I have hope for some members of the GOP and I never thought I would say that! It is about time that some are willing to stand up to Grover and say it is important to put country first. Times have changed, as Chambliss stated. And, WCA, no that will not solve our problems. There is a huge gap between where the middle class is and the wealthy that has gone on for way too long. The rich get richer while the middle class and the poor can barely hold on. Raising taxes on the wealthiest in this country will not stop progress, but it will start to help. I am happy to see that some on the right are beginning to carry a different tone.

We shall see, MO, we shall see. I know that there is pandering going on, but I also know that those that are pandering will have to put their money where their mouth is when the time comes otherwise what they've said may come back to haunt them. They are also aware that if they don't do their best to compromise they will again be seen as obstructionists by the American people, who have polled at wanting to see the top 2% pay more in taxes, one way or another.

By Dog, WCA, I think you're finally getting the picture! (he sneered, sarcasm dripping from every syllable) Yes, let's do just that! We'll start by dropping the payroll tax holiday (I never thought it was a good idea to eat the seed corn in the first place) and bump up the rates on the bottom quintile of taxpayers by about 1%; then by about 2.5% on the next quintile; for everybody above that, just put the rates back to Clinton levels.

The Treasury will be up to their eyebrows in money, the government will be solvent, we can have our credit rating restored to what it was before the Republican Norquist Party forced the downgrade- yes, WCA, that's how it happened and I dare you to deny it- and the greatly increased economic activity will far more than offset the minor additional expense on the lowest income brackets. If we greatly increase government spending- yes, you read that right and I did not stutter- with large-scale infrastructure repair and construction projects, we will be creating jobs for skilled tradespeople for the next two decades at least.

Those two decades will be ample time to stop and then reverse the cancer of privatization that has bled trillions of dollars out of public coffers since the Reagan years; re-negotiate or repeal the ruinous "free trade agreements" that have nuked the American manufacturing base; and get our unions back into position as true and effective representatives of America's working class, once the envy of the world but now on the verge of extinction- and all to the benefit of the 1%er master class.

It is a fact, sir, that the average productivity of the American worker has roughly doubled in the last thirty years (or since I entered the workforce, but I can't claim all the credit), but their wages have actually fallen during that same period. Meanwhile, the non-productive class (meaning the financial speculators and paper shufflers whose activity generates no products, no building, no jobs, nothing for anybody but others of their own parasitic class) have exploded in size, influence and wealth. Do you believe, sir, that one group of people selling valueless paper to another group is any kind of basis for a prosperous economy? (Never mind, you voted for Romney, so we all know your answer to that one.)

FoxTrotsky

If we greatly increase government spending- yes, you read that right and I did not stutter- with large-scale infrastructure repair and construction projects, we will be creating jobs for skilled tradespeople for the next two decades at least.

Those are fighting words, and I agree with you. Waiting for 20 years and a balanced budget will result in a devastated infrastructure that will cost countless trillions more.

p.s. NAFTA was fine if only the US and Canada were party to it as wages were similar. Bringing in Mexico was a mistake.

Bring back the Clinton Tax Rates!

Bring back the Clinton Spending Levels!

What you say is true, MO, but I am an eternally optimistic person. I think that many in the GOP are still reeling from the ass kicking and I do think that the loss really gave some of them the excuse they needed in order to move a little left. They know that their party has gone crazy.

WCA: Do your homework. The Clinton years were the best years this country has seen in a very long time.

AlaskaGirl - I'll say it again, when does the DOJ investigate those who signed pledges to Norquist - as well as Norquist - for crimes against the country? They have stood in the way of our recovery because of their pledge to someone who has no business even asking for a pledge. It's time they were all thrown out of office and into jail. I believe we have room at GITMO!

White Collar Auto

Bring back Detroit!

Bring back Detroit!

Where did it go??????

White Collar Auto

Bring back Detroit!

Where did it go??????

From major to minor.

Well, WCA, thanks in part to NAFTA and in part to executive greed, enabled and encouraged by regulations being changed in D.C., it went to Mexico... and Brazil... and now it's going to China...

In any well- run democratic state (I use Germany and Canada as examples because I have sources/contacts there with whom to check my facts), any industrial concern that talks of moving production overseas to take advantage of lax worker safety laws, nonexistent enviromental protections, and cheaper, non-union labor,with concommitant large-scale layoffs at home, would be faced with immediate consequences.

The government would slap a large tariff on re-importing the finished products- so no increase in per-unit profit. There would be sanctions related to violation of enviromental and human-rights standards in the country of origin- so no increase in sales volume. Most damningly of all, the offending company would be fininshed by the ensuing public-relations disaster, and their CEO, CFO and board possibly brought up on charges. Golden parachute? They'd be lucky to escape with their scalps!

Call it Communism if you want to. Word of advice... don't go shooting your mouth off around the Canadian truck plants, or in the bierkellars where Daimler-Benz workers like to unwind at the end of a shift.

Hey Fox, I spent 2 years in an Auto assembly plant in Windsor, so I don't need to "check my sources" on my input here.

How about you? How much time have you spent in Canadian Plants since you claim to know so much about them?

You haven't got a clue.

GOP politicians take their orders from Grover Nordquist? Do they find him intimidating? Have they listened to him? He sounds like a 12 year old when he talks - not only his voice, but calling Romney poopy. Well, requring adults to pledge to never raise taxes, no matter what the circumstances, is also something I'd expect of someone with a 12 year-old maturity level. It's amazing that any adult would sign something like that.

Taxes are at a 60-year low - for everyone. Unfortunately, the wealthy and big business have gained far greater advantage in the tax mix thus creating an enormous widening of the wealth gap in this country. Low to middle-income families have absolutely no wiggle room to absorb more taxes. Those at the top however, would not miss the relatively miniscule amount being asked of them. If you can claim $250K or more in income on your tax return, you're not hurting in this economy.

I have nothing but disdain and distrust for the GOP's definition of revenue - such as the home mortgage and charitable deductions. I am also against seniors and those making less than $250K losing their dividend, interest, and capital gain portion of the Bush tax cuts. Loss of these deductions and breaks would have a huge negative impact on low and middle incomes.

Dig deeper into the tax code to weed out those tax advantages that only the wealthy and big biz can claim - as we were told you would do, and keep away from SS and Medicare until all other possible sources of revenue have been addressed including fraud and abuse within these programs and the tax code. And please implement the Buffet Rule and his minimum tax for the wealthy as the Oracle of Omaha has proposed.

I would not get my hopes up here. This seems like a lot of deja vu all over again - remember all the wasted time trying to get something 'palatable' to Olympia Snowe in 2009?

If these people want to stop abrograting their responsibility to govern the nation to a private citizen, then they need to just do it, not announce it like the Red Sea has been parted. It's always been nothing more than a choice. They could have made it at any time.

R.I.P Lucuh!

It was fun while it lasted... lol

Entitlement reform - that's what I'm talking about.

Bring back the Clinton Tax Rates!

Bring back the Clinton Spending Levels!

I agree.

20% of GDP revenue is optimal. Additionally 18% of GDP spending is also optimal if your main goal is to eliminate the debt.

One can be accomplish only if we raise the tax rates across the board. The other can be achieved by doing nothing more than we're doing now and then freezing Federal Spending at its current level for another 3-4 years. Where do you think the work really needs to be done?

I hear now declare the Religion of Patches, my home is now a house of worship, I so bequeath it that I am now tax exempt.

PS; I have no idea what Bequeath means - but it sounds official.

Raising taxes on a few rich people will not put a dent in our problems. It will however be politically expedient. There will be no entitlement reform that might cost the Democrats a vote.

The Republicans are toast. No matter what Obama does or doesn't do, it will be painted in a positive light by the media. Just the opposite for the Republicans, unless they bow down and worship him.

Let me ask all the GOP Congress people, what you like being Grover's biatch?

Grover the Grouch

From the article above:

…downplaying the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” Norquist’s 58-word pledge has been a mainstay in Republican politics since 1986. In 2011, every GOP presidential hopeful, including Mitt Romney (and excluding Jon Huntsman) signed it.

Here is the 58 word pledge:

I, (State your name), pledge to the taxpayers of the (put your district here) of the state of (put state here), and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

Definition of Marginal Tax Rate, Courtesy of Investopedia,

The amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income. The marginal tax rate for an individual will increase as income rises. This method of taxation aims to fairly tax individuals based upon their earnings, with low income earners being taxed at a lower rate than higher income earners.

The whole idea of this “pledge” creeps me out.

The people in your district elect you, you go to congress, then sign a “pledge” to do what other congressman in congress want you to do?

Kind of circumvents the whole democracy thing.

It is fitting that the Norquist pledge is now “on the table” and being scrutinized by congressional Republicans. A lot of old ideas are finally being discarded for the antiquated, partisan BS they were.

Nothing like working together to solve problems, eh Republicans?

How very “liberal” of them.

Salud

Okay, I looked up Bequeath - what a disappointment - big fancy word and all it means is; to pass on or hand down. What other 25 cent words have a 2 cent meaning?

The GOP are pandering again, they don't really mean it.

Fine, say I! Polls already show who will take the blame if talks fail - right where it belongs, with Republicans.

So, all Obama and the Democrats have to do is hang tough. When Republicans refuse to compromise, let the tax cuts expire and the automatic spending cuts cut in. There will be almost a 3/4 trillion dollar cut in budget deficit and Republicans will be blamed for being obstructionist... again!

Then, when 2014 elections come around, American voters can clean out more Republican trash from the House and Senate!

I truly believe the GOP is capable of change ... after all, the Republicans will want to have electoral successes in the future... thus paying attention to people's voices on this matter of 'fiscal cliff.'

.

1995 government shutdown led to re-election of Clinton in 1996, the first Democrat to do so since 1936. THE GOP got carried away after their takeover of both Houses of Congress in 1994 (the first since 1954).

