The TPGOP would do well to listen to the people that write big checks to their superpacs. Who will rule the day, common sense or Grover?

Does Grover even have a job? Does he even pay taxes? Who elected him as the boss of the TPGOP anyway?

Who will rule the day, common sense or Grover?

Piggy-

Common sense always prevails.....

BTW Piggy, I took your advice and got a new Avatar. How do you like it?

The three stooges everyone. Aren't they great.

Mrs piggy, you're always good for a laugh... thx

Wilman and Rob99- I'm assuming that was satire. If so, it was perfect!

Foodchain, when was the last time you had paid time off, safe working conditions, and were paid over-time? Did Unions ruin unsafe working conditions and penny per hour wages for you?

Get over it, folks. The election is over. No matter which side of the coin you're on, if the coin can't stand up on end it will fall. Demand that your Party's leaders find common ground with the other.

By all means go...we neither need or want you. Try going someplace else. France just raised taxes on the wealthy, perhaps if you are one of them, they'll take you.

But probably not, since they are a democratic country.

Perhaps Somalia might want you. Check them out.

Many of these same CEOs that are now asking our elected leaders to solve problems and comprimise are the same CEOs who supported the elected officials who have fought tax increases of any kind in the recent past. Maybe they've finally realized the future of this nation and the companies they run are now at risk, but is it too late?

Unions add not one dime of value to the consumer,

Fair wages, safe working conditions, overtime etc have all been legislated and will not be going away.

I have always been a supporter of Made in USA, have never bought a foreign car and was the very last to give in on foreign clothes. I am however not going to continue supporting union workers that take my money to support democrats.

I am truly sorry but I have had enough

Keep buying IMPORTS and destroy the economy some more.

Judging from another article about the lack of bipartisanship already in the Senate, I'd say the fiscal cliff is a certainty. Avoiding it is not an option in this climate.

“We support ‘loophole closers’ but only in the context of broadening the income tax base while lowering rates and moving to a competitive territorial system like most of the rest of the world,”

The cut in tax rates is primarily of interest to the wealthy (those percentage point differences on a typical income do not amount to much). They wants to lower rates but also to broaden the tax base. The saving grace of the poor is their large numbers. What each may be able to pay is next to nothing, but in aggregate the total represents a tidy savings, when split among the few wealthy (an amount the wealthy would not have to pay in taxes).

In 2007, the Adjusted Gross Income of the bottom 50% was $1,078 billion!

If we took 30%, they would contribute $323 billion. Divided by the 141,000 taxpayers in the top .1%, that is $2.3 million each!

moving to a competitive territorial system

What is that code for?

Forget the wealthy! Whatever the rates on wage earners, the wealthy more likely pay something around 15%.

Here's something posted by Ron Brock on another thread:

#2 - The rich don't want to pay for the mistakes and the poor can't. That only leaves those of us in the middle class to pick it up and neither party wants to break that news to us.

The wealthy are citizens of the globe: their business interests span national boundaries. Their wealth is distributed in accounts from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland. We should not rely on them to participate in our recovery efforts at home. We need to do it ourselves.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Old Fat Guy,

I understand you may feel that way, but I disagree completely. Would you prefer to drive on overpasses and bridges built by union members that have to go through a few years in an apprenticeship to learn their craft or the bridge built by the cheapest subcontractor a company can find?

Do you want your walls plastered, your roof re-shingled, or your foundation fixed by a union worker with 20 years experience that makes a decent living or the guys the general contractor pulls in off the street?

Union workers provide value to customers. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole concept of workers' unions for you...

The wealthy elites who fund and control the Tea Parties will not allow the Fiscal Cliff and debt ceiling extension (also upcoming) to derail the economy. Their present commitment to Mutually Assured Destruction is just posturing. If Democrats hold their ground the GOPTP will blink...that is fact.

It's amazing how many posters on this thread make over $250,000 a year! And, you'd be taxed a higher amount only on income above that limit. I'm surrounded by millionaires!

I wouldn't sing them praises yet! Businesses like Walmart are part of the problem. They refuse to pay a living wage and the rest of us have to subsidize their work force all the while CEO Duke and the Walton family write themselves huge checks. If we are to make progress companies that do not pay living wages must be penalized in the tax code. Much like companies that send assets and jobs overseas must be penalized. Make it NOT profitable to do so. They should be patriotic enough to figure this out themselves but the wealthy seldom are patriots.

wilman

And all de gready black pepole wit der hands out. Supportin de presedent since he give dem wat de want mor frea chit.

@!$%#in Moron

Sweetie, you got it all wrong.

We used our hands to pick one the greatest President in my life time since JKF & LBJ. President Obama is also historic not only in being the 1st African American President; but also to be re-elected since FDR even with 7.9% joblessness and over 50% of the vote. President Obama is the 4th prez in history to do that

If you must talk about freebies, then you must consider corporate whores like Mitt Romney with their hands out and his ilk.

So now who is the moron; racist? Learn something.

So Obama invited all his campaign contributors to the white house... big @!$%#ing deal.

Nice Bev I with you on that!

Rob99

We all need to succeed from this @!$%#ry

The word you're looking for is SECEDE.

Go. And take your lunatic friends with you.

I don't think that obama would know a job if he met one on the street. I remember when he focused like a laser, couldn't find any then. How many years ago, was that?

#1.22 It's amazing how many posters on this thread make over $250,000 a year!

Liberals are so selfish ("what's in it for me")! Those who support the Republicans don't do it because it benefits them; they do it on principle; because it is the right and moral thing to do (selfless patriotism). The 1% carry a disproportionate burden of those who work for them, providing them with healthcare and retirement, all in exchange for making a measly profit from their labors. No wonder they prefer hiring labor in a communist country like China (where healthcare and retirement are the government's problem)!

Texas Instruments is laying off 1,700, how many more, if Hostess Foods takes bankruptcy, the day after tomorrow?

Hurrah - CEO's for America!

Now maybe we can get something done.

I looked it up for you, 18,000. And hey, the deadline is 4 pm, tomorrow Texas time.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20121114-hostess-sets-back-to-work-deadline-today-for-striking-bakers.ece

I reckon since the election is over some honest numbers will be forthcoming. Hold your breath!

When millions lost their IRAs and millions lost their homes with all the equity and down payments they used to purchase that home, who got the money? Of course it was the already rich on Wall Street and other banks across the nation. The money trail led to the upper 2% of the nation who are now asked to pay a little more in taxes. Grover Norquist should be banned from Capital Hill and his no-tax pledge signed by the entire Republican Party in Congress be burned on national TV to ensure constituents that no lobbyist will be allowed to take an entire political party hostage ever again!

Obama economic policy is harshly anti-business and CEO's hate his guts but they aren't stupid enough to tell the Prez they think he's an amatuer, needs to quite buying votes and must cut spending... obviously too much risk!

Nice photo op ceo's - bite your tongue and go back to sitting on all that cash you were ready to dump into growing business if the Mormon business man had won! Reassign employees to part time - beg for a deferrment from obamacare and cut costs further. Voters haven't experienced enough pain yet and four years isn't that long really.

Did you read the article? “We support ‘loophole closers’ but only in the context of broadening the income tax base while lowering rates and moving to a competitive territorial system like most of the rest of the world,”

In plain English. Broadening the income tax base = making the 47% that do not pay taxes PAY some federal income tax. While lowering rates = less taxes on the rich. Moving to a competitive territorial system = let them move more jobs overseas and pay no/less in tariffs. Only if we export more then we import does a competitive territorial system help the U.S. out. WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. We import way more then we export.

