U.S. workers' wages as a share of GDP, are at their lowest point ever recorded.

Corporate profits as a share of GDP, are at their highest level ever in American history.

The Corporateers who backed Barack Obama in the 2008 election, were relying on our President to dig them out of a fiscal catastrophe. He succeeded. Today, the U.S. economic outlook is the best of all the wealthiest nations. The kicker is that despite their incredible returns over the past four years, these Corporateers still want $$more at our expense.

Pls don't adjust your set: House GOP went home yesterday and will not return until Tuesday. Coal dust in their stockings and all of their 2012 recess pay goes to charity, unless they renew the middle class tax cut in time for Christmas shopping.

House GOP: Vote for Us First.

From Chuck's/Mark's/Domenico's/Brooke's post:

So perhaps some of our media brethren should stop with the sky-is-falling headlines.

So should the sky-is-falling RWNJs who post here. The world ain't gonna end if taxes go up on the wealthy. And the thing is, the RWNJs aren't among the $250K+ annually anyway.

My 2013 Predictions

Politics: Christy will win reelection easily. In Virginia Dems will retake the Governorship … it won’t matter much which Dem runs with Cuccinelli representing the Republican Party.

Economy: 2 million jobs will be added, unemployment will fall to 7.2%, and the GDP will continue to grow at a slow rate.

Republicans like to say/pretend President Obama is bad for business, when the facts clearly say the opposite. It is corporate capitalism that is tearing us apart. We need a new economy that puts workers and communities first.

In the third quarter of 2012, corporate profits were 18.6% higher than a year ago.
The heavy fallout from the Great Recession was carried by our families, our vulnerable, middle class and Labor.

Our President is correct in refusing any deal that does not increase taxes on the wealthy.

Backhouse

U.S. workers' wages as a share of GDP, are at their lowest point ever recorded.

Corporate profits as a share of GDP, are at their highest level ever in American history

Backhouse,

Yet the greedy Coporate Barons see nothing wrong with their ill gotten gains off the backs of the job creators; their employees.

It's immoral and inhumane.

If the GOP folds, as it looks like they might, it will be the smartest thing they've done in years. If they get stubborn and allow the economey to go over the cliff, they can kiss any hopes of being a strong and contending Party goodbye for several decades. Our President is firm on his conditions and if the GOP refuses to cooperate, it will be seen as THEIR FAULT by the people of our Country.

Joe in Albany,

I find your lack of substance disturbing...but you certainly don't lack silly partisan rhetoric.

I hope that all of you progressive/liberals have a lot of good times with all the money you are going to receive with the tax hikes for the wealthy. What are you going to do with all this new found wealth? I'll be adjusting my ways so that you will get less from me. Your greed will backfire on you. This country will continue to go to debt hell under this administration. Companies are already making plans that will hurt the middle class because they just can't afford this crazy agenda that says if you make a profit you're bad for America if you don't pass it on to the government.

Why the GOP is NOT Serious About the Fiscal Cliff, Deficit and Debt.Clearly, the GOPTP has not learned any lessons from the 2012 election; they failed miserably to grasp that Words, Optics and Visuals Matter during the 2012 campaign.

Speaker Boehner adjourned the House Wednesday. The GOP made the national news as video of them leaving the building were watched while the news anchor noted the number of days remaining before we go over the fiscal cliff. Nice job, Boehner. Doesn't matter if the Speaker stays behind; he cannot reach a solution, take a vote or anything else while the rest of the House takes a 5-day weekend. Great VISUALS, Boehner. Good luck convincing voters the GOPTP is serious.

My 2013 Predictions.

1. The Senate filibuster will be reformed in 2013. It will not be eliminated nor will there be sweeping rules changes but rather it will be reform that will force the Minority (of any party) to actually debate on the Senate floor why they oppose a nominee or legislation.   The rules changes will allow the duly elected Majority to do what voters sent them to do as well as end the Dysfunction in the Senate.  (I've predicted filibuster reform since Dec 2008; finally, I could be right.)

1A. The GOPTP will throw a giant hissy fit after the filibuster rules are changes; they will threaten to walk out. But it only has itself to blame. Abuse of the filibuster rule privilege for the sole purpose of obstructing, delaying, denying to defeat President Obama is not democracy, it is tyranny.

2. Fiscal cliff: The GOPTP House on December 21, will vote to extend taxes for 98% or risk angry mobs upon their return home for the holidays. The GOPTP will then kick the rest of the can down the road as they have done since 2009.

3. Speaker Boehner will have an awakening. He will realize that his legacy as Speaker of the House is in jeopardy because he will never, ever get his tea party crowd to compromise. Boehner will then work more closely with democrats to achieve the required votes--in other words, Boehner will discover what the word "compromise" actually means.

4. Grover Norquist will continue behaving like a "poopy head". The good news is that King Grover will be reduced to a pile of "poopy" as his Oath to Never raise taxes crashes and burns.

5. After being fired by FOX, Karl Rove will be fired by his own SuperPAC, having wasted $300 million of other people's money without a single win.

6. The GOP desent on Iowa ahead of 2016 will officially begin in April, 2013. Actually, there have been numerous elephant sightings since Nov 7. No doubt a boatload of republican wannabees will once again find their love for Iowa.

7. The Tea Party will lose some of its power in 2013 but remain a pain in the GOP's side.

8. FOX News will begin to look at their couple decades long campaign to misinform and mislead conservatives because having been so successful in viewer deception, Romney/Ryan and Republicans nationwide actually believed FOX and were "stunned" they lost. Other FOX noise makers will join Karl Rove and Dick Morris in the unemployment line.

