Independent Redneck, that's a perfect description of the stupid politicians in Washington, "f"ing up, as usual!

PS I remember that song!

Feisty Red, could you please explain what is meant by "deficit reduction" so we will know how to measure whether it succeeds or fails? Is it, a) if the projected deficit in 4 years is $20T and we come in at say $19.9T, do we all celebrate that we succeeded in "deficit reduction" or b) if the current deficit is $16.3T and we cut it to less than that, is that what we should consider "deficit reduction"? I'm just trying to understand where the President is trying to take us when he talks about "deficit reduction". Thanks.

Speaker Boehner's Wool over the Eyes Routine. Yesterday, Boehner complained the White House hadn't put forth any specific ideas yet he met with Tim Geithner who presented the Speaker with a specific proposal with details. Boehner keeps complaining he wants specific spending cuts, wants focus on entitlements--despite the fact he was given what President Obama and democrats propose.

The Wool over the Eyes is that it is Boehner and the GOP demanding spending cuts. Why is it the GOP has proposed ZERO specific spending cuts? Their proposals are as vague as Romney's big plan: cut entitlements, cut spending--hardly a serious proposal from them while they demand specifics from the White House and democrats. The truth is this: Speaker Boehner and his GOP crowd talks the talk but FEARS to walk the walk.

The GOPers want, have always wanted, to privatize and end medicare (they voted for the Ryan Budgets 1.0 and 2.0 to do just that) yet this is the same crowd that then campaigned claiming President Obama cut medicare. The polls clearly show that 72% of Americans want medicare left alone, 68% of republicans say the same thing.

The GOPers CANNOT and will NOT propose spending cuts to entitlements or anything else because they are too cowardly to take the political hit that would result. Speaker Boehner and his cowardly crew has decided to pull the wool over voters eyes by claiming it is the democrats who need to provide the cuts when by virtue of the GOP having the House majority with Boehner as speaker, it is the GOP's job to provide the specifics of the spending cuts they want and present those to President Obama and democrats. The GOP passes the buck while pointing their finger at the other side.

Here's a thought Speaker Boehner: How about some detailed specifics from your side regarding spending cuts. Which tax loopholes will the GOP close? Which deductions will the GOP eliminate? What entitlement cuts will the GOP demand?

A speedy recovery and prayers for President George H.W. Bush.

@concernedamerica -- Good luck with that question. All you'll get is either crickets or snarks. She doesn't have the brain power. She reminds me of the two zombies Michone had with no arms, teeth or brains leading them around on a tether -- in The Walking Dead.

markin...again it is people of your ilk that keep pushing responsibility aside that are to blame for the problems we face today

Our politicians are made of the same fiber. Instead of taking on the problems that are facing them and trying to actually accomplish something towards fixing them, the pass band-aid legislation to kick the problem further down the road, all the while it continues to fester and grow and spread like the cancer that it is.,

After reading the article, which unfortunately gives us little insight into what was actually discussed during the meetings, if the proposal is indeed true, it is apparent that this administration still does not understand that spending is a larger problem than revenues.

In order to truly solve the problem you need to reduce spending while generating more revenue, not increase spending at a faster rate than additional revenue is coming in.

The consesus is we reduce the deficit to about 10 trillion within 10 years. That could go lower depending on how soon the economy roars back which is dependent upon the economies of other parts of the world (Europe, China, India, Japan). It would be nice to get it to 8 trillion which is possible. So there is your answer.

Meanwhile the Mayor of Detroit, Dave Bing, has sadly realized where decades of Democrat rule has left the city:

“We are in an environment, I think, of entitlement, we’ve got a lot of people who are city workers, who for years and years, 20, 30 years, think they are entitled to a job and all that comes with it,” Bing said.

Joe in Albany

Why do lefty liberals get their panties all twisted up in knots over global warning??

Ask Sandy ... no better than her, ask New York and New Jersey.

The idea that we can permanently solve all problems right now just shows you how delusional most of the "right wing" posters here really are. Logically everything that will or can be done is kicking the can down the road. There is no such thing as a permanent fix to anything because no one can predict the problems that tomorrow or next year may bring. So PLEASE stop with the kicking the can down the road talking point.

Ben lotsanumbers:

This is why people don't respond to you. You wrote:

@Davidwalker -- your last paragraph is more delusional than the rest of your post.

I challenge you to present one point in that paragraph that is not TOTALLY accurate. Just one. You have shown repeatedly you have no interest in facts. I don't have time to waste on the likes of someone who willfully chooses to remain ignorant.

@davidwalker no number -- What you consider facts are your opinions dipped in fantasy. Sort of like the bobblehead Obama immersed in fake urine. Now that was funny art.

@john in battle creek -- Then you are in agreement with Patty Murray?

http://www.examiner.com/article/patty-murray-president-obama-gold-medal-fiscal-cliff-divers

It's clear that the Democrats want to play the hardest game of hardball with the fiscal cliff. They're betting that the Democrat-compliant media will lie about who's to blame for the recession that will happen if sequestration takes effect. It isn't a stretch to think that Democrats might've given us a glimpse of their 2014 campaign strategy.

Here's reality. The Democrats' tax increase, coupled with still-outrageous DC spending and without significant entitlement reform, will tank the U.S. economy for the rest of President Obama's term in office.

President Obama's love of job-killing regulations on energy, the financial industry and the medical industry have the economy on unsettled footing to start with. Add to that a major tax increase and you're staring at an economic disaster. Couple those things with out-of-control spending and you've got Greece on steroids.

Rep. DeFazio isn't the only Democrat to think taking the U.S. economy off an economic cliff is great stategy:

If tax rates snap back to the higher levels from the 1990s and painful budget cuts start to hit the Pentagon, these Democrats, led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, believe they would wield more leverage over the GOP

It's exceptionally telling that, faced with the prospect of the U.S. economy tanking, Patty Murray is thinking in terms of political leverage, not hurting families.

It's impossible to understate this: Sen. Murray is a disgusting politician. Families have been hurt by policies she voted for. Now, rather than trying to redeem herself for her mistakes, Sen. Murray wants to send the U.S. economy deeper into the tank.

It's apparent that Sen. Murray's first priority is pushing her partisan agenda. It's apparent that she doesn't put a high priority on improving the lives of hard-working Americans. Here's a question Sen. Murray won't answer:

Why isn't doing the right thing her first priority?

She's a despicable politician for playing partisan games with people's lives.

Sure BCWC, cuz hurricanes only just started in New Jersey because of Global Warming....

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

Why, oh why do you folks make comments like yours?

Your google thingy broke?

If the morons in the WH, including the Moron in Chief, are not going to take the fiscal cliff seriously, then the Republican’s (Warning: Jack-off bait LMFAO@U!!!!!), should just flip him the bird right back.

Joe...there are times when one party holds the cards. This time it's not the GOP.

You think Obama doesn't take the fiscal cliff seriously? That is the real laugh! Our president is a very smart man. He had it locked down the minute the GOP agreed to sequestration back in 2011.

Republicans and Democrats came to a less ambitious agreement to raise the debt limit through the Budget Control Act of 2011. The law found approximately $1.2 trillion in budget cuts spread over 10 years. But it also directed Congress to find another $1.2 trillion through a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which came to be known as "the super-committee."

The super-committee was supposed to meet and agree on a deficit reduction package by Nov. 23, 2011. Their proposal -- which could include tax increases, spending reductions or both -- would then get a filibuster-proof, up-or-down vote in Congress.

As an incentive to the super-committee, the law included an unusual kind of budget threat: If the super-committee couldn’t agree on a package, or if Congress voted it down, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would go into effect, with half of those cuts hitting defense. These automatic cuts are referred to as "sequestration."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

The Democrats are correct in standing their ground, since the GOP stupidly painted themselves into a very tight corner when they agreed to sequestration in the first place. Boehner can posture and bluff all he likes, but unless the GOP continues middle class tax breaks, voters will be plenty fed up-- and who will they blame for raising their taxes? You guessed it: the GOP. Any Republican who wants to be re-elected needs to face that reality. Grasping and clawing makes them look weak.

Most Americans of all political persuasions don't want entitlement 'reform'. They just want what they're owed, thank you very much.

Go right ahead! Let the GOP play Russian Roulette. The gun is loaded.

1) $1.6 trillion in tax increases and revenues, 2) a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit, and 4) $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other programs to be worked out next year

This and this okay

3) additional stimulus of at least $50 billion,

But not this.

*** Ted Cruz and 2016? Wow, Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (R) hasn’t even been sworn in yet, and he’s already stoking 2016 speculation.

I voted for you Mr. Cruz, but this isn't going to happen sir sorry, though don't count out 2020 or 2024, depending on how well you do what we asked of you. You might want to let Jeb Bush know he doesn't have a prayer in hell either.

The opposition is on a losing streak when it comes to divining the will and desire of the electorate.

This is in many ways a philosophical battle, and many of the "cuts' and "tax increases" the legislators argue over are more symbolic than substantial in their ability to actually impact the deficit.

The electorate want to see compromise, the opposition is running with an out dated playbook that more and more within the party are questioning or outright rejecting. While some in the Conservative commentariat are urging Republicans to "Walk Away!" from negotiations, cracks are appearing in the monolith, threatening to make the Republicans as disorganized and unmanageable as...Democrats!

Ben-050636

Please give me your opinion as to why what happened in the UK when they raised tax rates on millionaires resulted in two thirds of the millionaires dropped off the tax paying roles leaving the country with far less estimated revenues won;t happen here? Or any one else that would like to add their two cents worth.

Ah what to do with people who love their money more than their country? Call them Wealthy Patriots?

threatening to make the Republicans as disorganized and unmanageable as...Democrats!

America returns to the myth ... melting pot alert.

WAC ... Why, oh why do you folks make comments like yours?

Because I believe that the vast majority of climatologists have got it right

President Obama is not going to reach across the aisle. Its his way or the highway. The President is going to take us over the fiscal cliff again. Mark my words. All his talk about working together is bullsh*t.

Ah what to do with people who love their money more than their country? Call them Wealthy Patriots?

AKA "Republicans".

The fact is we do need to cut spending, especially the military, whose bloated budget is a drag on all of us. Leave medicare and Social Security alone

I have to disagree John in Battle Creek, cut defense spending not military spending, that I can agree with, as they are two different things. I also think we need to be able to have an "opt out" option for Social security and medicare for people age 30 and younger, I've been paying into them for over 20 years now (I'm 37) and for every thousand dollars i put in I'll be getting 11.00 back so far and I still have 30+ years of working to go.

Ben, you have a reading comprehension problem I think. Reread what I have written. No, I do not agree with Patty Murry, her statement includes a political advantage, my statement reflects the fact that we did just fine with higher taxes and I also agree that spending cuts especially to the military are appropriate. The end result is a leaner, meaner well funded government. The political advantage of republicans coming out the worse for wear on this is while pleasurable not my main point. What I don't condone is the republican idea that not taxing the rich more is some how right. It isn't. It is past time for those that can afford the most to pay more so that the rest of us can do some catch up. As far as regulations go, Obama's regulations are spot on. Even more is needed to make sure that this country and its middle class does not suffer any more losses, like we have with the Bush recession.

@bcwc & kaybee -- You made snarky remarks but you never addressed the question which is typical. What prevents that from happening in the U.S.????

@john -- Higher tax rates on only a select few-- without tax reform -- will result in nothing but smoke and mirrors. The only way is to let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire for all, but the only way Obama can do that is put the Republicans in a position that they have to walk away and save face by doing a PR campaign and blame Republicans.

Funny Isn't It? Romney Is Now A Part Of 47%

Despite contemporaneous media, pundits , polls etc. President Obama has more votes now sine the election. In fact, votes are still being counted on the East Coast where they was a power failure after Hurricane Sandy.

As more final votes come in from the election, President Obama is now doing what only one other President did in history. President Obama is only the 2nd President to be be re-lectecd with over 51% of the vote. President Dwight Eisenhower was the 1st.

MYTH Romney , well, he has become a part of the dreaded 47%

Obama's lead over Romney increases. He DISCOMBOBULATED MYTH. I mean it; our President squashed all that hype.

How 'bout those jobless claims? This the 1st-time jobless benefit claims sharply went down, gross domestic product growth up. As expected, the surge in first-time unemployment benefit claims in the wake of Hurricane Sandy tapered off for the second week in a row, the Department of Labor announced Thursday. Seasonally adjusted first-time claims fell to 393,000 for the week ending Nov. 24, down from the revised 416,000 claims for the previous week. That compares with 399,000 for the comparable week of 2011

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/29/15540167-jobless-claims-improve-steadily-after-sandy-spike?lite

I like that picture of Myth and President Obama shaking hands . I bet Myth said Mr. President your hospitality is so much better than my London trip!

I sent my new congressman back to Washington with a specific request: Tax the 1%, leave the rest of us alone, don't touch education, medicare, social security or medicaid. If you want to reduce spending there are a lot of other places to do it, I'd also prefer if you leave state and federal parks alone (most of them make their own revenue off middle class families who camp, fish, hunt, play, swim and picnic in them). Cut the budget by doing away with defense contractors, stop the outsorcing of troups meals (they cooked their own until Dick cheney and his friends flooded the military budget with the likes of their dirty little companies). That is a plan I'd like to see bonehead look at - really look at, instead, he is back to living with his marching orders from Norquist, the Koch brothers, and the 1%. sure hope my congressman does what I asked him to do - otherwise I'll work to unset him in 2 years!

Average American-473069

President Obama is not going to reach across the aisle. Its his way or the highway. The President is going to take us over the fiscal cliff again. Mark my words. All his talk about working together is bullsh*t.

You must define "working together" as "capitulating to the losers".

Obama has long arms and he has reached far across the aisle for far too long. Now it's time for the Party of No to reach back. If they won't, no problem. GOP Teabaggers will be voted out of office in droves. Take that to the bank.

David Walker:

I enjoyed reading your post. Very on point. Too bad some peoples' heads are filled with the teabag BS to see clearly. I don't know what shoe you wear, but I would love to see it planted firmly in the posterior of Ben with many numbers. Keep on trucking!

The Repubs are trying with all their might to hold on to the edge of the cliff, but I think their finger nails are getting very short.

Boehner and the GOP knows it is in trouble. Doesn't matter IF the GOP House allows the country to go off the fiscal curb on taxes or agrees to extend them for 98%. Either way, the GOP is on the short end of the stick because at the end of the day, the GOP will finally be forced to pay for their budget proposals and anything else they propose--something the GOP has not done since January, 2001. It is the GOP House representatives who will have to choose what to cut and it is they who will be held accountable for those cuts.

The sequester looms on the horizon as well; President Obama played that hand perfectly. The GOP voted for the automatic cuts IF no agreement could be reached--remember as VP candidate Paul Ryan pretended he didn't have a thing to do with those huge automatic defense cuts. It remains a mystery to me why the GOP allowed itself to be boxed into that corner. There was a huge deal, a "grand bargain" on the table that would have prevented the automatic sequester but the GOPers could not bring themselves to give one inch on increasing revenues. Rigid adherence to ideology is always dangerous. The inability and unwillingness to compromise when agreeing to 95% of a proposal in order to retain some "principled" stand on the 5% is just complete idiocy. Now, the GOP has no cards left to play. Whatever happens, the polls were clear--voters will blame Republicans.