“Any plan to address our debt must replace the abrupt fiscal cliff with a gradual and intelligent plan to reduce spending, make structural entitlement reforms, and enact comprehensive tax reform which cuts tax preferences in order to lower rates and reduce deficits,”

Reduce spending = the SAME cuts that are coming with the "fiscal" cliff...morons. Make structural entitlement reforms = cut social services like Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, etc. Programs that people actually need since they only make 1/1000 of what someone else makes. Lower rates and reduce deficits = MORONS that do not know their a$$ from a hole in the ground. How can you lower rates and revenue and reduce the deficit at the same time? That would violate basic math. They think by using "big" words that they will confuse most people since it sounds "good". They will trick some morons, but many of us are not as dumb as they hope we are.

While I agree that the 47% should pay something the ISSUE is they do not make enough versus what the top couple percent do. IF THEY MADE MORE THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY TAXES. PAY THEM MORE AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES OR MIDDLE MAN FEES. Without the threat of high taxes that force an owner/CEO to have to choose between paying the government with middle man fess, or paying their workers more, THEY WILL CHOOSE TO REWARD THEMSELVES INSTEAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN. They get rewarded by paying their workers the LEAST amount possible while paying themselves the MOST.

Had the top tax rate been higher over the past 50 years we would not be painted into this corner. You are the morons that are supposed to be money experts, but you fail at basic engineering, systems, and math. The only thing you know is how to be selfish and greedy more then likely. How to get ahead of the other 95%, instead of trying to work with others you prey on them instead.

I do not want a handout I want 1/10 instead of 1/100 or 1/1000. I could be asking for 50/50 like your wife/husband so STFU. When I get paid 1/10 then I can afford to pay some taxes and do not need government services. Thankfully I have heard about some companies/CEOs that are actually giving out raises, always cheaper/better to cut out the middle man.

I wonder why China has done so well for so long? Tariffs, they should be high enough to provide some local protection, but still allow for a better/more advanced products to compete and be sold. If it is a good idea that helps out humanity why be greedy with it? The greater good is in helping the masses and not yourself. If everyone did the same and shared we would grow faster instead of saying "MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE" like a bunch of seagulls. As long as you can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, afford the basic stuff, doctor bills, etc. life is good.

If you took every penny form the top 1%, it wouldn't last obama for a month? Did you know that there is only somewhere around 8 or 9 trillion dollars in existence in the entire world? Enough to pay off about one half our national debt. Do you understand why I want to secede?

Capt. Smash

Nice Bev I with you on that!

Capt. Smash, Thanks

I just can't let morons like him spew racist garbage about my people and President. It's very hurtful. He /she needs to post over @ FUX NOOSE where those types of idiotic comments are encouraged.

I really wish the FCC would starve that beast called FOX NEWS. FOX NEWS is an insult to rabid dogs.

Probably not, because that is, oh my goodness, Grade School math.

Oh well, you got what you voted for, and in fairness to you, romney would not have been any better.

Ron Paul gave a farewell address today, the day that freedom died.

The CEOs were asking the President how much more can we flood the USA with made in CHINA products to bring America down. To keep many Americans unemployed. The Government mabey has not figured out that the more people out of work the less paid into social security,and federal taxes no wonder the government is going broke it can,t keep it's own tax payers working,keep the Imports flooding in. It makes me sick

Obuma needs more help than the CEO's can give him. His bully tactics and hiding stuff like the fact his chosen people are doing stupid things and he appears to be helping hide it. Obuma should have gotten out of office before his feet were put to the fire for his screw ups he can't bully his way out of the fact he FAILED TO LEAD. And for those who wish to label me go for it shows your immaturity; all of the name calling and division is destroying this country we need a real leader, but don't feel Romney was the answer either!!!

My wife pointed out to me that I have become so negative of late, with all the negative adds and all the fighting in here. The Election is over, Now we have all these people that want to leave the Union. I live in Mich. I want to find the dumb ass that has started a petition here and kick his butt. I would say to all the haters that its is time to put up or be quite. If you don't like it here in the USA, then pack up and leave. Its easy to be part of the problem, but it is hard to set down and work these problems out. People have to check there Ego's at the door. It is High time to put our country first. Not big business, not unions, but the Country. Because if we do not put country first, nothing else matters. I think big business knows they have to do there part, The Unions know they have to do there part, We the people need to do our part also. The first thing we need to do for this country is to stop Rush, Hanady, Beck, and any Dem that are selling hate for there greed. Because that is all these that I have named and others as well are doing just that. Does anyone in the world think that Rush loves this country, I sure don't, same with Beck, are Hanady, and all the others like them on both sides, They are in it just to line there pockets. It is time we American's no matter what color we are, No matter where we are from, we all live here now. It is up to us to make this Great Country All it can be. We all have to work together. The Ceo's and Unions have to work for the good of the company. These CEo's getting filthy rich while the working people need Walfare to live. That just isn't right. Leadership starts at the top. So if CEO's are only thinking of their self's, that is not leadership. When they lead and put the company first everyone wins. Leading means working things out with Unions. What kind of a man would let his workers, work in un safe conditions. That Massey coal mine comes to mind for me. What kind a man is he. He didn't care how many of his men died, all he cares about is getting that coal out and making his money. Nor does he care what burning coal dose to the climate. We should be going to wind, solar, Geo and other energy's. Find ways to burn coal clean. Yes it is going to cost more in the short term. I would tell coal company's, Wouldn't you be smart to find ways to burn coal cleaner then to burn none at all? There would still be plenty of money to be made and we all would win. That is really the thing in a nut shell. WE WOULD ALL WIN. Leadership is finding a way that we can all win. We all need to find a way that is a Win Win for all of us. There is really enough to go around. How many homes does one man need? How many cars? How much money is enough? God has blessed so many with so much, Wouldn't it be the right thing to do by giving some of that back to help those that haven't been so blessed? We all know that is what Jesus would have asked of us all. All these people claiming to be Christians yet wouldn't turn a hand to help those in need. We let out Vet's live in the streets. We could have done things to stop the banks from foreclosing on all of these homes when this mess got started. I mean it was out tax dollars they were loaning anyways wan't it? YES, Banks sold those loans to the Government ie Freddie and Fannie Mac. The Win Win would have to let those that could stay in there homes, Get through these bad times and then when jobs came back and things got going again, re do the loans and get things back on track. I mean really, how much of our tax dollars went to the banks that caused the mess anyways. Once Greed stop's ruling everything and all people start doing the right thing again, this country will be greater then it ever was and we can live in peace with out war all the time. Really what starts most wars anyways. Greed. We can settle the mess in the middle east when we don't need all that Oil. Win Win Win...

IWonder-932455

Texas Instruments is laying off 1,700, how many more, if Hostess Foods takes bankruptcy, the day after tomorrow?

It looks like the Turdblossom brigade is out in force again! Karl Marx Rove must still have enough to pay his minimum wage trolls.

Like the 750,000 per month that were losing their jobs when we were under GOPer control? There will be companies that will need to adjust their work force as the market adjusts. When the middle class gets back on their feet and starts earning and spending again, these companies if they are worth their "grain of salt" will survive and rehire. The middle class needs to rebound after the thirty years of "trickle down" voodoo economics assault that was forced down their throats by the GOPers.

Ah beverly, how can you? PEW found that FOX news was the least biased, most reliable of all the media. You could look it up, if you had any interest in the truth.

My my holyhandgernade, you must be drinking from beverly's well, the democrats took over both houses of congress at that time, as you well know. If you don't you could look it up.

The pressure's on! It's crunch time. We'll see if the majority of voters were right or wrong soon enough...

IWonder-numbers PEW found that FOX news was the least biased, most reliable of all the media.

I almost blew my beverage out my nose over this post. The best joke I have seen all day!

