Boehner couldn't trust the White HOuse. What a great big fat joke! I hope he didn't cry when he said it. It adds so much to the dialogue. The reason he was crying probably was because he is speaker and can do nothing or he would offend his rich supporters.

Now, please don't be re-writing the Truth.

John Boehner walked away from a $4 Trillion debt and deficit package proposed by President Barack Obama:

Last year. In 2011.

John Boehner cries because he is guilty. He knows what it is to belong to a big family like he did. Except most of us out here don't have a small business to keep us afloat like his father did.

The GOP/Koch-ers are causing the demise of the middle class in America, and Boehner knows it.

That's because most 'normal' observers in the US have a 28% College Graduation rate, make 39K a year, etc.

Basically, the 'most' anything argument is relatively foolish. 'Most' people aren't being asked, nor does their immediate personal opinion matter.

The only opinions that matter are those of 9 people, at the current moment. And those 9 people have a lot more insight as to what's going on, and what is entailed, in the ACA than 'most' people do.

So take your 'most' argument, especially when it comes to the supreme court, and forget it.

You want a 'most' anything going on, then you need to get 'most' people registered to vote and to the ballot box so they elect in THEIR representatives who, in turn, pass THEIR legislation.

Sadly, since only about 60% of eligible voters are registered and far less are informed, the 'most' argument is one of the most ridiculous, chest-beating sayings imaginable.

I still hold true to my initial assessment. 8-1 in favor of upholding the mandate. Possibility of mandating 'death' coverage as well.

The women needs to get off the bench already.

Interesting. Rob thinks women don't belong on the Supreme Court.

Crap Rob, I thought you were joking and then saw the headline on another site!

That is some funny stuff.....

Interesting. Rob thinks women don't belong on the Supreme Court.

Not true, I still have hope that Sotomayor actually has read and understands the US Constitution unlike Ginsberg. Kagan might actually come to her senses as well even though she helped write the piece of crap in the first place.

"Endorsement News! Pravda has endorsed barack obama."

Rob, are you referring to the American state-run media Pravda, also known as MSNBC, or the Russian Pravda?

Russian Pravda but your point is certainly valid.

I'll say this much, the longer he is speaker, the more information comes out that the person pulling the strings in the House is Eric Cantor. Cantor and Paul Ryan are two of the GOP failures who don't know how to govern and need to be replaced.

Dream on dirp,

Paul Ryan will most likely succeed Romney as President 8 1/2 years from now.

OH, so you're saying Romney is going to try again in 2016 after losing miserably this year ?

And then Romney might actually win, but only sit for one term ?

:D

On a total side note. WTF is Jane Fonda being cast as Nancy Reagan ?

What next, Jack Black as Newt Gingrich, Keith Olberman as Ollie North ?

Why would anyone want to see Hanoi Jane as one of the most conservative First Ladies ever to occupy the WhiteHouse ?

"Who killed the debt talks?"

The same ones who try to "kill" everything: The Republicans, naturally.

Fine with me though, no debt talks mean the Bush Tax Cuts will automatically expire.

Obama/Biden 2012

So Obama moved the Goal post just like Boehner said when he knew he had a deal, then Boehner after being lied to by Obama still try's to save the deal but fails and its his fault?????

Fact:

Obama had a deal and moved the goal post.

Fiesty you've got to be kidding? Did you even read the article? Cantor rejected talks after Obama did exactly what Cantor said he would do, come to an agreement and then ask for more. If Obama had stuck to the original agreement they would of got something done, but then you liberals couldn't blame Republicans could you?

Who wants to talk about Obama's debt .... ??

There'e no hope for it at this point ....

trilliondollar - you and LogicRequired have been listening to Rush, Anne Coulter (ugh) and Faux News way too much. Clearly your brains have been reduced to pure dust!

SeekingSanity - I don't listen to Rush, Anne Coulter WRITES, doesn't have a talk show but I don't read her, and with my kids at home my TV is NEVER on the news Fox, CNN, or any of the others.

But let me thank you for not making any arguments to our points yet just attacking us and our brains by stating something that you have no way of knowing if it is true.

You are a typical liberal giving no facts, never referencing the actual article, and not even trying to point out holes in what we wrote. No, you do the only thing liberals know how to do and that is attack and make unfounded accusations. Come back when you have something of substaince.

Who killed the debt talks?

Who cares? That was almost a year ago. Oh, and by the way, Obama has gotten us into almost another full trillion dollars of debt since then, so he's obviously not interesting in reducing it.

AmericanGirl -

Its funny you mention the "Bush" tax cuts that have been continued by Obama for the last 2 years. Obama wont let them expire. So much for that argument.

Who killed the Debt Deal? Probably the party that started negotiations by saying that any mention of tax increases would be a non-starter. Or the party that said that closing loopholes on corporations and 'job-creators' was a non-starter. Or was it the party whose only acceptable ideas for reducing spending have been to cut/kill SS, Medicare/Medicaid while trying to increase defense spending.