Ben-636050

@bcwc & kaybee -- You made snarky remarks but you never addressed the question which is typical. What prevents that from happening in the U.S.????

When tax rates on wealth were much higher in the past, is there a documented source showing that the wealthy abandoned the country? If they did not leave then, why would they leave now ... best country in the world and all that sort of thing?

1SGFitzsWife4ID, So make this an educational moment, what is the difference between defense spending and military spending? As far as an opt out for S.S. and medicare, not just no, but hell no. Everybody paying in is how it works. It is even more important today then it was when I was your age. Let me tell you this. S.S. is something you can count on. Regardless of medical condition or accidental disability it should be available for everyone at the end of their working careers. I do believe in means testing as far as levels of payment and the fact that S.S. was meant to be a supplement not a sole income for retirees. I can tell you the first time I heard that S.S. wouldn't be there for me was in 1965, guess what, I am living comfortable in the mitten on income from S.S. and a pension, plus what I managed to save through out my working life. It will be there for you too if the republicans don't get their way and destroy it.

A permanent, unlimited debt limit increase—for free!

The debt limit is nonsense, and didn't exist for most of our history. Congress appropriates $10 billion for something, and the Executive is legally required to spend that money. Then it passes legislation allowing the Executive to raise $9 billion in revenue - the Executive can't decide to raise more. Then they demand more legislation to permit the Executive to borrow the missing $1 billion? This is ridiculous on its face.

@bcwc -- One can drop off the tax rolls through many other means than leaving the country. Loopholes; taking capital gains now before more taxes; retire and move everything into investments or offshore accounts; move dollars into tax shelters. You see it is the ones between 250k and let's say a few million that will be hurt the most. Not the multi millionaires and billionaires who can do any, or all or some of which I can't think of above.

Ok, so here's a government that won't even pass a budget. (So you won't know the money is all going to friends, family, special interest, and foreign bribes). All they do is fight over getting more money which they will spend only on said secret budget recipients. Want to raise the debt ceiling all they want so they can spend even more money that does not even exist. Want to print even more fake money to "stimulate" the economy, I.E. pay off the banks who actually run the place. And will do it all behind closed doors, at the last minute, shoving as many earmarks in as they can (That's all they are really meeting on), and blame each other afterwards as per the usual fake two party dog and pony show. Pass the spending cuts down the road as in never and, in great American stupidity you people keep VOTING THEM BACK IN! ARRRGGGHHHH!

Joe in Albany, this is the best chess move the White House could have made. For four years Congress and during the last election the Republicans have been espousing the White House or President Obama has not offered a plan to reduce the deficit and address Medicare, SS and these so called entitlement the Republicans have declared. The President has put out a plan from Geithner to Congress so now it is up to them to counter or come up with a plan that addresses the platform President Obama won the election on. If Congress comes back with trying to protect the 1% Club this will show the voting people of this country the most important policy on the minds of the Republican Congress. Checkmate. The President has backed Boehner and McConnell including Lyin Ryan into a corner . Now let's see how these three rocket scientists get out of this one with their shirts on. This is excellent maneuvering by the Democrats. Now it is time for the Republican Congress to put up or shut up. Talk about helping to decide the mid term election. This is a great X-mas present for the middle class People.

When tax rates on wealth were much higher in the past, is there a documented source showing that the wealthy abandoned the country?If they did not leave then, why would they leave now?

______________________________________

Because the world is fundamentally different now. The internet and the global economy mean that you can operate from anywhere in the world now. Why not operate from a country that welcomes capital and the people that own it, instead of a country that is hostile to capital and wants to punish the people that own it??

This entire Administration is a clown parade. How can you not laugh in the face of this foolishness. This President is the largest failure ever and still has no idea how to fix anything except print and borrow money. You foolish twits who voted for him should feel ashamed of yourselves. Sadly you wont because you have no Pride of conscious. Truly sad that you voted for the destruction of the Greatest nation on earth.

This is what Barrack Hussein and the limp-wristed Liberal bobbleheads have been "focusing like a laser" on for four years?

Lame insults don't bolster your argument, Jim. Talking tough is just talk.

You're whistling past the graveyard on your way to the edge of the cliff.

politicoguy

After reading the article, which unfortunately gives us little insight into what was actually discussed during the meetings, if the proposal is indeed true, it is apparent that this administration still does not understand that spending is a larger problem than revenues.

What you don't understand is that the biggest problem is unemployment. It was John Boehner himself shouting "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?" The jobs aren't there because Boehner and his crowd obstructed every jobs measure the administration proposed in order to impede the recovery and make Obama a one-term president, as Mitch McConnell gleefully exclaimed in a couple years back.

The U.S. has a debt PROBLEM. It has a jobs CRISIS. The problem can't be fixed until the crisis ends. Maybe now that the voters just gave the Republicans a hard slap in the face on Nov. 6, the Republicans will come to their senses. But I doubt it. They didn't have much sense to begin with.

Number 2 should scare the bejesus out of every American (and anyone else paying attention to the US economy). The second thing- no more control of the debt limit by Congress - which I guess gives the president unlimited power - leaves us with a HUGE problem and a dictator to boot.

I realize our problem is already HUGE - if #2 is included you can square that HUGE.

Is this the Dems. ace in the hole? Do they intend to "give this up" to get everything else they want?

I was hoping for compromise, now I'm fervently praying that the house continues to laugh while voting down the president's proposal.

BCWC, bingo, The facts are they made their money here for the most part. Even, Romney who takes his money to another country to avoid paying his fair share made the bulk of his money in the states. I say if these unpatriotic azzholes don't want to pay taxes to this country, stop them from making any more money here. The shame of the republicans is their inability to see that it is their employee's that make them rich, it is nothing that they do as an owner other then an have an idea or the money to build what ever.

Short memories these rt wingers have. Most every republican politician after they took their oath to their office, then took the Norquist pledge never to raise taxes on the rich. Then the night president Obama took office 15 republican politician leaders met and pledged to vote against any bill that would help America just to make President Obama a one term president. The Rich banksters and wallstreeters with the Bush/Cheney /Rove policies crashed the economy and there was no help from the republicans to fix it. McConnell vowed his number one job was to make president Obama a one term president. NONE of these republicans have apologized or removed their vows for King Norquist or their pledge to take down the American economy.

#3years ago the president stood before congress and the American people and took on the repubs to publicly come up with any plans...he debated ALL republicans...and they had NOTHING! President Obama started negotiating from the middle and repubs demanded everything or nothing. The repubs slowed the economy growth as plannned, obstructed every bill that would help America, voted against vets on job bills, voted against those people who lost their jobs, blocked bills to give healthcare to 911 first responders, blocked bills to end tax breaks for companies taking jobs overseas, etc.......

President Obama won the election, the people have spoken. NO MORE NEGOTIATING WITH REPUBS FROM THE MIDDLE! NO MORE TRICKLE DOWN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR! The rich will have to pay their fair share of taxes and stop the free ride tax breaks and welfare train they have been on since Reagan took office.

President Obama/Biden, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.

I say let the cliff happen and send Congress and the President home without pay for the next two years.

Truly sad that you voted for the destruction of the Greatest nation on earth.

Someday if you're smart and lucky, that Teabagger wool will be pulled from your eyes. On that day you will thank those of us who re-elected Barack Obama and saved our country.

We're not looking for gratitude, just an end to the insanity.

President Obama holds the coin. Heads we win, tails you lose. :)

Proves Obama campaigned on the premise that you say or do anything to get elected, and then try and do whatever you like once you get in. This proposal proves Obama has no interest in seriously addressing the fiscal mess facing this country, that he exacerbated in his first term. We can expect four more years of a tax, borrow, and spend mentality from the Obama administration. Debts and deficits simply do not matter to the Democratic Party. The Obama theme song should be Hey Big Spender. Obviously Obama cannot be trusted, and Republicans have to demand reforms first before agreeing to any tax increases.

Joe in Albany

Why not operate from a country that welcomes capital and the people that own it instead of a country that is hostile to capital and wants to punish the people that own it??

Why not operate from a country that welcomes capital so gratefully that it lets their manufacturing companies lock their low-wage employees in the factory so they don't sneak out for a break? If Obama would get off the backs of corporate America, all those wonderful clothes manufacturing jobs would come back to America from Bangladesh. The loss of a few dozen employees now and then who can't get out of a locked factory when a fire starts would be a small price to pay when compared to all the profit that can be made off of a slave labor workforce.

because things ARE different now!

Bev, sounds like you and Rachel Madcaw have no clue what Romney was talking about when he said 47%.

John in Battle Creek

1SGFitzsWife4ID, So make this an educational moment, what is the difference between defense spending and military spending?

Okay, Defense spending, is the money used to build bombs and bullets basically. Military spending is our soldiers pay, medical, etc.. They cut military spending all the time yet they don't cut down on the defense part (even when our DOD tells them we don't need it)

As far as an opt out for S.S. and medicare, not just no, but hell no. Everybody paying in is how it works. It is even more important today then it was when I was your age. Let me tell you this. S.S. is something you can count on. Regardless of medical condition or accidental disability it should be available for everyone at the end of their working careers.

But we all know that's not really how it works, I should be allowed to put that money in my own account to draw interest, I shouldn't have to put it in the governments bank for them to spend as they see fit. Or rather my children shouldn't have to. For every thousand dollars I pay in I will get 11.00 back how does that make sense? Basically 909.00 for every 10 thousand I've paid in. I can put a thousand dollars to work far better then the government can.

This is not reasonable. The WH has to come to the table with more cuts. There has to be billions in military spending that can be cut. What he is proposing won't fly with even the most liberal democrats, and certainly not the American People.

I say let the fiscal cliff come, and we should dive right over it. The GOP REFUSE to give 98% of the American people confidence that their taxes won't go up next year, using an argument that has been refuted by the CBO, the CSR, and many economic analysts. Allowing taxes to go up on the top 2% of wage earners is not going to hurt small business or jobs. Any claims to the contrary are based on a failed trickle down approach that hasn't worked in more than 30 years.

It isn't the top 2% that create jobs, it's people in the middle class that take their ideas and create small businesses. By strengthening the middle class, we strengthen the economy for all. What will it take to get the GOP leaders to realize that their trickle down theory is dead?

President Obama has declared over and over again, extending tax cuts to those top 2% is a non-starter. He will veto it. Congress should pass the Senate's tax extension bill and move on to other pressing matters. If they don't, God help them in 2014.

It appears that facts continue to elude our Republican posters.

JimSpence says:

A permanent, unlimited debt limit increase—for free! WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO WHAT A DEAL! The last thing any rational human being would do is just give these redistributionists as much money as they want to feed their perpetually failing entitlements and social programs.

I fail to understand why anyone would mock this request. The downgrade in our credit rating resulted from a senseless battle over raising the debt limit. Congress controls the purse strings, so all of the specific items that contribute to or reduce the debt flow through them. Why do we need a separate vote in order to raise the limits on a debt that Congress has created?

Ben asks:

Please give me your opinion as to why what happened in the UK when they raised tax rates on millionaires resulted in two thirds of the millionaires dropped off the tax paying roles leaving the country with far less estimated revenues won;t happen here?

Do you know what the British rates were raised to? The rate was increased to 50% - quite a bit higher than the proposed 39.5% US rates. Did millionaires flee during the Clinton years, when the rate was the same? No, in fact the wealthy did quite well.

There is a substantial difference between returning historically low rates to a previous level and radically increasing tax rates.

How long will Republicans continue to "cry wolf" over the top rate going up a few points?

Joe in Albany

Why not operate from a country that welcomes capital and the people that own it instead of a country that is hostile to capital and wants to punish the people that own it??

Care to list those wonderful Lands? Bangladesh, Pakistan ... China? Hey let them go and live there also.

Think Team Obama has learned from its past negotiating offers, when it started out negotiating from the middle?

Yes I do. Our President is a smart guy. He saw what happens when he proposes a reasonable middle ground solution in an attempt to garner bi-bartisan support and the other side in turn takes an extreme ideological stance. The President has the Republicans between a rock and a hard place, and now they piss and moan when he adopts their own negotiating strategy. I regret that it has come to this, but the Republicans brought it on themselves with their posturing and obstructionism during Obama's his first term.

OK, Fitzswife, sematics, the fact is we spend to much on the military period, we don't need bases in every country of the world nor do we need to be the world cop. That by the way is the subject in some of the fiscal cliff that the republicans revel against most.

On your second point, no you should not be able to put your social security money into a interest bearing account of your own. That would defund S.S., not the right thing to do. I also do not believe your figures 11/1000, I don't believe that to be true, many die before collecting a cent, and actually if you live long enough you more then get your money back. You must be young. The truth about S.S. is it works just fine. It needs a tweak such as removing the salary cap, and perhaps means testing or a cap on benefits for that have the most and don't really need the income. Listen closely, I am collecting S.S. right now. It works just fine. So does medicare and I wish instead of Obama care they would have just expanded medicare to include everyone. It would have been a lot more practical. Medicare works, and would not go broke if younger healthier people were paying into it.

“The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill, Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt, March 16, 2006

Looks like Romney isn't the only one who flip-flops when it's politically convenient.

There are 2 types of tax rates, nominal and actual. Nominal is the rate you are assigned; actual is what you end up paying. The tax code needs simplified. It wastes time and money. Taxes need to rise on the rich. That is only a partial, inadequate fix though, as it will barely nick the deficit. Entitlements need cut back. They are unsustainable. Honest stimulus spending needs to occur and I'm not talking temporary, ineffective, shovel ready plans. We need smart infrastructure spending on purposeful projects that will produce yields. The whole educational system is in tatters. The whole thing needs reworked. The students are not learning enough and the subject matter covered is not compatible with the job market. Older adults need retraining. Government needs streamlined and extraneous regulations need to go. Regulate, but in an efficient manner. Bureaucracy that doesn't work is a waste.

In his first term, Obama was criticized for "negotiating with himself" and basically giving in to Republican demands before the negotiations had even begun. Judging by his opening position with the Republicans and judging how loudly Boehner and McConnell are squealing, it looks like Obama is getting the hang of negotiating with people who always negotiate in bad faith.

Great songs guys, I wish I could contribute, but I made the mistake of watching the Ukelele Orchestra of Great Britain on YouTube this morning and I've got their a capella version of PIN BALL WIZARD stuck in my head.

Children, children, children, now play nice. Boy those conservatives are a bunch of sore losers.

The GOP is still trying to play the the same old game. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

But let's look at the bright side of it shall we? The more they obstruct the more impatient the American people will become. The congressional approval rating is down to 18% and a vast majority of Americans blame the Republican Party for all of Congress' woes.

So, I say, keep it up boys. You're well down the road to "laughing-stock-ville" and I say keep going, you'll get there.

If you want cuts to the so-called "entitlement" programs, then you need to propose those cuts. I guess you boys don't do much horse-tradin' up there on Capitol Hill. First of all you don't buy a horse without seeing the animal first. Then you ask "how much?" The seller gives you a figure and you make a counter offer and so on until you reach an agreement or you both walk away.

You don't say "I got a horse to sell, it's back at the house and you can't see it, how much will you give me?" IF an offer is made you don't just say, "Naaah, not good enough" and walk off and start complainin' about unrealistic the offer was. That's not the way it's done boys.