.

then in 2011, the GOP refused to compromise with the President and the President's common-sense approach of raising revenues at the same time of cutting spending. US Treasury bonds were downgraded for the first time since 1917. And this led to re-election of Obama, the first Democrat to be re-elected with this kind of unemployment rate...since 1936. All these happened because of GOP overconfidence after their takeover of the House.

.

WOW - history does repeat itself....But the GOP has enough talents and ability to switch course. Remember we all have to thank the GOP for ending slavery. BTW, a Lincoln movie was out...to inspire the GOP...maybe.

"Entitlement reform - that's what I'm talking about."

One potential compromise: increase tax on incomes above $250k by 3%, and decrease all social security checks by 10%. Note that the 3% increase is only on the portion of income above $250k, so it would reduce paychecks by those earning up to $500k by less than 1.5%. However, everyone on Social security would see a 10% loss of income.

And when it is signed into law, Obama can say "If you earn above $500k and see your paycheck go down above 1.5%, blame me. If you see your social security check go down by 10%, blame the House Republicans. That was the pound of flesh they demanded in order to pursue a little fiscal responsibility among their very wealthy donors. I suggest if you don't like it, vote for Democrats in 2014."

I'm 57 yo - I'm sure I've lived through many tax law changes - not once have I noticed it affect my personal life. I thought I was a tight-wad, how tight are you that these changes actually ruined your life?

I still dont get how people can support tax increases when we should be demanding that these jag offs in Washington stop spending our money. No budget, more fluff entitlement projects to buy votes and spend money like college guys in a whore house. Every last one of them should be thrown in jail.

The Republicans are all in favor of increasing revenue, as long as there is no increase in revenue. Republicans have always come down four-square in favor of anything they like, unless they are not in favor of it.

We could save a tiny bit of government spending by just having one salaried elector vote all the Reps and Senators that are Republican. Why does it take 250 of them to all vote the same way?

Irish: the problem is that, while there is this vague sense that "the government spends too much," no one can actually find an achievable cut of any large size. When the GOP House was elected in 2010 (started 2011), they vowed to cut $100b in spending. You know what? We're spending $300b more this last year than we did in 2010 (and we were still spending on the stimulus in 2010).

It's not that the GOP congressmen did not intend to cut spending, it's just once they got there, they couldn't find anywhere to cut.

Just an aside: When conservatives do mention specific cuts, they talk about PBS ($0.45b) and welfare ($20b) and things of that sort that don't amount to much. When they talk in general, it's a vague "entitlements" but out of the other side of their mouth, they promise to save medicare and that it is a scare tactic to say that they will cut social security. The whole basic premise that we can significantly lower the deficit by spending cuts is pernicious lie. (Patches - You can look up that 25 cent word, it's a good one.)

As usual most of you are still stuck in the Republican vs Democrat rhetoric. The truth is they are BOTH out for one thing and that is themselves - power and money. Sure there are some, especially many of the freshman representatives that have started out with solid ideals, morals and ethics, but in time as with most in Congress they will succumb to the power and money that will inevitably change their original objective of serving the people.

Just look at the other article on this news site regarding the wealthy in Congress of the top 19, eleven are Democrats and 8 are Republicans. Do any of you REALLY believe that any of them want a REAL tax increase?

What I keep hearing from the Democrats is that they want a "Rate Increase", and frankly that will do nothing to increase revenue from the top 1%. What it will do is increase taxes on those in the top middle class, those that EARN250,000.00 to 500,000.00 a year. Those that are Trust Fund millionaires will NOT be touched at all. The tax code takes from earnings NOT from WEALTH. Those like the Kennedys that have live off a trust don't ans won't pay ANY taxes on those trusts. The fast majority of those that MAKE over 500,000.00 a year have the where with all to hire the accountants and lawyers to find all the loop holes in the 60,000+ pages of tax code to not pay a penny more than they are right now.

Frankly although I am not a Republican and did not vote for Romney (or Obama) this year I think that some of the Republicans have it right. Close the loopholes in the tax code, but bewarethere too, as there are some legitimate deductions that Joe Middle Class uses and rightfully so, such as mortgage interest deductions. I am suspitous of all this talk of closing loop holes in the fear that they will be that which will most impact the middle class, not the wealthy.

I don't trust either side at this point and suspect that there is pandering from both sides that sound good on the surface but will eventually end up stealing from the middle class even more and still the 1 percenters will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. It is all smoke and mirrors from both parties. Until we all understand that we will continue to go around in circles pointing fingers and never making any real headway in resolving these inequities.

I'm 57 yo - I'm sure I've lived through many tax law changes - not once have I noticed it affect my personal life. I thought I was a tight-wad, how tight are you that these changes actually ruined your life?

If all of the Bush era tax cuts expired, there would be a psychological effect that would last about a year or so for the vast majority of taxpayers. If taxes reverted to the 2000 level, I would pay about $60/paycheck more or so. Sure, it would suck, but it would not be a life altering event. The same is true for almost everyone. The bottom line is just that the people who drive Republican thought are opposed to almost every form of taxation. So they've managed to sell this notion very well to their rank and file for about two generations now.

Does any Republican sincerely believe we were living in 'socialism' during the Clinton administration? No. But rhetoric is rhetoric. They will use the rhetoric now to describe what reverting to the rates of that era would be like.

Grover Norquist has to go. Period. Eliminate the Norquist pledge by making all the repubs repledge to the office they pledged to in the first place. Pledging to Norquist makes them traitors to their country. They pledged to serve the people of the United States not Grover Norquist. It is time the media call him out for what he is. A traitor. How would the republicans react if the Democrats made up a Norquist type pledge and signed it never to raise taxes on the poor or middle class?

Graham added, “I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”

This is 100% fair. And I do think the dems need to reform entitlements, we all win.

Nuck Frover Gorquist. Why do great people like Walter Payton die at an early age, and this POS keeps on going? Frankly, what if Republicans in Congress tell him to stick it, and do what they feel is best? Yeah, the de facto dictator (as per his egotistical comments in the article) gets ticked off at them, but think how many of their Middle and Lower Class constituients would love seeing them have some gonads for a change.

Hey, WCA! Still waiting for you to come back at me with a point-by-point, fact- based refutation of my statements.

OK, you worked at Windsor- bully for you. How, exactly, does that make anything that I said untrue?

You claim to be an all- knowing oracle of some sort regarding the auto industry (although certain of your past statements put that claim very much in doubt). Please point out where I was WRONG. Will you do it, sir?

You would think that the

Republicans

would want to put an

END

to the BUSH ERA

FOLLIES

and simply adhere to the BUSH

tax "gift" promise of a decade ago

I think the easiest plan would be to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Then with the new Congress,push for a Bill for Middle/Lower Class tax cuts. If the Republicans refuse a Middle Class tax cut,it will finish them with voters in 2014. The voters will remember who denied them the tax cuts (we will remind them constantly,lol).

Once the tax cut issue is over. Then we can talk about a "grand bargain" to reform the tax system,and spending.

1.With SS,remove the cap,making all amounts of income subject to SS tax.

2.Raise CG tax to 20-25%.

3.Drug test for Welfare.

4.Eliminate corp. welfare spending.

5.Eliminate medicare fraud.

6.Impose penalties on outsourcing jobs,and rewards for bringing jobs into the country.

Hey, roadlesstraveled

And I do think the dems need to reform entitlements, we all win.

I agree with you,

Social security and Medicare are two programs run very well by the government..it's about services, not profits. There are things that corporations run well - Ours is a mixed economy - the government runs something well, the market runs others well...it's a partnership..there is reason that we should have market tyranny. But always, constructive tension and constructive competition between the market and the government is a good thing... one should NOT overrun the other.

Sign seen near Fiscal Cliff: Watch out for falling republicans!

What is the problem with elected officials signing pledges? Are they binding? Are they illegal? Are they wrong because the pledge goes against the administration policy? Are pledges signed by Congressmen and Senators wrong?

Remember, the president asked for a balanced approach (also open to all ideas) and established his first (not last) negotiating strategy. The Republicans at this point seem to be saying okay we'll put revenues on the table as long as they are "balanced" with spending cuts. That's what the president asked for. It seems to me that it will be harder to get Pelosi and Reid on board. Isn't it time to move past the election and pledges and get this country on the right track?? Name calling, calls for prosecution, etc. will not help this country one iota. Think.

Let the Bush Era tax cuts expire,they were never meant to be permanent. If the Republicants won't comprimise let the economy go over the fiscal cliff. F Them and F Them HARD!

Just shaking my head - It does no good to say "I don't trust either side" because we are stuck with a two-party system. No third party can hope to compete, especially in this age of Citizen United campaign ads. Yes, money runs the country, but you know what? It always has.

The big difference is in the intelligence of the parties. The Democratic party is frankly, smarter. If you heard the millionaires for atax increase, you heard smart people saying "We want higher taxes for ourselves not because we like taxes. We recognize that the health of the country was better in the 1990s." America thrives best, for all income levels, and for the long term, with Democratic policies that include things that limit the portion of wealth that belongs to the top 1%. The top 1% has a smaller share of the pie under Democrats, but the pie is bigger.

The Republican party is filled with wackos, and many of those wackos have a lot of money (Donald Trump, Herman Cain, etc.). They focus on the short term. They want to increase their piece of the pie, even if it means that the pie grows moldy and stale.

The future of the Greedy Old Party is at stake. If they do not break ranks and raise taxes to prevent a fiscal cliff they will be out of a job no matter about the Norquist threat and black mail scheme. We are at a point of inflection in the calculus of this country. Either we go under and broke forever a second rate country or we step up, balance the budget through cutting run away DOD spending, invest in OUR country and the 1% Club pay the same rate as the middle class.

Mentioning the Middle Class we must work to strengthen and bring back the middle class. If the GOP follows Grover Norquists threat then there will be no middle class. A true redistribution of wealth or sharing of the wealth to build back the middle class is the only way this country can and will become a major player again. The GOP's future rests on this and they must act on this before the mid-term election cycle or they will be voted out on their arses. Plain and simple.