Ha ha ha, well ProFreedom, I am an old man and in my long life I have found that the majority is normally wrong. That just the way it is.

Well holyhandergrenade, as I said, you can look it up, then we will see who is honest and who is not.

As we used to say when we were kids, "I double dog dare you!"

The country should go over the fiscal cliff. In fact we should make it a bigger cliff. But the rich CEO's don't want that because they won't make as many millions as they normally would. They just want the government to keep spending borrowed money to inflate the economy and help boost the profits of the companies these CEO's run. They are not patriotic. They are looking out for themselves and their company's profits.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction and they can go and drink their beer somewhere else.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/29/fox-news-viewed-as-most-ideological-network/http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/pew-msnbc-more-negative-than-fox-148088.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21272-pew-study-msnbc-far-more-biased-than-fox-news/

http://pewresearch.org/topics/newsmedia/

I really didn't imagine that we would hear from beverly or hangrenade, so here is a little reading material, there is much more, just google "pew fox news". It is easy.

as I said, you can look it up, then we will see who is honest and who is not.

Wonder -

The economy was already headed into the crapper before the Dems took over. If you don't believe me, look it up. "I double dog dare you!"

The meeting occurred a day after President Obama met with labor leaders, ..... including the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka, seemed more committed to staging a public relations campaign over the tax rates than the CEOs did.

Whaaaaat ? Trumpka used the FRONT DOOR to the White House instead of sneaking through the BACK DOOR ?

Yep, Mr. Obama is getting his "ducks in a row" to make sure he helps the UNIONS during his LAST FOUR YEARS in office.

Back to the article: MORE Class Warfare from this administration. Next on the agenda for Mr. Obama is to go around the country again on a campaign tour to get public opinion on his Class Warfare tactic. Expect this whirlwind tour to start next Monday.

stc1993....

Those folks must have been drinking OBAMA BEER which I understand from the grapevine that it goes well with Carter peanuts.

Well gt, the fellow said 750,000 per month, lets have you look it up and prove your point. As I remember, un-employment was around 5%, when the dems took over. If you can, I will admit it. But not tonight, I am off to bed.

I'd sure as heck like to see the finances of all the pundits out there that decry the "wealthy" who the @#@$@ is "wealthy" ??!!! WEALTHY?? gimme a break

"Galbraith: The danger posed by the deficit 'is zero'"

From Ezra Klein, Washington Post

Interview with economist James K. Galbraith

May, 2010

[Wikipedia: Galbraith is a son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith and Catherine (Kitty) Atwater Galbraith and is the brother of the former diplomat and commentator Peter W. Galbraith. He earned his BA, magna cum laude, from Harvard in 1974 and Ph.D from Yale in 1981, both in economics. From 1974 to 1975, Galbraith studied as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge.[1]

From 1981 to 1982, Galbraith served on the staff of the Congress of the United States, eventually as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.[1] In 1985, he was a guest scholar at the brookings institution.]

Galbraith: The danger posed by the deficit 'is zero'

James Galbraith is an economist and the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. chair in government and business relations at the University of Texas at Austin. He's also a skeptic of the prevailing concern over America's long-term deficit. With many people now comparing America's fiscal condition to Greece, I spoke with Galbraith to get the other side of the argument. An edited transcript of our conversation follows.

EK: You think the danger posed by the long-term deficit is overstated by most economists and economic commentators.

JG: No, I think the danger is zero. It's not overstated. It's completely misstated.

EK: Why?

JG: What is the nature of the danger? The only possible answer is that this larger deficit would cause a rise in the interest rate. Well, if the markets thought that was a serious risk, the rate on 20-year treasury bonds wouldn't be 4 percent and change now. If the markets thought that the interest rate would be forced up by funding difficulties 10 year from now, it would show up in the 20-year rate. That rate has actually been coming down in the wake of the European crisis.

So there are two possibilities here. One is the theory is wrong. The other is that the market isn't rational. And if the market isn't rational, there's no point in designing policy to accommodate the markets because you can't accommodate an irrational entity.

EK: Then why are the bulk of your colleagues so worried about this?

JG: Let's push a bit deeper on the CBO forecasts. They publish a baseline set of projections. One of those projections holds the economy will return to a normal high-employment level with low inflation over the next 10 years. If true, that would be wonderful news. Go down a few lines and they also have the short-term interest rate going up to 5 percent. It's that short-term interest rate combined with that low inflation rate that allows them to generate, quite mechanically, these enormous future deficit forecasts. And those forecasts are driven partially by the assumption that health-care costs will rise forever at a faster rate than everything else and by interest payments on the debt will hit 20 or 25 percent of GDP.

At this point, the whole thing is completely incoherent. You cannot write checks to 20 percent to anybody without that money entering the economy and increasing employment and inflation. And if it does that, then debt-to-GDP has to be lower, because inflation figures into how much debt we have. These numbers need to come together in a coherent story, and the CBO's forecast does not give us a coherent story. So everything that is said that is based on the CBO's baseline is, strictly speaking, nonsense.

EK: But couldn't there be a space between the CBO being totally correct and the debt not being a problem? It seems certain, for instance, that health-care costs will continue to rise faster than other sectors of the economy.

JG: No, it's not reasonable. Share of health-care cost would rise as part of total GDP and the inflation would rise to be nearer to what the rate of health-care inflation is. And if health care does get that expensive, and we're paying 30 percent of GDP while everyone else is paying 12 percent, we could buy Paris and all the doctors and just move our elderly there.

EK: But putting inflation aside, the gap between spending and revenues won't have other ill effects?

JG: Is there any terrible consequence because we haven't prefunded the defense budget? No. There's only one budget and one borrowing authority and all that matters is what that authority pays. Say I'm the federal government and I wish to pay you, Ezra Klein, a billion dollars to build an aircraft carrier. I put money in your bank account for that. Did the Federal Reserve look into that? Did the IRS sign off on it? Government does not need money to spend just as a bowling alley does not run out of points.

What people worry about is that the federal government won't be able to sell bonds. But there can never be a problem for the federal government selling bonds. It goes the other way. The government's spending creates the bank's demand for bonds, because they want a higher return on the money that the government is putting into the economy. My father said this process is so simple that the mind recoils from it.

EK: What are the policy implications of this view?

JG: It says that we should be focusing on real problems and not fake ones. We have serious problems. Unemployment is at 10 percent. if we got busy and worked out things for the unemployed to do, we'd be much better off. And we can certainly afford it. We have an impending energy crisis and a climate crisis. We could spend a generation fixing those problems in a way that would rebuild our country, too. On the tax side, what you want to do is reverse the burden on working people. Since the beginning of the crisis, I've supported a payroll tax holiday so everyone gets an increase in their after-tax earnings so they can pay down their mortgages, which would be a good thing. You also want to encourage rich people to recycle their money, which is why I support the estate tax, which has accounted for an enormous number of our great universities and nonprofits and philanthropic organizations. That's one difference between us and Europe.

EK: That does it for my questions, I think.

JG: I have one more answer, though! Since the 1790s, how often has the federal government not run a deficit? Six short periods, all leading to recession. Why? Because the government needs to run a deficit, it's the only way to inject financial resources into the economy. If you're not running a deficit, it's draining the pockets of the private sector. I was at a meeting in Cambridge last month where the managing director of the IMF said he was against deficits but in favor of saving, but they're exactly the same thing! A government deficit means more money in private pockets.

The way people suggest they can cut spending without cutting activity is completely fallacious. This is appalling in Europe right now. The Greeks are being asked to cut 10 percent from spending in a few years. And the assumption is that this won't affect GDP. But of course it will! It will cut at least 10 percent! And so they won't have the tax collections to fund the new lower level of spending. Spain was forced to make the same announcement yesterday. So the Eurozone is going down the tubes.

