seeing is people have rejected the ones with the most money.” Again, I removed the period, and put a comma after court, and I made the H a lower case.

Now the first sentence explains that: Thanks to the high court, big money owns this government, lock stock and barrel. But which court are you referring to Chuck? The Second Court of Appeals, the Third District Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court, or the United States Supreme Court?

Adding the fragment to the follow-on sentence doesn’t lend it any clarity. You get: I thank the high court for improving my eyesight, which helps me watch people reject other people with large incomes.

Let’s recap. You lead off with a big opener, but you didn’t support it with anything. Maybe the two sentences I cleaned up might help? Maybe not.

We do not have a Representative government anymore. Big money owns this government, lock stock and barrel, thanks to the high court. I thank the high court for improving my eyesight, which helps me watch people reject other people with large incomes.

No, nope. NO, no, no. Sorry Chuck, but no matter what I do with your opening three sentences, I can’t make them make sense. There is no: premise, premise, conclusion format that I can squeeze them into. They’re just a sequence of sentences that don’t support the first sentence. And the rest, well, it’s just a hopeless mishmash of gibberish, sprinkled with misspellings, unfortunate contractions, mis-punctuations, confused words and a sentence without a capital letter.

Chuck, would you like to try again?

Arkius, Please take the time to refute my response, you pompous a$$.

Max, you’re even less articulate than Chuck, and less familiar with the American way of life. Are you from out of town?

Max, if we voted out all the GOP incumbents, including the Tea Party members, the United States Congress would then have a one party system. My questions to you Max: Is that legal or illegal? Would that be a quantum shift in the American political system? Would the US Congress still be able to function under the Constitution? Be careful what you wish for Max.

You wrote: “All of these new GOP and tea party far right extremist congressmen are hurting the nations recovery.” This is called a blanket statement Max. You paint with a broad brush, etc, etc. Try doing it the hard way; the intelligent way. Give us the details Max, and have the nads to cite some sources. Anybody can talk sh!t Max. Real men walk the walk.

You also wrote: “The GOP has done NOTHING for two years waiting for this moment to blame "everything" on the president.”

You’re starting to whine like a little girl Max and you’ve got you’re facts back-asswards.

The GOP had been voicing their constituent’s concerns, voting according to their value systems and conscience, much like their Democratic counter parts. It’s what they’re elected to do Max. So stop bellowing like some wounded cow; you sound pathetic. Next, Obama has been blaming everyone around him for the failures of his own administration. It’s been all over the news for months Max. Max, it’s not going to go away if you ignore it.

And who is this Carl you’re referring to? Could it be Obama’s idol, Carl Marx?

Arkius, Thank you for your retort. But you still show me nothing. Anyone that likes to talk down to people like you do need more help than I can provide you. Please seek help. You are misinformed.

I did not say to vote in every Dem to replace the GOP incumbents. That would be out of the question. What I did say was we need to vote out every GOP incumbent. The basis of every Democracy has, in the last 200 or so years, been something called give and take. If one side says NO to everything, then I think calling it a "do nothing" Congress might be close to correct. If you are telling me this has been a progressive Congress, passing laws for the good of the U.S. of A. please tell me just what they have done the past two years? All I see is stonewalling.

The reason I think they are stonewalling is they want a Democratic black President out of office at all costs. Even if it hurts the economy.

Have you heard a wounded cow bellow? I have. I grew up out of town. Just listen to the 99%. They are wounded, bellowing, hurting beyond their wildest dreams. My neighbors have and are losing their homes. I lost mine. I put the blame for this on the GOP! The credit default swaps. The lack of over-site on the banks and wall street. If I sound pathetic well aren't you the, ( I will not call you a name here). I'm just tired of name calling.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that the blanket fits. You tell me how many laws were passed this last year? Was it the least in 10 years? 15 years? We need to pass a debt ceiling not because we need to just spend more $. We need to show that we will pay our debts. If we don't we will see another credit downgrade. This will be the next big GOP stonewall. The last one worked well didn't it. We went from AAA+ to AA+.

The GOP voicing their constituent's concerns is total bull. Two years ago several Dem lost their seat in Congress. Grover Norquist had an idea that the people had spoken and thinks everyone of us wanted the GOP to take over, etc., etc. I think everyone was tired of the economy and just started voting out the incumbents. Occam"s razor. Mark my word, Arkius, this November it will be the GOP and Dems being voted out. Everyone I know is not happy with the Congress as it is today.