Grover Norquist can threaten all he likes but once the GOP Congress moves towards raising taxes, donwsizing the DOD and closing corporate loop holes what can grover do? He is dead in the water. Grover's threats become idle since everyone needs a safe and secure job to pay the bills. Let them eat cake!

The big difference is in the intelligence of the parties. The Democratic party is frankly, smarter

no you have it completely WRONG. The difference is the intelligence, but it is clearly a lack on both sides....and what a dumb and completely one sided opinion. Unless you can actual prove this...its just stupid gossip.

The big difference is in the CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS, and nothing else!!!

Ben - if you don't see a problem with any elected official signing a pledge that precludes their official pledge to their constituents who elected them, then you are part of the problem. They've basically said "to hell with the country," so long as they don't break their pledge to Norquist. Is it illegal? It certainly should be and should be treated as treason. It has had the same effect on this country!

Yes, let's continue to focus on a mere 6% of current deficits. Those evil rich people shall burn.

Let's ignore the spending levels at 24% of GDP, historic rates next to spending for WW2.

Let's ignore the growth of entitlements being 3x the growth of the economy, it is truly sustainable as is.

Liberals are blind to reality. They care more about social justice than actual sane policy.

Let all the tax breaks go back to Clinton era levels, why just the rich? Doing the latter only affects 6% of current deficits.

Go back to Clinton era spending levels, back down to the nominal 20% of GDP spending. Oh noes, how did we ever survive not spending 1 out of every 4 dollars made with the federal government.

It's time to grow up liberals. Nobody who is sane or intelligent can look at the current spending levels and projected spending growth rates and believe that taxing the rich is a workable solution.

And for those who go "I paid into the system, I deserve it!!!" The average Medicare recipient spends 3x what they put in when adjusted to current dollars. No, you didn't pay into the system, you paid into 1/3rd of the system. It is time to grow up and realize either the government reduces entitlements or taxes on EVERYBODY go up, not just the rich. You can't have just taxes on the rich to solve the problem. You can't gimmick spending levels by continuing to say cutting the Iraq War works every year in "spending cuts" as Obama is trying to do.

Cut spending to 20% of GDP, raise taxes to 21% of GDP. These are historic norms. Deal with it liberals. Stop your pie in the sky fantasies of spending to prosperity, it doesn't work. The government does not grow an economy, it is a zero growth entity.

We are against hiking rates, because they're bad for the economy and hurt jobs

More confused, moronic douche-baggery. If this were actually true, there would be more than enough jobs right now. There is not one single shred of real-life evidence that proves this theory.

The worst thing about this is they are against hiking rates, but they also don't want to cut any spending where it would actually make a substantial difference. "entitlement" reform--wanting to cut things for individuals, but keep on subsidizing companies making huge profits. And swallowing those profits without re-investing them.

Very simple solution to solving the problems of Medicare and Social Security: TAX ALL INCOME, NO CAPS, NOTHING IS EXEMPT.

Grover Norquist is getting pissed, he's paid his share for his blood oath, now he wants to collect. The GOP had better pay up, otherwise Norquist will have to send Nicholas Cage after them.

@Seeking -- The pledge signed was in essence what their constituents wanted. That's why they got elected in the first place. So no I don't see the argument. If their constituents wanted higher taxes, they'd voted for the other guy. In your opinion, are pledges just plain wrong when it comes to seek to prevent the administration in place to move its agenda forward?

The Republican party is filled with wackos, and many of those wackos have a lot of money (Donald Trump, Herman Cain, etc.).

Like Trump and Cain, Grover Norquist has never been elected to any high office. Norquist actions are a slap in the face to the democratic process. He talks about the will of the people but it was clear from exit polling in this past election that most Americans believe the rates for the wealthiest should be increased. If not from 35% to 39% then at least split the difference.

Republicans are nothing more than obstructionists. When are those who voted for them going to understand the damage they are willing to do to this country in the continual pursuit of power that they simply do not deserve? It may be two decades before the Democrats ever reclaim the House. The gerry-mandering the GOP did with House districts over the last two decades virtually ensures that circumstance. That is unless my fellow white voters get over themselves and the nonsensical hold these scoundrels have over them. I know this won't happen in my ultra-red state but maybe somewhere it will begin. That's what it will take in the end. Otherwise we are stuck with these red eyes.

Jesse - what you fail to address is the fact that entitlements have only grown in response to a severe recession - which is normal. Yes, we as a country have always tried to help those who are less fortunate which is why you don't see thousands on the street in every city. It is a direct result of the recession - the worst since the Great Depression.

As we see the economy grow the number receiving help will decrease - a normal result of an improved economy. How are you too stupid to make this correlation?

Ben - I don't believe for one moment that anyone thought "the pledge" would supercede what is best for the country. And, I don't give a damn what party anyone is from - signing a pledge outside the one to your constituents should be illegal and punishable by prison. No ifs, ands or butts. And, the prison sentence should be no less than 10 years!

Democrats in congress do not want compromise. Republicans are willing to compromise, rising taxes to the wealthy and putting everything on the table, meanwhile the Democrats who are playing the party of no, do no want any change. They say they are willing to compromise but not taking away any benefit that go to their districts. However even if the rich pay 50 % in taxes , nothing is going to change if government do not make big cuts in spending.

There is no room on here for those calling for or wishing for the death of another. I have marked as inflammatory and I hope others do likewise -- on both sides of the aisle.

@Seeking -- Very well then. Should I see you call for the same against Pelosi and Reid et. al for this a few years ago? Remember pledges are bad and I quote "And, I don't give a damn what party anyone is from - signing a pledge outside the one to your constituents should be illegal and punishable by prison. No ifs, ands or butts. And, the prison sentence should be no less than 10 years!"

Last month, the party's House and Senate leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, joined dozens of other Democratic lawmakers to kick off the "Golden Promise" campaign. The labor-backed Americans United, which has strong Democratic ties, is spearheading the effort.

The top Democrats all signed the Americans United pledge, which reads, in part: "We will work to improve the retirement security of all Americans and will oppose any scheme for deep benefit cuts or massive debt to fund risky private accounts."

"We want people to be on record," said Americans United spokesman Brad Woodhouse. By getting enough members of Congress to sign, the group hopes to "make it clear from the get-go that (the president) doesn't have the votes" to divert any portion of Social Security payroll taxes to finance personal accounts.

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/news/clip/investors_business_daily_dems_lining_up_behind_pledge_to_fight_social_secur/

FoxTrosky,

I'm a Canadian and an designated accountant as well. You are both right and wrong in your statement. We do have tariffs on products coming from countries that have poor safety and environmental standards, but usually do not enforce them to the full right. Example, if it is clothes, toys, or electronics they are not tariffed at all. Plus it usually is on heavy equipment or industrial items, but they are then credited once the customer purchases it. Example lets say you buy a car from China, a tariff is applied to parent company but is eliminated when a dealership provides discounts or savings to the customer, thus eliminating the tariff as a whole when the company's books are combined for tax purposes. Therefore in the end no additional tax is paid by the organization as one gets a tax and the other benefits from giving tax savings to the customer. This is why major corporations have so many subsiduaries under their umbrella to limit the overall tax system. This is done throughout the global market. and is done by every company in every country.

Ben - 1.58 - totally agree!

redvirginia - get your head out of the sand. Democrats have been more than willing to compromise Where the hell have you been for 4 years while the Republicans obstructed EVERYTHING our President proposed just to make sure he was a one-term President? Clearly that worked well, right?

Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your eagerness to post it!

@Seeking -- Well let's see if the Democrats are willing to compromise now and bring the "balanced" approach that the president has called for. This nation will not move forward if one keeps spanking those for past actions just as payback or a show of power. This country does not need to over compensate, it needs a course adjustment balanced with increased revenues and spending cuts. The election is over. The verdict is in and there is no reason to continue to prosecute it any further.

Sanity

Democrats are a bunch of babies, they want more candy. Power is all they want to destroy the enemy the Republican party, who is slowing down the radical changes that Obama wants for this country. The far left wing along with the Labor Union capos want this country be like Europe in the hands of socialist and Communist , irrresponsable pro-big-welfare-government-spenders who are promoting failed economies.

Noncom - Social Security is not an "entitlement program". It's money that is taken out of every paycheck and is supposed to be to subsidize my retirement.

Ben-636050: The pledge signed was in essence what their constituents wanted.

Completely wrong.

The pledge was what a lobbyist who controlled a ton of cash wanted. Sign the pledge and get cash for your campaign or don't sign the pledge and Grover will make sure you lose in your next primary.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's constituent and is completely about a wealthy lobbyist who owns republican congressmen and senators.

If Grover Norquist fails to step aside on this battle, then the only reasonable next step is to have him tried for treason.

I for one will never believe a word that comes out of the mouths of Republicans. Beware working class America because the GOP is up to something. During the election they have been wanting to reward their wealthy contributors so they are trying to figure out how to cover their butts. Lets go of the cliff and start all over again and reform our tax codes. Then our elected officials can do their job and start cutting entitlements so it doesn't solely effect the poor, disabled, veterans or kids. BTW, I researched the wages, benefits and expenses of our elected officials and I would love to get even 50% of what they receive. Also have any of our officials lost any earnings because they haven't done their job, think about it, if any of us didn't do our job we would have been fired and they are also government employees so if they cut pay and benefits for federal, state and local employees then they should have their pay, benefits and expenses cut accordingly. Fairness for all.

@NevadaJ -- And the constituents knew about the pledge, knew about the campaign contributions and they voted them representatives in with that knowledge. I believe your premise is completely wrong. They ran on NO MORE TAXES and won.

redvirigina - you post reeks of ignorance and a total lack of intellect. Try again if you want to talk anything but the "communist" nonsense which even most Republicans have now stopped posting because they know it shows their utter stupidity!

Wil,

1.38

Walter Payton was popping pain pills like they were jellybeans. It was a wonder his liver lasted as long as it did.

Seeking

Let me know when you find some sanity, so far you need to go back to the sanatorium, your condition is grave.