If you want to sell that horse you've got to show it to us and give us your "askin' price" and then we'll talk about it. Otherwise you and your horse can go jump in the lake.

So, tell us what kind of nag you've got and how much you want for it. That's how it's done.

OK Libbies, let me ax you a question.

If the Clinton tax rates, the ones we would revert to if the fiscal cliff were allowed, were so good and created the booming economy you claim, and even a mythical surplus, why don't we just let all the rates go back to those levels?

Let the rates go back to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. You all claim that the Clinton tax rates created his great economy and alleged surplus, so why don't we do that now and get the economy growing like it did in the 90's? Let sequestration happen too.

TNSEVOL - whenever you post to someone who has BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA throughout their post, pretty sure you're going to get nonsense in return. JimSpence is posting at a third grade level and all the sense in the world will not get through to him.

It's clear he doesn't want facts or reason - just wants to hang onto his hatred of all things President Obama proposes.

I think he's pretty much a waste of time!

Tax the 1%, at this point I just want this done. But this 'offer' that obama came with is a friggin joke and proves he isn't taking this seriously. He purposely came to the table with an offer he KNEW the right would laugh at. I'm as pissed at the right in congress as anyone, but holy crap, neither side is taking this seriously.

Anyone who supports obama with his offer is stupid, just like anyone that is supporting boehner is stupid. The party drones that are encouraging their party to act like this are a major part of the problem.

If the Clinton tax rates, the ones we would revert to if the fiscal cliff were allowed, were so good and created the booming economy you claim, and even a mythical surplus, why don't we just let all the rates go back to those levels?

The clinton tax rates were only a part of why life was good. He also loosen regulations, he also put through serious spending cuts, etc. In other words, obama wants the clinton years by not doing everything clinton did.

I'm not a clinton fan, but I would take clinton in a heart beat right now over obama.

What an incompetent proposal from an incompetent Community Organizer in Chief. What liberals fail to recognized is the Republicans are ready to make sure your taxes do not go up next year. Extend the current rates and it would be agreed to within minutes. Funny Obama ran on the pledge (4 years ago) that your taxes would not go up but is now threatening to raise your taxes.

So now Obama says to make sure YOUR taxes don't go up Republicans must agree to let taxes go up on the "rich". So where Republicans want to make sure your taxes don't go up it is Obama that puts conditions on that AND if Republicans don't agree to raise taxes on a few then ALL taxes are going up. Republicans are ready to make sure you don't pay higher taxes next year unconditionally meaning all Obama has to say it "OK". Saying "OK" does not affect anybody. But Obama is willing to punish YOU just to make sure he can punish "the wealthy".

So whose fault will it be if taxes go up on everybody? Obama and the Democrats plain and simple.

So it is up to you. Do you want to pay higher taxes or not? Support the Obama demand of punishing the wealthy and EVERYBODY gets punished. Support the Republican demand of extending the current tax rates and NOBODY gets punished. Quite honestly I don't give a tiny rat's behind which one you pick so you decide - do you want to pay higher taxes next year or not?

It looks like we are ALL going to contribute more to get back on track in this country. That is the way it should be. I don't give a rats rear end if your taxes are going up a couple thousand per year. Mine are going up also.

Don't give in republicans. President Obama will be the man who will be known for the biggest tax increase in the history of our nation.

AlexM - C;linton did all those good things because of the Republican Congress. And our current House of representatives is trying to do the right thing now.

IR, big smile with that one; perfect. David W, great post. Union Baby, great points. So many well stated, informative posts along with some humor from the left this morning; the usual short-sighted whining from the right. I don't know, it seems poor Albany just can't find reality in a lighted room.

What everyone seems to have missed; the proposal from the administration is, CONGRESS GIVES UP IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO LIMIT THE DEBT, AND TURN IT OVER TO THE TREASURY RUN BY TIM AND BEN; IN PLAIN WORDS SCRAP THE Constitution AS IT GRANTS POWER OF THE PURSE only TO Congress, the administration has not proposed a budget in now four years, it refuses to offer spending cuts except to the military, social security and medicare (social security and medicare are self funded and have a healthy surplus, except medicaid, and all the social programs are tack on); I do believe we will hit the fiscal cliff, since no reasonable proposal has been offered by the administration or congress.

Can one of you libs tell me, without the usual sarcasm and name calling, please, what's not fair about making the 49% of Americans who currently pay no income tax contribute something to the system that they depend on?

Joe in Albany.......you said:

Quote......Why not operate from a country that welcomes capital and the people that own it, instead of a country that is hostile to capital and wants to punish the people that own it??......EndQuote

So, which one is true:

1. Joe in Albany does not own significant capital.

2. Joe in Albany is making plans to abandon the United States.

If it's #2, where will you be going and when?

Perhaps the U.S. should consider an emigration capital tax. Folks (like Rupert Murdoch) should not be able to come into our economic system, pay lower taxes than average citizens, accumulate capital, and then leave with it.

What I am REALLY enjoying is the frustration of the liberals. They reelect a president because he promised to continue giving them free stuff from Obama phones to contraceptives to abortions and ALL paid for by the "rich". YAY!! FREE STUFF!! PARTY TIME!!

But now you find out that nothing is "free" in this world. And Republicans are standing firm that we can't continue spending recklessly AND if you decide to spend recklessly EVERYBODY has to pitch in to pay for it.

WHAT!?!?! Liberals actually are going to have to pay higher taxes to GET the free stuff!?!?! THAT is not free stuff!! That means liberals actually are pitching in and PAYING for their Obama phones and contraceptives and abortions!?!?!

The answer is "Yes". And now you are angry that your "free stuff" is not actually "free". Welcome to reality - you just MIGHT have a chance to think rationally for the first time.

SGFitzsWife4ID

How many times have we heard of large pension funds being mismanaged by financial managers? Too often for me to have much confidence in Wall Street.

Just our luck, if we privatize SS, you and I would pick another Bernie Madoff!

The President is applying lessons learned from his first term and this is what negotiations look like when dealing with an object as big, thick and obstinate as the GOP. And the leaders of the GOP know this so it is only laughable and sad when they try to present to the rest of us that the Democrats aren't presenting a balanced deal. The vast majority of us know better and we understand exactly what is being proposed and why. This is good, serious, negotiating tactics designed to light a fire under these knuckle draggers. Time they wake up and get to work.

Since these pledges take precedence over the United States Constitution and the welfare of the American Republic, those who took those pledges and entered into such agreements should be prosecuted, for fraud and treason and at the very least, breach of contract. They should be forced to return their salaries, and given stiff prison terms. No kidding! This needs to happen. Are we all stupid? We are paying these guys and gals untold amounts of money to work us over, represent the interests of banks, lobbyists and who knows who else. And we all pay them whether we voted for them or not. The DOJ needs to get on this and do something about it. Let Grover Norquist pay their salaries and their legal fees. Bring charges against every last one who signed the Norquist pledge and those who refused to honor their commitment to the country because they did not like the President the majority elected. Enough already!

spider - the "49% who pay no tax" are seniors who HAVE paid their taxes over their lifetime and are now retired; veterans who have given far more to this country than anyone else - including taxes; and the working poor who pay in but don't make enough to actually have a tax bill so they get their money back. They do however pay taxes just like the rest of us on everything they buy.

There are very few who do not pay any taxes - I believe the actual figure is about 6%. The 47% Romney whined about is non-existent!

Wagaroo - I say arrest Grover Norquist and all of his minions. Treason is too good a word for what they are doing. I'm pretty sure we have room at GITMO for all of them!

Mirroring our esteemed legislators, there are few if any positive proposals here.

We must think LONG TERM.

If Simpson/Bowles is too comprehensive for our elected representatives...

We must raise the eligibility age for Social Security to 70, in increments over the next decade.

We must raise the ceiling on contributions to the SS fund to $150,000.00 of income.

We must end the war on drugs, and release the tens of thousands of Americans imprisoned simply for their violation of that prohibition.

We must make our military/defense spending reflect 21st century demands, and retool and rethink our global strategy.

We must finally develop a mechanism to end the myriad bloat, duplication of purpose and outright waste in the Federal government. All spending bills should have a "sunset" date and be periodically reviewed.

I believe that we should re-institute "Glass-Steagall", or pass legislation that accomplishes the same separation of commercial and investment banking.

Well, a proposal is on the table and now the republicans have to use the words "Negotiate" and "compromise!" When will they realize that the majority has spoken and they are in the minority.

It was interesting today to read Romney thought he was going to win and I just wander where he got his facts from? The same sources as many of you right wing conservative nut cases? FOX and its "Unfair and Unbalanced" propaganda?? It isn't reporting it is propaganda!

Pro Business, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. And you prove this every time you post.

Same old BS, in which you and some of the right wing don't know what you are talking about., in saying if you voted for President Obama you are a mooch that wants free stuff . For example one of the lowest unemployment rates and highest standard of living areas in the United States is Northern Virginia. Guess what, President Obama won the majority of Northern Virginia in 2008 and 2012.

Also, my question is how many so called poor whites from the red states voted for Romney even after his 47% comment? Why did those people vote against their own self interest?

Overview comments: I see above people are still confusing deficit with debt. What we need to do is to reduce the deficit (the annual difference between revenue and spending) to a low number, and the debt will take care of itself. Post-WW2, we had very few years of surplus (if any), yet the debt declined from 115% of GDP to less than 30% of GDP because the nation grew.

We have been decreasing the deficit steadily for the last three years ($100b this year, $100b the year before, and $200b the year before that). If we get a deal involving some revenue increases, we can hope to decrease the deficit even faster for the next 4 years. Once we get to a number on the order of $200b/yr, we'll be at a place where the GDP rises faster than our nation debt, which is all we need for stability and prosperity, as proved by the three decades following WW2.

Next - what very few people seem to acknowledge is that the fiscal cliff is exactly what the tea party people are asking for - massive spending cuts. The cliff was designed by John (I got 98% of what I wanted) Boehner. It is the talking points of the rightwingers made flesh. Rand Paul was on Glenn Beck's yesterday making that point. What I wish rightwingers would take away from this is - YOUR WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF MASSIVE CUTS IS A FAILURE!!!

When actually facing massive cuts of the order that the rightwing likes to throw around (after all - $400b of deficit reduction in 3 years is, according to them, a dismal failure, so they must want a whole lot faster redcution, right?). IT IS A FANTASY THAT CANNOT WORK.

Obama and the Democrats are the grown ups who passed math class. The GOP is built on a framework of impossibility, and they will not admit it.

spider - the "49% who pay no tax" are seniors who HAVE paid their taxes over their lifetime and are now retired; veterans who have given far more to this country than anyone else - including taxes; and the working poor who pay in but don't make enough to actually have a tax bill so they get their money back. They do however pay taxes just like the rest of us on everything they buy.

Many of the 49% who don't pay federal income taxes don't thanks to the Bush tax cuts which took more people off the federal tax rolls. Never hear about that when Democrats blast the Bush tax cuts.

Probusiness,

What I enjoy is sitting back and watching all the back stabbing of republicans who don't realize they were losers and that the majority has spoken loud and clear. Now they and you keep coming up with excuses. Even Mitt says the slanted poll numbers he got from Fox told him he was going to win. LOL!

Probusiness:

You go with that. I'd like to hang around in some of the southern congressional district town hall meetings when the tea party congressman running for re-election tries to explain to his constituency that he allowed everyone's taxes to go up as a matter of principle.

Seems like just last week it was the right wing who were condescendingly taunting the Baker's Union for allowing the loss of all of the jobs instead of standing up for their principles and not taking yet another wage cut. Apparently, that standing up for your principles thing only makes sense if it has to do with holding everyone's tax rates hostage for the sake of the tax rates for the wealthy. Is that the logic here?

At any rate, it's not my problem. It will be your congressmen's problems when they try to float this leap in logic to the people who voted for them.

"It's not my fault your taxes went up, even though I had the opportunity to keep your taxes from going up and I voted against it. Repeatedly."

That'll go over well.

Ian: In case you are not aware we now live in a global economy and technology allows us in "real" time to communicate anywhere around the world for literally "pennies". So you ask "where will you go and when" and the answer is "anywhere and as soon as taxes go up".

Do you not realize what is happening in France at this very moment? Let me enlighten you. Their new president who is a Socialist (literally, he ran under the Socialist Party) proposed a 75% "wealth" tax on those making over EUR$1,000,000 a year (roughly USD$1.3 million). What are the wealthy doing? LEAVING!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9404209/Frances-proposed-tax-hikes-spark-exodus-of-wealthy.html

They are moving to Switzerland, Britain, and Belgium so your naivety is incredible to think you can "punish" the "wealthy" and they will just say "OK" and take it. No, they will look at their alternatives and potentially take their wealth to other countries. Canada? Singapore? New Zealand?

And, BTW, the U.S. cannot tax income made in other countries by a company set up IN that country. The U.S. can only tax money brought INTO the U.S. so if a company was set up in Singapore and all their international business was run THROUGH Singapore the U.S. cannot tax that.

So to your question of "where will you go and when" the answer is "anywhere and as soon as this country is so stupid as to make it worthwhile to relocate".

kaybeetoys

Looking for the end of the insanity you are, I think not. This President has failed to guide the nation to anything but anger. But that is how liberals work isn't it. The fact you think you are saving us from ourselves is evidence enough to stand against you. His increasing government output and spending of money have not saved us from anything merely delayed the needed response. His ineffective plan to get Americans excited to buy things has failed to produce results and his plan to increase taxes further burdens a population already unwilling to invest, all led by the man who claims Americans have to give back and give up the very things that drive production in the economy and the health of that same economy. It is not just a flip of a coin, it is about policy that encourages growth. Division of the nation does not encourage spending which does not encourage growth.

If the Republicans want cuts, then let's see what they want to cut.

They just want the President to give them so they can blame him for cuts (remember the Medicare cuts Republicans tried to hang around the President's neck).

The Republicans want to limit income tax deductions but that's going to happen anyway. It's known as the Pease provision, had been law thru 2010, went away in 2011 and 2012 (and is then set to come back in 2013). This means the Republicans wouldn't have any to give in on any tax increase at all.

The Republicans want entitlement cuts but won't say which cuts to make.

If the Republicans want to play games, the Democrats can play too.

BTW, if we do go over the "cliff" (note that the ONLY provision going away on 1/1/13 is the 2% payroll tax holiday), the Republicans are going to be blamed.

White Collar Auto

$400 Billion over 10 years in cuts to Medicare and a $50 billion stimulus.

So we wipe out the first year+ with yet another failed stimulus.

I know why he laughed.

This is sadly funny.

Laugh while you can. The Republican Party is out of options. A continuation of "trickle-down" economics has been rejected. Providing tax relief to the wealthy on the backs of the middle-class have been rejected. Trashing the social safety net to protect the wealthy and Wall Street have been rejected. I believe quite a few Republicans will be surprised how quickly 2014 arrives. Gerrymandering or not...I predict a Neoconservative bloodbath.

Feisty Redhead and anyone with "inside information", I would still like a response to my post 1.15 above so I can have an understanding where America is headed under the President's proposal. Also, if the answer is "B", why do we need to raise the debt ceiling and why has the President's attitude about the debt ceiling changed so drastically since he took office? The President said he could fix this mess, so I'm still wondering where his proposals are projected to take us. Thanks.