Fiesty, check somewhere OTHER than your usual sources. It is democrats that have come forward about 3 weeks ago to say that Boehner in a last ditch effort to save the deal gave Obama the tax increases and cuts in defense that Obama was demanding. Obama is the one who said 'NO!".

All Boehner and his aids would say about it is that Obama moved the goal posts.

Why do you suppose that happened?

The whole point of what Obama wanted originally was that it was terms that Republicans would not accept. Bad news, they did, and that cannot happen because them caving wipes out the re-election mantras of Republicans won't compromise AND the Republicans are the obstructionists.

Why was it the democrats who leaked it.

Well - Obama promised if they gave him what he wanted in passed, he would campaign for them and share his campaign funds with him. Since October, Obama's donations have had a steady drop meaning he probably will not get the $1 Billion Goal. Obama walked back sharing any campaign funds and has told them that he will only do ONE campaign appearance for them.

These people have put their re-elections in jepardy by supporting his legislation and now they are not going to have the help promised. What jerk!

Hey Rob in Ma,

Sorry, Pravda in the USA doesn't exist. You righties may think that MSNBC is a liberal propaganda machine, but the real propaganda comes from Newsmax.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012

Oh and chances are that it will either be upheld or struck down by a close vote of 5-4. Sorry, Rob, but it ain't gonna be so damn easy fighting healthcare reform. You on the right think your so well-versed in the Constitution, but it is sad to think that you cannot think beyond the words into the actual meaning of the Constitution.

The Constitution was simply placed to expand the powers of the central government from those stipulated in the Articles of Confederation, but to simultaneously be kept within certain boundaries. Every now and again the judiciary system expands the power of government so our nation can adjust to modern society. Anybody who thinks the states should have most of the responsibility is irrational. We tried decentralization twice; first with the Articles of Confederation, and second with the Confederacy. In the end, the Articles were replaced, and the Confederacy dissolved. That proves that decentralization and strict Constitutionalism doesn't work.

Hmm, let's see now... There is the Party of No who believes the word "compromise" is a dirty word with leaders like McConnell who openly stated his primary goal of making the president a one-term president... and then there are the Dems and the president who have offered olive branches and made concessions to the point of ridiculousness.

Throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

IDO seems inexplicably inclined to forget some of the facts surrounding his all caps ravings, such as the Keystone pipeline was originally stalled at the request of the Republican governor of Nebraska and offshore leasing has been in a state of limbo since the BP oil spill. Much of the other nonsense he is linking comes from his favorite neo-nazi zombie sites, none of which have any credibility whatsoever. Therefore, I suppose it is safe to ignore his less-than-honest analysis of current events because he is full of hot air and BS.

at last you know obumas a liar and you cant trust him to keep a deal

No, he isn't. You are just one more semi-literate hillbilly who scraped up enough cash to buy a computer for the sole purpose of making asinine comments on the internet for the entire world to see. That's all.

Who can really trust Obama, especially when he indicates to the the Russians in a open mic that he is willing to make a deal, but not until after the election. Obviously Obama doesn't feel the deal he is willing to make with the Russians will be popular with the American people and he doesn't want the heat before the election. How many other countries have the same wink and a nod from Obama?

Obama had a deal with Boehner and then he moved the goal posts. Pretty much sums up how much Obama can be trusted, or believed for that matter. So we learn Obama has no honor when it come to negotiating, but then again a deal wouldn't have left him with the opportunity to blame the Republicans. So Obama welched on the deal and blamed the Republicans anyway. Isn't that special.

Sailcat-2064101.....

Newsvine: (1) a place for people to converge and share thoughts, (2) a place to make new friends and (3) a place to influence folks.

Well, you certainly failed #2 and #3 stress tests and is apparent by your post #1.34.

Thanks for collapsing truthful information. However, posters can still view the comments by opening it up.

Back to my Truth Squad meeting.

Here is the correct link to Mr. Obama delayed the Keystone pipeline:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/10/obama-delays-keystone-pipeline-at-least-twelve-months.html

And for your information, I AM NOT NEO-NAZI but an EX-Democrat who will NOT BE VOTING FOR MR. Obama for re-election.

Why would you want the Keystone Pipeline approved? Yes, it produces oil and a few temporary jobs, but the oil is exported to China, not used here?

Oh, please. If someone could figure out how to attach a generator to this article they could use the spin on it to power the world.

Anyone with sense knows Bozobama didn't want or intend to EVER make a deal, certainly not one that CUT spending. This fool doesn't know HOW to spend less, especially when it's not his money. One and done for this fool.

"Oh, please. If someone could figure out how to attach a generator to this article they could use the spin on it to power the world."

And if BS were a penny a pound, the GOP would all be millionaires from all the nonsense they have been throwing around regarding this issue.