I have no problem with rasing taxes, as long as everyone participates, and spending is reduced by the same amount taxes go up.

To everyone seeking that Grover Norquist leave: Norquist may not have even signed the pledge. If the folks keep re-electing politicians who sign random pledges just to get elected and re-elected, then I guess it's the people that are the culprits.

We could easily put robots in Congress if all we want are representatives who vote based on pledges, rather than the thoughtful conclusion arrived from vigorous debate.

The only pledge that an honest politician can sign is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Go back to Clinton era spending levels, back down to the nominal 20% of GDP spending. Oh noes, how did we ever survive not spending 1 out of every 4 dollars made with the federal government.

Jesse:

Spending hasn't been at 25% of GDP for a couple of years now. We've been in the midst of a three year freeze in discretionary spending. Spending using the metric you are using has actually gone down every year Obama has been in office.

How? Well, the economy grows.

Assume that total GDP starts at 1,00, right? And spending starts at 25.

So, if the economy grows at a relatively anemic 8% per year, this is what you have by year:

Year 1: 25%

Year 2: GDP: 108, Spending 25 = 23.1%

Year 3: GDP: 116.6, Spending 25 = 21.4%

Year 4: GDP: 125.9, Spending 25 = 19.86%

Year 5: GDP, 135.97, Spending 25 = 18.3%

Which is about where we need to be.

Unfortunately, it will take a little bit longer than that if only the discretionary portion of the budget is frozen because the discretionary portion of the budget only makes up a certain percentage of it. However, we will reach our spending as a percentage of GDP goal much, much faster than the revenue goal simply by doing exactly what we have been doing for the last three years.

And, no, we don't have to cut benefits to do it. We don't have to cut programs to do it. We simply have to continue the freeze on discretionary spending for another 3-4 years and then slightly restructure some programs once GDP grows into the current spending level.

Revenue is a completely different problem because revenue is pegged directly to GDP and unless we peg it higher than it is now, revenue as 21% of GDP will happen in about 432 years.

If I hear the word ENTITLEMENT one more time I may scream. It's time everyone understood something and damned well understood it thoroughly. Social Security and Medicare are not ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. People like me have worked our entire adult lives and have been forced to pay money into a GOVERNMENT MANDATED savings accounts for our retirement years; Social Security and into a pre-paid health care plan; Medicare. I'll say it again. The government FORCED my compliance with these programs. I was NOT GIVEN A CHOICE. The government made me a guarantee that, by contributing to those programs out of my hard-earned pay, when I reached either age 62 or age 65, I would have health care coverage that I had already paid for and I would begin to get the money back that I paid into my retirement savings account in monthly allotments.

Food Stamps, Public Assistance, Medicaid, subsidized housing, heating fuel assistance and on and on; THOSE are ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. They are programs that provide benefits, to some extent, to people who do not work or have not paid for them. Social Security and Medicare do not fall into those categories.

Lumping all of these programs under the same verbal umbrella sends an incorrect message; and it is calculated verbiage used to intentionally create a negative impression of the programs. Some of our politicians want people to believe that Social Security and Medicare are just more government welfare programs provided to lazy, worthless folks who refuse to work for a living. Words have power and to use this term regarding these programs is an attempt to make people angry; to retrain them to believe something that isn’t true.

Now Grover Norquist and some of the young bucks of the political circle have decided that this GOVERNMENT MANDATED PROGRAM is, actually, an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM and "those people" receiving Social security payments each month and who have Medicare benefits are moochers - that we are lazy people who just want something for nothing. These politicians, who are SUPPOSED to be representing the best interests of the American people, have buddies on Wall Street that have sucked the private retirement and pension funds of unsuspecting people dry, so they need another source of money to play with so that they can maintain the high standard of living to which they have become accustomed. The solution some of these political idiots are kicking around is to turn OUR MONEY over to their pals on WALL STREET! We ALL know how that will end up, don't we? What a crock of bovine excrement!

These so-called "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS" are nothing of the sort. It was a requirement for me to pay into the plans with the guarantee that I would get benefits or money back when I reached age 62 or age 65. Not age 67. Not age 70. Not age 72. To change the structure of the programs now, after forcing my participation for all these years, is nothing more than a breach of contract. If the fund we have been paying into has had its carcass picked clean through careless practices or outright theft, then these politicians had damned well better find a way to put the money they have taken out of it back into it. They can start by lowering their pay and their benefit packages. Personally I don't feel they are worth $177,000 a year, so they can take a salary cut to $30,000 a year. They can forget about their luxury health care plan that costs us millions of dollars a year and participate in Medicare like the rest of the working people. As for that retirement program into which they pay 1% of their income and get a return of 100% of their pay for life after serving for a measly five years can be tossed out as well. Most of us have to pay a substantial percentage of our income into our retirement as well as putting in 25 to 30 years on the job before we can retire. We need to change this system. That'll save a chunk of change that can be put back into the programs we have paid for and that they have mismanaged.

Get us the hell out of these wars that are, for the most part, just a way to bolster the coffers of the military-industrial machine. Halliburton and the other leeching mega-corporations have taken enough money from the pockets of the citizens of this nation. Use the money saved to help our American companies grow. That will put more people on the employment roles which means more money will go into the system and help sure it up.

As for all of the government employees who are exempt from paying into the programs because they have "special programs" just for themselves; that needs to be nipped in the bud. Why the hell should we pay taxes to provide them with separate retirement and health care plans while the ones we are depending upon are faltering? Who had the brilliant idea that government employees should not be part of the same system as the rest of the working people?

Medicare, also, is a program has been dubbed an ENTITLEMENT. But the working people have been MANDATED to pay into what was billed as a pre-paid medical insurance program. There was no choice. It was a contract between the working people and our government. We were REQUIRED to contribute to this PRE-PAID HEALTH CARE PLAN and in return, we would begin to receive the benefits of our contributions when we hit age 62 or age 65. They have screwed around with the money we have paid in and now want to change the contract they made with us. Well too freaking bad! Put the money back in that has been mishandled. You made us pay in all these years. Don't you dare try to change the rules in the final two minutes of the game.

To call these two programs; Social Security and Medicare, ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, sends the message that people receiving the benefits from them are getting something for nothing. It is simply not true. Most of us who are at or close to retirement age, to some extent, are depending on these two programs. It isn't like we are able to run out and find a 40-hour-a-week job hoisting around a shovel at our age. There are some realities that come in to play as people get older. There is a reason people retire. WE GET OLD.

Maybe that is their point, though; they believe that the older people who don't have millions in off-shore accounts are of no value to society. Once we get to retirement age, they would be happy to have us all sent to the ovens or put adrift on an ice flow. It certainly seems like these mollycoddled little bastards have a huge disdain for the older segment of the population. How short-sighted they are, though. If they are lucky, someday they will be where we are, and maybe then they will think differently. Karma can be a real bitch. God help these egocentric little brats if they continue to try to screw the American working people around.

Grover Norquist and the rest of his little brown-shirt GOP trolls had better get their heads out of their collective asses and work with the president to stop the REAL ENTITLEMENTS ... those loopholes enjoyed by their kiss-ass ubber-rich buddies and contributors.

Okay *whew* rant over ... can't wait for 2014. Forward.

Republicans priming the bullsh^t pump. Nothing more. Let those Bush tax cuts expire, and all that goes with 'em! Republicans have to be broken!

Oops, wrong adjective. 8% growth is 'robust,' not anemic.

Anemic growth of say... 3% per year would result in the same trendline, only with a smaller slope.

Year 1: GDP 100, Spending 25 = 25%

Year 2: GDP 103, Spending 25 = 24.2%

Year 3: GDP 106, Spending 25 = 23.6%

Year 4: GDP 109.3, Spending 25 = 22.9%

Year 5: GDP 112.6, Spending 25 = 22.2%

Etc...

In reality, we want a couple of things. We want a period of explosive economic growth to cause the slope of the Spending as GDP line on the chart to deepen and we want to keep spending frozen for a few more years.

GOP

The Guaranteed Obstructionist Party

Its been proven over and over that Social Security does not contribute one dime to the deficit. What would happen to our economy if those 48+Million monthly SS checks suddenly disappeared? Most, if not all, of that money is immediately spent on goods and services. Therefore, the money is returned to the economy in the form of job creation or in some instances taxes, such as, the federal tax on gasoline. Now this tax on gas is used to maintain or build highways, bridges, etc. which creates jobs not only in highway construction and maintenance but in many other ancillary occupations. Just one example of many ways Social Security contributes to our economy.

To eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest would devastate the real estate industry. The real estate industry is comprised of many business, big and small, including banks, credit unions, real estate agents and brokers, mortgage lenders, etc. What would your property be worth if one of the biggest incentive for the purchase of property was eliminated or scaled back? How many buyers would come knocking at your door?

Some people say that Federal spending should be set at a certain percentage of GDP. The problem with that formula is the same one any person who has run a business or taken a high school business 101 course understands.

Government spending for an economy is like advertising for a business. It provides a certain amount of economic activity. Usually the more you spend, the more your return. However, at a given level, spending more does not give you additional results. None the less, when there is a downturn in the economy, like a business which has an unexpected reduction in sales, you do not cut advertising to a set % of sales.

If anything, you increase spending (just as a business would increase advertising) in order to increase economic activity and pull the economy out of a recession.

I think you are all nuts! Everyone is blaming everyone else. You keep posting crap that you read somewhere and it means nothing. What is printed is what they want you to know. That's it! You believe it, how stupid. The government has been killing us off slowly, ruining peoples lives and breaking them.Wasting our money on what they want and all you sheep go for it. How stupid!!! I would love to see one person be president that is a real american and a congress that is for the american people. But that will never happen. Don't believe there is anyone in wdc that is for the american people. WDC people get paid off by the big boys and we suffer. All those pigs have to do is stop the spending and bailouts and foreign aide! But, it is up to the american sheep [people] to stand up for their rights, but either you are too stupid or lazy to do so.