Also, the name Carl is the person we all know as Karl Rove. The man behind the curtain.

Max, you are intellectually challenged, and are in no position to help anyone. My use of critical thinking makes you feel uncomfortable and petite, thus, it makes you feel as if I’m talking down to you. In other words, you are easily intimidated.

Max, please re-read my first paragraph carefully.

This is what I wrote:”Max, if we voted out all the GOP incumbents, including the Tea Party members, the United States Congress would then have a one party system. My questions to you Max: Is that legal or illegal? Would that be a quantum shift in the American political system? Would the US Congress still be able to function under the Constitution? Be careful what you wish for Max.”

I made no mention of replacing GOP incumbents with Democrats. You are making that up. By the way, you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you. Are you afraid? Don’t you know the answers? Every school kid knows these.

Next, you wrote: “The basis of every Democracy has, in the last 200 or so years, been something called give and take.” Wrong

Democracy is a system of government consisting of four parts

1) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair

elections.

2) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3) Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

(Electronic document WhaIsDemocracy 012004.htm).

According to part 2, debate is part of democracy. There is nothing mentioned about “give and take”. Please re-read my comments. You must be confusing me with someone else. I did not, at any time, assert that this was a “progressive Congress”.

Max, you are the wounded cow in question, and you’re bellowing, and you’re pathetic. Before the GOP gained a majority in the House, the Democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress, and Obama had a difficult time convincing members of his own party that any of his legislative proposals were worthy of passing, and this includes his healthcare bill.

I’m sorry that you lost your house Max, but I am not convinced the Republicans took it away from you. I’m not convinced the Democrats didn’t make a major contribution to our economic problems; probably more so than the Republicans in my estimation.

I remember clearly why President Clinton (a Democrat) wanted to make it easier for folks to get mortgages. He wanted more people to realize the American dream, and I think that was a noble idea.

He wanted the banks to make it easier for people to qualify for mortgages (Fannie Mae and Freddie mac???). So, he wrote the laws, Congress passed the bills, and the banks made it easier. And that’s how that sh!t went down. Don’t blame the GOP Max. Elizabeth Dole, John McCain and John Sununu all tried to pass legislation to increase over-sight. President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 with bi-partisan support to enable expanded authority.

I don’t know if I am part of the 99% Max, however, I haven’t been financially hurt. I retired young and I’m doing just fine. Not many folks in my town have lost their homes. Some other towns nearby were hit pretty hard though.

You wrote: “The GOP voicing their constituent's concerns is total bull.”

Max, I know you’re angry about you’re situation, but that doesn’t change reality. Congressmen and women from both parties are obligated to address their constituents concerns, or they will soon be ex Congressmen and women.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s presidency is a failure. He started out with much promise and much hope. We all had a great deal invested in him, but unfortunately he crapped out; he rolled a seven dude. It was on-the-job training for him, and he didn’t learn fast enough and we suffered for it.

Give it up Max. He isn’t going to get any smarter with another four years in office. He isn’t going to come up with a game saving idea to pull us out of this jam. He doesn’t have the juice and he doesn’t know anybody who does. It wasn’t us Max, it was him. F—k him.

Arkius ,,,,,,,,,,,,, You are a dissembling Pompous A$$. I know people who talk like you because they like to hear the wind whistle over their teeth. Verbiage will get you only boredom because people go to sleep before they finish reading your hopelessly convoluted post. More is less. please remember that.

Ed……………you miserable excuse for a man. I’ve known people like you all my life. They like to fart and scratch their balls in public so that everyone knows where they stand in the social hierarchy. You fall somewhere between ass clown and douche nozzle inspector. More is less? In your case Ed, less is more.

To begin with, you’re not too bright Ed; you don’t know the difference between a post and a comment, and I don’t have the patients to explain it to a dim witted adult.

Next, my comments only seem convoluted to you because you’re too stupid to understand them. Moreover, I don’t write for morons Ed. I write for intelligent people. Max has had no problem at all understanding my prose and engaging me in conversation.

BTW, this is a writing media Ed, which means that the readers can neither hear me whistle, nor hear you burp The Star Spangled Banner.