Obama wants 50 billion to stimulate the economy. I thought that QE3 (40 billion a month) was suppose to do that? Is there a difference?

Also, I think a permanent end to Congress control of the debt limit, and handing it over to the current president is insane.

Irvmani

Looking for the end of the insanity you are, I think not. This President has failed to guide the nation to anything but anger. But that is how liberals work isn't it.

You think we're angry now...you ain't seen noth'in yet! Just keep avoiding job creation...keep working for the monied interests...keep attacking what's left of a safety net...we'll show you angry.

Spider:

I can't recall a post from you that doesn't lean heavily towards a right-wing ideology, but for the sake of discussion, I'm going to tag onto SeekingSanity's post.

It is utterly ridiculous to interject terms like "fair" and "unfair" into budget discussion/negotiations. They are totally subjective terms. The fact is, we have X dollars we plan to spend and Y dollars we will bring into the treasury. Obviously, our income has not been sufficient to meet our expenditures.

There is absolutely no question that we must have a combination of cuts and revenue increases, which must include changes in tax expenditures as well as increases in taxes. No single solution is going to bring the budget into balance.

As far as why it's not fair - there's that word - for the 47, 48, 49, whatever per-cent to pay taxes, the answer is simple. They don't have it. You can't pay for something when you don't have the money. Isn't that what this budget brouhaha is all about.? We're spending money we don't have.

Finally, it's time to stop with this idiotic liberal/conservative label BS. There's not a "liberal" I know who is in favor of wasting money. There's not a "conservative" I know who is in favor of reducing women to "things". Genuine liberal-types and genuine conservative-types are much closer in their views than the extremists want us to believe.

concernedAmerica - see post 1.95 where I answered your question. In brief, you are confusing debt with deficit. The deficit has been declining for the past three years at a steady, sustainable rate (from $1.4t to 1.2t to $1.1t to $1t). Trying to jerk it down faster means going over a fiscal cliff; the danger is that the economy will collapse and the deficit will grow, even though you are cutting spending massively (if the economy collapses, revenues fall faster than you can cut spending, plus things like unemployment costs rise). SO THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO IS WHITTLE DOWN THE DEFICIT SLOWLY YEAR AFTER YEAR, EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE THE LAST THREE YEARS.

And you do not need a surplus. We did not have a surplus from 1945 to 1980, yet our national debt declined under every presidential term from 115% of GDP to less than 30% of GDP. That is because the economy grew faster than the debt did. The debt is a relative burden - the absolute number doesn't matter. What matters really is the trend. We had a prosperous three decades after WW2 because the debt was declining; it didn't really matter all that much that it was really high debt all through the 1950s.

I love the criticism!! But the end result is YOUR taxes are going up because YOUR Community Organizer in Chief is going to let it. Obama believes it critical to punish "the wealthy" and will do that whether it is punishing just "the wealthy" or punishing everybody. So Obama will let ALL taxes go up.

Fine, you get what you voted for. You voted for bigger government and more government spending and now us Republicans have limited power to stop that. You are right - you liberals WON that outcome. And now you have to PAY for that increased spending with higher taxes because liberals just can't seem to grasp the concept that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Nothing is free in this world. You want contraceptives? Fine. You want your Obama phone? Here it is.

But NOW that the bill is coming in you are all bent out of shape and wetting your pants. You liberals are like the friends who sit down at a restaurant and started buying appetizers, drinks, and then desserts. IT WAS DELICIOUS and what a WONDERFUL NIGHT!! But.........now the waiter brings the bill and you are angry that you are being asked to PAY for the stuff you got.

That is where we are currently at. The bill has come due and now you realize that not only will you have to help PAY for the goodies you got but also to continue getting goodies you must continue to pay for it. And now you are all angry.

But that's okay - your taxes are going up and it is not Obama's fault - it is YOUR fault. Because for years you kept thinking you would get more and more free stuff and "don't worry, the rich will pay for it". But now you find out that YOU will have to pay for it (and SURPRISED by this??).

So I am actually enjoying this because for years I have been in these threads warning of our out of control spending and I had been ridiculed and called names (but that is not surprising because liberals can't have an honest an adult debate and always resort to name-calling). But now it is coming to fruition and "taxing the rich" is not near enough to come CLOSE to paying for all the "goodies" and now your taxes are going up SIGNIFICANTLY next year to help pay for it. How did you NOT see this happening before your very eyes?!?!?

thetotas

Also, I think a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit, handing it over to the current president is insane.

I don't believe the White House was really expecting Congress to consider that one. They are starting high in the bargaining this time. Remember what the Republicans did the last time the President entered negotiations in the middle...they spat on him and did "just said no". With the 2014 election less than 2 years away now and the "fiscal cliff" looming, we'll see how ballsy the Republicans are this time around.

Pat297145, Post #1.48,

Great post above.

It is truly amazing the stupidity and ingnorance that abounds on the Obamanots on this post. Did any of you even read (or better yet, understand) the article? Even on this heavily Liberal rag, it clearly stated that this administrations stance was heavy taxation with very little cuts or any entitlement reform. Yet you Obamanots are still defending and even praising the extremely one sided, unbalanced, crappy and irresponsible proposal from the Democrats!

This nation will not survive another 4 years of this nonsense. Too many sheeple.

saxon

What everyone seems to have missed; the proposal from the administration is, CONGRESS GIVES UP IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO LIMIT THE DEBT,

The ONLY ways that the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the debt is by decreasing spending or raising taxes. It's the debt ceiling itself that is unconstitutional because it gives Congress the power to default on debts already owed. The 14th Amendment says that the debts owed by the US government MUST be honored. The Republicans love the Constitution, but not a lot of what's in it.

Y: Adam Kredo
November 29, 2012 4:32 pm

The portfolio of embattled United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice includes investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran,according to financial disclosure forms.

Rice, a possible nominee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she steps down, has come under criticism for promulgating erroneous information about the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

Rice has the highest net worth of executive branch members, with a fortune estimated between $24 to $44 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A Free Beacon analysis of Rice’s portfolio shows thousands of dollars invested in at least three separate companies cited by lawmakers on Capitol Hill for doing business in Iran’s oil and gas sector.

The revelation of these investments could pose a problem for Rice if she is tapped by President Barack Obama to replace Clinton. Among the responsibilities of the next secretary of state will be a showdown with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program.

“That Susan Rice invested in companies doing business in Iran shows either the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness regarding Iran or Rice’s own immorality,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “Either way, her actions undercut her ability to demand our allies unity on Iran.”

He laughed because, if the leak is correct, it is a ludicrous proposal.

Obama is laughing because it was a joke and the simple left buys it. Proof that whatever Obama says the liberal loonies will back it..

ProBusiness

I love the criticism!! But the end result is YOUR taxes are going up because YOUR Community Organizer in Chief is going to let it. Obama believes it critical to punish "the wealthy" and will do that whether it is punishing just "the wealthy" or punishing everybody. So Obama will let ALL taxes go up

And that's fine with me! It's time the middle-class has some company while being raped! If you consider it punishment that the wealthy pay a reasonable share of the cost of our society...so be it...rape them!

Good Morning All, After reading some of the RWNJ posts, It reminded me of Angry Coch Roaches when the light gets turned on, They were eating in the dark all content and then BOOM Lights come on and all The Roaches scurry away angry the free meal is over. Listen RWNJ raising taxes on the rich is not a Bargaining Chip for you. It is already in the Bag come Jan 1st, There WILL BE new Rates on the Top 2% weather you like it or not, So please stop trying to use We will let the tax rate go up on the rich as if that is something you are throwing into the Bargaining Table, Those Chips are already in The Democratic side of the Table. You had your chance to get a 65-35 in your favor Deal just a year or so ago, and you chose not to do it and you thought you could get a better deal if Romney was POTUS well you lost that Bet, Now the deal is 60-40 Democrat lean. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

The debt ceiling creates fiscal cliff fights every two years or so. It's great for the conservative entertainment business, but bad for America (we lost our AAA rating last time, and look at all the fear of the cliff this time). Meanwhile, it does no good. The problem is that the right likes to say "cut spending" without ever identifying what spending can be cut. Remember that the GOP came into power in January 2011 promising to cut $100b from the budget. They never did. We are spending $300b/yr more than in 2010.

What we really need are honest choices, not the dishonest "it's wrong for the government to spend so much" argument made today by the right.

Here's your choice: raise payroll taxes by $50/month, or raise retirement age from 65 to 70. Personally, an extra 5 years of retirement would be worth $50/month to me.

Raise income tax by 3%, or withdraw from Afghanistan and lay off off 300,000 soldiers, and mothball a couple of big ships.

Those are the real choices that a fiscally responsible person would lay out for the public to decide. And it can be done. Gov. Brown in California did exactly that - he gave us a chance to vote on higher taxes, or reduced school services and more expensive state colleges. We opted for better education, and we'll pay higher taxes next year to pay for it. But California will solve its deficit crisis, and we did it without compromising our education system.

Pro-business: You have absolutely no idea how businesses work, neither are you aware of history. We had great business success in the 1990s with these exact tax rates. I think you imagine that because you get your paycheck after the taxes are removed, that that must be how it is for businesses and rich people. You are wrong. They get their income before taxes are removed. And they lower their tax burden by investment. On the flip side, the BUSH TAX CUTS WERE COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURES at job creation or economy stimulus or preserving the surplus. I image that we will have 4 years of prosperity after this coming tax increase, and you will be hard pressed to imagine how that could be, but it is really very simple. Reread this post until you understand it.

Yet you Obamanots are still defending and even praising the extremely one sided, unbalanced, crappy and irresponsible proposal from the Democrats!

We are waiting for the Republican proposal.....tick...tick....tick

Extend the middle class tax cuts or Republicans will live in infamy for letting the middle class down.

Houston!

saxon

What everyone seems to have missed; the proposal from the administration is, CONGRESS GIVES UP IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO LIMIT THE DEBT,

The ONLY ways that the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the debt is by decreasing spending or raising taxes. It's the debt ceiling itself that is unconstitutional because it gives Congress the power to default on debts already owed. The 14th Amendment says that the debts owed by the US government MUST be honored. The Republicans love the Constitution, but not a lot of what's in it.

Here's a thought. If it's unconstitutional for the country to default on our debts (I read that the same way), should it not conceivably force an unlimited constitutional convention? That should be enough to put the fear of god in both parties.

Waa,ha,ha,ha, umm, Finest illustration and accounting of collective stupidity I've seen in quite a while. I have long contended republicans don't govern, simply because they don't know how. Well, we can all see it now. McConnell, Cantor, Boehner, hell, all of 'em, have run around screaming about the debt and deficits. Want entitlements cut! They never did though, figure out which ones, and/or how much. These fools don't know! Additionally, if someone finally tells 'em, they'll all be afraid to say so. None of 'em knows a gwaddamn thing about basic Arithmetic, least not enough to trust their judgement of its absolution. The only thing these "carpetbagging" sons-ah-bitches really know is; there's quite a large amount of money going into the general fund each month from "Social Security" contributions, which causes them, lolling, drippy tongues, and they wish desperately to gain control of It for their wealthy benefactors. Gwaddamn! Republicans don't know how, are afraid to learn, and continually push bullsh^t on their constituents to cover it up.

I only listen to what Mitch McConnell has to say because he's so damn handsome.

We have been decreasing the deficit steadily for the last three years ($100b this year, $100b the year before, and $200b the year before that). If we get a deal involving some revenue increases, we can hope to decrease the deficit even faster for the next 4 years. Once we get to a number on the order of $200b/yr, we'll be at a place where the GDP rises faster than our nation debt, which is all we need for stability and prosperity, as proved by the three decades following WW2.

Deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion, for 2010 $1.3 trillion, for 2011 $1.3 trillion and so far we are in line for a deficit of around $1.3 trillion. I don't a trend of lower deficits.

The budget deficit for 2008 - which included some of the TARP payout was $438 billion. in 2007 it was only $163 billion. Does that paint a clear enough picture for you?

I agree that growth can make deficits go down but thus far this president has shown no ability to actually grow the economy and, in fact, many of his policies are very much anti-growth.

Noncoms, thank you for the reply in 1.108. So let me see if I get this...our debt went up by $4.7T over the past 4 years, which is about the same as what it was increasing under Bush when he "started 2 unfunded wars on credit cards". Exactly how is that better than what Bush did? Also, what plan does the President have to solve the debt issue (which most people agree that if you continue to spend much more than what you take in, that is not a good thing)? Lastly, I understand that the President's proposal to raise taxes on "the rich" is projected to increase revenue by $1.6T, but that is over 10 years and not one year. Doesn't that mean that the projected revenue increase is actually $16B next year and that the proposed increase in spending will only further increase the debt/deficit? Thanks.

Saxon,

No, we didn't miss the part about the debt limit. Unlike you, we understood what it was, it's a throw-away.

Let me give you an example.

When I worked in advertising for a major department store chain we'd submit newspaper ads to the buyers for their approval. The buyers didn't know jack about advertising but they thought they did so they ALWAYS had to find something picky and insignificant to complain about and demand it be changed.

Well, that made for a lot of needless work down in advertising. So here's what we did, we' do the ad, then we'd put a misspelled word or something REALLLY obvious in the copy that went to the buyers. They'd find it, complain, demand that it be fixed and off we'd go. It worked every time. AND it didn't matter if they missed it, because the REAL ad was clean, no revision necessary. Get it? It saved us a lot of work and made the buyers feel important. It was a good system.

That's all the President was doing. He knows Congress will never give up that authority. Hell, they wouldn't do it if the Democrats controlled both houses with bullet-proof majorities. It's a throw away. It's just something for Boehner and McConnel to whine about and the President can graciously concede the point.

You guys really DON'T get it do you?

somebefuddledperson. Allowing any president to increase the debt ceiling does NOT given unlimited power to a president. Why? Because Congress retains the power to fund budgets, cut spending, raise taxes. The debt and the ceiling is the result of previous Congressional actions, previous budgets, previous borrowing. President Obama is NOT responsible for what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 (and his GOP pals) did to the debt yet it is the president who is blamed when Congress fails to honor the debt they previously agreed to through their budgets. Presidents sign the budgets but one president should not be held responsible for the actions of those who preceded him/her regarding established debt. Until President Obama was sworn in on Jan 20, 2009, Congress always, always, always raised the debt ceiling without any fanfare, no negotiations, no demands of cuts to this or that--no strings attached--not so much as a mention in the news. Congress just raised it because it is debt already incurred. The debt ceiling is an obligation previous Congress's and previous presidents put in place. Failing to raise it means defaulting on the good faith and credit the USA has established since our founding. Since the GOP cannot be responsible enough to just do what must be done without holding President Obama (or any future president) hostage for the actions of others preceding them, then said Congress has failed to do their jobs; they should lose the privilege of having a say.

Hole12200, NO, it is now the responsibility of the GOP House to put forth their detailed plan of specific cuts. President Obama and democrats made their offer, it is now the GOP's turn to put their vague notions into something concrete.

John, Battlecreek; Intellect, terrific comments and rebuttals.

Probusiness,

Since I do not seem to be a greedy republican and I know that my taxes are now the lowest since the 1960's I figure "you get what you pay for!' I'm willing to pay. Not for $4,000,000,000,000 more being wasted on bush's wars, but for America and Americans.