Dirp:

The economy hasn't been in a recession since the 3rd quarter of 2008. Certain economic indicators are crappy, but eventually the foreign debt needs to be bought down, no matter what those indicators might currently be. Otherwise, the interest will swamp up once the interest rates go up.

Pegging spending as a percentage of GDP is not particularly hard. It just seems hard when you do your comparison when the revenue/spending gap is at its widest point like the right wing did in 2008-2009.

The Bush tax cuts did not absolutely obliterate the fiscal health of the nation. They just put it out of whack and left it horribly vulnerable to the downturn... which exploded a 4-5% gap into a 10+% gap in the space of a single quarter.

“They have not voted for a tax hike. They have had impure thoughts on present. Their impure thoughts did not change a single GOP vote in the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling which had a real deadline looming.

Impure thoughts? Am I the only one that finds Grover's choice of wording creepy and cult-like? Why would any sane human, let alone someone committed to the betterment of their constituents, sign ANYTHING this whack-job would offer?

If the GOP had any brains left, they would, as a unified body, reaffirm their pledge to the American public that they will do anything and everything it takes to rebuild our country and stop the pandering to those who only have their own personal agenda to attend to.

Impure thoughts. Who in the hell does he think he is?? God??

Written in 1895!

The Fence or The Ambulance

Joseph Malines

‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,

Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant:

But over its terrible edge there had slipped

A duke and many a peasant;

So the people said something would have to be done.

But their projects did not at all tally:

Some said, "Put a fence around the edge of the cliff"

Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day.

For it spread to the neighboring city:

A fence may be useful or not, it is true,

But each heart became brimful of pity

For those who had slipped o’er that dangerous cliff,

And the dwellers in highway and alley

Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,

But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is alright if your careful," they said,

"and if folks even slip or are dropping,

it isn't the slipping that hurts them so much

as the shock down below-when they're stopping,"

So day after day when these mishaps occurred,

Quick forth would the rescuers sally

To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,

With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old man remarked, "it's a marvel to me

that people give far more attention

to repairing results than to stopping the cause,

when they'd much better aim at prevention.

Let us stop at its source all this mischief, cried he.

"Come neighbors and freinds, let us rally :

If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense

with the ambulance down in the valley."

"Oh, he's a fanatic." the others rejoined:

"dispense with the ambulance Never!

He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could:

no, no! We'll support them forever.

Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?

And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?

Why would people of sense stop to put up a fence?

While their ambulance works in the valley?"

But a sensible few who are practical too,

Will not bear with such nonsense much longer

They believe that prevention is better than cure

And their party will soon be the stronger

Encourage them, then with your purse, voice and pen

And (while other philanthropists dally)

They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence

On the cliff that hangs over the valley.

Poets were once taught that their purpose was to heal the sickness of humanity. It's apparent that not many people have been schooled in the humanities. We have far reaching problems that stem from a lack of education.

D. Appel post 1.74 Bravo ( standing ovation) well said!

Most of the people who support increased tax rates don't actually pay any after the big refund they get. (income redistribution) And most who support higher taxes don't want to pay more themselves.

@Shockedanddisgusted

I wish I could have voted for your post 10 times! BRAVO and well said. Yes, it struck me the same way as it did you. It is exceedingly cult-like and very, very frightening that Grover Norquest seems to have the ear (or pocketbooks) of OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!

Touchdownplay - nothing could be further from the truth. I pay taxes and I am for an increase on the top 1-2%ers. No "income distribution" here - just the right approach to a problem that has to be fixed. We need to cut some programs but we definitely need to increase taxes also.

D.Appel - Thanks! I'm glad I'm not the only one that was taken aback by his specific choice of wording. It's almost as if someone with "impure thoughts" will be taken to some abandoned pier and "reprogrammed".

"touchdownplay" - I would like to see specific, documented evidence of your claims. Give us some verified numbers or admit that you only received your "intelligence" from the screaming nazi dictators of AM radio. Or run away like the rest of the impotent, idiotic teabaggers.

Oh, by the way, "touchdownplay" the Boston Tea Party and the "tea" party of today have absolutely nothing in common. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against taxation without representation (lots of big words for you, sorry). Assuming you live in the United States, then you live in one of the most brilliant and representative governments to have existed on this planet. Quit wiping you butt with American History in an effort to prove that you are just a big baby that didn't get you little way.

...Better yet, turn off the Fox and read a book....You should start with "Dick and Jane" and work your way up.

What is the problem with elected officials signing pledges? Are they binding? Are they illegal? Are they wrong because the pledge goes against the administration policy? Are pledges signed by Congressmen and Senators wrong?

A pledge that doesn't allow them to work in the best interest of their constituents is clearly wrong. Polls show the majority of Americans and the majority of republicans support higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and want both sides to compromise. When you've locked yourself into a pledge that doesn't allow you to compromise and work in the best interests of the country and your constituents clearly that's wrong.

Shockedanddisgusted,

Here's link to that shows effective tax rates. I am sure the lowest 2% is an average. Some probably pay 4 to 5% in that average income of 18K before taxes. So some get more back that they pay in. Simple.

So stop with the name calling already. You don't have to be a jerk to make a point.

Anyway I know peeps where I work that get 5 to 6K refunds because they have a couple of kids. The probably take home 25K gross. Single dad for instance. Not sure what the payroll deductions add up to but I'm guessing nowhere near 5K.

Single with no kids. 25K and you are paying tax for sure.

Plus I know what I made, had withheld form my check, two kids, mortgage interest deduction on a 40K loan, making less than 30K / year. And I can tell you with the refund i about broke even 12 to 14 years ago. So ya there are people who don't pay any effective tax rate.

But you don't have to believe it. Math isn't ideological, but you are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html

Being a liberal it still amazes me how some people get more tax returned than they pay in, I for one think it is more than enough they get welfare subsidised housing and food stamps, there are some with low wages that receive no help but still get back more than they pay in why is that and it is wrong, I usually have to pay and if by some miracle I do get a refund it is small.

The headline GOP softens stance on taxes but no raise in taxes still off the table how is that softening. Closing loop holes is not softening they have never said that was off the table.

Cutting GOP members in Congress is the best way to fix our nations problems. They are and always have been the problem.

"touchdownplay"...and where do you show the evidence that those that effectively pay nothing in taxes are for raising taxes? Your assertion went beyond mere numbers and, of course, you know that. Show us the proof behind your assertion instead of deflecting.

But you don't have to believe it. Math isn't ideological, but you are.

Look in the mirror, little one. I am not the one that made the assertion, YOU are. YOU made the claim and YOU fail to back it up. YOU are the one barfing pre-programmed ideology. I am simply calling you on your propaganda.

I take grave offense to an anti-American, fascist organization using my country's history out of context to spread their evangelical social agenda. "Impotent" and "idiotic" was being very, very kind. Start taking a look at your own side before you play the whining little victim with me. Is it only name calling when you don't agree??

White Collar Auto

Bring back the Clinton Tax Rates!

Why?

Here are revenues as a percentage of GDP from 1999 to 2012 (estimated)

Year-------------------Tax receipts (revenue) in constant FY 2005 (Billions of dollars)

1999-------------------2,136.4

2000-------------------2,310.0

2001-------------------2,215.3

2002-------------------2,028.6

2003-------------------1,901.1

2004-------------------1,949.5

2005-------------------2,153.6

2006-------------------2,324.1

2007-------------------2,414.0

2008-------------------2,288.1

2009-------------------1,899.0

2010-------------------1,927.9

2011-------------------1,998.7

Estimates

2012-------------------2,089.4

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3 whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

In 2000, Clintons best year as a percentage of GDP, revenues were $2.310 trillion. In 2007 revenues, WITH the Bush tax cuts, were $2,4140. Over $100 billion MORE than with the higher Clinton tax rates.

With our progressive tax system, regardless of the tax brackets, revenues as a percentage of GDP have remained at about 18%, in 2007 it was at 18.5%.

WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!

Bring back the Clinton Spending Levels!

Yes, if we want to balance the budget we MUST decrease our current spending rate. In 2000, Clintons best revenue year, spending was at 18.2%. In 2007, Bush’s best revenue year, spending was at. 19.6%.

Even with the Bush tax cuts intact, future revenues are expected to stay above 18% in 2015 and over 18.4% by 2021. Unfortunately the CBO projections show that without reforms spending and debt will keep on rising for decades to come. Under the CBO‟s “alternative fiscal scenario,” spending will grow to about 34 percent of GDP by 2035, and federal debt held by the public will increase to at least 187 percent of GDP.

Obviously allowing this to happen will trigger major financial crises similar to what we see happening in the European Union. CBO projections show that the long-term debt problem is not a balanced one, it is caused by historic increases in spending, not shortages of revenues. Revenues have fallen in recent years due to the poor economy, but when growth returns, revenues are expected to rise to the normal level of about 18 percent of GDP, even with all current tax cuts in place. It is spending that is expected to far exceed normal levels in the future, and thus spending is behind the huge increases in debt that are projected.

Any spending cuts must be based on 2008 levels at minimum. The current proposals are based on current and projected spending levels. This are not cuts, they’re simply reductions in increases, a lose-lose proposition.

Many claim that we can afford to increase taxes and spending because we are a uniquely small-government country. This is no longer the case. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that federal, state, and local government spending in the United States this year is a huge 41 percent of GDP. In 1993 the government used to be about 10 percentage points of spending smaller than the average government in the OECD. This advantage has been slowly shrinking to just 4 percentage points.

America’s strong growth, prosperity and standard of living was built on our relatively smaller government, our increased and unsustainable spending has changed all that. The damage due to increased spending is dramatic and must be stopped. The future consequences our children will be subjected to must be reined in now. Everything must be put on the table, including entitlements, social programs and military spending.

This nonsense that Barrack Hussein is promoting to tax the mean, nasty, rich, bogeymen must stop. This is laughable. CBO projections show that increasing the top 2 tax brackets will generate about $850 billion over the next 10 years or $85 billion a year. We spend almost $10 billion a day, this will pay for 8.5 days of current spending.