How was that Ed? Was it short enough for your simple mind to take in all at once?

Arkius, You remind me of the small in stature kid in grade school that all the other kids liked to pick on. Only most of them grew up. You, on the other hand, didn't. In everyone of your posts you have a internal need to badger and belittle anyone that opposes your view. You are an angry man/woman and that makes you a little person. You need to seek help. Go back to college. See a priest.

you must be a moron. Look at the debt idiot. Look at Europe. Are you an entitlement honcho?

The republican party has thrived in fear mongering for a long time now, very old political tactic. This is no different.

And yes, there are problems that need to be addressed; but the republicans are like the person that sees a small fire and runs off screaming 'fire!', instead of grabbing the fire extinguisher and helping put the fire out.

What ever the hell your name is. You and Dot should have children. They would all be front porch banjo players for Deliverance, because you’re both mentally retarded.

Delusional, did I mention delusional? You are both determined to deceive yourselves into thinking that the man who got you into this mess has the ability to get you out. You are both determined to interpret truth as fear. I’m just wondering how stupid you two can be?

Obama is pissing on your legs and telling you it’s raining. You’re smiling your stupid little smiles, shaking your concrete filled heads up and down, but you refuse to look up; you know, where the rain comes from. And your man, the guy you’re pinning all your hopes on, has got nothin’. He’s clueless. He’s still trying to redistribute the wealth, as if that’s going to solve the problem. He just doesn’t get it, and apparently, neither do you.

There aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires in this country with enough money to fix our financial problems. Even if the government took every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the US and put it in the treasury, it still wouldn’t be enough. So why is he still harping on a stupid idea that’s not going to do any good. He’s being a politician; he’s diverting your attention away from the real problem, which is, he doesn’t know what to do, and you two are falling for it. SUCKERS.

The truth is, we, as a nation, are in deep financial trouble. Wake up and take a good look around you. We’ve had bank failures, mortgage foreclosures, businesses of all sizes going bankrupt, unemployment as high as 9%, the economy is barely moving, a lot of people, from all walks of life, are worried about their future and their children’s future, (just ask Max from Scottsdale) and you two Deliverance retards think that the Republicans are fear mongering? I don’t think either of you would recognize the truth if it walked up to you and bit you on the ass.

P.S. Tell me something Affinity1, what color is the sun in your world? I think it’s time for you to put the crack pipe down and give Betty Ford a call. I’m sure she has a nice soft latex room all ready for you.

Delusional, did I mention delusional?

The same could be said for conservatives. They buy all the crappy lies the party spews, and eat it up like as if it was the word of God. No questioning, no critical thinking, no research. Just hear it and repeat it... actually, delusional is not right, naive is the word I that best describes it.

You are both determined to deceive yourselves into thinking that the man who got you into this mess has the ability to get you out.

I'm assuming you are blaming Obama for the problem, right? Regardless of the fact that the mess started brewing more than a decade before he ever ran for congressional office, and the collapse started before he was sworn in as president. Sorry that truth and facts are so inconvenient for you; but I am sure you can find someone in a "liberal" media outlet, like Fox News, to rewrite history for you. (Yes, I am being sarcastic)

You are both determined to interpret truth as fear. I’m just wondering how stupid you two can be?

I am not interpreting truth as fear, I am interpreting their partial version of the facts fear. If you can see the fear mongering, is because you drank the kool-aid. They always use fear, and incomplete information to get the lemmings to support them. That's their modus operandi. And you know what, it works; there are enough idiots in this country to buy their story and follow them like zombies. And its not just this country, it is a common tactic in politics in general. Even democrats do it, just not as much IMO.

Obama is pissing on your legs and telling you it’s raining. You’re smiling your stupid little smiles, shaking your concrete filled heads up and down, but you refuse to look up; you know, where the rain comes from. And your man, the guy you’re pinning all your hopes on, has got nothin’.

I never said I supported Obama. I don't agree with some of the stuff he's done. I don't agree with the way he's handled the situation. But given the alternatives, I take him any day over most republicans. And truly, I would actually consider voting for Romney (none of the other clowns though). I know all that's going on right now is "primary talk", and most of that is just to get the base excited. At the end, even Romney (or whoever the republican) would need to work with congress and senate to do anything; e,g: filibuster turning it's ugly head on republicans this time. They are all posers (yes, even Obama) during the election season, then reality hits once they get into office.