Skip Nice Post, but I dont think the IQ level of most RWNJ will get what you are saying, remember they like to play Checkers and drink moonshine, and POTUS Obama is a Chess and Wine Guy

Hole12200, NO, it is now the responsibility of the GOP House to put forth their detailed plan of specific cuts. President Obama and democrats made their offer, it is now the GOP's turn to put their vague notions into something concrete.

Except Obama didn't offer a "plan" to fix anything. It is worse than a joke - it was a completely unserious rehash of his budget which garnered zero votes in the Senate and house the first time it was introduced. It is light years away from the negotiating point that the two sides got to during the first "big deal".

Also - just so you keep this in context - the whole reason we are at this "fiscal cliff" is because Obama screwed up the first "big deal" negotiations. We are here because he doesn't negotiate in good faith,

Mac here's some basic arithmetic - $1.6T in tax revenues + $0.4T in entitlement cuts = $2T net when our national debt is $16T and climbing. Now consider that $1.6T is going into the government's coffer and not in the pockets of consumers - you know, the people who drive the economy. This formula equals disaster. Even a 1:1 proposal would not pull us out of the hole. If this administration wants $1.6T (or heck, even $0.8T like the campaign promise they ran on) in revenues, they have to go above on entitlement cuts to have any measurable impact.

I woke up this morning and decided to start taking a different approach. I see so many divided comments everday and it got me thinking. Just imagine if we could parties aside and come to an agreement that it is both sides that are the problem. Career politicians that can give two sh-ts about any of us except when election time comes, then they tell us what we want to hear and we all run and jump behind the guy who we think is going to give us the best shot. And what happens right after the elections, business as usual. They have all of us doing exactly what they want us to do, divide the country and let us fight it out amongst ourselves so they can continue spending like drunk sailors in a whore house. Doesnt matter if you are a Dem or Rep, neither side cares one once of a piss about any of us and they all suck at their jobs. This country is going to hell because we are allowing it to go to hell. When you defend one bone head over the other bone head they have free reign to do whatever they want. Its time for all of us to put our differences aside and come together and get every last bum voted out and put some fresh faces in to represent the country as a whole instead of just their voting block.

David Walker:

Amen. Very well-stated. The biggest and worst joke of all (and there have been plenty on both sides)has been ole' toothless McConnell. I think the democratic proposal is a little far-reaching, but that SOB has no right to laugh unless he intends to negotiate in good faith, which has NEVER been the case. Throw in the fact that he might not be alive today if not for what he calls "socialized" medicine, and it's just more hypocrisy onto the compost heap.

2009
$1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit

2010
$1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit

2011
$1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit

2012
$1100 Billion Deficit $1100 Billion Deficit

2013
$900 Billion Deficit $884.96 Billion Deficit

First number is actual, second number is inflation adjusted. Obviously 2013 is a projection and the remainder of 2012 is also a projection, but the deficit in real numbers by the end of 2012 will have dropped about $300 billion from the deficit inherited from the economic collapse.

As far as raising the debt ceiling goes or doesn't go, it doesn't matter in real terms whether congress allows this to happen or not, because the reality is that money is going to be owed whether the Republicans choose to wave their magic wand and magically 'allow' us to borrow more money or not. And the reality is that since Republicans are not absolute morons and don't want to oversee the entire collapse of American cities, the money is going to be borrowed whether there is some imaginary line that says 'we can't borrow beyond this point' or not.

So let's deal with what this 'debate' really does.

Raising it simply clues in the rest of the world that we aren't going to act like the guy who owes six months back rent and tries to sneak out the window to the fire escape. Acting like it is a political lever over and over again is pretty damned dumb. Not because doing it or not doing it has any real effect at all on our fiscal situation, but because the rest of the world is watching for the moment we start to become shifty eyed.

Q22

I agree that growth can make deficits go down but thus far this president has shown no ability to actually grow the economy and, in fact, many of his policies are very much anti-growth.

The GDP is expanding at a rate of over 2% per year. That's growing the economy, even though you and the other cons probably wish it wasn't. Under Obama, the economy is recovering from the Bush Recession despite the Republican efforts to keep it from happening so that they could make Obama a one-term president. As Mitch McConnell probably said on Nov. 7th, "CURSES!!!! FOILED AGAIN!!!!"

Ex-FoxBot

Russians news media thinks that anyone voting for Obama is illiterate.

That's all the President was doing. He knows Congress will never give up that authority. Hell, they wouldn't do it if the Democrats controlled both houses with bullet-proof majorities. It's a throw away. It's just something for Boehner and McConnel to whine about and the President can graciously concede the point.

Except that Boehner and McConnell didn't whine. Technically McConnell - understanding this amateur move - laughed out loud. They have been through this already and they understand their opponent. Obama's games will not work because the are seen for what they are. Stupid, stupid games.

FORWARD!!!! Right off the cliff.

All liberals say..."GREAT PLAN OBAMA"

That's your guy....That's your plan.

Congress can no longer have control over the "debt limit"? -- THE MAN WANTS A DICTATORSHIP !!! He will never get that. So I guess we go over the fiscal cliff and the middle class gets screwed. Broken promises as in 2008

The GDP is expanding at a rate of over 2% per year. That's growing the economy, even though you and the other cons probably wish it wasn't. Under Obama, the economy is recovering from the Bush Recession despite the Republican efforts to keep it from happening so that they could make Obama a one-term president. As Mitch McConnell probably said on Nov. 7th, "CURSES!!!! FOILED AGAIN!!!!"

You are crowing about 2% growth??? And a jobless 2% at that!

The average recovery following a recession is closer to 4.6%. This is not growth. this is one step away from more recession.

DB Akron

I always knew that Communist Russia and the GOP were in Bed together

Care to list those wonderful Lands? Bangladesh, Pakistan ... China?

_______________________________________________

BCWC: Why would anyone want to go to sh!thole countries like that when there are a lot of very nice tax friendly islands in the Caribbean.

http://www.taxhavens.biz/caribbean_tax_havens/

Here in Northeast Ohio, I hear wallets closing. That means getting work in design is going to be that much harder.

France, the second largest economy in the EU posted a .2% rise in GDP in the last quarter, up from a loss of .1% in the previous quarter. Boy, raising taxes on the rich has created a boom hasn't it?

If this is all Obama has to offer, then I hope the GOP says no. My preference is a compromise with about 3:1 cuts to increased taxes, but I'd rather go off the "fiscal cliff" than agree to this deal.

John in Battle Creek

The shame of the republicans is their inability to see that it is their employee's that make them rich,

OK “John in Battle Creek”. I assume you’re from Michigan. I’m in Macomb. Lemme ax you a question.

I have a lot of vacant commercial/industrial property here in our district, as I assume you do also.

I just leased a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. It’s completely empty. No equipment, no supplies, no raw materials, no plan.

Now, I hire you and 499 other random workers/employees.

Here’s the question.

How are you and the other 499 workers going to make me rich?

concernedamerican, try researching and answering those questions yourself; there's plenty of data out there for anyone really interested enough to take the time to read rather than rely on others to do the work for them. It seems you aren't interested in the answers but rather in simply asking more questions.

When the top 2% pay sixty percent of all taxes and the top ten percent pay 80% of all taxes and the Liberals are crying about it not being enough, what ridicules bull@!$%#!

Taxing the rich at a hundred percent of their income would not be enough for the Liberals! In fact, they detest anyone that is successful but themselves! Anyone that has any money but them is considered an enemy!

As for winning the election they followed a policy of allowing all illegals to come to this country, jump on welfare, raise their whelps and then get them to vote for the ones that made it possible for them to live on the backs of others!

You are right, you won and there is not enough money out there to cover all the crap you got up your sleeves!

Sooner or later the crap will hit the fan and there will be no money left for anyone and no way to pay for all the welfare stuff you have voted for! Then I bet you will blame everyone but yourselves!

Sorry, but Putin and Obama are the ones in bed together.

"Just wait until after I get my second term, I'll be able to do more."

Q22,

The debt ceiling increase is only needed to pay for what has already been spent.

It is a political game to even have a debt ceiling. The House (where spending bills must originate) controls the spending so if they don't want a higher debt then stop passing appropriation bills that calls for
more spending than projected revenues.

They currently pass spending that is greater than our revenues then want to deny an increase to the debt ceiling … what a joke.

Q22

You are crowing about 2% growth??? And a jobless 2% at that!

I wasn't crowing. I merely pointed out that you were wrong when you claimed the economy was NOT growing. It would have grown at a faster rate had the Republicans not thrown up every obstacle they could think of.

The average recovery following a recession is closer to 4.6%. This is not growth. this is one step away from more recession.

The Bush Recession was not an average recession. It was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, which also started under a "business-friendly" Republican administration and was ended by "Traitor to His Class" Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. It took ten years and a war to get out of that one. It will probably take 10 years to recovery fully from the results of Bush's incompetent leadership, too. Hopefully, without the necessity of a world war.

Stand your ground Boehner! That's why you were voted in. Conseratives need to stop caving in to the stupid liberal socialist party. Let it go off the cliff. It is time these liberals get a dose of what they voted for. Really, here we go again with Obama wanting to put us in trillions more of debt. It is his agenda to destroy this country along with everyone who voted for him. It is time for libs to get what they voted for, although we will all suffer-the libs deserve it. He is the most igornant man worse than Jimmy Carter. Go ahead and go up on our taxes O-then you will really see what a depression really is.

The country's check book needs balancing. Just as I have to do, weekly. If I'm out of whack, I make cuts, but I also increase revenue. I get another job! So, message to the Tea Party congress: GET A JOB!

TNSEVOL

Do you know what the British rates were raised to? The rate was increased to 50%.

Yes, the rates were raised to 50% from 40%.

What you fail to mention is the spending they have increased. In 2008 their budget was £426 billion, it rose to £496 billion in 2010, the current budget is £527 billion. The 2008 U.K. Budget was 26% larger than the one of four years earlier. In other words, England's budget rose on a similar pace from 2005 through 2012.

Welfare spending increased 29%. Education "investments" as Barrack Hussein would call it, is up by 20%, and spending on Health Care increased by 21%.

In 2000 the budget was 26% of GDP; it rose to 27.8% four years later; increased to 29% of the GDP by 2008, and is 32.9% of GDP as of 2012.

Instead of getting £1 billion in more revenue, the income to the U.K government from this group dropped by £450 million compared to a year earlier.

And guess what?

They're in another recession.

So tell me, what is different with this plan and Barrack Husseins, and why won't we go back into a recession?

What could be more poetic then Obama sending a tax cheat to lay out his tax, borrow, and spend policies. This is a monster power grab for the president and the treasury and not a good move for the country. This nation is being spent into oblivion, and instead of any serious attempt to get us on a path to solvency we have a president proposing turning our debt management over to the Fed. A non-government entity. People fear the barons of Wall Street when this move offers more power to the Fed then all of Wall Street combined. So this is the first glimpse of the real Obama agenda emerging.

@MmmMmmBeer#1.129: You don't need to tell me. Tell it to the republicans. Let 'em say what they want to cut. How much. Where, and when. Let 'em present it in solid arithmatic terms relative to other unintended consequential costs which could, and often are, higher than the present costs. If they can learn how, and really wish to work with the opposition this can get done. Otherwise, It's gonna be a pine tree full of monkeys hunting bananas.

My wife's boss started the year with 6 employees. He now has 4 and is not going to replace the ones lost. He will only hire temporary help for his busy season - the same amount he did for last year.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't about the future of the country....

The GOP has been loudly proclaiming that we need 'entitlement reform' since Bush 2 got elected, but never had the nuts to actually try for it as they knew what the results at the ballot box would be (i.e. Bush 2's push for 'privatizing' social security which was quickly abandoned; just try to imagine how that would have worked out in the 2008 crash!). Their back-up plan has been to starve government (ala Norquist) until it couldn't meet it's obligations and cuts would be forced. Any of this sound familar? Where it's gone wrong is they thought they could deflect blame via their propaganda machine, but the election results have informed them that too many people have caught on, although in an effort to reassure their 'base' they still haven't publicly admitted it.

So here we are again; the GOP wants 'cuts', but still don't have the nuts to show their hand. Terrified that if they actually say what they want, even the dimmest-bulb of their 'taker' supporters (and they have plenty of those) will finally figure out how badly they've been hoodwinked and desert their social conservative/racist 'principles' and turn on them. The only other possible explanation is they don't have any plan (and that's probably true for many of the TP wing), but the GOP 'leadership' isn't quite that stupid.

So the GOP is faced with a cruel dilemma; pretty much whatever they do, they'll have to take the heat for it. So what's it going to be GOP? Be cowards, not state what you want, just keep obstructing and hope nobody notices (fat chance of that), or show your hand and prove for all to see that you only represent the rich? Tough choice, but you picked the path....

The GOP will be laughing all the way to the unemployment line in 2014 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jody 1.144, that "transparency" thing really stings for you doesn't it? When you cut through all the rhetoric and get down to the truth about where WE (not Dem or Rep) are headed as a nation, it isn't a pretty sight. I'm not sure that either party has the answer to our problems, but if they did, they aren't stupid enough to suggest them. If either side proposed what really needs to be done, they would quickly be voted out of office (or lose an election). If Greece could have voted to "raise the debt limit", would that have saved them?

Jim Spence

answer this question

I just leased a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. It’s completely Full. It has equipment, all the supplies, all the raw materials, and a great plan.

Now, I dont hire any workers

Here’s the question.

How am I going to do all the work to pay all my bills if I can only turn out less than 1% of my product, How do I become Rich

Feisty Redhead -- take your meds. and get off your backside and get in O'Bama's Welfare line with the rest of the Deadbeats. Everyone else get your weapon's and ammunition ready because a Revolution in brewing. Before the next 4 years is over U.S. Citizens will be saluting Hail O'Bama like Europe Saluted Hail Hitler. Like Hitler, O'Bama has total control of the Press, support of citizens who have no proble, living off of O'Bama's Welfare Programs. But the money will run out soon and the chaos will begin. I would not want the job of being on O'Bama's Protection Detail because it's just common sense that if he continues with his far Left Socialist Policies sooner of later people are going to violently object. He may want to keep a "Low Profile" in the next 4 years.I hope he is able to complete the full 4 years as President but I am not real sure others are going to allow him the time to complete the destruction of America.

1) $1.6 trillion in tax increases and revenues, 2) a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit, 3) additional stimulus of at least $50 billion, and 4) $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other programs to be worked out next year.

Send in the clown. Don't bother he's here. I would think that a majority on the Left would pretty disturbed by #2. Well, those that still believe in the Constitution and separation of powers that is. For the retarded comments made by some posters to rationalize #2 as a bargaining chip that Obama doesn't expect to get you need to understand something about negotiations. Your demands need to be reasonable to be taken seriously. What's might be even more scary is that he's serious about it and proves that he views the Constitution as a hindrance to his agenda. If he is serious about it I'm wondering why he just didn't demand that they make him Pharaoh?

Patriotic USER...you are going to be right there with them...unemployed

JoeB

I think you should be prepared for a knock on your door by the Secret Service. I believe you just threatend the POTUS,

It's about damn time for this Administration played hardball !! Can you imagine how much better the Affordable Healthcare Act would be if they negotiated like this way back then? There would be a public option right now!!