On the other hand, look at Japan. They've had enormous deficits ever since the crash in 1988. What's been the interest rate on government bonds ever since? It's zero! They've had no problem funding themselves. The best asset to own in Japan is cash, because the price level is falling. It gets you 4 percent return. The idea that funding difficulties are driven by deficits is an argument backed by a very powerful metaphor, but not much in the way of fact, theory or current experience.

By Ezra Klein | May 12, 2010; 3:50 PM ET

Yeah, I'll bet the CEO's are offering support!

"….Obama's pretense of “fairness” and concern for working people, against the backdrop of the supposed looming disaster of the “fiscal cliff,” is a cynical sham. It is a cover for a calculated and ruthless assault on all that remains of the social reforms of the 20th century—most centrally, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—combined with a restructuring of the tax system that will cut taxes for corporations and the rich and increase the tax burden on working people…"

Leaked “grand bargain” document details Obama's plan for cuts in entitlement programs

By Barry Grey
15 November 2012

In his first post-election press conference, President Barack Obama on Wednesday reiterated the claim that his focus in deficit-reduction talks with the Republicans is to provide jobs and help the struggling “middle class” recover from the economic crisis.

To this end, Obama declared, he is determined to reach a “balanced” compromise that will require the wealthy to “pay a little bit more.” In practical terms, that means, at most, slightly raising the income tax rates of the richest 2 percent of US households—those making more than $250,000 a year—by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for this income group to expire on January 1st.

Obama spoke, as always in the vaguest terms, of the need to “reform” Medicare and other social entitlements. He made no mention of the scheduled expiration at the new year of federally funded extended unemployment benefits, a cruel cost-cutting measure that will, if implemented, deprive over 2 million jobless workers of cash assistance.

The real social and class interests served by the administration's fiscal policy were indicated by the next item on the president's calendar—a closed-door White House meeting with the CEOs of 12 of the biggest US corporations, including General Electric, Walmart, American Express, Honeywell, Ford, IBM, Pepsico and Chevron. This gathering of multi-millionaires was convened to ensure that the demands of the corporate elite for drastic cuts in social spending and further tax cuts for big business would be carried out.

Obama's pretense of “fairness” and concern for working people, against the backdrop of the supposed looming disaster of the “fiscal cliff,” is a cynical sham. It is a cover for a calculated and ruthless assault on all that remains of the social reforms of the 20th century—most centrally, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—combined with a restructuring of the tax system that will cut taxes for corporations and the rich and increase the tax burden on working people.

The far-reaching and reactionary substance of Obama's social policy emerges very clearly in secret documents that were leaked last weekend relating to negotiations in the summer of 2011 between the White House and Republican House Speaker John Boehner over raising the US debt limit. In response to Republican demands for massive spending cuts in return for an agreement on raising the debt limit, Obama proposed a “grand bargain” to slash the federal deficit by $4 trillion over ten years through a combination of cuts in social programs and increased revenues from “comprehensive tax reform.”

Obama proposed more than $2 in cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases ($2.8 trillion in cuts, $1.2 trillion in increased tax revenues). However, the talks broke down due to opposition to any tax increases among House Republicans.

This led to the deal to raise the debt limit that set the stage for the more than $700 billion in automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases, beginning January 1, 2013, that are a major component of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” (See: “What is the fiscal cliff”?).

Speaking on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program last Sunday, Washington Post investigative journalist and associate editor Bob Woodward announced that he had obtained a copy of the secret final offer from Obama to Boehner for a “grand bargain” on austerity and tax “reform.” NBC posted a portion of the document on the “Meet the Press” web site.

Regarding the document, Woodward said, “But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, ‘We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals, but for businesses.’ So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far.”

In fact, the document, dated July 19, 2011, spells out an unprecedented assault on social welfare programs and a pro-corporate revamping of the tax system that would have been politically unthinkable for Republican presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush.

On Medicare, the document proposed reducing spending by “at least $250 billion” from 2012 to 2021 and “at least $800 billion” from 2022 to 2031. This would be achieved, in part, by “alteration of the eligibility age for Medicare” and “adjustments to premiums collected for services and benefits currently covered under Part B and Part D.” In other words, the eligibility age for Medicare health coverage would be raised and premiums for a range of hospital and clinical services as well as for drugs would be hiked.

On Social Security, the document proposed changing the formula for the consumer price index (CPI) as applied to cost-of-living increases in benefits so as to slash outlays by $112 billion over 10 years. The new CPI would also apply to veterans' disability payments, cutting $24 billion.

The proposal further stipulated: “Reduce the 75-year estimated shortfall of the Social Security program by 0.7 percent… as a percentage of taxable payroll, with a balanced package of tax and benefit changes.” In plain English: increase payroll taxes and decrease benefits.

In addition to these sweeping cuts in the two most basic entitlement programs, the document spelled out a list of additional reductions, including:

* Civilian retirement, i.e., retirement benefits for civilian federal workers: $33 billion

* Military retirement: $11 billion

* TRICARE drug copayments/TRICARE for Life: $16 billion

* Postal reform: $16 billion

* Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation: $9 billion

* Flood insurance: $4 billion

* Agriculture subsidies/conservation programs: $33 billion

* Nutrition assistance: $2 billion

* Higher education: $10 billion.

On the tax side, the document proposed to “Enact reform that improves international competitiveness and increases incentives for companies to invest in the United States and succeed globally.” This is an open-ended formula for cutting business taxes and increasing profits through the decimation of social programs and the further impoverishment of the working class.

The document specifically endorsed cutting both corporate tax rates and individual income tax rates for the wealthy, with the injunction to “Reduce the number of individual and corporate income tax rates… reducing each rate to the lowest possible level consistent with the overall revenue target…”

This “get richer, quicker” scheme for the American ruling class, whether or not it is enacted in precisely the form outlined by the White House in July 2011, remains the basic agenda of Obama and the Democratic Party. This was underscored by William Daley, a former top executive at JPMorgan Chase who was White House chief of staff in the summer of 2011 and led the negotiations with Boehner and the Republicans.

Last week, Daley told Bloomberg News that there was “80 to 85 percent” agreement between Obama and Boehner at the time and that the “grand bargain” offer should serve as the starting point for new talks on deficit reduction. “It’s logical that that’s where you'd go back to, the points where there was either agreement or close to an agreement, and try to begin there,” Daley said.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/nov2012/aust-n15.shtml

It's all on the Republicans this time. Unlike 2011, this time, we the people are paying attention. We're familiar with the President's and the Democrats' stance, we gave them the go-ahead with a resounding popular-vote victory on all fronts, and we've rejected the obstructionist GOP modus operandi.

Plus, poll after poll shows that we want tax cuts for the rich to expire. It's not that we're willing to consider it, it's that we want it to happen. An article came out today on Gallup's Web site explaining that Americans' opinions on how the fiscal cliff should be solved have shifted from favoring an approach that focuses on spending cuts (with minor or nonexistent tax increases) to favoring a balanced approach that gives equal weight to increasing revenues and decreasing spending. All in all, less than 35% of Americans today think that revenue increases should be a non-priority.

Most importantly, the GOP is in no shape to fight this one to the death. Eighteen months ago, they had just come out of an incredibly strong midterm election (one of the most decisive in history), Obama's approval ratings stood at 40%, and they were about to start the process of choosing a presidential nominee, with the advantage of there not being a similar process being simultaneously conducted by the Democratic party. It was all about them. Not the case today. They have been rebuffed by the American people. Their top dogs are all too aware that the "Block Obama. Destroy Country. Blame him. Repeat. Profit." strategy has backfired. Obama was reelected and enjoys a 53% approval rating, while Congress is suffering from its lowest approval rating in history. They're just in no shape to stomach another PR debacle in the name of pleasing their own extremist fringe. If they want another shot at governing the country, they will need to move to the center, and immigration reform alone will not cut it.