Why would Obama ever think he needs to be honest about anything when his supporters will openly ignore the truth. Obama never wanted a debt deal, he likes borrowing, printing, taxing, and spending this country into oblivion. Besides, if Obama had taken the deal he ask for from Republicans, who would he have been able to blame? So Obama welched on the deal and blamed the Republicans anyway. Everyone and every country should take notice, Obama is not true to his word and as such can never be trusted.

Even when the Keystone Pipeline is approved (and it will be), the oil produced will take nearly as much energy to produce as it provides. Then, when it reaches the Gulf Coast or wherever the refinery capacity just isn't there. It's also extremely dirty, hard to refine. And Sunoco is shutting down a refinery. I wonder why that is?

Gas prices are high because refined product is tied to Brent North Sea oil, not that that's West Texas Intermediate. If the opposite was used, gasoline prices would come down, not by much since the prices between the two would be nearly equal.

As far as any elected official being able to affect the price of gasoline. Would people just get real? The only way that's going to happen is if the oil companies and refineries were nationalized. People would howl to high heaven. It just isn't going to happen.

I heard a great (yet unlikely) concept being talked about on a financial program this morning- How about devote an entire Presidential debate to the national debt. That's brilliant! Literally have each candidate describe the specifics of their plan to cut the deficit and let a panel of financial analyists ask each to anwer specfic questions on how theirs differs, figure out what the actual differences are between the two, and evaluate the effects of each on the program with the candidates (taxation, quality of life, entitlement changes, etc.).

It'll never happen. It makes too much practical sense.

As a moderate watching the bantor back and forth, I fail to grasp where the spinning I am seeing from the right has any real support in fact. Case in point, there were at least three different times during the exchange between Obama and Boehner, that an agreement was nearly solidified, but since there was language pointing to a rise in taxes for those (Individuals and Corporations) making $1 million or more per year, the GOP walked away from the table. Obama had to make concessions to get Boehner back to the table.

despite all the furious efforts to peddle a different story, is that Obama managed to persuade his closest allies to sign off on what he wanted them to do, and Boehner didn't, or couldn't.

The TRUTH is that the Republicans weren't willing to make concessions UNLESS the tax hike for the wealthy was taken off the table. Boehner was willing to concede that "Trickle Down" economics had failed, yet again, but Cantor took his toys and went home.

Pfft-- TNRebel, you're clearly wrong. EVERYONE knows that Obama wasn't born in Kenya. He was born in Tasmania. Where do you think that devil learned to SPIN? :-)

Having read this I'm still scratching my head as to who was most at fault for the failure to agree... Did Obama move the goal post or was Boehner just unable to get his people in line to move the ball..?? If this article made that clearer I don't exactly see how.

Ido

In reference the Keystone Pipeline; it is a waste of time and money. Why??? Few jobs would be created (around 4,000-6,000, and no more than 10,000), the cost for each job would be $700,000 (much more than the stimulus package OR Obama's jobs bill), and only 2% of the oil would go to the US. That's only 16,000 bpd. Why the hell should we risk building a pipeline that could spill and turn the Midwest into an oil swamp for only 2% of the pie????? Let the damn Canadians do it on their own turf. If they want to use American land, we gotta get at least 60% of the oil. The Republicans are lying; the pipeline won't lower gas prices by more than a few pennies, if any. And the costs are way too big. The Democrats offered an amendment to have more oil given to US consumers, but the GOP (who claim to know how to control gas prices) shot it down. If they moved the pipeline to a much safer place (AWAY from the damn aquifer) and offered to give the US at least half of the oil, then we could make a deal. But if not, than go somewhere else. We aren't taking most of the risk unless we get most of the benefit. Comprende???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee

" Why the hell should we risk building a pipeline that could spill and turn the Midwest into an oil swamp"

why the hell should we fly? The plane may crash. Get over yourself

Why would Obama ever think he needs to be honest about anything when his supporters will openly ignore the truth. Obama never wanted a debt deal, he likes borrowing, printing, taxing, and spending this country into oblivion. Besides, if Obama had taken the deal he ask for from Republicans, who would he have been able to blame? So Obama welched on the deal and blamed the Republicans anyway. Everyone and every country should take notice, Obama is not true to his word and as such can never be trusted.

Rick, most of the people on this vine know that this comment is mostly BS, so why don't you leave until you gain a sense of decency and thoughtfulness. I highly doubt that Obama likes spending this country to oblivion; printing money is only used to replace old currency, borrowing is necessary when recessions come, and your party is quite hypocritical in blaming the president for our deficits considering that THEY led us into this fiscal and economic rut; Obama hasn't issued any new taxes except those sin taxes, and tax rates are basically the same (if not slightly lower) than they were under Bush.