How will we pay for the other 356.6 days?

BTW, for all those discussing our trade agreements, the solution is in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 defines it for us.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

If you replace country for state in Article. 1, Sect. 9 you have the perfect trade agreement.

In 54 words we have the original North American Free Trade Agreement. Free trade equals NO taxes, duties, tariffs or other fees. Free trade requires neither complex laws or burdensome bureaucracies. After the expansions of government during the Depression with the establishment of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the world began moving in the opposite direction.

NAFTA is the epitome of managed-trade disguised as free trade. The most obvious reason is its size. As compared to the simplicity of 54 words in our Constitution, NAFTA is 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates!

Under true free trade there is one tariff rate—0 percent. For everyone.

Even if you intend to vote "no" on every tax increase, signing a pledge at the behest of one lobbyist is telling your constituents that their vote doesn't matter. If you really represent the people you'll do whatever situations demand otherwise what reason do we have to pay your salary and benefits. We could put a robot with a rubber stamp in your seat.

Where did you go, "touchdown"? Here's your quote:

Most of the people who support increased tax rates don't actually pay any after the big refund they get. (income redistribution) And most who support higher taxes don't want to pay more themselves.

Again - Do you have proof of that assertion or do you get some sort of spiritual satisfaction from telling lies??....Or do you run away and hide when people don't fall for your "documentation" garbage??

Teabaggers.....

Hey White One, Your $17,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, what are you going to do now? Go to Dinsey World ?

D. Appel (Post #1.74)

Nice typical Liberal/Progressive rant. Unfortunately you seem to think that you get what you pay for, this is where many of you seem to lose your already flimsy grasp of reality.

You will never pay enough into your "fund" to cover the years you are retired. The problem is that we are all living longer than our incompetent government had anticipated. That and the fact that our contributions are not held in any mythical "fund" or "lock box". This was blatantly exposed during the debt ceiling debacle when Barrack Hussein and Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner threatened recipients that they wouldn't be able to send out SS or Medicare checks if the ceiling wasn't raised. If, as Chucky Schumer states, we have over $2.7 trillion in the fund why couldn't they send out the approximate $50 billion a month in SS benefits? Because it's not there it’s a hoax. It's a massive Ponzi scheme.

Actually it’s not a true Ponzi scheme because Charlie Ponzi never held a gun to his victims head.

Also, as recently as 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying Social Security taxes for every one person receiving Social Security benefits, according to statistical tables published annually as part of the Social Security trustees report. Today that ratio is 3.1 workers paying in for every one person getting benefits. And it is forecast to continue declining to 2.0 workers in 2040, when workers who are now in their 30's reach retirement age.

Today we have a deficit in benefits paid vs. those received. The answer largely depends on when you retire and how much you've earned over your lifetime. Consider a single man who earns the average wage throughout his career ($43,100 in 2012 dollars), works every year from age 22 to 64, and then retires at age 65 in 2012. Over his lifetime he has paid $345,000 into the system. But he is likely to get back $72,000 more than that, or $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare payouts, according to recent Urban Institute calculations. A single woman with the same work and tax history will come out even further ahead due to her longer life expectancy, likely netting $464,000 in lifetime benefits, which is $192,000 more than she paid into the system. These amounts are in constant 2012 dollars and assume a 2 percent real interest rate.

So, I essence it is an entitlement because you don’t invest enough to cover the cost of your life expectancy. Now, you can just agree to stop taking benefits when your equivalent contributions run out. Then you will be correct, otherwise both Social Security and Medicare are on collision courses to collapse.

Yep, just like all our other dysfunctional and unsustainable government programs, Social Security (SS) must and will collapse. Of course the government idol worshippers will continue to entrust more money to get less benefits because the government is so good at managing our hard earned tax dollars. Just look at our massive debts both Federal and State. I'm reassured, aren't you?

LET ME INVEST MY OWN MONEY!!!!!!

Of course this gives Liberals the ole "flaccid weenie" syndrome when they hear someone suggest they can do something better than their sacrosanct government. Especially if it was created by their iconic FDR! Of course no one remembers that these programs were never meant to be a persons retirement nest egg, but I digress.

Face it, Social Security IS A PONZI SCHEME! It's just dressed up as a "secure" benefit because it has the full faith and support of our government. Well, SS is already running a cash-flow deficit and faces a $21 Trillion shortfall in the future that is impossible to repay and thus pay any promised benefits past 2037. Ever since Bush's failed attempt to reform SS in 2004 the problem has gotten significantly worse. In 8 years the unfunded liabilities have increased by $6 Trillion to roughly $21 Trillion. Legally the SS "Trust Fund" is supposed to pay benefits through 2036. After that, by law, benefits will have to be cut by 24%. Any of you, or your kids, planning to retire in 24 years?

There is no "Trust Fund". Those surpluses are long gone, spent by our "efficient" government. By the way, does anyone ever wonder WHAT all that money was spent on? But I digress again. There's an old shoe box over at Treasury with a bunch of IOU's in it to pay for your hard earned benefit. Actually they're government bonds that will require to be repaid by taxpayers. Hey, does that mean we'll end up paying twice for the same benefit?

Anyway, other than kicking the can down the road, the options are simple. Congress, at some point will have to raise taxes and/or cut benefits. To return SS to solvency will require raising the current 12.4% to 17.6%, a 42% increase, or increase some other tax. Removing the cap would create the largest tax increase in U.S. history, $ 1.3 trillion over the first 10 years. Even increasing the cap to cover the first $150,000 of wages would amount to $384 billion in new taxes. I don't think that will fly. Even with these increases it would only add 7 years to SS solvency. Typical easy solution that just gives us all pain and no gain. These numbers are even more skewed today because we're all benefitting so much from our "payroll tax holiday". How many times have we heard that meme? The other option is to reduce benefits by 24%, raising the retirement age, trimming COLA, means-testing or changing the wage-price indexing formula. Either way the future beneficiaries will pay more, get less or both.

Now, if you were to be allowed to invest your "contribution" of 6.2% there is a very capable way of actually doing it with high, medium and low risk. Since 1928, which includes the Depression, WWII, stagflation, the collapse of the dot-com bubble, and the recent recession the average annual real return on stocks has been 6.9 %. SS gives you a 2.2% return. Over the past 40 years government bonds have yielded an average real return of 2.44%, corporate bonds 3.46% and a combination yields 2.93%. It should be remembered that stock and bond returns tend to move in opposite directions, a mixed portfolio can decrease risk.

The Cato Institute has shown how private investment not only matches, but actually can exceed, SS returns. They created three (3) hypothetical individuals each of which retired on November 7, 2011 after working for 40 years. One is a high-income individual whose last income was the 2011 SS salary cap of $106,800. The second is a mid-income earner whose final salary was equal to the median income of $49,455. The last is a low income worker who earned half the median income, or $23,723. Caveats to compensate for previous wage averages until 1971. Each worker was assumed to contributed half (6.2%) of their SS payroll tax with the employer half continuing in the SS "Trust fund". The personal investments were made into a personal account and then the total was transferred into their account on December 31 of each of the 40 years.

Three possible investment portfolios would be available. A high risk/high return portfolio with 100% stocks. A medium risk portfolio with 50% stocks and 50% bonds, and a low-risk/low return portfolio with 100% bonds. The stocks would be in an index reflecting returns to the S&P 500. The bond fund was comprised of 50% U.S. Treasury bonds and 50% Moody's AAA corporate bonds. Government bonds would be 10 year bonds so there would be different cohorts of 10 year Treasuries maturing in successive years. These would be tapered down at the end of the 40 year investment with 7-, 5- and 3-year bonds. Administrative costs would be assumed to equal 25 basis points

Here are their results:

Investment....................Wealthy.........................Average...........................Poor

Stocks____________$4,586.00_________$2,621.00_________$1,287.00

50/50_____________$3,562.00_________$2,067.00_________$1,096.00

Bond______________$2,539.00_________$1,565.00_________$896.00

Current SS_________$2,033.00_________$1,358.00_________$891.00

In every case, investors would have received higher monthly benefits from private investment than from SS. Even the low-wage earner in the safest bond fund investment did slightly better than SS, with reasonable upside with medium risk and higher risk.

As always, there is the common fine print. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. SS actuaries estimate future equity returns will average approximately 6.5% annually.

We must begin to realize that our entitlements and social programs are failing, as they must. It's time to look for reasonable alternatives that most Americans can participate in.

Here is a link to the CATO video that supports this information:

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/still-better-deal-private-investment-vs-social-security

JimSpence

White Collar Auto

Bring back the Clinton Tax Rates!

Why?

To get out of the budget deficit, obviously.

Here are revenues as a percentage of GDP from 1999 to 2012 (estimated)

Year-------------------Tax receipts (revenue) in constant FY 2005 (Billions of dollars)

1999-------------------2,136.4

2000-------------------2,310.0

2001-------------------2,215.3

2002-------------------2,028.6

2003-------------------1,901.1

2004-------------------1,949.5

2005-------------------2,153.6

2006-------------------2,324.1

2007-------------------2,414.0

2008-------------------2,288.1

2009-------------------1,899.0

2010-------------------1,927.9

2011-------------------1,998.7

Estimates

2012-------------------2,089.4

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3 whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

Oh this is just too rich. Usually, I find it a pain in the ass to correct this mistake whenever somebody does it, but for you this is great. YOU DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGES. Simple as that. You don't have the percentages of revenues to GDP; you only have the amount of revenues adjusted for inflation. That does not account for economic growth; revenues to GDP were roughly 21% in 2000, the highest they'd been since the 1980s. Part of that was from the Clinton boom (which mutated into a bubble), and part of it was because of the Clinton tax increases in 1993 (and Bush's tax increases in 1990); at the supposed "high point" of the Bush administration (according to these numbers), it was 19% (note that this was at the peak of the housing bubble).