That article by Ezra Klein is very silly. If deficits do not matter then why does the government only spend a few trillion dollars a year? Why not just add trillions more onto the deficit? The government could just bailout everyone. Let's just eliminate the debt ceiling altogether.

Those folks must have been drinking OBAMA BEER which I understand from the grapevine that it goes well with Carter peanuts.

I thought the whole Carter thing would go away after the reelection, but, evidently, I underestimated the power of The Bubble.

Need I show you the electoral map of the 1980 presidential election again? Hint, hint -- it does not look like this:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/2012_Electoral_Vote-Cartogram.png

It does make sense to equalize tax rates in this modern economy, but for those who say lowering rates cannot equal an increase in revenue only expose their lack of education. Kennedy lowered rates, revenues went up. Reagan lowered rates. revenues went up.

What we actually need is less government, especially at the federal level, as they add monstrous levels of waste, fraud and abuse, while providing little. We need lower rates for all, except for those who pay nothing. We should however not ask the poor to contribute, as they do already through gas taxes, sales taxes, and a myriad of other taxes. There is something decent about making sure people can survive before contributing. But once that threshold is met, everyone else should be in at 5%, 10%, and once you are making decent money, maybe as high as 20%. Take away all deductions - every last one of them. We all pay, we can all figure out tax liability on a napkin.

Do this and watch the economy grow. Keep the control in DC by using endless tax code to complicate and manipulate, and we will never work our way out of this mess.

It sounds like bev and capt smash can't stand to hear the truth as someone else sees it, only the way their blinded demlib eyes do. When Bozobama fails for another four years, leaves black unemployment around 25-30%, but certainly hands them pennies, how will the folks feel the? And his socialist crap WILL fail, no doubt.

Which guy do you like best, the one who will turn this country into Mexico or the one who wants to increase our already tremendous wealth gap, by sending even more American jobs to China while the middle class falls through the hole? Those were the options we were given in this election. No wonder the country was so divided.

America currently has a record number of millionaires and billionaires, along with our record unemployment. CEOs made 42 times what the average American worker made in the 1980s. Today, CEOs make 343 times what the average American worker makes. Our national debt grew from billions to trillions under Reagan, with his "trickle down economics" (which Bush Sr. derisively called "voodoo economics"), and the debt doubled from $5 trillion to $10 trillion under Bush, because he funded 2 wars while giving everybody tax breaks. Republicans always vote for the guy who promises tax breaks, and their candidate always does this by borrowing from other countries, causing the national debt to explode. Republican economics is the equaivalent of taking out credit cards in your children's names and expecting them to pay off your debts. Even if trickle down theory worked, the new jobs are currently being created overseas, not here.

We also naturalize more immigrants as citizens each year than all other nations of the world COMBINED, the vast majority of them from Mexico. 1 in 8 Americans is now foreign born, and 1 in 10 people born in Mexico currently lives in America. We have tripled our number of immigrants since Bush's 1990 Immigration Act, each year setting, and then breaking, a new historic record for the number of immigrants we take in. You guys keep arguing over which poison is better.

Rob99 was recently seen coughing up this:

We all need to succeed from this @!$%#ry

Please do. You can denounce your citizenship and go live in whatever country needs more poor spellers. Even with a computer and built in spell check you just can't quite master it...

secede* Country*

Ray

They lost and now they want to take there toy and go.

Grow up, you people are not the only citizens of your states, and as others have said, this is the USA, you a free to leave at anytime, if you can find another country that will have you.

Has anyone ever noticed that no matter what business is always tries to come of as concillitory or supportive?

Gee, I can't figure out why.

There would be no "fiscal" cliff if;

-Congress could pass a balanced budget.

-could say no to more spending of any kind.

-quit promising more than can realistically ever be achieved.

The largest expansion of government was Johnsons Great society. It was supposed to eliminate poverty. Today, It and subsequent social spendings has grown to consume the largest part of our dollars.

And poverty today is greater than before the passage of the laws.

Insanity is trying to do the same thing (and more) again and again, and again.

9 out of 10 of these CEOs are there for their own personal press and ego. Anybody who thinks otherwise is seriously delusional.

Cote's quote about Blackberry - talks to his ego more than it talks about Obama.

80 min. meeting -- more than Obama gives most foreign diplomats. But, typical Obama. "didn't get too many specifics" -- "did not elaborate".

@Gil - get over it and get used it. Tea baggers lost.

don't know if you are aware of the fact that lyndon baines johnson took our social security money,get this,he borrowed against it,to have my brothers go to an early grave and make the chickenhawks millionaires,i was reading post 1.56 and now i know why farmers are repubs.they the president,want to cut 33 billion from that part of cuts,i'm a dem.but this cut plan will make it hard to sweep in,in 2016 it looks like you give repubs the edge for prez.however democrats are chomping at the bit,so to speak,to throw out the rest of the pharohs in 2014.can't wait.

All this talk of union busting and decreasing American wages is stupid! Let us not forget the lessons of Henry ford.

In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than doubling wages to $5 a day—a move that helped build the U.S. middle class and the modern economy. Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. By the 1920's Ford was the largest automaker and employed more than 100,00 people in one plant!

The simple question is, if you pay your workers starvation wages who do you expect to buy any products you produce?

The equation only works today because the market for all the Chinese goods made by workers that are paid piss-poor wages is not China! Most of those goods are sold somewhere else, where workers make a wage good enough to buy those products.

PJ: I am not a "Tea bagger". I'm an Independent. If you don't have anything to say, then don't try to make it look like you are saying something! Obama does it all the time. His press conference yesterday was a joke.

you may not be a tea snagger and may be an indie.but i smell racism in the post,give it up dude 4more44,that like death is reality.

Do you understand why I want to secede?

I do!

So quit whining and start packing! GO!

America: love it or leave it.

Good luck, and don't come back.

The simple question is, if you pay your workers starvation wages who do you expect to buy any products you produce?

That's an excellent question, EEngineer.

Conservatives fail to understand or refuse to see how we are all inter-related in this economy. When the middle class wage earner is paid more he can spend more, and thus the factory owners/ store owners make more money. Everybody wins.

When the middle class is starved through unemployment and/or low wages, federal income tax revenues drop, sales of all consumer goods fall, and the government has to step in to provide food stamps and welfare.

If corporate America would pledge to pay their employees liveable wages, food stamps would virtually disappear. Are you listening, Sam Walton?

Republican crybabies. Obama meets with business leaders and they whine. Can't win with these nutcases.

Mikeevietvet: You "smell" racism? You would probably smell racism if I said the night was dark or s**t was black. Get a life. You are the racist !!! And an idiot. Stop attacking anyone who criticises your God as being racist. Are you Muslim? Afraid of an drawing? Grow up!!!

Beverly

I think he was joshin' ya!

DB, Johnson's war on poverty was working until Richard Nixon, his policy's messed up American. Some things is still costing us like his taking the dollar off the silver standard and allowing it to float on the world money market. This only benefited the rich and took money out of the hands of working people. I disagree that social welfare cost more then any other part of the budget, I think if you look at the pie you will find that to be Military spending. Its killing us and yet you right wonders worry about the penitence that the government gives a single mother because you force motherhood on females. The poverty rate are caused more by a lack of jobs which by the way republicans cause with your greed. If you azzholes think that poverty is a good thing and welfare doesn't help those that need it, or that people on welfare are there because they would rather be home then work, or that welfare is a great life, maybe you should try it.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction and they can go and drink their beer somewhere else.