So, the GOP recognized the corner they were in and are willing to make 'concessions' rather than commit political suicide. So the adults did get the attention of the children. The question is will they be able to keep their attention, or will more nap times be needed?

Joe, put your ego away and go hide some tax money or something willya?....

Joe in the Abyss.

How did that debt ceiling obstruction work out the last time? I recall it cost about 18 billion and a credit rating downgrade. You really want to wave that gun around by holding the muzzle again?

Everything out there suggests that Washington isn't going off the cliff.

Isn't it interesting how standing at the edge and looking over the brink of a cliff-- coupled with the knowledge that voters would blame the GOP if we went over-- has worked like a cold bucket of water to their faces?

Can sanity really be restored so easily?! ;)

Mr. President, you might want to keep that bucket handy.

I was watching CNBC yesterday and I think it was the Starbuck's CEO who said there is over $2 trillion dollars of US corporate and private business money parked overseas and the owners of the money are just waiting to see what congress is going to do about taxes, particularly corporate taxes as well as government regulations. Raising taxes on the 2% won't help bring this money back to the US.

The great thing about capitalism is that it is inherently able to overcome obstacles and succeed in spite of Barryers put in its way.

So, Joe, if business succeeds it's in spite of the President but if business fails it's because of the President?

You can't have it both ways.

I read an interesting article the other day and have heard some chatter that the smartest thing for the GOP to do would be to offer up and pass the recommendations from Simpson - Bowles. The article made some interesting points. It was a bipartisan commission and by passing it, it would put the Democrats in a tough position politically. Plus, it would likely be a more palatable deal than the GOP is likely to get now. Having said that, I doubt there is any chance it would happen. But it is interesting to consider. Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

Happy Thursday all!! :-)

They have been playing that 2 trillion dollar card for 4 year. If they want to make money they will re-invest it and a few well reasoned regulations and a small tax increase on personal incomes taxes won't affect that one bit. Warren Buffet outed that argument a couple of years ago. Do you really believe those self-serving statements by corporate CEOs on CNBC? What a fool you are.

Tax the rich and all will be OK, wow what a plan. Take incentive away and you have what?

Still badgering everyone with stupid comments, geo? You're like most CPAs I know. Single-minded, one-dimensional. Never done anything, never been anywhere. You're standing in a diverse forest staring straight ahead at an oak tree and announcing to everyone that you're in an oak forest.

You know how to add 2 + 2, but that's about all you know.

hope that all of you progressive/liberals have a lot of good times with all the money you are going to receive

JH,

A question for you. What money are we progressive/liberals going to receive? I myself and most progressive pay a lot of income taxes and we don't get to have a good time with tax money.

I think you need to get your facts in order and stop your b!tching and moaning.

Ron Indiana

Just out of curiosity, what's you're track record with predicting the future? Oh, never mind, the over paid pundits in the media are never judged on the accuracy of their predictions, why should First Read posters be!

Knowing I will not be held to account for my thoughts, here are my predictions: the media will continue to call us a center-right country, even though there are now more Democratic voters than Republican, Nancy Pelosi will resume her position as Speaker of the House in 2014, Chelsea Clinton will adopt a baby from Haiti and Hillary will use photos of herself as his grandma in her campaign literature for President in 2016, Malia Obama will NOT be a teen mom, and Chris Christie will reclaim his girlish figure following the paleo diet, after which he will leave politics for a career in the entertainment industry, including hosting the Oscars.

‘I want to be a strong advocate and say that I am with the speaker,’ said Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, a House freshman. ‘I am with the leadership.’”

========================

...wasn't aware the Ohio based, Speaker of the House was able to cast votes in VA.

At least TRY to act as though you are a Representative of the people who placed you there and say something like 'Polling from my District shows overwhelming support for the position(s) that the Speaker has taken, therefore I want to be a strong advocate and say that I am with the Speaker'.

I mean, even if it is an untrue statement, at least sound like you give 2-sh--s about your District.

Anyone want to talk about the federal effective tax rate being at least around 43-44% if the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy expire? Any thoughts on where it should stop?

I also think it is great that corporate profits and wall street are up. That means a lot to the millions of seniors and middle class working families when it comes to their retirement funds. Self serving??? Are you kidding??

Ron, always enjoy your yearly predictions. It is fun; wish I'd had more time to really put thought into mine.

Fellow liberals, enjoyed all your posts today as always. It is a pleasure to read thoughtful, factual posts as opposed to what spews forth from the right-wing alternative universe--that alternative universe is exactly what Speaker Boehner has to contend with in the GOPTP Caucus.

Have a good day fighting the good fight.

Isn't it funny how FAUX NEWS and right wing nut here describe takers

Yesterday, Fox & Friends discussed a Forbes article about 11 states in bad fiscal shape because "takers" outnumber "makers." The article identified a "taker" as "someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector."

Yet the greedy Corporate Baron's' profits are at the highest while workers' wages as a share of GDP, are at their lowest point ever recorded in American history.

Think about. Who is taking from whom? I'd say the Corporate Barons.

Harry Reid rejects the President's plan?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday called for a vote on what he called President Obama’s “laughable” fiscal cliff plan. But Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly objected – another sign that the two sides are more interested this week in political theater than substantive talks.

“If the president’s proposal was made in good faith, Democrats should be eager to vote for it,” he added. “So I’m surprised the majority leader just declined the chance for them to support it with their votes.”