How do you know Obama didn't want the deal??? If he didn't, America would be downgraded and he'd get the blame. Seems like you've been drinking the right-wing kool-aid. And Obama DID NOT back away from the deal; he simply offered a generous compromise that would placate both sides and keep our nation solvent. Boehner and some moderate Republicans agreed with it, but when Boehner went to Cantor and the Tea Party caucus Cantor said no, as he was elected to "cut spending," not raise taxes. He and his caucus REFUSED to accept the compromise, even though it consisted of roughly $2.8 trillion in cuts and $1.2 trillion in revenues, and forced Boehner to walk away. Obama was left at the table and Congress hastily agreed to $2.2 trillion in future cuts over 10 years along with the formation of a "supercommittee" to distinguish at least $1.2 trillion in savings to keep the sequester from happening. But the Tea Party hampered the supercommittee with their outrageous offers ($300 billion in revenues over 10 years, but with the provision that all of the Bush tax cuts be extended, which would add $3.5 trillion to future deficits), and the Democrats demanded a sizable amount of revenues in return for more cuts, and so the plan failed and the sequester happened. It seems that the blame rests mostly with the GOP, somewhat with the Democrats, and very little for the president.

And a deficit reduction package similar to the Simpson-Bowles commission was offered in the House earlier this week, but it was voted down by a majority, probably because of the upcoming election.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS 2012

GOP EXTINCT 2012

mrwarmth

Freshieee

" Why the hell should we risk building a pipeline that could spill and turn the Midwest into an oil swamp"

why the hell should we fly? The plane may crash. Get over yourself

Unfortunately, "Mr. Warmth," you (like many other political commentators" only focused on a part of what I said. My full statement asked "Why the hell should we risk building a pipeline that could spill and turn the Midwest into an oil swamp for only 2% of the pie??" In other words, why should we give a large tract of land to a foreign oil company that could easily do it on their own land so they can build a pipeline and get only a fraction of the benefits??? Does that sound like a good deal to you??? That's like doing all the chores in your house and getting only $1 in return. And who knows??? The pipeline may spill, and the money we get from it won't even cover the cost of finding how far the oil spilled. I am willing to build it if it is placed on a safer route and at least 50% of the oil stays here in the US. But if not, then screw it. Let the Canadians risk their own land; if they want to use our soil, then they better pay up.

And at least those who got to fly a plane get a benefit (reaching their destination in time). We don't get squat. So @!$%# the Keystone Pipeline; if 2% is the best they can do, then forget it.

Hi Dennis, I will be cheering for Ohio State, since my teams are long gone. I read the article referred to above and also a couple of other takes. It appeared to me that Obama and Boehner had an agreement and then Obama withdrew it after thinking he could get more from the so called gang of six. When the gang of six couldn't (which everyone knew would happen) reach an agreement, Obama went back to Boehner and tried to get the original agreement back.

There is a lot of blame to go around on both sides.

Hi Sarge,

But in the end Obama could get his Party to back the deal and Boehner could not.

Both sides must be willing to give or there will never be a deal that moves the country forward.

Really? And you know what was in the deal?

As I recall, Obama's details ran along the lines of "I'm thinking of a number. . ."

This led most people to believe that his "balanced" approach was exactly one half smoke, the other half mirrors.

Nothing to date has done anything to dispel that notion.

[As I recall, Obama's details ran along the lines of "I'm thinking of a number. . ."]

And you know that how … were you in the room ??

As usual

No Joe is

Full of Mitt

I'm going to re-use that, I think. 'Full of Mitt'.

Cry-baby Boehner doesn't have time for any "Debt Talks" because he's too busy kissing Eric Cantor's and the Teabaggers buts trying to keep his own job.

Obama / Biden 2012

American Girl,

Boehner may cry but atleast he doesn't bow to Saudi Kings like the Obama. Besides the only reason Obama isn't seen crying is because he is always gone on vacation so no one can get a picture of him.

Boehner may kiss Cantor but he doesn't use tongue like Obama does when meeting with Putin.

Who wants to talk about Obama's debt .... ??

There'e no hope for it at this point ....

Logic - what a genuinely pathetic post. That the best ya got? Oops! Clearly it is - my bad.

Dennis - "Full of Mitt" - best line of the day!

Blow Jo - as I recall, Boehner was the one that came to the press saying that he believed he and Obama had come to an agreement on the Grand Deal, then came back with his tail between his legs after a very brief meeting with Cantor.

Logic Required

In certain cultures, bowing is a sign of respect and is done normally. If you really want to play this game, remember that it was George W Bush who KISSED both the Saudi King and Prince on the lips. Go ahead and google it.

Dennis - What is the bottom line from this article is that Obama Could NOT sell the bargain to his side and so they changed the bargain asking for more increases. Boehner then knew that Obama and the Democrats could not be trusted to stick to any deal and walked away.

I posted this on Feisty's string but it was collapsed...

As a moderate watching the bantor back and forth, I fail to grasp where the spinning I am seeing from the right has any real support in fact. Case in point, there were at least three different times during the exchange between Obama and Boehner, that an agreement was nearly solidified, but since there was language pointing to a rise in taxes for those (Individuals and Corporations) making $1 million or more per year, the GOP walked away from the table. Obama had to make concessions to get Boehner back to the table.

despite all the furious efforts to peddle a different story, is that Obama managed to persuade his closest allies to sign off on what he wanted them to do, and Boehner didn't, or couldn't.