In 2000, Clinton's best year as a percentage of GDP, revenues were $2.310 trillion. In 2007 revenues, WITH the Bush tax cuts, were $2,4140. Over $100 billion MORE than with the higher Clinton tax rates.

Four words: NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION.

With our progressive tax system, regardless of the tax brackets, revenues as a percentage of GDP have remained at about 18%, in 2007 it was at 18.5%.

No, that is an average over the past 30-50 years; and that is most likely due to the reliance on our reliance on only income and payroll taxes.

WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!

Err. Wrong again. We have a spending AND revenue problem. Tax rates are the lowest in 50 years and spending is the highest in decades; even if we adjust for the recession, revenues are expected to remain roughly constant at around 18-19% while spending will balloon to well over 25%.

Bring back the Clinton Spending Levels!

Yes, if we want to balance the budget we MUST decrease our current spending rate. In 2000, Clintons best revenue year, spending was at 18.2%. In 2007, Bush’s best revenue year, spending was at. 19.6%.

First of all, this defies common economic law; in order to go back to the Clinton spending levels, we have to revert our population, demographic statistics, and economy (practically go back in time) to its exact amount in 2000. Secondly, we had a booming economy, which raised revenues and depressed expenditures; we obviously don't have that now and won't have that for at least another 5-10 years. Thirdly, politics is a two-way street; if you want to go back to Clinton spending rates, you'd have to go back to the Clinton rates. And not to mention the fact that you'd have to reverse time, crack down on ALL post-2000 technological innovation, and impose massive population control and genocide in order to succeed in doing that without screwing up the economy.

Even with the Bush tax cuts intact, future revenues are expected to stay above 18% in 2015 and over 18.4% by 2021. Unfortunately the CBO projections show that without reforms spending and debt will keep on rising for decades to come. Under the CBO‟s “alternative fiscal scenario,” spending will grow to about 34 percent of GDP by 2035, and federal debt held by the public will increase to at least 187 percent of GDP.

Obviously allowing this to happen will trigger major financial crises similar to what we see happening in the European Union. CBO projections show that the long-term debt problem is not a balanced one, it is caused by historic increases in spending, not shortages of revenues. Revenues have fallen in recent years due to the poor economy, but when growth returns, revenues are expected to rise to the normal level of about 18 percent of GDP, even with all current tax cuts in place. It is spending that is expected to far exceed normal levels in the future, and thus spending is behind the huge increases in debt that are projected.

Unfortunately, if you want to go back to the sweet spot of 2000, we need higher revenues, preferably at 21% to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio significantly. That requires the death of the Bush tax cuts, along with further tax reform.

Any spending cuts must be based on 2008 levels at minimum. The current proposals are based on current and projected spending levels. This are not cuts, they’re simply reductions in increases, a lose-lose proposition.

Many claim that we can afford to increase taxes and spending because we are a uniquely small-government country. This is no longer the case. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that federal, state, and local government spending in the United States this year is a huge 41 percent of GDP. In 1993 the government used to be about 10 percentage points of spending smaller than the average government in the OECD. This advantage has been slowly shrinking to just 4 percentage points.

America’s strong growth, prosperity and standard of living was built on our relatively smaller government, our increased and unsustainable spending has changed all that. The damage due to increased spending is dramatic and must be stopped. The future consequences our children will be subjected to must be reined in now. Everything must be put on the table, including entitlements, social programs and military spending.

Actually, small government doesn't mean a better economy. People didn't prosper in America because we had a small government; people prospered here because we as a nation put our resources, physical and human capital, and technological innovation to good use. While other nations threw their shillings and francs at internal wars and massive imperial campaigns, we spent our dollars building up an infrastructure system, creating an efficient and effective network of inventors and sponsors, assembling together a roaring research and innovation machine, and rolling up our sleeves and working in medium and high-skill manufacturing sectors that made our industrial production the best in the world. Not to mention our once-formidable education system (which is still formidable, as long as your white and/or adequately financed).

This nonsense that Barrack Hussein is promoting to tax the mean, nasty, rich, bogeymen must stop. This is laughable. CBO projections show that increasing the top 2 tax brackets will generate about $850 billion over the next 10 years or $85 billion a year. We spend almost $10 billion a day, this will pay for 8.5 days of current spending.

How will we pay for the other 356.6 days?

Simple; repeal the other Bush tax cuts and reform entitlements (not ax or privatize them).

BTW, for all those discussing our trade agreements, the solution is in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 defines it for us.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

If you replace country for state in Article. 1, Sect. 9 you have the perfect trade agreement.

Yea, we do; if we lived in La-La land. No other country IN THE WORLD would ever agree to such a pledge; their manufacturing and high-tech centers would be drained to low-wage countries. And for the select few that would thrive under such a system (Germany, for instance), all the costs in trade deficits and unemployed workers would outweigh the benefits of lower consumer costs (at least in the short-term), particularly if the average consumer in that country is already doing well. Hell, I don't even know why WE bought into that utopian bull@!$%#.

In 54 words we have the original North American Free Trade Agreement. Free trade equals NO taxes, duties, tariffs or other fees. Free trade requires neither complex laws or burdensome bureaucracies. After the expansions of government during the Depression with the establishment of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the world began moving in the opposite direction.

No; after the expansions of government during the Depression with the establishment of the social safety net, the United Nations, and yes, the progressive income tax, the world began moving away from socioeconomic hierarchy and the domination of rich over poor into a direction of a near-egalitarian society where all individuals, no matter their income, wealth, or political status, were viewed as social and thus inherent equals.

NAFTA is the epitome of managed-trade disguised as free trade. The most obvious reason is its size. As compared to the simplicity of 54 words in our Constitution, NAFTA is 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates!

No; NAFTA was a failed free trade agreement even when watered down; all the jobs and production disappeared to Mexico and to other Third World nations subsequently, and we wasted any ounce of opportunity to gain a competitive advantage by focusing on costly external excursions (I'm talking about YOU, War on Terror) while our competitors focused on preserving their key manufacturing and high-tech industries from foreign competition while opening up other, well-established industries for relatively free trade, a hybrid between free trade and reality.

Under true free trade there is one tariff rate—0 percent. For everyone.

And under true free trade, NOBODY would buy into the nonsense that you can have all the goodies while paying a 0% tariff.

To all the deficit hawks on here:

We didn't get out of the Great Depression by cutting spending and we won't get out of the so-called Great Recession by cutting spending either.

We didn't get out of the Great Depression until we entered WWII and spent without regard for the deficit.

That's why our debt to GDP ratio in 1946 was 150%, quite a bit more than now. And right after that we had two solid decades of economic boom and rising wages and living standards for most americans.

I'd rather have a deficit than a surplus any day.

Most surpluses or significant cutting of the deficit have resulted in economic down turns.

They cut federal spending significantly in the last half of the 1920's and we got the Great Depression.

Clinton cut spending in the last half of the 1990's and we got a recession in 2001, a crash in 2008 and continuing bad times.

Finally: They've been slashing spending in Europe for the last 5-6 years and it has only plunged some countries into recession and others into DEPRESSION.

The reason they want to cut federal spending is because it will drive down the wages and living standards of millions of americans.

Our elites want to turn the U.S. into a low wage export platform.

The crash in 2008 has presented an historic opportunity for the rich and powerful (and their two parties, Dems/Repubs.) to reverse all of the gains made by working people in the first half of the last century.

Like Rahm Emanual (a wealthy, former investment banker) says: never let a crisis go to waste.

Well Gee wizz Shockedandsomewhatdisgusted.

I had a family to take care of and cook a meal for. Sorry I could not hang out here with you. but if you believe that there is no one who dosent pay taxes and gets more from the government than they put in I can't change your mind. It is already made up.

I wish we could meet face to face. I don't think you would have better sense in talking to people in a manner that was not disrespectful if you were not hiding behind a keyboard. Your kind of debate is exactly why I don't like my kids to have Facebook.

And I am not you "little one"

Treat others like you would like to be treated. Or get treated like you treat others. You have a choice. I hope you can embrace that. If you keep that tone I dismiss you and your arguments. If you think there is honor in that kind of stuff.........

So since you asked try this link Shocked.

You could Goggle it if you had an open mind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

Oh and by the way. I do agree with your assertion that Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. Just saying. So lay off the attacks if you really want to have debate. If you keep it up I won't.

Freshieee

Part of that was from the Clinton boom (which mutated into a bubble), and part of it was because of the Clinton tax increases in 1993 (and Bush's tax increases in 1990)

Oh come on Fishy, we both know the true story of the Clinton era economy.

In September 1993 he increased the top marginal tax rate to 39.6%, slapped a 4.3 % per gallon tax increase on gas, expanded the taxable portion of S.S. benefits and increased the top corporate tax rate to 35%. Remember, expanding the S.S. base is the best way to generate revenue, everyone pays it. Unfortunately

When Billy Blue Dress was inaugurated the economy was already on its way to recovery. He didn’t have a dot-com bubble blow up or the largest terrorist act in history cripple the economy.

The end of the Cold War, thanks to Reagan, spurred global economic certainty and the resultant growth. Add to this the incredibly low cost of energy which stayed consistently under $20 a barrel, the Fed keeping interest rates about 2% and the concurrent technology boom that increased productivity and efficiency. Neither Al Gore, nor Clinton was responsible for this growth, the dot-com bubble was the free market on steroids. I remember those days as I day-traded the hell out of the NASDAQ tech sectors and its subsequent “irrational exuberance”.

Despite all these benefits significant growth didn’t start until his second term. Between 1993 and 1997 the economy grew at a respectable but not robust 3.3% annually. We’d love to see that growth today wouldn’t we? At the same time real wages declined despite claims of great growth.

It wasn’t until 1997 when he slashed the capital gains tax rate from 29.19% to 21.19% that the economy truly grew. Business investment soared after the tax cuts. The economy grew at a 4.4% rate and wages grew by 1.7%.