What I want is to this Administration keep the pressure on and do not compromise until they fold on the middle class only tax cuts, eliminate oil and farm subsidies, and loopholes that lead guys like Romney to 100 million 401K's and offshore untaxed accounts, and NO changes to Medicare and Social Security!

wow people are so stupid, NY city fast food workers want $15.00 an hour min. ( there goes the dollar menu), sales of Chevys are down ( that auto bailout worked oh so well) face it people we are screwed.

The Voice of the GOP supporters comes from Rush Limbaugh !!!!!!!!!!!

Barry, Senators and Congress people I realize you don't care what I say but I will say it anyway. KEEP YOUR PAWS OFF OF MY SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE I HAVE BEEN PAYING INTO THOSE SINCE I WAS 14!!!! The first cuts should be in the over inflated retirement plans of the government officials, my 401 K does not pay more than it earns or was put in it why should a government employees after all they really are in theory our employees.

I went to the store today I looked at what I NEEDED checked prices and then looked to see if I had coupons to match what was NEEDED. Now I realize the government will not use coupons but they could look at what is needed and not contract out to their buddies and pay overinflated amounts of taxpayer dollars and as I said earlier instead of looking at cutting what we paid in to social security look at home much more they are getting back than they gave. Many in the government are rich and could do without the excessive retirement plan they have make that their first cut and second cut all benefits to illegals.

Roadkill

Balancing your checkbook means when all checks, withdrawals, deposits and fees are entered, your balance agrees with what the bank says your balance is.

A balance sheet simply verifies that all credit equals all debits. You can have a balance sheet even if you borrowed money to pay for things.

A Balanced budget simply means that your revenues meets or exceeds your expenses. Budgets rarely work out to zero.

Joe B

Obama does not control the press. The press is a willing accomplice in what Obama and the Democrats want to do is far more accurate.

AlexM-3929653

The clinton tax rates were only a part of why life was good. He also loosen regulations, he also put through serious spending cuts, etc. In other words, obama wants the clinton years by not doing everything clinton did.

BRAVO!!!!!!

Finally someone who understands.

But the most critical point is NOT THE PERSONAL TAX INCREASES.

In September 1993 Clinton 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%.

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 30% to 20% 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%.

Just heard from my wife. Since November 6, her bosses one tenant who sells heavy industry anti pollution equipment all over the Ohio and western Pennsylvania region has experienced all contract either placed on hold or cancelled. On hold simply means they are wanting to see if the fiscal cliff is averted or not. I was surprised by this because a lot of his work is with electric generation companies.

The GOP Loonies doesn't want to interrupt the Lavish life style of their 1% buddies !!!!!!!!!

Come On You Neo Cons Lets Hear It

Bengazzi, Bengazzi, Bengazzi

Fast and Furious, Fast and Furious, Fast and Furious

Hes a Muslim, Hes a Muslim

He wasnt Born in the United States

Hes a Communist Hes a Communist

If hes elected we are going to be eating Rice and Beans, start stockpiling up on Beans and Rice shouted Beck and hannity

Lets here some more of those chants it worked out so well for you in the last 2 elections and besides I need a good laugh

Ex-FoxBot...that was funny, but you left out..."I'm a Ditto head...Rush is god."

Funny...Try the Obama ones..."I'll not raise your taxes", "I want no debt limit", "Focused on jobs like a laser", "It's Bush's fault...unless it was good", "Stimulus created or save 4 million jobs"...

It got him re-elected...the country's still in the toilet, but it did get him re-elected. Stupid people vote for silly statements not backed by facts.

If the Republican party is so interested in making cuts to taxes and spending, lets see them.

All you RWNJ's always complain that "Obama has no plan". Well, Obama's plan has been proposed. If the GOP doesn't like it, propose their own.

Whether the GOP likes it or not, tax increases are coming. If they don't offer a reasonable compromise, the taxes go up on Jan 1.

The GOP put all their eggs on winning control of the entire government this election and the reality is they lost.

As to the debt ceiling deal, the President can always go the 14th amendment route and remove any control that Congress thinks it might have.

The GOP Loonies become the Party of Fools, all their BS witch hunts was just a dog & pony show !!!!!!

Everyone here keeps complaining that the presidents proposal is unreasonable...actually if the GOP was serious like they say they are about reducing the deficit then no..it really isnt that unreasonable. Hey you got to start somewhere so you start high and work your way down. Hasnt anyone here ever negotiated on anything?

Another thing is you never heard the politicians complaining when they were out partying on our dime now did you? They wanted to use the government taxpayers credit card but they dont want to pay the bill. These guys have lived the life of Riley off of our tax dollars for years and now they dont want to be told they are gonna be put on an allowance. The GOP pretends they want to balance the budget and reduce spending when the other party is in office but you can bet your tea to donuts that if the gop was in office that the discussion on spending controls would go out the door faster then you could spit.

Boehner and McConnell are nuts. The majority of Americans according to polls want tax increases on the top 1% So in effect they are not doing their job. Carrying out the will of the American people. Plus the 40 billion The President wants for stimulus is for infrastructure. Meaning contracts and jobs for AMERICANS.

I see Walmart trucks using our highways to bring in all that cheap China crap. And I don't see them donating to fix the highways. The current republican party is not the same as it used to be. Even Reagan knew that infrastructure was important. Even Reagan raised taxes. The middle class is the backbone of this nation. Place more burden on them and the Nation will fail. When the Titans of wealth where being created they knew the value of a strong country.

J.P. Morgan even gave our county a loan. He knew that without a market his wealth would shrink. Today we live in a world economy more than ever. And without great strides in Rail and transportation. Advancements in education and infrastructure. We will get even further behind than we are. China is rapidly growing its Military. And the only reason they wont attack us yet. Is because ours is more advanced. But they are getting closer to catching up.

Instead of worrying about 10 years from now. We really ought to be Nation building today. PUT AMERICANS TO WORK CONGRESS.

And, BTW, the U.S. cannot tax income made in other countries by a company set up IN that country. The U.S. can only tax money brought INTO the U.S. so if a company was set up in Singapore and all their international business was run THROUGH Singapore the U.S. cannot tax that.

So to your question of "where will you go and when" the answer is "anywhere and as soon as this country is so stupid as to make it worthwhile to relocate".

We need to stop allowing this illusion to go through - this illusion that somehow the Republicans are the guardians of business and capital.

The bottom line is that Progressive take a comprehensive and balanced approach to the economy, both labor and capital are taken into consideration, because guess what - one cannot exist without the other. China has, essentially, slave labor laws and the only way they make money is by exporting to the US, where labor is prosperous enough to afford those goods.

Addressing this particular comment above, if capital is dumb enough to flee the largest economy on the face of the planet - the US - then it is dumb capital and isn't going to stay accumulated for much longer.

On the other hand, if we stop giving money to the "moochers", which is Regressivesshort-hand for paying a fair wage to people working a fair day's work, there will be no American consumer to sell things to, 70% of the American economy will fail, and that's pretty much it for pretty much everything.

John Boehner said: "He (meaning the President) needs to stop campaigning, the election's over, and tell us what to do."

What? Boehner is Speaker of the House, the so called, "Leader." No self-respecting leader needs or wants to be "Micro-Managed"! And it's not like the President hasn't told everyone what he wants, he's only been saying the same thing throughout his whole campaign. And Boehner knows it.

Think of all the men and women who sacrificed life and limb in "Selfless" duty to our country; think of those still in Afghanistan still "in the war" serving, giving of themselves, away from family and friends; Soldiers DIED just yesterday, for Christ's sake, while Boehner sits fat and happy and "Selfishly" pussy-foots around afraid to say anything that would go against "The Party", the GOP, thinking only of himself, retaining his "Position", and the Rich and Spoiled's Tax Breaks. Boehner is the HOUSE SPEAKER not the REPUBLICAN SPEAKER.

The Military always says: Lead, Follow or Get The He!! Out Of The Way. Well Boehner sure as he!! is NOT a LEADER; he's can't follow--he just needs to go--and he can take that good for NOTHING Mitch McConnell with him.

Boehner is right about one thing, the Election IS over; The People elected the President for four more years. Mandate? You bet! Time for Congress to stop dragging a$$; do the job you were elected to do. All the Hoo-Ha over Benghazi is a clown-phuck, McCain and Crew need to stop the Head-Hunt on Ambassador Rice. It's beyond ridiculous.

One thing's for sure, if Boehner doesn't see that he needs to lead the way and side with We The People those Tax Breaks he's "guarding" will tumble over "THE CLIFF". And in the eyes of every American citizen, he will be just another weak and selfish pampered "Oxygen Bandit" wasting tax payer money.

Isn't it nice to see that in the wake of a Democratic White House win, the Repubs are once again backed up to the wall with nowhere to run?

Where's your boy Grover now? LOL

Maybe you can sign a pledge that you will all leave the country and "take your businesses with you" if Obama gets his way? That idea that big business will pick up and leave is a g0d damn joke. Only the foolish would believe that the greedy barons would leave the only place on earth that still allows them to fleece the public at a pretty good rate. They are just going to have to get used to not cashing such big checks anymore..... because your corporate shill-puppets don't have the ability to dance as much for the string pullers.

Welcome to the revolution.

If the Clinton tax rates, the ones we would revert to if the fiscal cliff were allowed, were so good and created the booming economy you claim, and even a mythical surplus, why don't we just let all the rates go back to those levels?

Because the economy is not in a position where it can take the shock of raising taxes on the job-creators and producers at this time. The claim that Regressives make is correct; we should not raise taxes on the job-creators. They are just wrong about who the job-creators are. Jobs are created when there is demand, and demand comes from the middle class. Reduce the spending power of the job-creators and you will slow the economy.

It's pretty simple. I am not sure why you have to even ask this question.

Ex-FoxBot

Jim Spence

answer this question

I just leased a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. It’s completely Full. It has equipment, all the supplies, all the raw materials, and a great plan.

Now, I dont hire any workers

Here’s the question.

How am I going to do all the work to pay all my bills if I can only turn out less than 1% of my product, How do I become Rich

Ahhhh, nice reply.

But once again you Libbies have to change the rules to try and make your point. But let’s play anyway.

So, you have a facility completely equipped, stocked, supplied and a great plan.

I on the other hand have an empty building, no equipment, no supplies, no raw materials and no plan.

Who do you think will be able to convince the workers that they will earn a living, maintain a wage and have a future?

How many of the workers will stay with me vs you?

You DID build your business because you took my empty building implemented your great plan, equipped it, stocked it and explained to the workers what they will do.

In my building I may as well just have gotten 500 kittens and let them run wild. The workers in my building will most likely walk away laughing at me.

A business is NOT the people in it. It’s the dream, the vision, the risk, the gamble, the investment you took to make it a business.

How many of my workers will stay in my empty building and hope I come up with a good idea for a business vs going to your business that is ready to create commerce.

This strikes at the nonsense that effect happens before cause.

Did the National highway program start because the government was anticipating someone like Henry Ford would build a “horseless carriage” someday? Or did the Federal Highway Act of 1921 happen because there was a demand for paved roads because Ford already built millions of Model T’s?

Did the states start building airports in the late 19^th century hoping someone would invent the first successful airplane? Or, did they start after the Wright Brothers conquer manned flight in 1903?

Does your city or county go out in the middle of farmland and just pave some roads anticipating someone will develop a subdivision or large shopping mall in the middle of nowhere? Or, do they wait for you to come along with your building , equipped, stocked and with a great plane to create commerce to make you more efficient and more productive?

Face it, commerce and the wealth, prosperity, improved standard of living and revenue it creates can exist without government, but government can’t exist without the revenue commerce creates.

No one ever built a successful business by just hiring a bunch of people without a plan, but millions of successful businesses have been built on the dreams, vision, risk and investment of entrepreneurs.

Government never creates wealth, it consumes it.

The GOP T-Loonies is a party that lied and deceived their way to power, Revenge 2014 !!!!!!

I love what President Obama is doing. You DO=NOT try to reason with unreasonable bullies, just smack em in the mouth.

Republicans were expecting a soft and mild President that wanted to agree on making a good deal for the American people. After the last 4 years, the President know all too well that he cannot treat disrespectful people with respect and expect them to play fair, so smack em in the mouth.

Republicans don't know what to do now that President Obama is playing their game by their rules.

Republicans are saying,the President is being unreasonable, what the hell do you think you have been the last 4 years?? At least he's telling the truth.

No more, Mr. Nice Guy, smack em in the mouth.

Incredible article here about the successful rebound by Iceland in the wake of the global financial crisis:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11665082/1/iceland-was-right-we-were-wrong-the-imf.html

Amazing...... Iceland let their "too big to fail" banks.......... FAIL! And they put stock into the people (taxpayers) who needed the bailout instead of the corporate titans who caused the mess in the first place. While most of Europe is locked in some austerity race to the bottom..... Iceland has defined the proper way to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse....... It's With The People Stupid!

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Well I can tell you that most open minded posters here probably do not have to look too far to see the correlation, but for those close minded twits who regurgitate the same rightwing, pro-business sewage over and over..... let me shed some light for you:

You can not rely upon big business and austerity measures to rescue an economy. That job is reserved for the working class who drives demand. And yes, I'll reiterate what has been posted above by saying...... those are the real job creators. Demand = Jobs. Anyone who still buys into the hollow philosophy where lower taxes creates jobs is either stuck in neutral, or just st8 up arrogant.

It's time we move this country int he right direction; Away from an oligarchy and towards the people.

It all starts here Mr. President. Push Harder! These GOP fools are teetering on their heels and just need another slap or two before their House of cards comes crumbling down!

Jim Spence

I know how to become Rich in my Building, 1st I hire 500 workers to make my product, I give them a good wage and Benefits because I want to keep my people from leaving. I also give them a 401k plan, and a yearly Bonus if we meet certain safety standards and exceed our normal yearly profits. So in essence I did not build my Business I managed its growth, My people built it. I am merely the Manager/Owner

also

Does a Business build a Building out in the desert Hoping 1 day that electricity and Roads come out to his area so he can make products and goods so he can get them to market or does he Build his Business where there is electricity and roads?

I just leased a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. It’s completely empty. No equipment, no supplies, no raw materials, no plan.

Now, I hire you and 499 other random workers/employees.

Here’s the question.

How are you and the other 499 workers going to make me rich?

If you're leasing that kind of space and hiring 500 random workers, you're already rich.

My wife's boss started the year with 6 employees. He now has 4 and is not going to replace the ones lost. He will only hire temporary help for his busy season - the same amount he did for last year.

Sounds like your wife's boss needs customers, not a tax cut.

joeyfromcali

Boehner and McConnell are nuts. The majority of Americans according to polls want tax increases on the top 1% So in effect they are not doing their job. Carrying out the will of the American people.

Hmmmm, so by your own reasoning when 70% of Americans didn't want Obamacare and the Libbies forced it through by parliamentary procedures instead of usual means they were carrying out the will of the people? Most Americans still favor a repeal of Obamacare.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

Plus the 40 billion The President wants for stimulus is for infrastructure. Meaning contracts and jobs for AMERICANS

You mean those infamous "shovel ready josb"? Those jobs?

The ones that Barrack Hussein and Jeff Immelt laughed in your face about when Barrack said "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected"?

The ones that the $863 billion $timulu$ that allegedly created 5 million jobs cost us $200,000 apiece to create?