The TRUTH is that the Republicans weren't willing to make concessions UNLESS the tax hike for the wealthy was taken off the table. Boehner was willing to concede that "Trickle Down" economics had failed, yet again, but Cantor took his toys and went home.

There is no way Obama could ever accept a debt deal from the very people he planned all along to blame for not getting one, so he welched on the Republicans and blamed them anyway. Let that be a lesson to everyone, you cannot take Obama at his word. It is either in writing or it didn't happen, no handshake deals with Obama.

Hopefully, that won't even be a possibility.

Would Nancy yank the gavel from the Tan Man's Hands ?

In my opinion, neither Pelosi or Cantor should be responsible for deciding what size roll of TP to put in the Senate Restrooms. Both have been an embarrassment to both parties.

To Mr Cantor, I have one thing thing to say; This is NOT the United States of Cantor. You may not care what happens to the average Joe in the US, and hopefully there will be a worthy opponent running against you in the next election, but you need to start thinking about what OUR country needs.

To Ms Pelosi; It's disappointing to me to see someone with so little people skills strutting around like you think you have the pulse of the country. You failed to pull the Senate Democrats and Republicans together when Bush was still in office to stave off some very obvious trends in the economy, as speaker of the House it was YOUR responsibility to initiate some kind of action. You didn't.

Not cool foreplinger. You just made hot coffee come out my nose.

My deepest apologies sir, I wished to twang your funny bone, not cauterize your sinuses.

Or madam...as the case may be.

Foreplinger,
Obviously some talent there...LOL

I hadn't heard about Mr Norquist, what is his role, if he is not associated with a Senate financial commity?

You may choose one, Grover Norquist is:

A. the ultimate lobbyist's lobbyist (due to his ability to have every Republican sign his treasonous little pledge).

B. the ultimate personification of heartless evil (due to his ability to have every Republican sign his treasonous little pledge).

Oh, who am I kidding?; I can't deny anyone, you may choose them both.

We have been through this before. The 1.2 in revenue was to have started THIS year while the cuts were to be enacted somewhere in the future. We always seem to get the tax increases but never the follow on cuts.

Heck, I'd even like to see a vote on the Bart Simpson plan. Anything to move the country forward.

You all know that Republicans have no intention of "compromising" on any level.

It's time for Republicans to go! Vote a straight Democratic Ticket if you want to get things done!

Obama / Biden 2012

American girl........I think it should be Obama/Jesseeeee Jackson 2012......Then watch how much things get done

Obama out in 2012 ....

Try to save what's left of America ....

American Girl,

Exactly what things do you want to get done?

Increasing our tax revenue by 100 billion when our deficit is 1.6 trillion does not seem to be a good answer.

bigbenalaska - the only hope we have for the United States is Obama/Biden 2012. The GOP is running buffoons with no plans, no ideas - just power hungry idiots.

Haha seeking sanity. OBama the socialist .......How much is giving you to write your garbage. No sane person would vote for obama.

Jolly joker, I am very sane and well educated and I will vote for President Obama!

I am just "NOT FULL OF MITT" or the GOP!!!

the 230 billion deficit refers to the gap in this year's budget not the outstanding debt we already have. BTW we owe most of the 15 trillion to ourselves. And we shouldn't owe China much of anything. They still owe us for the war material and resources we gave them during World War II

Yes the 229.27 billion refers to the 2012 federal annual deficit and not the National Debt which is now well over 15 trillion dollars. When running for office Obama said that deficit spending was bad and he vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. To do that the 2012 federal deficit must not exceed 229.27 billion dollars and both Obama's own White House and the CBO are predicting that is not going to happen. The White House is predicting a 2012 federal deficit of 1.33 trillion dollars while the CBO is estimating that it will be greater than 1.2 trillion dollars. I estimate that the 2012 federal deficit alone will end up costing the tax payers more than 10 trillion dollars to repay if in 170 years. The White House is predicting huge deficits for at least another decade. And the President said that he was against deficit spending. How can anyone trust him? The President needs to explain how he is going to keep his promise to the American people. The National Debt is a debt that we have to service and it does not matter who holds it. Apparently a very substantial portion of the debt is owed to foreigners. Even with such low interest rates, a very substantial portion of our federal tax dollars are going to service this debt. If the applicable interest rates rise our government will be in big trouble. The President needs to explain how we are going to pay back this debt and how much it is going to end up costing the tax payers.

The President needs to be reminded of some words of wisdom that were spoken back in March of 2006. The words were as true then as they are today.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "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. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Will,
The item that needs to be addressed in addition to your points, is that the President has no control over deficit spending, or the national debt, he can only attempt to force the House and Senate to work together to ENACT changes. The President HAS to have a House and Senate willing to work toward some sort of compromise.
Obamacare was not initiated by Obama, it was proposed, but the House and Senate had to vote to enact it, after however many adjustments, compromises and changes the House and Senate had to do to it.
Even though the Dems were in control at the time, they didn't have enough of a majority to have blocked a VETO if the Republicans and some Dems had decided against it. There were some Republicans who voted for it as well. So, even though there are some outspoken RePubs out there who say that the Dems FORCE FED Obamacare to us, now they can't get bi-partisan support to get it revoked. Instead of a VETO, we are seeing them go around the VETO and use the legal system to get it invalidated.