He’s clueless. He’s still trying to redistribute the wealth, as if that’s going to solve the problem. He just doesn’t get it, and apparently, neither do you.

Apparently you don't get that wealth redistribution is happening already, it's just flowing up and not down. Don't believe me? Simply look at the IRS income reports for the past decade and draw your own conclusion.

How is it possible that Romney who makes more than 50 times what I do has a lower tax liability than I do? I'll tell you, politicians have made sure they and their wealthy friends can get away with it. And no, Romney is not doing anything illegal, I commend him for coming forward with his tax return and being honest about it. The travesty is that he can actually get away with it legally. But then if you are not one of the rich people raping the middle class, then you must like getting ripped off by them.

There aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires in this country with enough money to fix our financial problems. Even if the government took every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the US and put it in the treasury, it still wouldn’t be enough. So why is he still harping on a stupid idea that’s not going to do any good. He’s being a politician; he’s diverting your attention away from the real problem, which is, he doesn’t know what to do, and you two are falling for it. SUCKERS.

That just reflects the narrow way of thinking of the conservatives, giving incomplete simple answers for complex questions. If a particular solution does not solve the entire problem, then it must not be implemented in any way, not even partially, right? Deny it all you want, but the inequality of tax rates and the complicated unfair tax code ARE a problem; one of many. Yet you are trying to distract from it with stupid little narrow arguments like the one you made in that paragraph. A new tax code is PART of the solution.

The truth is, we, as a nation, are in deep financial trouble. Wake up and take a good look around you. We’ve had bank failures, mortgage foreclosures, businesses of all sizes going bankrupt, unemployment as high as 9%, the economy is barely moving, a lot of people, from all walks of life, are worried about their future and their children’s future, (just ask Max from Scottsdale) and you two Deliverance retards think that the Republicans are fear mongering? I don’t think either of you would recognize the truth if it walked up to you and bit you on the ass.

And I am guessing yours is all bitten up and you didn't even notice. One of the main causes of this deep financial trouble is the deregulation of the financial markets, like the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by a republican controlled congress and signed by Clinton. Another is that ridiculous "ownership society" idea of the neocons; which is basically a nice way of saying, lets get everyone in debt so we can make more money. Financial institutions are laughing it up, while we were left holding the bag. The rich got richer, and we are left with 9% unemployment (actually more in real numbers) and no way to pay the mortgage.

Well, I got news for you. Your precious little utopia of free markets and full fledged capitalism would only work if everyone is moral and honest. We both know that is not the case (if you don't know, then you live in a bubble). The reason why unregulated capitalism will never work is the same reason why full communism or full socialism don't work either. All those systems assume the existence of a population that is 100% ethical and fair; they fail to acknowledge the reality of the human condition, which will never change.

What ever the hell your name is ,,,,,,,,,,,,, You are a dissembling Pompous A$$. I know people who talk like you because they like to hear the wind whistle over their teeth. Verbiage will get you only boredom because people go to sleep before they finish reading your hopelessly convoluted post. More is less. please remember that.

Smell it, taste it, pass it through your lower intestine.

And the fact that you start your posts by making fun of my nickname is a clear indication that you do not have an answer. It's typical, juvenile posts that start like that have no substance 99% of the time.

I normally do not write that long, and I don't care if anyone reads it. But it was a ton of fun proving you wrong in every single paragraph.

They have not a single clue. The original Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation, which is completely different from fiscal responsibility. We all want that. We have representation. What we don't have is knowledgeable voters making informed decisions. We have knee jerk voters that accept cute slogans and good old folksy talk at face value, and put simple minded obstructionists in positions of authority where they do substantial damage.

Even their Super PACs don't get it. Restore Our Future? How can you restore something that hasn't happened yet? Clueless.

ken

I take it that you want your taxes raised. Now my question is,how much did you donate over and above the taxes you paid?

slodon, If you do not make more than $250,000 per year you have no grip so what is your point? And if you do make more, your comment is lame.

Obama team: No evidence of extraterrestrial life

By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Nov 06, 2011

The White House says there is no evidence of life beyond Earth -- and no cover-up by the government -- but scientists are still searching.

"The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race," writes an Obama administration official on the White House website.

Phil Larson, who works on space policy and communications at the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy, also writes that "there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye."