Reid, a Nevada Democrat dismissed McConnell’s request as yet another example of GOP “obstruction.” If Republicans were really serious about solving the fiscal crisis, Reid said, they’d take up the Senate-passed bill that would extend tax cuts for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/mcconnell-go-ahead-and-try-to-pass-obama-fiscal-cliff-151189.html?hp=lh_b5

So, just like his budget, the President cannot even get the majority leader to support his proposal. Even funnier is the claim that it's the Republican's fault that the Senate Democrats won't support THEIR President's proposal.

Good old JH lotsanumbers shares another of his amazing predictions:

"Your greed will backfire on you. This country will continue to go to debt hell under this administration. Companies are already making plans that will hurt the middle class because they just can't afford this crazy agenda that says if you make a profit you're bad for America if you don't pass it on to the government."

Because I am very aware of JH's deficiencies relative to basic civics, and his devastatingly ridiculous predictions, I saved a few of his posts. Herewith, prognostication from JH and his very cloudy crystal ball on Octoer 26, 2012:

"This time next week we will all be very excited about the Romney /Ryan victory. It is going to be a shellacking that this country hasn't seen since Jimmy Carter.

Will you lefty liberals be able to stand it? I'll love seeing your heads explode.

LEAN FORWARD - it won't hurt so bad when you fall on your face."

Yesssssirrrreee, that JH knows what's going on.

joe, i love how you use the constitution to support a law thats not in it. no where in the document does it ever mention the debt limit. you know why? because they forsaw that the goverment would pay it's bills. the debt limit is a law passed by congress that is one of the dumbest ideas ever. the debt you have already spent. you already owe that money. the constitution gives the congress the power to spend money, not refuse to pay the money you have already spent

i don't get where people think the debt limit has anything at all to do with spending. if you want to lower the depbt you either have to have less spending or more revenue, or a combination of both. messing with the debt limit has nothing to do with that. what part of the debt is money you have alrerady spent do republicans not understand.

@Beverly -- "Show us the bacon!!!!!!!!" LMAO. Those nasty corporate profits that reward millions of seniors and working middle class families with hopes of increasing IRAs, 401ks and retirement accounts. What the hell were those barons thinking????? I didn't know you wanted to screw the middle class and seniors.

My prediction is that in about two weeks (12/21/12 to be exact) the world will end at about 12:00 am. At 12:01 am the world begin again and when we wake up at daybreak... we won't know the difference! :)

Think about. Who is taking from whom? I'd say the Corporate Barons.

.and who exactly are the Corporate Barons genius? Would that be the unions and the pensions (including state worker pension funds). Where do this Calpers puts the dues they receive from their members?

As the nation's largest public pension fund with assets totaling $242.7 billion as of October 31, 2012, CalPERS investments span domestic and international markets.

The CalPERS Board of Administration has investment authority and sole fiduciary responsibility for the management of CalPERS assets. With the Board's guidance, CalPERS Investment Committee and Investment Office carry out the daily activities of the investment program.

Those nasty Corporate Barons!!!!

Chris Rhodes Scholar

I was watching CNBC yesterday and I think it was the Starbuck's CEO who said there is over $2 trillion dollars of US corporate and private business money parked overseas and the owners of the money are just waiting to see what congress is going to do about taxes, particularly corporate taxes as well as government regulations. Raising taxes on the 2% won't help bring this money back to the US.

=======

.....and you've provided what evidence to show that NOT doing so WILL bring this money back to the US? Please link for me the ability to have 'CORPORATE profits parked oversees' and having an increase of 4.6% marginal tax rate and EARNED INCOME OVER $250K?

Republicans know thier Not going Off the Fiscal Cliff, because they're All members of the Flat Earth Society!

You Betcha!

Occupy SoggyBottom!

Chris Rhodes Scholar, well, duh. Trillions of corporate cash dollars are parked overseas to avoid the current tax levels; raising the tax rate won't make a bit of difference as they never intended to bring it home in the first place.

Ha, here is the problem with your silly rants Joe, Obama has the highest approval rating since he had Bin Laden taken care of, and the majority of the nation does not trust republicans to bargain in good faith. I can't think of a bigger political problem than the nation not trusting you. You can rant all you want but the nation trusts Obama and the democrats and does not trust republicans, and the more republicans try to denigrate the president and continue to spew silly falsehoods that defy reality the worse it get for them. So when the President says"Homey don't play that" the majority of the nation is right with him. You get that Joe the nation does not trust the republicans, they must be real proud of what they accomplished in the last couple of years, they have destroyed their own credibility, nice job right Joe.

Alan--it's obvious why Reid won't take the President's plan to a vote, it would be filibustered immediately by the republicans. Reid needs to wait until he's got the votes, and he's actually very good about knowing when to take a vote and getting the votes he needs when he does call a vote. Too early for you to gloat, my friend, this is just ordinary political posturing.

My expectation is that whatever sort of deal is reached before the end of the year it won't be "The Grand Bargain" and it probably shouldn't be either.

Reforming the tax code is and will be an especially involved process and shouldn't be rushed too much those those on both sides of the political aisle should have plenty of ideas to put on the table and if in the short term the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the wealthiest htne the continuation for the rest should only be through the end of 2013 with the caveat being that overall tax code reform be developed and ready to be implemented by the end of 2013.