The same goes for balancing the budget, the House and Senate have to COMPOMISE to make changes to the existing deficit spending. Unless that changes, the debt will continue to go up. Obama has NOTHING to do with that. He can only shame members of both entities into making policy changes. With a minority in the House, he can't generate the support there to get any momentum.

Spending is out of control because there is NO compromise.

Dfromspencer,

What truth is that? That democrats can spend more money than there is available in the world to buy votes? Why if they believe in things so strongly do they give waivers out for health care in their own states? To rich companies at that?

I would rather cut a limb off than vote for that worthless teleprompter in chief. BTW I voted for that yahoo last time.

Well, Jolly, you would definitely miss an arm or a leg more than you would miss your brain. You get a lot more use out of a limb, by the looks of your posts.

Jolly, I will gladly provide the saw!

Aye, that be so true!

I do.

I want to talk about ALL debt!

And, as a sign of good faith, I'm posting the history of the US debt. By year. This includes both dollar amounts and percentage.

Unfortunately, inflation can make the dollar amount a suspect figure. So i think percentage increase would be the way to go, don't you?

Yeah, I bet you do too. Otherwise it's an apples vs. oranges comparison, and that's just not 'fair'. And republicans pride themselves on their even keel, temperament, and fairness. Right?

77-78
1941–1945
50.4%
117.5%
+203
+67.1%

79-80
1945–1949
117.5%
93.1%
-8
-24.4%

81-82
1949–1953
93.1%
71.4%
+13
-21.7%

83-84
1953–1957
71.4%
60.4%
+6
-11.0%

85-86
1957–1961
60.4%
55.2%
+20
-5.2%

87-88
1961–1965
55.2%
46.9%
+30
-8.3%

89-90
1965–1969
46.9%
38.6%
+43
-8.3%

91-92
1969–1973
38.6%
35.6%
+101
-3.0%

93-94
1973–1977
35.6%
35.8%
+177
+0.2%

95-96
1977–1981
35.8%
32.5%
+288
-3.3%

97-98
1981–1985
32.5%
43.8%
+823
+11.3%

99-100
1985–1989
43.8%
53.1%
+1,050
+9.3%

101-102
1989–1993
53.1%
66.1%
+1,483
+13.0%

103-104
1993–1997
66.1%
65.4%
+1,018
-0.7%

105-106
1997–2001
65.4%
56.4%
+401
-9.0%

107-108
2001–2005
56.4%
63.5%
+2,135
+7.1%

109-110
2005–2009
63.5%
84.2%
+4,521
+20.7%

111-112
2009–2011
84.2%
99.6%
+4,334
+15.4%

Well lookie there!

Seems that the debt was being payed off pretty regularly until...1981...when we had an 11.3% increase!

Again in 1985, a 9.3% increase!

And in 89, a 13% increase!

But lo, in 93, someone else must've come to the whitehouse because it started to go back down again...

but, wow, in 2001 it went back up 7.1%...and in 2005 it hit 20.7%, a dramatic increase not seen since world war 2...good thing we used war bonds and increased taxes to help pay for world war 2, surely no idiot would've gone into a war without doing the same...

and then in 2009 it appears to be tapering off again, perhaps reversing a trend and winding itself down...

man, this is some pretty good stuff, yeh?

Check out the U.S. Treasury website. The national debt has increased every year since 1957 when Eisenhower was in the White House.

Dog Patch - Only in your dreams! Ask the people of MA how great Romney's plan is! yeah - didn't think so. Romney couldn't put together a jigsaw puzzle with 10 pieces.

Really, Dog Patch? Who among this group of losers has a snowball's chance of beating him?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

That does make it easier to follow.

There is no doubt that Bush spent to much money while he was in office. We need both sides to curb their spending.

Sorry no High Speed Rail for Nevada...

Here is how the Washington Post has analyzed the deficit during the Bush administration as compared to the defict during the administration of President Obama. It looks a lot less like Obama is failing than you make it seem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

peter 17- you have an unusual event in 2008 onward- the depression. so to be fair why dont you take gnp for our last good year and see what the % is.

Peter17- I've read your posts before and you arent that foolish to not know liars figure .....

Unfortunately, people forget to subtract Obama's share of the debt by the costs of the recession. He technically had nothing to do with the start of the recession and so the cost of the recession should be eliminated to show fairness. Unfortunately, the GOP is too embarrassed of Bush and the fact that it was their trickle-down economic policies that caused the recession.