President Obama's White House responded to a petition claiming a government cover-up of contact with space life.

Actually it was 10.1 trillion the day he took office. I agree completely on your post though.

10.1 trillion to 16.6 trillion in 4 years.

Thats roughly 23 thousand USD per person for 300 million citizens.

Did you get your share yet? Anyone? Where is it being spent? Transparency anyone?

Sorry its a vote against Obama big time for me.

Worst President we have ever had and I thought no one could out do peanut farmer Carter...

Jerry D Williamson, I will try to explain to you what happened to Obama after he took office. For the last eight (8) years under Bush and Chenny the economy has been broken and there is no money coming in to help. It is losing $ fast and there is no stopping it. There is a really good movie staring Rock Hudson named "Ice Station Zebra". In the movie someone sabotages the submarine and in what seems like forever, this sub goes for the bottom of the ocean, like our economy was going. Obama takes over the sub half way down and the momentum carries us down the rest of the way. Impossible to stop a 6.5 trillion loss after losing 10.1 trillion and going down fast. There's your picture Jerry. The worst President ever? With the congress this man has had to deal with? And you want more of the same stuff the GOP is dishing out? What is wrong with you people?

nothing but lame excuses for a man and a party that has no clue. Fact is for most of the Bush presidency unemployment was of a reasonable level and only spiked to 7.3% at the very end of 2008 when this current economic downturn began. Obama and the dems did nothing to help and only spent money like insane people. Unemployment went above 10% and has stayed high in the longest recession in our history. After 2001 attacks on NY, Bush had to gear up for war, create security systems for the country and bailout airlines and NY city. In all that he never spent tax dollars like looney tune Democrats. We, as a nation cannot endure this. Obama has a big mouth, sounds great but does nothing. Obama had a senate and house of representatives controlled by his own party for 2 years and still couldn't get anything done. He has surrounded himself with socialist/communist advisers and is destroying our country. It is very disheartening to know so many Americans are so naive as to fall for this fools rhetoric.

@STEVE-O ; HE'S ONLY THE MOST BLACKEST PRESIDENT YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR LIFE TIME SON ; come on , pee-wee henry , jerry lewis , tom and jerry , would have been a huge improvement ,next to the american bankrupter.

I agree Rick 13, and the funny part about it ... they did it to themselves being hateful, obstructive, and greedy. They don't want the rich 1% to be taxed but want to keep us in our "place". If they didn't work ever again in their lives most of the 1%, if not all, could live out their lives in luxury. Some are willing to pay a high tax rate, at least what we as the working people pay, so why not?

No, Loren, You are wrong.

The 1% pay a higher effective rate than your "working" people already and 40% of the total tax bill.

The bottom 40% pay an effective tax rate of 0.00%. Can you spell NO TAX?

You must be one of them...

Jello heads!

I really wish, before people posted, that the understood the following:

a) the difference between national debt and the federal budget deficit.

b) what the national debt was when Bush took office and what it was when obama took office.

c) the architect for the balanced federal budget, which lead to a budget surplus, is the guy the that MSNBC is striving diligently to assassinate his character.

Sorry ENEEDHELP but you need some educational training too.

I suppose, you mean, that we expect you to work and pay your own way.

Well, yes, we do.

@BEANIE WEINE CRY BABY TOSHENIE ; when the president gets you fools to stop playing with the jobs bill, you will eat those words son. when bush raised the dept sealing every year ( 8 times ), i didn't hear you crying about your concern for america's money. when bush bankrupt america, and forced hard working americans to the welfare line, i didn't hear about the concern for americans needing to work. when bush sent trillions of american dollars across seas , to fight a war , built on lies , i didn't hear all this crying in the streets ,by the tea partiers. stop crying, hold your head up , it's a new day . because, hope and change is kicking butts ,and taking names. OBAMA - BIDEN 2012

You sound like a child with your name game rant,republicans or just plain greedy. It was Obama's spending spree that put our financial house in such disarray. And when he is voted out of office and the economy improves what will you say then?

@BARBARA BUSH ; I'll still say , '' BUSH AND HIS WMD ADMINISTRATION , BANKRUPTED AMERICA ''. And GOD BLESS the president of the united states of america, for cleaning up as much of that fool son of yours poo-poo , left behind.