The automatic sequestration that is supposed to take effect on January 1, 2013 should be pushed back to February 28th by which time both sides should be required to come to an agreement on sufficient spending cuts to satisfy the terms and spirit of the sequestration. Had the Republicans not deluded themselves into thinking they were going to win back the White House and take control of the Senate in the 2012 elections they would have already had a serious proposal for this but certainly they have some ideas.

Lastly since the reason that we are once again bumping up against the debt ceiling Congress before going on recess should raise the debt ceiling rather than tie it to anything else especially since Congress authorized and committed us to the very spending combined with the tax cuts that have put us in this position and it is fundamentally wrong to on the one hand incur these financial commitments and then when dealing with those commitments causes our debt to increase to use the debt ceiling as a political football.

Let's see if Mr Boehner and company have learned something yet!

The only one that acts like a king in DC is Grover. Its his way or the highway.

I firmly believe that in a successful capitalist society, there must be social responsiblity. And I just don't understand why the republicans equate that with socialism.

I foresee that several republicans will have medical procedures in 2013: John Boehner will get a liver transplant, Mitch McConnell and will have his head surgically removed from his anus, Paul Ryan will give birth to a six pound boy who looks a lot like Joe Biden, Jim DeMent - in undergoing brain augmentation therapy to fill the other half of his head - will be given part of Louie Gohmert's brain but no one will be able to tell any difference in either of them.

The Republicans don't have any "leverage" to use by holding our country hostage over the debt ceiling (again), nor should they get anything 'in return' for agreeing to raise rates that are going to go up if they whether they agree or not. Surrender now while the President's terms are yet favorable (he won't make you look like the miserable obstructionists you are if you capitulate quietly and early).

@Sueb1 -- Are you serious??? You praise "political posturing" from democrats but not republicans??? In this crisis??? I don't believe the Republicans would filibuster since it was McConnell who challenged Reid to bring it to the floor. That would be beyond stupid. Admit it. There wouldn't be enough Democrats to even give it a simple majority. Besides, if everyone claims the Republicans have a "record" number of filibusters in the Senate, then Reid isn't being too savvy about bringing bills to the floor. LMAO.

@joe reyna -- They have learned something -- you can't trust the president on his word.

@Sally -- There also has to be fiscal responsibility.

As I have said before, we should not imitate the late Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery who it was said was "Inconsolable in defeat, insufferable in victory."

Now the GOP has seen the light of day and is screwing up their courage (just one more Jack Daniels and I think you'll be ready Mr. Weeper) to actually negotiate a settlement I think we should not gloat too much.

We all knew this was going to happen. Oh they fussed and fumed and played to their base, but in the end they had to come crawling back to the table. So, let's be big about this. No spiking the football, no excessive end zone celebrations. Just allow them to eat their humble pie in peace and let's move on.

It's Christmas after all.

Happy Holidays everyone.

Ok...I am going to ask what I am sure is a naive question. Why can't we tax small business income differently than personal income? If the issue is that we don't want to raise taxes on small businesses, can't we somehow differentiate that income? I am not a small business owner, so I have no idea how the taxation works there. But I would think it would be a meeting point between the two sides. Let the tax rates go up, except for on small business income. Any thoughts?

Ben lotsanumbers wrote:

"I don't believe the Republicans would filibuster since it was McConnell who challenged Reid to bring it to the floor. That would be beyond stupid."

Ben? Ben? "Beyond stupid"? That's the Republican comfort zone.

You see it never mattered where the revenue came from, Higher taxes, Higher revenue, doing either would have been on the rich. The only difference was Boehner wanted to be able to say "See? I stopped him from increasing the taxes on the rich." And that is what this was all about, who would cave in first. Grand standing with our lives dangling in the air on who would say boo first. Boehner, you say increasing taxes on the richest 2 percent would hurt the economy, but your willing to raise just as much in revenue on the rich and your saying that won't hurt the economy? Which is it? Will it hurt the economy or not hurt the economy, can't have it both ways. Unless it was all about that stupid pledge you made to not raise taxes. Do the job we the people hired you to do and not what Grover Norquest hired you to do.

JH LotsaNumbers,

David Walker - I still believe you are a blow hard idiot. A man who knows so much about so little.

God, look who's talking! You're one of those pathetic whiners who is jealous of people smarter than you.

Grimey,

Why can't we tax small business income differently than personal income?

First, my apologies to lumping you in with JH. It's just a matter of expediency.

I agree with you, but I think this small business thing is a ploy--very few small businesses are affected by it. However, there should be a way to decouple them.

I also happen to agree that Simpson-Bowles is a great starting place for compromise.

Hey here is an idea: maybe if the republicans go even harder with the Obama is a Muslim, not born in this country, a communist, a Marxist, a Nazi, a Socialist, wants to destroy America, is bad for business, wants to take your guns, and all other manner of ridiculous BS, they will gain back the trust of the American electorate.

Republicans have made fools out of themselves in front of the nation, to the point that they are no longer trusted by the majority of Americans, they earned that for themselves.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I could easily admire Joe in the Abyss's (thank you, BCWC- you're lovely!) consistency in defending his beliefs, and would otherwise laud his not inconsiderable fortitude in returning to this page again and again, gamely wading into battle where most of his former comrades (paging Jo Anne Smith1! Paging nojonobo!) have slunk away like the craven poltroons that most of us believed them to be all along.

Alas, my admiration is flattened by the manifest idiocy of the positions he defends. A man who is motivated solely by greed and who has no grasp of even recent history will inevitably make choices that will redound to his personal detriment, because those choices are unhealthy for society at large; and, as was discussed here yesterday, no man is an island.* It's extremely rare for one person to prosper while the community suffers. "You didn't build that!"- Barack Obama.