Over half of that national debt in Obama's first time can be attributed heading off a second depression directly caused by Bush II mismangement of the economy, tax cuts for the pusdo job creators, deregulaton, leading to the various sector failures in the economy, two wars with no tax increses to pay for them, (a first in American History), along with continuing massive transfers of wealth to the top 2%. So, knock at least 10% off your Obama figures, and move it over to where it belongs, Bush II. Then of course, you can add continuing deficits during the Second Obama term over to the GOP's love to protect the top 2%, refusing to allow any tax increases to offset continuing deficits caused by so many Americans still out of work.

The very worst part of the GOP's insane desire to continue with their failed trickle down economic theory is that in reality, all it accomplishes is transferring wealth to the top 2%, who now are in possession of over 40% of all American wealth and assets. There are really some great studies out, including a book that deals with why great nations in the past have failed, including Rome, and Venice, which both failed as the top 2% accumulated more and more wealth, having gained control of the government, and passing themselves more and more cuts and special legislation, resulting in the failure of both, as well as other Nations also discussed. This is what Right Wing lower taxes philosophy has given this nation, a slide downward as the rich get richer, the poor poorer, the middle class shrinkes, the working poor expands, and the American Dream is now out of sight for all but the children of the top 2%.

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, no solutions, just the same old failed lower taxes for the rich which created this mess in the first place. In 1969, the top 2% only owned 8% of this Naiton s wealth, the American Dream was an ideal coming true, families were families, the mothers stayed home and raised the kids, as a man could support his family with only one income.

Face facts, the GOP has become a one note band, playing the lower taxes siren song for the faithful, destroying our nation in the process, as the massive transfers of wealth continue.

There is no difference between any of the Repub candidates. The economic policies are identical.
It seems ludicrous that the Republicans can effectively call Democrats spend and tax. No matter
what they say Ronald Reagan and George Bush are the biggest deficit creators since WW2.
Supply side economics is based on an economic myth to curb inflation. Trickle down is another failed
experiment in Republican economics. Support tax loopholes and reduce rates for the top taxpayers, increase spending for the military, and pay for it by eliminating Medicare, Social Security,and all other social programs.

Reagan in no way slowed the growth of spending to the rate of inflation or as a percentage of GDP.
Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime buildup of the military in US history while tripling the national
debt. Adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP, Reagan and George W. increased annual deficits
and total debt more than any other presidents since WW2.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Strange that Republicans blame Democratic Congresses with a Republican President and yet
blame Democratic Presidents with Republican Congresses. Even the conservative Chantelle shows a Bush annual deficit higher than any of Obama's first three years.

Republicans spend lots of money to conceal and misdirect the truth about Reagan's supply
side or trickle down economics that even George HR Bush called "Voodoo economics". Reagan
funded his tax cuts by eliminating tax breaks for everyone. But somehow, over the years the
tax breaks and loopholes for the upper class silently worked their way back into the tax code.

Where were the Republicans almost rabid outrage on debt, when Bush cut taxes, started two wars, and increased medicare benefits (all unfunded)? To quote Dick Cheney "Deficits don't matter".

Now, again, Republicans want to cut rates rates in exchange for any loopholes they give up. Spend more on defense, privatize Medicare and Social Security, eliminate all other programs such as food stamps, WICS, education for learning disabled, loans for post secondary education.

The war on the working class continues. While GDP increases working class wages and benefits have declined since 1980 (adj. for inflation). All gains in GDP went to the top 2%.

Yet Republicans successfully argue that the enemy of the working class are "welfare queens" and the retired.
The top 2% who have reaped all the rewards since 1980 and have prooved over and over again that trickle down does not create jobs for Americans.

Who ended the talk about debt? The new-cons did when they figured out that voters knew enough to realize both lack of revenues or increased spending both increase the debt. By neo-cons I mean the right wing echo chamber who get their talking points from Rush, Roger Aisles, the RNC, and the Koch brothers.

We need not worry because our President is totally against deficit spending and promised that our 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars and because the President promised it, it is a done deal. We all need to remember what he said back in 2006:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "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. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Peter17's figures are accurate. However, the comments that go along with it are misleading. He states that 2009 is Obama's first year in office - true. But he was not responsible for that first year's budget. That budget, passed in Oct of 2008 and running through Oct of 2009, was Bush's last budget. Bush had to leave 1 final gift to the American people on his way out of office (source - here):

Note also the very large jump in outlays from 2008 to 2009 when outlays increased more than 17 percent in one year from $2.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion. Since 1971, this rate of increase has only been surpassed once: in 1975 when outlays increased 23 percent over the previous year

As for broken promises - let's look at a broken promise:

Bush radio address 03-03-2001: We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade. That will be the largest debt reduction of any country, ever. Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.

The fact is that, although Republicans point at Obama and point at his failings in holding down the debt, they have not shown themselves to be any more fiscally responsible in the past. They cannot run on this platform alone. Another fact is that, although they were close to a deal neither side would return to the table and bargain anymore past a certain point, leaving any solution to the debt crisis languishing while both sides postured and pointed fingers over who was to blame.