And since I as a member of the middle class who takes home an actual paycheck pay 35% in taxes, I pay the most. Because remember we need to have a look at percentage of overall income, not a dollar figure like your buddies in the bar--see this is where the Right likes to muddle things up. They play around with percentages versus dollars because they know the ill informed go, "ooooo, so much money.... it's enough."

Guess what? We don't pay our taxes by the dollar amount. We pay them by the percentage. You give me one good reason why Mitt Romney pays 11% taxes on millions and I pay 35% taxes on thousands. I pay more than a third of my income in taxes and he pays 10%-- around the amount of sales tax in some states-- on his millions. Is it easier for me to live on 2/3rds of what I make? He can't do it on his millions of dollars? I want a million dollar dancing horse and a wife who fantasizes she raised her children because she kissed them before they went off to school. I want an elevator in my garage and guy who looks after my dancing horse that makes more money than most of the people posting here.

Get over the idea the wealthy will leave. They won't. They don't want to live in some third world rat hole where the government is as corrupt as congress and they could be poisoned by dinner.

And if they do leave, who cares? Why does it matter? All of the people who do all of the REAL work are still here. We can make televisions and automobiles, air conditioners and toothbrushes and we can do it more cheaply and we can do it better without the users on the top. And no one will be outsourcing our jobs for an inferior product and a bigger bonus.

Lets do the math, the rate they want to change is to charge the wealth 3% more on their taxes. After the 250000 for a couple. So a person making a half a million($500000) would only pay 3% more on $250000, the amount over the first $250000, or $7500 more. $7500 is nothing to a person making $500000. It still leaves $492,500 to hide in the Cayman Is., you just got to feel sorry for all these people broken by the Government, and having to contribute to the country that makes it possible for them to rip the rest of us off at every chance they get.

B707320C

It's amazing how many posters on this thread make over $250,000 a year! And, you'd be taxed a higher amount only on income above that limit. I'm surrounded by millionaires!

I've never even made 6 figures, and I doubt I ever will (I don't want to work that hard). I am in favor of going back to the Clinton era rates for everyone - but not just for a portion of the population. I also only support tax increases if done in conjunction with spending cuts (including defense and entitlements).

If everyone doesn't feel some pain, the ones that don't pay more will just continue to demand more from the "wealthy". Eventually this will result in increased taxes on everyone, or accepting a lower standard of living due to the drag on the economy from the ever increasing debt levels (or more likely, both). So, by opposing tax rate increases on just the wealthy and not in conjunction with spending cuts or general tax rate increases, I am looking out for myself (and everyone else).

Also, just because I can take more from others, doesn't mean I should. The wealthy already pay a very large portion of the income taxes in this country - a higher % than they make. Sure, we could raise their tax rates to 90%, but would that be morally right? In my world, the answer is a resounding no.

MJ, if they do leave they won't be missed, as it will allow others to step up, the rich by not paying enough taxes are killing this country. A lack of revenue is the problem, we actually need to spend more in area's of infrastructure and education and the like, and spend less on the military in order to move this country forward. Grover Norquist be damned, raise the taxes on those that can afford to pay more, not the middle class who are cash strapped from years of trickle down economics which is killing this country.

mj-1451595

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction and they can go and drink their beer somewhere else.

And since I as a member of the middle class who takes home an actual paycheck pay 35% in taxes, I pay the most. Because remember we need to have a look at percentage of overall income, not a dollar figure like your buddies in the bar--see this is where the Right likes to muddle things up. They play around with percentages versus dollars because they know the ill informed go, "ooooo, so much money.... it's enough."

Guess what? We don't pay our taxes by the dollar amount. We pay them by the percentage. You give me one good reason why Mitt Romney pays 11% taxes on millions and I pay 35% taxes on thousands. I pay more than a third of my income in taxes and he pays 10%-- around the amount of sales tax in some states-- on his millions. Is it easier for me to live on 2/3rds of what I make? He can't do it on his millions of dollars? I want a million dollar dancing horse and a wife who fantasizes she raised her children because she kissed them before they went off to school. I want an elevator in my garage and guy who looks after my dancing horse that makes more money than most of the people posting here.

I agree changes are needed so at some point, all personal revenue is taxed as ordinary income - or, better yet, lower the tax rates and do away with the revenue type classifications altogether. By the way, Romney did propose these changes at various times during the campaign (not saying he would or would not have done them, but he did talk about them).

Get over the idea the wealthy will leave. They won't. They don't want to live in some third world rat hole where the government is as corrupt as congress and they could be poisoned by dinner.

There are a lot of non-rat hole places in the world. They can move to Canada or Europe, or as the guy from Facebook did, move to places like Singapore. Also, keep in mind that the uber-rich can travel constantly. So, although they may have citizenship in a country, that doesn't mean they live most of their lives there.

And if they do leave, who cares? Why does it matter? All of the people who do all of the REAL work are still here. We can make televisions and automobiles, air conditioners and toothbrushes and we can do it more cheaply and we can do it better without the users on the top. And no one will be outsourcing our jobs for an inferior product and a bigger bonus.

It takes a certain skill-set and personality to run a successful business - especially a large business. Think of where the US would be if we had pushed the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates types to other countries. Where would we be now if the PC and Information Age revolutions had started in Europe instead of the US?

John in Battle Creek

MJ, if they do leave they won't be missed, as it will allow others to step up, the rich by not paying enough taxes are killing this country. A lack of revenue is the problem, we actually need to spend more in area's of infrastructure and education and the like, and spend less on the military in order to move this country forward. Grover Norquist be damned, raise the taxes on those that can afford to pay more, not the middle class who are cash strapped from years of trickle down economics which is killing this country.

While I agree with you on infrastructure and defense spending, I disagree on education. We already spend far more per student than any other country in the world, and we have the lowest student to teacher ratio in the world. I don't think money or the number of teachers is the problem. We need to take a hard look at what we are doing with education, and what the rest of the world is doing, and find better ways to use the resources we already have in place.

I also think that pledges in general are detrimental to effective governance. Politicians should never back themselves into a corner by signing absolutists pledges - they need to be able to react to changing situations.

It's simple. The wealthy 2% are going to have their taxes increased to the same it was during the Clinton years. Obama has a bill out that keeps the Bush Tax cuts in effect for people making under $200,000 a year/$250,000 for couples. 98% of Americans will keep their low tax rate. All republicans have to do is sign this and consumer confidence that they won't be $3,500 short next year will keep us out of a recession. If republicans refuse to keep the tax rate low for 98% of Americans then we will not only have every household take home $3500 less but that will lead to tightening spending because there is less money to spend. That would lower demand and then create fewer jobs.

It's a no brainer. Both parties say they are for keeping the tax rate low for the 98% of Americans. Are they? Let's see what the Republicans do with this bill?

@Gil - reading your comment - you don't look like independent.

The rich 2% are paying taxes as they did during Clinton's years. Whether it's through a deal or over the cliff.

If the republicans remain the party of no, just means the economy goes over the cliff along with the wealthy getting a tax increase. So the question is, would you rather pay a tax increase during a economic recovery when people are spending more for the product you sell or would you rather have a tax increase while in addition to a consumer spending freeze where some can no longer afford to buy your product.

So do the wealthy want to take one hit to their earnings or several? Your move "party of no".

Also, do you think the 98% of voters won't notice who did this to them?

Hey BEVERLY IN THAT GIN SLINGING TOWN CHICAGO IS.