Of course we all know how that irrational exuberance, coupled with skyrocketing home ownership and prices due to his “National Homeownership Strategy” which was the launching pad for both the dot-com and housing bubbles, ended up. Yes, most Americans portfolios grew three to four times based on the perfect storm brewing. First the dot-com bubble collapsed and subsequently, 8 years later the housing/liquidity bubble collapsed.

Throw the mythical “Clinton surplus”, which was nothing more than typical Beltway smoke and mirrors by manipulating the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings into the fray, and of course the illusion was complete.

Yes, Billy enjoyed a nice run, but most of the seeds were already planted before he was sworn in. His defining moment came when he dropped the capital gains rate and Americans began tapping into their personal ATM machines, their skyrocketing home values.

Add to this his realization that smaller government was better, assisted by the Republican Congress and their spending cuts, and you or I could have run that economy.

Bush’s mistake was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Not because he got us into them but rather that he didn’t have a significant exit strategy. Iraq should have ended as soon as Saddam was found and executed. Afghanistan should have ended when we beat the Taliban or at the latest when we killed Osama Porn Laden. Afghanistan is truly the graveyard of empires. The recent exposure that their heroin exports have increased by more than 20% should tell us what a failure that endeavor truly is.

So, having said all that, Billy Bob is not the great economic wizard nor is he the first black president. He walked into a very prosperous time, and as your boy-toy Barrack Hussein would say, “He didn’t build that”.

Nice try again Spanky.

Touchdown...again...this is the assertion that you made:

Most of the people who support increased tax rates don't actually pay any after the big refund they get. (income redistribution) And most who support higher taxes don't want to pay more themselves.

You can post links to all of the fancy graphs that you want and yet none of them actually back up the claim you made above. There are, no doubt, countless graphs showing who pays what for taxes and I am interested in where you got the inside scoop on how the groups laid out in your graphs voted and that those votes were cast based on their support, or disagreement of raising taxes in support of income distribution. None of your graphs showed that, touchdown, and yet this is the evidence that you provided as proof of your assertion.

Please do not think that your opinion above is unique. It has been repeated almost verbatim many times by the teabaggers and yet no one seems to be able to back it up. Repeating an undocumented opinion as truth that vilifies a specific group of people for political gain is propaganda.

If we were sitting face to face, would you lie to my face?

as your boy-toy Barrack Hussein

When you lecture "jimspence" above on manners and protocol, then you can lecture me on mine. Spare us your faked indignation and back up your claims with relevant fact if you wish to have what you would call a debate...otherwise just admit that it is propaganda and you are guilty of spreading it.

I do apologize for the abrupt tone, but I am not the only one that is tired of turning the other cheek to the nasty lies of the teabaggers. If you wish to have a conversation about the issues, you need to take some time and be honest with yourself.

@JimSpence

D. Appel (Post #1.74)

Nice typical Liberal/Progressive rant. Unfortunately you seem to think that you get what you pay for, this is where many of you seem to lose your already flimsy grasp of reality

Why is it that your opening salvo is what you think will be a sharp-stick-in-the-eye insult? To answer your veiled question, you're damned right I think I should get what I WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR. I have paid, for 43 years, into a government-mandated retirement plan (Social Security) and a government-mandated pre-paid health care insurance plan (Medicare). I was not given a choice. It was not an option. It was a requirement.

Our government had the obligation to properly manage those pre-paid funds to meet the promises of the contract they made with the people forced to participate. If they did not do their job properly. If they were not good stewarts of the people's money. If they lost, mismanaged, stole or, in some other fashion, mishandled that money, they are responsible to return it. If that means giving up their pay, benefits, taxpayer-funded insurance, not purchasing a few tanks or handing wads of money to other countries so that they will kiss our red, white and blue asses - so be it.

And they damned sure better not think about turning it over to the thieves on Wall Street or the too-big-to-fail banks, either. They aren't going to kiss their buddies's butts on my dime.

After paying in for 43 years, with 7 years left to pay in, my number of years of contribution will be at 50 years. I seriously doubt that I will be collecting those benefits for the same number of years I paid in. In fact, if demographic information regarding my family history is correct, I will collect for approximately 15 years.

Now you say that I have not paid in enough to cover what I will be paid. I say bull@!$%#! I have paid in enough to receive benefits for a hell of a lot longer than the 15 years I expect to live beyond retirement age.

As to Medicare, the first thing that needs to happen is that the insurance industry needs to get its grungy little paws out of medicine. We need absolute caps on malpractice suits. There need to be limits put on the amount paid for every medical procedure. Pharmacudical companies need to be taken to task for reeping the benefits of drugs created by government-funded university grants. Again, I will have paid into this pre-paid medical insurance for 50 years. I have paid more than enough to cover the roughly 15 years that I will receive benefits.

You really need to think about what you write, JimSpence. I am NOT, as you said, a "typical Liberal/Progressive". I will admit I am livid when I hear people like you regurgitate nonsense from the teabag movement that is controlled by self-serving vultures like Grover Norquist.

It is not, to quote you, a "flimsy grasp of reality". I paid for it. I was FORCED to pay for it ... and I damned well believe I deserve to get what I paid for.

JimSpence

Freshieee

Part of that was from the Clinton boom (which mutated into a bubble), and part of it was because of the Clinton tax increases in 1993 (and Bush's tax increases in 1990)

Oh come on Fishy, we both know the true story of the Clinton era economy.

Doubt it.

In September 1993 he increased the top marginal tax rate to 39.6%, slapped a 4.3 % per gallon tax increase on gas, expanded the taxable portion of S.S. benefits and increased the top corporate tax rate to 35%. Remember, expanding the S.S. base is the best way to generate revenue, everyone pays it. Unfortunately.

Of course expanding the S.S. taxable base raises a lot of revenue. Still doesn't mean that the income tax hike didn't raise revenues, though.

When Billy Blue Dress was inaugurated the economy was already on its way to recovery. He didn’t have a dot-com bubble blow up or the largest terrorist act in history cripple the economy.

And yet Bush @!$%#ed up both of them. To get out of a recession, all you have to do is spend money and lower Fed rates until we get at or near full employment. Tax cuts don't even have to be part of the equation, since most of them (except maybe the payroll tax) are inefficient ways of stimulating the economy compared to direct government spending. And as for 9/11, Bush could have easily just attacked al-Qaeda via air strikes, drones (however primitive they were back then), and special forces teams (essentially counter-terrorism) instead of sending a large occupational army into two countries, one of which had a history of successfully repelling foreign invaders (Afghanistan with Great Britain and the Soviet Union).

The end of the Cold War, thanks to Reagan, spurred global economic certainty and the resultant growth. Add to this the incredibly low cost of energy which stayed consistently under $20 a barrel, the Fed keeping interest rates about 2% and the concurrent technology boom that increased productivity and efficiency. Neither Al Gore, nor Clinton was responsible for this growth, the dot-com bubble was the free market on steroids. I remember those days as I day-traded the hell out of the NASDAQ tech sectors and its subsequent “irrational exuberance”.

Yet Clinton did one thing that had a huge effect on the markets and the economy; balancing the budget. Balancing the budget can hypothetically increase economic growth, but only in boom years and only when the deficit is so large that it crowds out private investment and spooks stock and bond markets.

Despite all these benefits significant growth didn’t start until his second term. Between 1993 and 1997 the economy grew at a respectable but not robust 3.3% annually. We’d love to see that growth today wouldn’t we? At the same time real wages declined despite claims of great growth.

Actually, real median household incomes increased under the latter part of Clinton's presidency, although they were nowhere near enough to offset the massive decline in purchasing power during the cataclysmic Reagan and Bush 41 presidencies.

It wasn’t until 1997 when he slashed the capital gains tax rate from 29.19% to 21.19% that the economy truly grew. Business investment soared after the tax cuts. The economy grew at a 4.4% rate and wages grew by 1.7%.

Yet you could hypothetically state that the substantial decrease in capital gains taxes led to a massive stock market bubble, due to the increasing incentives for short-term investments and overall stock market investing, which can grow dangerous economically when investment grows way out of proportion with productive economic investments and is thus funneled into short-term ventures for paper profits.

Of course we all know how that irrational exuberance, coupled with skyrocketing home ownership and prices due to his “National Homeownership Strategy” which was the launching pad for both the dot-com and housing bubbles, ended up. Yes, most Americans portfolios grew three to four times based on the perfect storm brewing. First the dot-com bubble collapsed and subsequently, 8 years later the housing/liquidity bubble collapsed.

Actually, a combination of deregulation of the financial industry and tax incentives for housing investments led to the bubble, along with the low Federal interest rates. The Clinton housing policy (minus the deregulation of finance) contributed little to the bubble.

Throw the mythical “Clinton surplus”, which was nothing more than typical Beltway smoke and mirrors by manipulating the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings into the fray, and of course the illusion was complete.

Show me some proof.

Yes, Billy enjoyed a nice run, but most of the seeds were already planted before he was sworn in. His defining moment came when he dropped the capital gains rate and Americans began tapping into their personal ATM machines, their skyrocketing home values.

Well, technically this had been happening since the massive decline in purchasing power and real median household incomes during the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations.

Add to this his realization that smaller government was better, assisted by the Republican Congress and their spending cuts, and you or I could have run that economy.

Bush’s mistake was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Not because he got us into them but rather that he didn’t have a significant exit strategy. Iraq should have ended as soon as Saddam was found and executed. Afghanistan should have ended when we beat the Taliban or at the latest when we killed Osama Porn Laden. Afghanistan is truly the graveyard of empires. The recent exposure that their heroin exports have increased by more than 20% should tell us what a failure that endeavor truly is.

He didn't necessarily realize the falsehood that small government is better; he was forced into it by the Reaganistic shift to the right by the GOP. And Afghanistan and Iraq were terrible mistakes; the wars had no justification in the first place, and Bush screwed it up even more by focusing on nation-building and surges in the nation that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Nice try again Spanky.

Nice try at deflecting the truth, Jimmy ol' boy, but once again, I got you.