The ones that although six in 10 jobs lost during the Great Recession paid mid-level wages, the majority of new jobs created in the recovery -- positions such as store clerks, laborers and home healthcare aides -- pay much less, according to a new study by the National Employment Law Project.

The study covered jobs created from the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2012.

Lower-paying jobs, with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for just 21% of the job losses during the recession. But they've made up about 58% of the job growth from the end of the recession in late 2009 through early 2012.

Those jobs have been concentrated in three industries: food services, retail and employment services, such as office clerks and customer service representatives, the study found.

In contrast, mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13 -- jobs such as construction workers, real estate brokers, and data entry clerks -- have accounted for just 22% of the new jobs in the recovery after making up 60% of the job losses in the recession.

So, we're paying $200,000 to create jobs making $25,000 a year. I'm not an economist but it would seem like our return on investment isn't very good.

Try to keep up Spanky.

@Irvmani

kaybeetoys

Looking for the end of the insanity you are, I think not.

Yoda? Is that you?

This President has failed to guide the nation to anything but anger. But that is how liberals work isn't it. The fact you think you are saving us from ourselves is evidence enough to stand against you.

Fine...you want to pull the pin on the hand grenade, just let us get out of the way first. Sheesh, you try to help your fellow citizens and they fight you like a drowning man...

His increasing government output and spending of money have not saved us from anything merely delayed the needed response.

What, in your opinion, is the needed response?

His ineffective plan to get Americans excited to buy things has failed to produce results

Honey, did you go out on Black Friday? I was afraid to! It's a jungle out there! Nobody needs to get Americans excited to buy things. We are THE world-class champion shopaholics and consumers of all things consumable. Just put a little disposable income in our pockets in the form of tax breaks and higher wages and unleash that wild animal, the American shopper!

and his plan to increase taxes further burdens a population already unwilling to invest,

Mr. Obama has no plan to increase taxes, merely to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2%. Those tax cuts were never meant to be permanent.

Guys like Romney, with millions stashed in tax havens all over the globe...how do you get them to invest in America when they're already paying the lowest tax rates in history?

all led by the man who claims Americans have to give back and give up the very things that drive production in the economy and the health of that same economy. It is not just a flip of a coin, it is about policy that encourages growth.

The very idea of asking the rich to pay their fair share! If men like Romney had to give up their car elevators and dancing horses and pay taxes on their offshore loot, surely our national production would grind to an immediate halt! Our growth would be forever stifled if corporate CEOs could no longer write off those jobs they shipped to China.

Sorry...I don't buy your logic.

Division of the nation does not encourage spending which does not encourage growth.

Huh?

Hi All, Waves at Feisty... >:o):

As I mentioned on another thread, it's interesting to watch history unfold before my eyes. We are watching the fall of a political party, the republicans. Their only redemption would be to quit all the BS, and start doing what they were elected to do, work for the betterment of the people and the nation. In this way they just might save face with the people and maybe even seem legit. Other wise they will be seen for the hateful clowns they've already shown themselves to be. Sadly, from the looks of it, they intend to continue the clown show.

Jim Spence: The Wealthy do not need Govt. , they can take care of themselves. Govt. protects the rest from the tyranny and enslavement the wealthy would impose otherwise.

( I was in Annison, Alabama for the election returns. >:o):WOOOOOO HOOOOOO I will say this: for the first time I saw Romney stand up and show himself as a man and a human being. Sad it was so short lived.)

Maybe, if possible, the right should try Love! It really doesn't hurt, despite what Fox may tell you.

Much Love n Bright Blessings,

Da "Libbie" Pup

>:o):

( Did "Happy Puppy" dance all the way home from Alabama to Arizona ...PuRrRRRrRrRrrrring all the way) >:o):

Ex-FoxBot

Jim Spence

I know how to become Rich in my Building, 1st I hire 500 workers to make my product, I give them a good wage and Benefits because I want to keep my people from leaving. I also give them a 401k plan, and a yearly Bonus if we meet certain safety standards and exceed our normal yearly profits. So in essence I did not build my Business I managed its growth, My people built it. I am merely the Manager/Owner

Fine. As "merely" the Manager/Owner just walk away. See how long your wonderfully paid, benefitted and bonused workers survive.

Now, if your reply is that they can run the business, why don't they all start, build and own their own business?

@ David Walker #1.25

Ben lotsanumbers:

This is why people don't respond to you. You wrote:

@Davidwalker -- your last paragraph is more delusional than the rest of your post.

I challenge you to present one point in that paragraph that is not TOTALLY accurate. Just one. You have shown repeatedly you have no interest in facts. I don't have time to waste on the likes of someone who willfully chooses to remain ignorant.

President Obama scored an impressive victory.

Obama won less than 51% of the popular vote, the margin of victory was measured in the tenths of a percentage point, and was only magnified by the Electoral College.

But I have said this before, the reason we conservatives can not talk rationally with the liberals is that you have a different definition for your words than do we. My definitions are based off the M-W Dictionary

Impressive: making or tending to make a marked impression : having the power to excite attention, awe, or admiration <an impressive display of skill>

My guess is, you meant "having the power to excite awe" in your comment. Perhaps if he had won by a margin of 10 or 15%, then I would say it was impressive, given the mood of the country. But in my lexicon, I would certainly not call Obama's election victory "impressive".

Of course I guess, one could call it impressive that a self proclaimed Communist, an Anti-American, racist bigot won at all. So from that view point, I would have to concede your statement is true.

Et Al. Check this out...

w w w.michael-reese.com/blog/why-our-government-cannot-balance-the-budget.php

All I know is the Dems and Reps better get a handle on this.

So if a horse wins all his races by a nose it still means he's a winner. As the Worst President Ever, bush said,! "I have capital to spend!" Let's spend it and get those making $5,000 a week to pay more the the measly 14% average they pay in taxes.

DumbFarmBoy

Obama won less than 51% of the popular vote, the margin of victory was measured in the tenths of a percentage point, and was only magnified by the Electoral College.

Well, the first word in your screen name is accurate. Obama's margin of victory was, to be precise, THIRTY-FIVE tenths of a percentage point. He won by 3.5% and got 4.5 million more votes than whats-his-name. G.W. Bush won by only 2.4% and got 3 million more votes than John Kerry. In 2004, the pundits declared that Bush had a mandate. But Obama, who got more votes, won by more votes and won by bigger percentage than Bush did, does NOT have a mandate according to the very same pundits. While inflation of currency has been held in check, it looks like there's been serious "mandate inflation" since 2004.

The GOP said the 1% will Trickle down on the Middle Class, when is this going to happen !!!!!!

Byron Raum

On the other hand, if we stop giving money to the "moochers", which is Regressivesshort-hand for paying a fair wage to people working a fair day's work,

Once again the “fairness fairy” emerges.

OK, Byron, tell me what a “fair wage” is? I assume this follows the usual Liberal/Progressive nonsense of some mythical “living wage”.

First of all define fair for us. Next tell me who is the irrefutably, unbiased, honest arbiter that can decide what is fair? Is there some rational formula to determine what is “fair”, or is it determined in the typical Liberal/Progressive method using emotions?

So, what is this mythical "fair/living wage"? How much is it? $7.25/hr? $10.25/hr? $25.25/hr? $100/hr?

Is it based on living in a 900 sq/ft apartment or owning a 2,500 sq/ft home?

Is it based on owning a Ford Taurus or a Mercedes Benz?

Is it based on someone who can cook and prepare most meals at home or someone who eats at Olive Garden every day?

Is it based on a vacation locally or a two week cruise in the Caribbean?

Is it based on shopping at Walmart or Macy's?

These are all huge variables to your standard of living and will affect what YOUR "fair/living wage" will need to be.

Is your "fair/living wage" to be guaranteed immediately upon graduating high school, college or from graduate school, and how much different is each level worth? Is it based on whether you can perform what the company needs or just because you work there? Is it based on whether you are a good problem solver and it helps the company or you just show up and perform what the problem solvers deem necessary? Is it based upon your research finding the cure for cancer or just performing the necessary tasks that the researcher requires? Is it based on designing a better air-bag or the worker in the assembly line installing it? Is it based on merit or tenure? If it's based on tenure, what motivation is there to achieve more on merit? You'll notice all of these things are based on free-market principles. What is your ideology based on?

I have a question. Considering that what seems to be the only thing that ever comes out of the Presidents mouth is "tax the rich", and understanding that 99% of this countries wealth is held by those over 55, would it not be logical to make SS and Medicare need based so he could tax "all" the rich people? I mean really, why should people who retire with millions of dollars in their 401's ever receive it? When the system was conceived, it was to get older people out of poverty, not to give the rich an entitlement so their 401's can earn more in interest than they are receiving in SS and Medicare. And, wouldn't this accomplish the compromise that Washington is looking for, taxing the rich and revamping SS and Medicare?

And as a bonus, throw in hiring one fraud preventer for every person handing out our money in welfare to justify taxation for proper use of funds.

Another day, another brilliant example of irony, courtesy of Dumb Farm Boy:

...the reason we conservatives can not talk rationally with the liberals is that you have a different definition for your words than do we. My definitions are based off the M-W Dictionary ...

And then, in reference to President Obama:

... a self proclaimed Communist, an Anti-American, racist bigot ...

You have done yourself proud in the hypocrite department, sonny.

Get a new dictionary!

concernedamerica

Feisty Red, could you please explain what is meant by "deficit reduction" so we will know how to measure whether it succeeds or fails?

concernedamerica:

Republicans created the deficit.

The Republican "trickle down" theory has NEVER produced jobs.

The Republican Party took a balanced budget, a budget surplus and a thriving economy and turned it into the worst economic disaster in nearly 100 years.

Why would anyone want these failures to do the same things all over again?

Republicans are the cause of our problems, not the solution.

Jim Spence - Boy - Your panties are in a wad today. I thought you were a Real American. Instead of pissing and moaning about President Obama and your perceived dooms day scenarios, why don't you try to part of the solution instead of continuing to be part of the problem.

We won, you lost! I know it really pisses you off but it's time to accept reality and move on. Geeze - Get a grip!

MANDATE!!!!!

@ Houston #1.196

Obama won less than 51% of the popular vote, the margin of victory was measured in the tenths of a percentage point, and was only magnified by the Electoral College.

Well, the first word in your screen name is accurate. Obama's margin of victory was, to be precise, THIRTY-FIVE tenths of a percentage point. He won by 3.5% and got 4.5 million more votes than whats-his-name. G.W. Bush won by only 2.4% and got 3 million more votes than John Kerry. In 2004, the pundits declared that Bush had a mandate. But Obama, who got more votes, won by more votes and won by bigger percentage than Bush did, does NOT have a mandate according to the very same pundits. While inflation of currency has been held in check, it looks like there's been serious "mandate inflation" since 2004.

I stand corrected, the last number I saw was 50.3% to 49.7%, evidently, someone updated some numbers.

And I never heard any pundits call the '04 election a "mandate", perhaps you could quote a few of them for me.

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. The comment I made was to the point of; "President Obama scored an impressive victory." And I would argue he did not. Unless of course you consider a different perspective, which I also pointed out.

I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you. (see, I can name call too)

JimSpence

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

BWHAHAHAHA indeed.

THIS IS IT?

This is really it?!?!?!?!?!?!?

No; this is merely the offer that we lefties put on the table. Still is open to negotiation; but we demand revenues of at least $1.6 trillion (40-60 deal, still in favor of spending cuts). And we are through with dragging you AND ourselves to get a deal. Since we had to drag you to the table on revenues, drag us to entitlement reform.

This is what Barrack Hussein and the limp-wristed Liberal bobbleheads have been "focusing like a laser" on for four years? This is the solution to the fiscal cliff? This is the best you Libbies can do?

Let me repeat.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Bwahahahahaha indeed, you cynical Social Darwinist.

You should all be embarrassed. You should all be ashamed to show your face in public. You should be praying to the good Lord that this is some kind of cruel joke Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner and Barrack Hussein are playing on the hard working American people. The poor delusional people who have been clinging to the faux meme of "Hope and Change" for four long years as they lose jobs, homes and their pride.

No; this is no game. If it is, it is a serious game, a game that will determine the long-term health of America. This is a proposal that reflects the "shellacking" of the GOP in 2012. If Bush could squeak by in 2004 and gain enough political capital to attempt a privatization of Social Security, Obama ought to have enough political capital to increase tax revenues by 1% of GDP at the very least. Don't like; go and leave the nation. These are the guidelines; we can negotiate over the details, but revenues are going to be 40% of the deal and entitlement reform will be reached via COMPROMISE, not browbeating and obstruction.

Let me see if I can find the definition of this in the Liberal/Progressive handbook on economic policy. Oh yeah, here it is.

Liberal/Progressive economic policy - Tax and spend.

CORRECTION: Liberal/Progressive economic policy - An equitable tax code and a budget focused on the social and economic welfare of all, not by the wealthy few.

You can't be of sound mind and body to even consider this insult to the American people’s intelligence. Of course this is nothing new. We real Americans knew that Barrack Hussein and his statist cabal have no clue on what to do to for the economy.

No; the REAL insult to the American people's intelligence is the fact that Republicans think they can continue to get their way EVEN AFTER an election that favored the Democrats, however narrow the margins.

$1.6 trillion in new taxes. Of course in the convoluted mind of the Liberals, who never contribute anything of substance to the economy, this makes perfect sense. The old Liberal belief “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs/wants” is being played out ad nauseum. Of course NONE of this will go to paying off the debt, as usual it will go to more government expansion and of course to the criminal unions. We all know the little Libbies think this will be their little “bargaining chip”. Demand $1.6 trillion, but then accept $800 billion as some delusional “compromise”. And just as the Liberals lied to Reagan in 1983 about the spending cuts AFTER the tax increase, it never happened.

First of all, the old belief of "From each according to his ability...needs/wants," is as applicable today as it was when Karl Marx stated it. Why shouldn't those with more wealth contribute more to the health of the nation??? After all, did they not benefit from the all this nation's glory, government and private sector alike??? Secondly, even assuming that the $50 billion stimulus spending each year will end at the end of the President's term, that will only take out $400 billion of the potential savings. Still leaves $4 trillion in deficit reduction, which WILL be used for deficit reduction (in case you haven't realized it, spending ALWAYS increases due to pop growth, economic growth or decline, and inflation). And by the way, $800 billion is not enough; at least $1.25 trillion in revenues is needed. And I don't give a damn about the tax hikes Reagan did; he realized that he had to do it after his tax cuts blew up the deficit, and the way he rose taxes affected the poor more than the rich. And FWI, Reagan got to deregulate the economy and cut the top tax rate by 60%, and the revenues didn't come.

$400 billion in spending cuts which will never happen or they will be based on projected increased spending anyway or some mythical “war chest” savings. Or better yet, let’s just gut the evil, mean nasty Military Industrial Complex. The favorite bogeyman of the Liberals. We know they hate the military and our troops so this shouldn’t be a surprise.