I just bet a dime to a doughnut that this meeting was just one heck of a bi-partisan kabal of one.

old fat guy-1144960

Unions add not one dime of value to the consumer,

Fair wages, safe working conditions, overtime etc have all been legislated and will not be going away.

I have always been a supporter of Made in USA, have never bought a foreign car and was the very last to give in on foreign clothes. I am however not going to continue supporting union workers that take my money to support democrats.

I am truly sorry but I have had enough

You are so full of crap it's incredible! Fair wages and safe working conditions have been legislated, and they are still not adhered to...I give you the coal industry. How many mining accidents have been linked to safety violations?

As to overtime, I give you Wal-Mart. You won't support American workers but you have not problem with the Chinese? ...now that's patriotic.

And We the People have had enough of your anti-American ilk! You should consider moving to Dubai.

I don't understand WHY these politicians are not consulting world-class economists, Nobel Prize Winning Economists, and folks with Phd's in Economics!

Do any of these "politicians" or business owners have a degree in economics that apply to running an entire country?

That's how former Democrat Bill Clinton got us so far ahead, and people with world-class economic degrees, I'm sure, would be happy to contribute their knowledge to the President of the United States AND the United States Congress.

I think that would be MUCH better than to continue to experiment with bickering political opponents.

CAN WE GET SOME PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS ON TOP OF THIS PLEASE?

Forward >>>

Ray in Jax

Rob99 was recently seen coughing up this:

We all need to succeed from this @!$%#ry

Please do. You can denounce your citizenship and go live in whatever country needs more poor spellers. Even with a computer and built in spell check you just can't quite master it...

secede* Country*

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

lol

Do you folks actually read articles and look for what is missing? Obama made his first meeting with the Unions...His second with "Big Business Leaders" and will meet with Congressional leaders later in the week. WTF...nothing is changing in Obama's approach over the past four years. Our Economy moves or suffers by American "small" business. Where are his meeting with small business owners? Why is he working with Unions and neglecting the needs of non-union labor? How does a President profess to be doing anything when he is so selective on who he will listen to and who he will support? The madness will continue until the President attends to the real needs of the middle class in this country. Our middle class need jobs not just Union jobs, not just jobs earmarked to the children of illegal immigrants not just jobs that pay back political good will. Our middle class needs opportunity and a stable environment to risk and start up small businesses without the concerns of what pain the Federal Government will inflict upon them instead of encouraging the risk for ventures that will support their needs not punish them for working to be prosperous. Until Obama actually listens enough to understand the needs of the American middle class we will end up going over that cliff. You can't grow an economy if you are hell bent to play favorites and listen selectively to those who will gladly stroke you under the table.

TO: txmom32 who wrote:

"... Obama made his first meeting with the Unions...His second with "Big Business Leaders" and will meet with Congressional leaders later in the week. WTF...nothing is changing in Obama's approach over the past four years. Our Economy moves or suffers by American "small" business. Where are his meeting with small business owners? Why is he working with Unions and neglecting the needs of non-union labor?..."

First of all, I thought you folks wanted LESS government but you're constantly calling on President Obama to "do something'. Why don't Republicans talk to "non-union labor"??? Aren't these so-caled "non-union labor" persons part of the Republican constituency?

"Unions" are "employee unions" and they are responsible for making sure that American Workers receive a decent wage, health care and other fringe benefits, and make sure American Workers are treated fairly in the workplace.

Just 2 weeks ago, Republicans cast their vote for Mitt Romney who wanted to repeal the minimum wage AND he would have repealed Affordable Health Care.

If Republicans REALLY want "limited government" then quit asking for more and more!!!

Why not talk to YOUR political leaders in the Republican Party and see what THEY can do for you?

The main problem I see with the message from the GOP is that math does not support their talking points.

They blame entitlements for taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. They blame regulations and unions for taking money from executives and forcing them to give it to employees.

By their logic, the rich should have seen a decrease in their share of the wealth (as it is taken from them), while the middle and lower class realizes an increase (getting the money from the rich).

MATH, however, tells a different story. Over the last 20 years, the rich have seen their share of the wealth increase by 400%. The middle class has seen their wealth stagnate, and the poor have seen a reduction of their share.

So, in reality, over the last 20 years money has shifted away from the middle and lower class, and gone to the rich. The wealth has actually been redistributed to the wealthy.

If we are "taking" the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, why are the rich getting MORE of the money? Why are the poor getting LESS of the money?

If regulations are "killing" business owners, why are business owners getting MORE of the money while their workers get LESS?

This is basic math. Over the last 20 years, the money in our economy has moved to the rich, and away from everyone else. On top of that, the rich also pay the least in taxes, as a percentage of their money. If that same money was shifted to the middle class, more tax revenue would have been paid . . . however, because it was shifted to the rich, less tax revenue was paid. And thus we need to increase the revenue received from those that are holding all the money.

You know American Girl...I've read your babbling and I am truly sorry you don't understand any of the complexities that affect our Nation at this time...

First I am not "you folks"....Second, if you bothered to read what I wrote you would clearly understand that I would like our Government to step back, become smaller, and let our economic system work for American not for just some parts of America. Third, I think there are probably a great deal of unaffiliated laborers who vote for Democrats, at lease in right to work states. Imposing a system of favoritism for union labor and requiring individuals to pay unions dues is like forcing someone to pay a tax to an organization just to have a right to work.

Unions are a joke. The Federal Government provides employee protections and standards for employees so for the Government to require an employee to pay Union Dues to an organization is excessive and unnecessary and only serves as a source of income for those seeking political favor. I am not surprised by your confusion as you post many question that take about two seconds of processing to understand the answers, at least for those at average to above average intelligence.

I did cast a vote for Romney because I believe that he had an approach that would encourage individual dignity for Americans to earn their own way and to improve their lot in life by personal success. Not to earn part of their lifestyle and be dependent on the Federal or State Governments for the other part. That is not achieving personal independence nor is it accepting personal responsibility. I am personally very sad for people who are ill prepared or just feel defeated by our current economic limitations. People who do not feel as if their contribution is important so they must grab onto the coat tails of someone else to get what they want. It is all very sad this America that Obama and the Democrats wish to impose on a free spirited people and how they certainly wish to lead for the most corrupt.

It sounds like the rich are being their usual greedy selves. Obama has them in a corner if he asserts himself. The question is, will he? He can say to them, "Be willing to pay more taxes or I will let the cliff hit and your precious economy take a hit." They don't want an economic collapse. He has that over them. Now he must prove that he is the president all those who voted for him think he is (advocate of the common folk). He, of course, could sell us out. After all, it was he who signed this fiscal cliff to begin with. Now his real intentions will come to light.

Miss Piggy, Beverly, and American Girl, won't mind working 80 to 120 hours a week for $5.00 an hour no overtime and than paying $700.00 to $800.00 a month for Obamacare. It's better than being a house wife. I can make a good deal with companies too see, doesn't mean it benefits you, when companies and politicians come out of a meeting saying it went good, worry.

You know American Girl...I've read your babbling and I am truly sorry you don't understand any of the complexities that affect our Nation at this time...

Actually, reading both of your posts, it is quite obvious that she understands the complexities facing our nation a lot better than you.

You, however, certainly have demonstrated a command of rhetoric. Not able to address the issues she raised, you just resort to a superior attitude. Very eloquently, I might add.

Archstanton said:

Yeah, I'll bet the CEO's are offering support!