Poor Joe. The basis of nearly all economic policies that have been enacted, and are currently promoted, by Progressives are based on one very simple and time- tested maxim: We all do better when the least of us are doing well. Look at the times often thought of as America's Golden Age by voters of a certain generation; the years between the triumph over Fascism in Europe and our well- intentioned but ultimately disastrous intervention in Viet Nam. It is no coincidence that during that period, there were three conditions that combined to make that the most prosperous overall time in American history:

1. Tax rates for the highest-income bracket, the top quintile, were at their highest-ever level;

2. Union membership was at its highest;

3. Income disparity was at the lowest level yet reached in our history.

Not convinced? Yesterday I pointed out that the countries that suffered the least disruption, the fewest job losses, and the lowest loss of wealth, in the mainly- Republican manufactured economic meltdown of Autumn '08, were those same countries where the above conditions still obtain today- Canada, Germany, and the Scandinavian states (excluding Iceland, which is currently setting an example of people power that your capitalist corporate news providers are desperate to keep quiet!).

Look it up for yourself. In the meantime, Albigondas Jose, just keep fanning the flames of class resentment; the class war that the Right has been successfully waging on the Productive Classes ever since 1980 has taken a turn, and there are more and more people who are realizing that they no longer have to be its casualties.

* "No man is an island. But some of us are mighty long peninsulas." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

@David -- A tweet from a twit but not the integrity to address/discuss the point that the democrats do not have a simple majority in the Senate on the president's proposal. Typical of David no numbers. LOL.

Backhouse said. "We need a new economy that puts workers and communities first."

On that note, Michigan is headed for a right to work battle royal. The Republicans hold all three divisions of state government. Unions in Michigan put on the ballot a block to this legislation and the voters rejected it. However this law will effect every working class person in this state. It is bad for Michigan and bad for the country. Those states that have passed right to work legislation lead the country in poor education and low wages which are both feeders for the prison system, and causes a major problem with poverty. Billionaire Dick Devos is behind this. The Mackinac Center is another major contributor as well as the Michigan Chamber of Congress. This should prove to be divisive and if it passes it should awaken the working people to rebel against it. Unions are an important part and always have been for the middle class. PLease help if you can.

I hope Boehner realizes that if he makes a deal his standing with the extremes will go down but his standing with the whole of America will go up. He needs to continue his break-away from the absolutists and strike a reasonable deal...

How 'bout we start focusing on what's needed for America and let results drive politics instead of the other way around.?... Sorry... my bad... lost my head for a second

Ahhh look at all the 'Intellectual' Libs in here with their "I'm rubber you're glue" rebuttals. keep handing asses there DW and Jackie.

Don't threaten to shut down the govt. The lefty liberal MSM will kill them for doing that. Instead, put Barry on a weekly allowance increase in the debt limit that keeps the bare minimum essentials of the federal govt running, but, which does not fund any of the lefty liberal fluff and free stuff. Soon enough, King Barry will have to "play dat game".

Ain't that a joke. The debt ceiling will be taken care of before January 1st, just as the President said, Joe. Now take your medicine.......it won't hurt too much.

Why do republicans kick and scream so much? It's beginning to become painful to see them fold every time they try to screw the middle-class, all at an attempt to give "free-stuff" to the rich.

I saw those completely plastic, morons, Rubio and Ryan last night trying to pork out the same old lines, "we need smaller government to make the middle-class prosperous, by eliminating government programs [and giving the rich so-called "job creators" all that money]". "But we really feel for the poor [while we stab them in the back].

Keep talking Republicans, because it did so well in the election. Those completely plastic smiles they shine after each statement (I'm sure Joe in Albany has one too) make me ill.

Ben-636050

@Beverly "Show us the bacon!!!!!!!!" LMAO. Those nasty corporate profits that reward millions of seniors and working middle class families with hopes of increasing IRAs, 401ks and retirement accounts. What the hell were those barons thinking????? I didn't know you wanted to screw the middle class and seniors.

Benny neither you or Alan J have no idea what nonsense you spew.

No one has rewarded seniors anything. Seniors worked to contribute to the Federal Treasury for which they are entitled.

@Alan Unions are not nearly as notorious as the organized crime Wall Street Barons and Corporate CEOs. They put their tax dollars in oversea tax havens. Just ask Myth Romney how'd they do that? Oh, wait a minute. Myth doesn't want to discuss taxes.

Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?

From the article above:

One thing the next two weeks are NOT about is going over the cliff. If no big deal is achieved, then there will be a middle-class tax rate extension bill passed that allows rates on the top 2% to go up either to 37% or to 39%.

OMG!!!

How will the uber rich ever recover from this?

They are going to have to burn $100 bills just to keep warm at night.

They will have to cut back on using Dom Perignon in their swimming pools.

How will "Lovey" be able to afford a manicure and pedicure for Fifi?

How will Thurstan be able to afford is personal hygiene 'wiper"?

I see hard times in 2013 for the 2%.

Good thing for them after the deal is done; they will still own the House of Representatives.

And I'm sure, Congressman Boehner will find a way to re-coup the 2 percent's money some how by screwing the poor and Middle class.

Salud

Ben--and every time the republicans filibuster, their popularity and credibility go down; but, McConnell hasn't learned that yet. He's still determined to make Obama a one-term president!!!