First of all, those $400 billion in entitlement cuts are not it; more will obviously be negotiated, and those are IN ADDITION to the +$900 billion spending cuts already put into play BEFORE the automatic sequester. And by the way, I don't hate the troops; I hate how they're being gambled like casino chips for a zero-sum game. I don't hate spending money on defense; in fact, I used to propose MORE defense spending, mostly in R&D and more ships, aircraft, and newer models. But now that we are in a deficit, and considering that our military is the head honcho in the world and will be for the next few decades, we ought to scale back. For God's sake, we're fighting suicide bombers, mountain warriors, and urban insurgents on Ford and Chevy trucks, not massive fleets of tanks and aircraft and whole armies of experienced soldiers with the latest weaponry and fire support. The Cold War is over; the Soviets are gone. We should maintain a large conventional army, but we have to also have one that is flexible on ALL fronts and against ALL enemies.

A permanent, unlimited debt limit increase—for free! WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO WHAT A DEAL! The last thing any rational human being would do is just give these redistributionists as much money as they want to feed their perpetually failing entitlements and social programs. Oh, let’s not forget the cronies and unions goonions that poured millions into the campaign.

I do not necessarily support an unlimited debt increase, and that is not being proposed. It's a large increase that can be negotiated, but cannot be held hostage by obstructionist bastards.

And of course the coup de grâce, MORE $TIMULU$!!!! Of course, because the first $timulu$ failed so miserably let’s just continue Einsteins definition of insanity and keep doing something over and over and hope it changes. Are these going to be more of the famous “shovel ready jobs” that Barrack Hussein and Jeff Immelt laughed in your faces as Barrack admitted "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." How can you Liberals/Progressives allow yourselves to be so easily manipulated, so insulted? Don't you have any pride, self decency or ambition?

First of all, the stimulus did work. Problem was, it was inefficiently crafted (too many tax cuts, not enough short-term spending) and inadequate. Secondly, who are you to bring up Einstein's definition of insanity??? This is from the guy who thinks that tax cuts create growth (Bush tax cuts were an epic fail; ask any RATIONAL economist) and that the rich are "job-creators." Where the @!$%# are the jobs, then????

One last time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA indeed, you right-wing fascist.

ProBusiness

Ian: In case you are not aware we now live in a global economy and technology allows us in "real" time to communicate anywhere around the world for literally "pennies". So you ask "where will you go and when" and the answer is "anywhere and as soon as taxes go up".

Not really. This is true in the case of particularly small and extremely labor-intensive countries, like say Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. It can even be true for relatively large and capital-intensive nations like France, Great Britain, and Germany. Problem is, it doesn't really happen to the biggest guy on the block, aka America. The United States is the largest consumer market in the world. We have one of the highest living standards in the world (not the highest because of our high poverty rate and stagnating real wages), and combine that with our massive population and you get the ONE place where most companies want to do business.

Do you not realize what is happening in France at this very moment? Let me enlighten you. Their new president who is a Socialist (literally, he ran under the Socialist Party) proposed a 75% "wealth" tax on those making over EUR$1,000,000 a year (roughly USD$1.3 million). What are the wealthy doing? LEAVING!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9404209/Frances-proposed-tax-hikes-spark-exodus-of-wealthy.html

They are moving to Switzerland, Britain, and Belgium so your naivety is incredible to think you can "punish" the "wealthy" and they will just say "OK" and take it. No, they will look at their alternatives and potentially take their wealth to other countries. Canada? Singapore? New Zealand?

No; I do realize that they are leaving. However, France is not the U.S. France doesn't have the largest economy in the world and is not the largest buyer of consumer goods on the planet. Leaving the United States market is as smart as eating grass in a valley full of beef and potatoes. Now, theoretically other companies can move overseas and deal with the U.S. in foreign nations, but their sales would take a hit (although could rebound due to lower prices) and under an ideal global corporate tax system, they'd still pay U.S. taxes and probably would pay even more, if we wanted to be firm. I would propose a total corporate tax rate of roughly 26%, including a 15% marginal corporate tax rate, an 8% VAT, and a greenhouse emissions tax equivalent to a 3% rate. We'd tax worldwide income as it is earned; corporations that move offshore yet have a relatively high profit margin (at least 10%) would pay a onetime rate of 45% (the year that they move offshore) and then go down to a 39.6% permanent tax. Any repatriation of profits into the United States would be taxed at the corporate tax rate of 26%, but would be reduced to 0% if (A) the money is used for buying state and local bonds for infrastructure and energy projects or (B) the company can prove that the income being repatriated can be used for domestic investments, including building plants and hiring workers or repairing or retrofitting existing ones.

And, BTW, the U.S. cannot tax income made in other countries by a company set up IN that country. The U.S. can only tax money brought INTO the U.S. so if a company was set up in Singapore and all their international business was run THROUGH Singapore the U.S. cannot tax that.

So to your question of "where will you go and when" the answer is "anywhere and as soon as this country is so stupid as to make it worthwhile to relocate".

However, we could hypothetically set up a global corporate tax system that would tax corporate profits that derive from business in America. That would force ALL corporations that do business in America to pay taxes, although a system similar to that may already have been proposed. Besides, corporations will only leave the U.S. in droves when our population goes down to 50 million and our economy shrinks by about 80% overnight. Tax rates would probably have to go up to about 45%

@ Kaybeetoys #1.200

Another day, another brilliant example of irony, courtesy of Dumb Farm Boy:

...the reason we conservatives can not talk rationally with the liberals is that you have a different definition for your words than do we. My definitions are based off the M-W Dictionary ...

And then, in reference to President Obama:

... a self proclaimed Communist, an Anti-American, racist bigot ...

You have done yourself proud in the hypocrite department, sonny.

Get a new dictionary!

Spoken Like a true liberal, Change the Subject, Ignore the Facts, and Name Call or Marginalize.

Please do tell, exactly which point was I incorrect on, and let's not be nit picky about a percentage point or two.

Also, tell me which words I used incorrectly, since I am a dumb farm boy of such limited intellect, so that I do not repeat my mistake.

And would that NEW dictionary be the Politically Corrected dictionary I was referring to in my original post? If so, where do I get one, so that I may better understand the dialog?

Are you claiming that Obama is not a "self proclaimed Communist, an Anti-American, racist bigot ..."

Well refute this: (he wrote it in his own book)

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed necolonialism, Frantz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. "Dreams from my Father, Barack Obama.

You will notice he shunned the politically active White students, (even though they were just as misguided as he), "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout," as he put it. He sought out Marxist, i.e. Communist, Professors. He makes it sound like it was the late sixties, but this was in the mid '80's. I was in college then, and I never heard of "Structural Feminism", it was women's rights, and by then, they were referred to as "Latino" or "Hispanic" not "Chicanos". And in the '80's, who was worried about being a "sell-out"?

He was raised in a Communist family, his mother, and grand parents were documented communists. He was mentored by a communist roll model, Frank Davis (This was reportedly sanctioned by his grand father). Also, given the company he keeps, his upbringing and the company that he associated with during his college days, just what type of conversations do you think he had while discussing neocolonialism, Frantz Fanon: a Marxist anti-Imperialist, Euro-Centrism, and patriarchy? Do you think it might have had an anti-imperialism, pro-communist slant to it? Or do you think they were pointing out the errors of Fanon and the strengths of Capitalism? And how do you think "patriarchy" fits in with the "structural Feminist"?

"I...felt betrayed." Of Onyango he says, "I had imagined him an independent man, a man of his people, opposed to white rule....What Granny had told us scrambled that image completely, causing ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House ni**er." "Dreams from my Father, Barack Obama.

You will notice he called it "WHITE" rule, not "BRITISH" rule. What he was referring to was this:

According to Sarah Obama (Granny), "Onyango respected the white man for his power, for his machines and weapons and the way he organized his life. He would say that the white man was always improving himself, whereas the African was suspicious of anything new. He admired three things about the British. The first was their level of knowledge. "To him knowledge was the source of all the white man's power," she said. Onyango also considered the British to be generally fair-minded. "If you do a good job for the white man," he liked to say, "then he will always pay you well."

Finally, Onyango unfavorably contrasted African organization with Western organization. “How can the African defeat the white man,” Onyango would tell his son Barack Sr., “when he cannot even make his own bicycle?” In Onyango's words, "The white man alone is like an ant. He can be easily crushed. But like an ant, the white man works together. His nation, his business--these things are more important to him than himself....Black men are not like this. Even the most foolish black man thinks he knows better than the white man. That is why the black man will always lose." "Why did Obama use the N-word to describe his Grandfather" By Dinesh D'Souza and quotes taken from "Dreams from my Father", Barack Obama.

And if you don't think he is Anti-American, just take a look at his past associations, Rev. Wright, Bernadine Dorn, Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, Anita Dunn (Dunn cited Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers) {would it make me a bad man if I said Hitler was a great leader?} Jeff Jones and the list goes on.

Also, tell me which words I used incorrectly, since I am a dumb farm boy of such limited intellect, so that I do not repeat my mistake.

Communism: a political movement that believes in an economic system in which the state controls the means of producing everything on behalf of the people.

Obama doesn't espouse Communism. You'd have to be delusional to believe that right-wing lie.

Anti-American: Obama is an American. Conservatives have continually tried to paint him as a foreigner because he had a Kenyan father. (In reality, their attacks are racist in origin.) The POTUS has given and continues to give his all for the good of this country. Agree or disagree with his policies, but calling Obama anti-American makes you anti-American in my book.

Racist bigot: You claim Obama is against which racial group(s)? His own: Black? White?

Dumb Farm Boy... you will NEVER change the mind of a single rational person because your arguments are not rational.

Vent all you like...it only allows you to prove over and over again how well your moniker fits.

@ Kaybee

Of course Obama doesn't espouse Communism publicly, it would be suicide, both literally and politically. But if you look at his actions, if you look at the people he has and continues to associate with, if you look at his history, a rational person could easily conclude what his beliefs are. But I have already given plenty of examples, none of which you have refuted except to say "Obama doesn't call himself a communist, so he must not be a communist"

Did I say he was not an American? NO, you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. What I said was, he was the opposite of Pro-American, which is Anti-American by which one could conclude Anti-Capitalist which is according to economic theory, Communist.

And are you so intellectually handicapped by your liberal ideology that you can not understand that you do not have to be white, to be a racist? Racism is not the sole province of the Anglo-Saxon. So in answer to your question, He is against WHITE people, or more specifically, white, "so called imperialist" capitalist people.

And you are correct about how well my moniker fits, I should know better than to argue with a mental 2 year old {after all isn't that Kaybee Toys target market?)

DFB:

Obama is not a communist. Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to claim to be able to read his mind?

Where on earth did you get the idea his family was Communist? (Don't tell me... it must have been some right -wing website that spins one conspiracy theory after another, or maybe it was the useless Fox 'News').

The days of Joe McCarthy are over, DFB. Communist witch hunting is passe.

As for Obama being anti-Capitalist, give a single example of anything he has ever said or done to indicate that.

You do know that Obama is half white, don't you? You are aware that he was raised by the white side of his family and had virtually no contact with his father, aren't you? Why would you believe he was racist?

DFB... you know nothing and presume too much. Stick with reality. It will serve you far better than fantasy, conspiracy theories and ridiculous lies.

@kaybeetoys

No, I can not read his mind, but I can read his book. I can study the man's history. I can study his known associates. Have You? And so what if some of this comes from some right -wing website, if it is verifiable else where. I am on a left wing conspiracy website right here, and I balance that against the right-wing website Fox. Is this your only place you get the news? No wonder you are doubtful of my claims. If you are as open mined as you claim, go see "Obama's America 2016", after all I suffered through "Bowling for Columbine" and "An inconvenient Truth" both of which, simply based on personal experience I could debunk. (but it is not hard to do)

Is Forbes a right wing conspiracy website?

Obama’s grandfather had sought out Davis as a mentor for his grandson, a black-male role model/father figure that the young Obama was lacking. Obama responded in kind.

w w w.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/01/the-marxist-who-mentored-president-obama-on-general-motors/

Do you know who Frank Marshall Davis is? A member of the Communist Party USA. And I really don't want to get into the seeming racist motivations of his Grandfather, for the need to seek out a black-male role model.

At Occidental, his classmate John C. Drew recalls that Obama styled himself as an intellectual in the vanguard of the socialist revolution:

He was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth.

Is John C. Drew a right wing conspiracy nut?

Obama saw himself as a leader of the socialist revolution.

Obama continued his radical associations and Marxist revolutionary studies at Colombia University and Harvard. The New York Daily News reported of his time at Colombia that:

He went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he'd become 'one of those freaks you see on the streets around here'.

w w.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obama_love_him_hate_him_you_havent_a_clue.html#ixzz2DrP1sJx9

Is the New York Daily a "Conservative Rag"?

" The days of Joe McCarthy are over, DFB. Communist witch hunting is passe."

and there in lies the truth, YOU don't understand the dangers involved, you have already become one of the Borg, a part of the "Collective" and you don't care. "Oh that is soooo 1950's, aren't we past that?".

"This is America, we will always have the wealth to dig our selves out of, oh what ever, I'm bored, what's the newest THING?" "ooh sparkly..."

The sad thing is, there are now more of you than there are of me. And you consider me an anachronism.

According to macro economic theory, Communism is the opposite of Capitalism. That is the right to private ownership. And if you have the right own nothing, then nothing is a right.

Too late you will realize, with your Social Justice, and your Redistribution of Wealth, and the social programs and the ensuing bureaucracies, the loss of your freedoms. And you will scream, "But this is not what we wanted". But it is exactly what you asked for. I am merely trying to warn you people of the hazards we face. These are the buzz words of the Socialists, the Progressives, the Communists. But don't listen to the crazy man. Just keep believing their emotionally driven rhetoric.

E.G. "You didn't build that, some one helped you". Sounds good doesn't it? yeah, those successful people didn't get there on their own, no, the "Collective" helped them out. Well honey, when I think of who built it, the first thing that comes to my mind is "Who paid for it", if it is a road, the Government paid for it. When I built my businesses, it damn sure wasn't the "Collective", I paid for them. When I needed help, I paid for it. It is called an "exchange of Goods". So take off those "Emotional" Earphones, and listen with your brain. And when I needed a road, I paid the taxes, too. (Of course more than once I have needed a road, and I built my own, I don't need the Government for everything)

The truly sad thing is, I can not insulate myself and my loved ones from the damage you will do to this country. Look to any Democrat run state and see the fiscal mess they are in with their unions and pensions. The grand children already owe about $55,000 to the Federal Government, (and so does everyone else). I can't go some where and let you live out your fantasy of "the Government makes things better", you force me to live through it as well. But you won't understand it, you will say, "but it can work". No, it can't.

All I can say is that those who are unwilling to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

That and you can lead a horse to water...

@DFB:

No, I can not read his mind, but I can read his book. I can study the man's history. I can study his known associates.

Full disclosure: I haven't read Obama's first book but have read The Audacity of Hope.

I don't know how old you are DFB, or what form and degree of education you received, but in my experience it is not unusual for a young American man (especially one of mixed race) to explore his identity and question the status quo. It's a mark of intelligence and open-mindedness. It's the opposite of the conservative mindset, which orders a youth to adhere to an established doctrine or dogma. Have you ever noticed that Republican 'leaders' are puppets?

The issue at hand is not what books Obama read in college, who he spoke to, or even who is attempting to discrediting him now for their own blatantly political purposes. The issue is how he governs as POTUS. There are no Communist features to his policies or programs.

Who are his 'Communist associates'? What has he ever done in his political life to promote Communism or racism?

DFB...with all due respect, you need to take a long, close look at yourself and ask why you have a need to project your irrational fears onto authority figures, especially one with dark skin.