"….Obama's pretense of “fairness” and concern for working people, against the backdrop of the supposed looming disaster of the “fiscal cliff,” is a cynical sham. It is a cover for a calculated and ruthless assault on all that remains of the social reforms of the 20th century—most centrally, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—combined with a restructuring of the tax system that will cut taxes for corporations and the rich and increase the tax burden on working people…"

I suspected this. That is the biggest reason I did not vote for Obama. I was reading accounts of this deal he signed with the Republicans in the Cortland Standard. He was willing in various deals with them to gut all sorts of programs for the poor in exchange for very mild concessions from the Republicans. Obama was willing to offer up a lot of sacrificial lambs. The final deal was what we are looking at now, the Fiscal Cliff. Obama sounded more like a Republican than a Democrat when this deal had been talked about. I remember reading his comments in the newspaper then. Then along came the election, and everybody forgot about it. Obama was painted as some great progressive bearing gifts by his supporters in the election and as a spend-crazy Santa Claus offering wonderful free stuff by the extreme right. He was none of these. Obama was willing to cut deeper than Ronald Reagan. That is why I voted for Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican, because his proposals were actually milder than Obama's when it came to cuts.

Obama is now talking like he will stand by the little guy in this fiscal game of chicken. I wish I could believe that. I am willing to be wrong on this one if he surprises me and actually stands up to those rich people. It is high time someone simply forces them to pay taxes and have them cover the deficit and debt and not try to bleed it out of the poor and middle. He could force them if he wanted to. He could redeem himself by revealing that this fiscal cliff he signed was a trap he set for them, a clever trap to force them to finally yield. Then I'd forgive him and credit him with being a better poker player.

But he has to follow through!!!!

It sounds like the rich are being their usual greedy selves.

This is completely wrong. Most of the rich support the higher taxes that Obama wants. Have you followed what Warren Buffet is saying? It is well-known that Governor Romney beat Obama as far as the white vote is concerned, but what is less well-known is that Obama beat him as far as the educated white vote was concerned.

Most rich people realize that the country's infrastructure does not come for free and are willing to do their share to support it.

The problem is that SOME rich people, lacking scruples, have made the simple calculation that paying a few hundred million dollars to politicians is cheaper than paying slightly higher taxes. All this claim about "principles" (or "principals" as their surrogates so often call it), is pure smokescreen. People who have principles and believe in personal responsibility do not try to skip out on paying for the infrastructure that they used to make themselves rich. They realize they didn't do it all by themselves.

Only very few of the rich are "let someone else pay for it" camp. Unfortunately, these are the ones with the megaphone.

PJ: I just commented on the facts. That is all I ever do. As I said to the A** at 1.76; "if s**t is "black", I'll call it "black" -- do not accuse me of racism. My comments are carefully written and always factually based. If you want to designate me as a "non-independent" because of my comments I suggest you do some retrospection. Get an education and learn to read.

Where is Ted Nugent?

@Gil - I don't doubt anybody's intention. But since you are talking about facts - let me point out that you actually ignored facts in saying obama is low on specifics. Did you read his plan vs Mitt Romney's? You clearly didn't. Secondly you are making a sweeping statement about how obama met CEOs more than diplomats. Well FYI .... most of these CEOs are republican. I know one of them up and close. So he is trying to make an honest effort to understand their side of the story and impact on American economy that these so called "fiscal cliff" is going to have. How is that less important than meeting foreign diplomats. It seems you are free to criticize Obama eitherway.

To be honest - you don't really know what you are talking about. No offense. I am just saying based on our exchange today. Like you - I am trying to stay objective here.

I give you Wal-Mart. You won't support American workers but you have not problem with the Chinese?

And yet, Republicans label Obama with "communist"! Who is really supporting a communist government?

I did cast a vote for Romney because I believe that he had an approach that would encourage individual dignity for Americans to earn their own way and to improve their lot in life by personal success.

Yeppirs, that is exactly why Romney would not meet with the employees from Sensata Technologies. At the very time that Romney was running on creating more jobs in America, his company, his pride and joy, Bain Capital , was moving profitable jobs in America to China!

No matter what you say, that says it all!

PJ: There has been no "exchange today" as I made one truthful comment as to the amount of time spent with foreign diplomats and set forth two quotes.

You are a typical liberal putting words in my mouth. Please start reading carefully.

John,

First of all, it is the gold standard, not the silver standard. And no, moving to that standard did not increase poverty.

Nixon moved us off the gold standard because there was a move to cash in dollars for Gold. This is because the US Currency was printed beyond what our gold reserves could back. Printing money to cover deficits or monetize debt is what causes poverty to increase. Taking us off the Gold standard was the response to our irresponsiblitly over increasing spending to try to lift people out of poverty.

Read the programs carefully, the design would never work. What it did was move money to people who did not earn it, did not save it, and then found out after being on it, that getting off the money was not worth the effort.

I am one of the unfortunate souls who lost their middle class jobs and have not been able to obtain another. Every time I started to move ahead with temporary work that exceeded I would lose an equal amount of benefit that week once I exceeded about $100.00 Extra. Most people work or lie about the amount they work for, but I didn't. The only benefit to the matter was I ended up with partial support an additional 4 weeks with unemployment.

I've known people on welfare. It is harder to get off it because of the security of having that check coming each month.

@Gil - get a life. Typical dumb republican. Can't even respond logically and objectively.

Funny how the President gets more cooperation out of CEO's in the private sector than out of our own elected officials who are supposed to be there to help us.............

thank you to these CEO's who came forward...........please continue to work with our President as it would seem the GOP will not.

It is good business to recover our economy..........it is bad business to obstruct the recovery.........

the republicans are all about bad business............

GET RID OF THEM !!!!

txmom32

....Second, if you bothered to read what I wrote you would clearly understand that I would like our Government to step back, become smaller, and let our economic system work for American not for just some parts of America.

Then why do you support a party that want's to "govern" women's reproduction? That want's to control who get's married? That want's to privatize Social Security and feed the Federal Funds to Wall Street brokers? That for the last 30 years, hasn't met a war it didn't like. That supports tax payer subsidies for corporate agriculture. That supports tax payer subsidies for the Exon-Mobile?

You say you want the economy to work for all America not just parts of America...I don't buy it. If that were the case you would not be anti-labor, since MOST Americans fall under the category of labor rather than management.

Third, I think there are probably a great deal of unaffiliated laborers who vote for Democrats, at lease in right to work states. Imposing a system of favoritism for union labor and requiring individuals to pay unions dues is like forcing someone to pay a tax to an organization just to have a right to work.

The workers choose to join the union...no one forces them. If they don't choose to be a member of a union...they are free to work in a non-union shop. As to non-union workers in "right to work for less" States voting for Democrats...I'm sure after working in non-union shops long enough...they do vote for Democrats. Republicans certainly offer them nothing.

Unions are a joke. The Federal Government provides employee protections and standards for employees so for the Government to require an employee to pay Union Dues to an organization is excessive and unnecessary and only serves as a source of income for those seeking political favor. I am not surprised by your confusion as you post many question that take about two seconds of processing to understand the answers, at least for those at average to above average intelligence.

So now the Government forces people to pay union dues? You have an interesting view of the law. As to laws governing working conditions...how well has that work out for non-union coal miners? The coal companies could care less because they simply pay off the regulators. Then there's overtime pay. Let's see, who was that the just recently got fined for violating wage & hour laws...oh yes...Wal-Mart, a good non-union company.

I did cast a vote for Romney...

Of course you did.

Ol doc You know nothing about coal mines. My son works for Koch bros. (David). He makes $35 an hour, full health benefits, he doesn't pay a thing for health insurance. Full dental, vision and a great retirement program. He gets 2 paid days off per month also. 3 days per month sick pay.

Only fools and stupid people pay someone else to negotiate their pay. Non union workers will always have a chance for better pay and benefits. A good employee is worth their weight in gold. A poor worker needs someone to protect them from getting fired.