Raising taxes on small business 4% doesn't solve the problem. As some have pointed out corporations who are sitting on record profits will not see their taxes go up, Ultra-wealthy like Buffet and Romney will not see their taxes go up. Either Obama doesn't understand this, or more likely is pandering to his voters, the 65% of people that have asked for someone else's taxes to go up, not theirs.

Closing loopholes will make the upper income American's pay a higher percentage. Eliminate charity deductions alone will save 300B over the next 4 years.

The real lesson from this is that neither party is interested in fiscal responsibility. The Administration is more than happy to leave office in 2017 with a national debt of over $20T. How big this will be in relation to GDP is scary because in 4 years we know our economy is not going to grow by 20%. It is also inconceivable that the next Administration will be able to stop spending in its tracks so further debt is a given. All we need is a small crisis in China over the next 4 years and interest rates will rise (doesn't really matter how much as we have so much debt). The President will be happy to get out of town before the @!$%# hits the fan. It will be interesting if he succeeds but I don't see his legacy being a happy one.

I am with Howard Dean. It's time to pay the piper, take the medicine and we'll be better for it in a couple of years.

A story of minor interest in today's Houston Chronicle: Congress voted overwhelmingly to remove all references to the word "lunatic" in all US legal documents. There was only one vote against doing this: Louie Gohmert. He was right and the rest of Congress was wrong on this vote. Gohmert himself is living proof that lunatics exist. If the word "moron" exists in US legal documents, Gohmert proves those are real, too.

I was watching CNBC yesterday and I think it was the Starbuck's CEO who said there is over $2 trillion dollars of US corporate and private business money parked overseas and the owners of the money are just waiting to see what congress is going to do about taxes, particularly corporate taxes as well as government regulations. Raising taxes on the 2% won't help bring this money back to the US.

Just what i would expect someone like him would say. BTW, it's BS....but keep drinking.

For those of you still following the exciting presidential election, you can get the latest vote totals at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true

As of today, Obama has 50.96% of the vote to Romney 47.33. Obama is ahead of Romney by almost 5 million votes. The pundits said this election was "too close to call", but it looks to me like Obama's going to win. Yay!!!

The typical Obama supporter thinks that they are going to get ahead by taxing the rich. You may not be typical but you are still foolish to think that raising taxes is going to help. The only thing that it will do is allow this administration to spend more. These clowns are foolish. They will not cut spending and you and I and every American will have to pay the bill someday. And it will take EVERYONE not just 2%. So quit your foolish believing that raisung taxes on 2% will do anything to help without spending cuts.

David Walker - I still believe you are a blow hard idiot. A man who knows so much about so little.

Yes, I wanted Romney to win. He didn't and we all will lose because of it.

Cry me a river, JH

@Beverly -- I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. Let me see if I can explain it better. Wall Street is made up of publicly traded companies in which seniors and middle class Americas can invest (buy stock/options) and put them into retirement accounts in hopes they grow. (You with me now? 'Cause if I'm going too fast for ya let me know). These companies are run by management (you so cutely call barons lol) elected by the stockholders (seniors and middle class Americans) to do one thing -- (drum roll please) make money. (Still with me?) Corporate profits are part of the system where people have to rely on for retirement and these people who desperately need this to happen are seniors and the working middle class.

Grimey, Simpson-Bowles was rejected by both sides of the aisle; republicans and democrats didn't vote for it. It may have had some good ideas but it also contained some really objectionable ones unpallatable to both sides. It is also nearly two years old which means it's outdated. Ideas that made sense then, would not be good fits for today.

What I found interesting are poll numbers that showed 49% of republicans claim they support the Simpson-Bowles plan, the percent opposed and unsure escapes me at this moment. 8% of GOPers support the Panetta-Burns plan, 40-something % oppose it and 17% aren't sure. Just goes to show that saying the name of a so-called deficit/debt and all-encompassing reform plan will always have support due to name recognition as in Simpson-Bowles, or simply the notion of a plan will also receive support or opposition--even when no such Panetta-Burns plan exists.

Hi Ron, so good to see you here this morning.

My prediction:

November 22, 2013 will bring us the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

There will be new books with new conspiracies, all of which I predict will amount to nothing, other than new books being sold. Of course.

Those who listen to Joe in Albany for anything other than comic relief should recall some of his pre-election prognostications:

Quote......Obama high command projects strength heading into home stretch _____________________________________________— Both Hitler's and Saddam Hussein's "high commands" told their leaders' the same thing just before everything crumbled right before their very eyes. They all knew their leader's were such megalomaniacs, they couldn't handle the truth.…......EndQuote

....and....

Quote.......It doesn't matter what the polls show. The Romney owned voting machines (Skynet) are going to make sure one of their own becomes President........EndQuote

Little does Joe know......then and now.

Hey Joe.....how's your fantastic CRUT? At least, you got something from Romney. You should contact your representatives to urge them to cave-in to President Obama. Otherwise, that bad old AMT will render your theoretical CRUT worse than useless.

In the immortal words of (brief) POTUS candidate Rick Perry, "oops!".

......and in the ubiquitous maniacal cacklings of Joe in Albany......

Quote......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! …......EndQuote

@Pat -- you are so correct about that date in history. The date the once proud, reasonable, respectful Democrat party died. A sad day indeed.

Jody, Iowa

What I found interesting are poll numbers that showed 49% of republicans claim they support the Simpson-Bowles plan, the percent opposed and unsure escapes me at this moment. 8% of GOPers support the Panetta-Burns plan, 40-something % oppose it and 17% aren't sure.