Damn it, do something! Although Republicans were elected in 2010 on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, they haven't done anything! And don't point at bills languishing in the Senate - what a list of giveaways for specific corporate sponsors those are! At least Democrats got one stimulus bill through and, despite what Republicans say, the CBO says that it helped with jobs. For that reason alone, Democrats will get my support. Republicans still have a few months to the election - what actions will they offer to get my support?

crazyafteralltheseyears, you wrote "There is no difference between any of the Repub candidates. The economic policies are identical."

This is false. Check out Ron Paul sometime.

One of the funniest things in the article to me was how the article tries to spin things.

Obama asked for a deal. The republicans agreed to it, over objections from thier own party and constituents. Even though it would be politically costly to them. They still sucked it up and made the deal.

Obama then said no deal.

So rather than stomp away from the table, Boehner waited two days to see if the original deal could still be salvaged.

And MSN wants you to believe this is somehow a bad thing? How? Why?

Cantor rejected the new deal Obama offered becuase it wasn't what had previously been agreed to. Only then did Boehner walk away.

So Boehner actually presented Obama's new deal - which couldn't pass, and which Obama KNEW couldn't pass. And when Cantor wouldn't agree to it, only then did Boehner walk away from the table.

And MSN wants you to believe this is somehow a bad thing? How? Why?

Stop being sheeple. Learn to read things CRITICALLY rather than accepting some media pundits interpetation of what happened. Go find the facts, and decide for yourself how to interpet the events!

It will be hard at first, but you can do it!

Got cut off....

EEngineer, are you really blaming the republicans for no jobs?

Because, you know, they have only had control of ONE of the THREE branches for less than two years.

You know, unlike the dems, who controlled ALL THREE branches for 2 years, and TWO out of THREE ever since.

Every President ever has had to work with the other side.

Every President ever has somehow managed to work with the other side.

Only Obama cries because he can't have control of all three branches.

And when he had it, look what he did with it! A bunch of Hogwash! He wasted it all on Obamacare, which might not even be constitutional!

Some "constitutional scholar" he turned out to be. Some President he turned out to be. Smartest guy in the room, just ask him! Lol.

Face it, the guy is simply not competent. His own actions speak for him.

How can you so called "liberals" stand up for a man who thinks his own decision to asassinate you now constitutes due process under The Constitution? You make me sick.

Obama could call the troops home ANYTIME HE WANTS TO!!!!!!!!

FAKE LIBERALS! WARMONGERS! GTFO FAKE LIBERALS!!!!!

Ron Paul 2012

Stop the wars, end The Fed.

Bring our troops home,

Before they're DEAD.

Sorry, Alil, but Ron Paul simply supports deregulation, continuation of tax cuts, and spending cuts. Seems a lot like that of the GOP...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

GOP/TEA PARTY EXTINCT 2012

Freshiee likes WAR!!!!!

Beat the drums, Freshiee!!!!

Ha. It's true, a little bit, I'll give you that. I love large armies, military technology, military equipment, as any young adolescent would. And I did support the Iraq War in 2003, even though I was only 6 or 7 years old.

I'd gladly beat the drums, Alil.

Beat the drums to the death of the GOP...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Actually the GOP overplayed its hand, cut a deal which they are now trying to change. The Bush Tax cuts will end, and thankfully for this nation, the top 2% can begin to start paying a portion of their share. I will gladly contribute my share of the higher rates.

Consider what the tax rates were in the 50s and 60s ffor the top 2%, up to 70% , as opposed to now. Back then, there was a real progressive tax, which did enable the Fed to properly "redistribute" wealth, and pay its bills and deal with the Budget. Now, under the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II Administrations, the GOP has its very own "Wealth Redistribution Program" directly to the top 2% for over 20 years.

Clinton showed us what works, the GOP has shown us what fails, unless you are in the top 2%, then it is great!

.

The political process is a game of give and take. If the Republicans were unhappy with the last minute change by Obama then the responsible thing to do would have been to return to the table and press back. But no! Republicans got more political press out of taking a hard line, blowing the failed deal out of proportion and pointing fingers! They had to do this: polls showed that there was support for a balanced solution (2/3 of voters wanted tax increases and spending cuts) and that was antithetical to Republican objectives.

Meanwhile the debt continues to increase and we all pay the price. So no matter how you spin it, the Republican party has shown themselves willing to place their ideological goals above the will of the people and the economic health of America. That alone should lose them the vote for the next 20 years!

Maybe so, but it would be an even better place without Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Biden.

I should not have dropped to your low, Sheila......I do not by any stretch of the imagination think this would be a better place without Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Biden. Although I disagree with their policies, these people have in the own way made important contributions to the United States and I hereby draw that stupid remark made by me. It was childish and totally uncalled for.

GCCAL, Nice work. At last a Republican who has an opinion that differes from mine but unlike others he has class as well. This is the kind of dialogue we need in this country to solve our problems. GOOD FOR YOU!!!