I think it was the same poll that also found that a majority of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama, even though it ceased to exist several years ago. And 25% of Republicans want to secede from the Union (my guess most of them from the same part of the country that tried that trick back in the 19th Century).

These poll results kind of show what the fundamental problem is with this country. It's not the nut jobs in Congress, it's the nut job Republican voters who sent them there. Thanks to the nut job demographic, Republican primaries usually result in the worst extremists getting nominated, but Democrats are given a choice between moderates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The only person on the far left in the 2008 Dem primary was Dennis Kucinich, and he never had any real chance to win the presidential nomination. It seems most sane people have abandoned the Republican party and become Democrats.

Sen. Demint to resign and take over the Heritage Foundation.

SAVE THE RICH, SAVE THE RICH! CIRCLE THE WAGONS WE MUST PROTECT THE WEALTHY FROM THE LIBERALS!

uh...sir....it's going badly, I think we could be wiped out by the Liberals if we don't give them something.

GIVE THEM THE RICH! GIVE THEM THE RICH! WE'VE GOT TO SAVE OUR WORTHLESS POLITICAL HIDES GIVE THEM THE RICH!

John In Battle Creek, the right to work for less and less and less, will lower the wages of everybody in the entire state including middle management. States in the South that have passed this law have the median incomes in the nation, and 9 of them are in the top 10 welfare states as measured by what they pay in federal taxes and receive back in federal welfare. Texas is not even at the bottom of median incomes (Mississippi is dead last for income), the median income in Texas is $11.20 an hour, I made more than that in 1982, with full benefits, that is what right to work for less and less and less does for people in the states that have passed it, earning power declines across the board, not just for the unionized workers. I hope MI can defeat that legislation, for the sake of all wage earners in the state. Try to educate voters is the only help I can offer, just show them the facts about income in the states that have passed it.

Grimey, what should change is the definition of "small business". Bechtel, Koch Industries are "small" businesses. It isn't based on number of employees or how large or small the profits, it is defined by the number of owners. Hardly fair to place the local Mom & Pop restaurant or construction business in the same category as Koch Industries or Bechtel.

As for the tax rate, it is my understanding that about 97% of the small businesses (the real Mom & Pops) would not be impacted. The "small business" firms that would be impacted are Koch Industries and Bechtel.

Jack in Portsmouth

The world ain't gonna end if taxes go up on the wealthy.

Most people realize that is a given. The questions is - Once the "rich" are paying their "fair share" who will be burdened for the tax increases to address the continuing yearly deficits and the National Debt which will continue to skyrocket well above it's current $16 Trillon?

Because we all know the deficits and the increases to the National Debt ain't gonna end if taxes go up on the wealthy.

Wow Fox, you hit every nail on the head. Two thumbs up if I could give them both. I have lived the years you described as prosperous. You bet things have changed for way worst since Reagan. Only time it got better was during Bill Clinton's term. Jobs for everybody. The big corporations like Mickey D's were paying above minimum wage and were offering benefits. Full employment less then 3%. What a step back we took during the 8 years of Bush. Borrow and spend republican congress, a president with a credit card.

My prediction is Obama will get his way next year and with the war ending in 14 or sooner I see a balanced budget by the end of his term. I see Obama being wildly successful, and a hero that will be talked about for the next 100 years or more. Spoken in the same sentence with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Clinton. Notice a couple of them were Republicans, way back when they were a real party.

Beverly in Chicago-

Benny neither you or Alan J have no idea what nonsense you spew

Good morning, Beverly!!!

Ben is a world heavy-weight BSer. He pontificates with such self-rightousness you can hear the Limbaugh oozing out of his rants. Nothing he says is of any value on this website. He is obsolete.

Salud

Jack in Portsmouth - A little harsh with your CPA comment, I have many friends who are CPAs but I chose a different route. I did say harsh, but I cannot really deny the accuracy, at least from my own opinion.

Grimey you are right. It SHOULD be that simple. The problem is those who earn money or want to earn money are greedy and if you give them an inch they will take a mile. What you will have is businesses finding any way to try and funnel income through any entity that can somehow meet the requirements of small business. You may see companies unwilling to hire or expand in fear of the huge tax bill that would come if they do.

It really should be as easy as what you stated, but with lawyer and accountants (as it is their job) all it would do is create a new loophole. If a bill was to be made it would have to have very tight wording, be easily applied, and not have to much incentive for abuse. That alone weakens the effect such a bill could have.

Hmmm, Jim DeMint is resigning...

Houston, yes, it was. The ACORN notion is astonishing and just shows how grossly uninformed many republicans are these days--thanks to FOX.

I should add that eventually everyone's taxes should increase but not right now as the global economic recovery remains fragile and slow. The best way to reduce the income tax burden across the board is for Congress to completely overhaul the entire tax code. It is filled with special interest tax breaks, loopholes, etc., that result in benefiting only small segments of society at the expense of the rest of us (and prevent those types of loopholes from becoming permanent fixtures in the tax code ala big oil subsidies. If the code were completely overhauled, I believe eventually everyone's income tax rates could be lower. On that point, Simpson-Bowles was absolutely correct. My objection to their proposal was lowering the income tax rates BEFORE the deficit and debt are under control although I agree with eliminating the loopholes. Also felt their notion of increasing the age for social security and medicare is seriously flawed for the simple reason that people like them (and Lloyd Blankfein) who have much and have not worked at manual, physical labor are CLUELESS when it comes to seniors whose bodies are worn and battered after decades of lifting, tugging, pulling, crawling, standing, etc.

The President and the democrats should go for the grand deal. Use the leverage they have now to the fullest effect. It's outrageous to settle a part, then have to come back into a national gut wrenching gridlock later, which would totally negate the good effects of the settled part. I hear very little about it, even from the democrats, but any grand deal must include an overwhelming jobs stimulus. We must begin to rebuild our economic system toward the goal of "full employment" and, an equitable, achievable, distribution of "wealth and income" relative to the promise and realities of being citizens of this country. Anything less, is not only unworthy of the welfare of the people, it severely compromises the health, wealth, and security of the nation as a whole. United States is different from any other Country, and cannot remain a "United States" absent economic equality.

Benny neither you or Alan J have no idea what nonsense you spew.

That's because we don't write in remedial English. Nobody never not tell you not to write double negatives?

"Neither goes with nor and either goes with or"

Have you ever heard of the Carlyle Group? It is the group that Big Daddy Bush and his cronies like John Baker are in. Last I heard from their CEO they had $1.3 Trillion set aside and waiting. They are waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting and get the American economy going again. Only then will they invest this money...............in Brazil, India, and China. Not America. How very patriotic of them.

@Ptomaine Tomas -- Oh you are a riot. What a kidder you are. Calling someone a pontificator when you start out a post about Grey Poupon and finish with that phony BS Salud. You are the pot calling the kettle black. It's a phony like you who is obsolete and of no value.

"I'm from Detroit. Where's my bacon!!!!!!!"

The one thing I disagree with many on is the closing of loopholes, at least when it is said that generally. Many of these "loopholes" have very positive effects for the economy and citiczens all across the income spectrum. I am more for the idea of tightening these breaks or identifying specific breaks which would be on the chopping block (an idea inconcievable by politicians on the right).

I know many are against social engineering, but I personally agree with the orginial conception of things like tax free municipal bonds, or Home interest deductions. Also medicare reductions are nice as well. Eliminating things like these would change many positive behaviors of Americans.

Akeem,

Jack in Portsmouth - A little harsh with your CPA comment

I didn't say all CPAs. I was speaking directly to geo, a little weasel if ever there was one. And, yes, that's harsh. But it's also the truth.

On the other hand, I have known few CPAs whose worldview wasn't narrow--numbers are their only reality, nothing exists outside of them.

NH_Shellback,

Once the "rich" are paying their "fair share" who will be burdened for the tax increases to address the continuing yearly deficits

Eventually, taxes will need to go up for everyone, probably back to Clinton-era levels; they need to become at least as progressive as they were during that period. The economy needs to improve--which I believe it will--and the middle class must regain its footing (and grow!). No one has ever said that raising taxes on the top 2% is "The Fix". It's just one necessary step in returning to a fairer, healthier society.

This is why New York is so cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96z0IrwakcU&feature=youtu.be

Just a quick thanks to all those who shared their opinions on my posts. :-)

Yes, Senator Jim "Doctor Deminto" Demint is leaving the Senate and the announcement comes on the same day the GOP indicates they may be willing to discuss increased taxes for the wealthy. Coincidence?

I think not.

Now if the Heritage Foundation could just find space for McConnel, Ryan, and a few others we might be able to restore some level of sanity to Capitol Hill.

Liberals are so amusing to watch. You love being lied to blatantly by your leaders.

Just today, Reid blocked a vote for the Obama draft of his deficit plan in the Senate. You keep saying it is the GOP holding up negotiations when it is far from it. The GOP has offered essentially the agreed to plan they had in 2010 when Obama reneged. They offered what Bowles stated was a straight compromise last year when asked about where the two sides were at and what the compromise should be (givings from both sides). Obama offered nothing. He offered such an unserious plan, Harry Reid refuses to bring it up to vote in the Senate.

It's time to wake up people. You are being lied to. Only one side is acting the adults.

Thanks Forest, I should qualifiy myself or maybe disqualify, I am 66 years old and happily retired. But I do feel the future is at stake in this state. The republicans own everything but the next election. I certainly hope edcucation the people will put enough pressure on the legislature to stop it.

cdahl, while I understand your point about charitable deductions, the question that should be asked is who gets hurt by removing the charitable deductions? The poor, the needy, the sick, research, etc. When tax rates had a high-end level of 90%, charities were great beneficiaries of wealthy cash. What we have seen as those high end tax rates dropped was less charitable giving while the need has risen. Charitable giving deductions at least has a societal good as its purpose. Can't say that about deductions for corporate jets.

Ok its looks like the middle class will not have to endure their paychecks shrinking further from rising taxes. BUT.....The middle class and poor will definitely take another hit in the form of cuts to the desperately needed services and programs now available to them....The war on the middle class continues unabated....Yes the rich will take a slight hit to their unbelievably fat cash cow...so what. While I do support the DEMS because they are at least trying to keep the middle class solvent, they just aren't going far enough to ensure a resurrection of a strong middle class here in this great country. We absolutely must get corporate influence/corruption out of our government and return it to the people or our country if we ever want a strong economy since it takes a strong middle class to drive it.

People...It would be soooooo easy to restore our country to it's former greatness. We just have to take our country back from the corporations and rebuild the middle class. We could do it overnight if we really wanted to. Come 2014 we need to clean house on more than just the Repubs, they definitely need a good cleaning. The Dems also need to begiven a good shakeup.

This 30 year war on the middle class and poor has to stop, and we must insist on it in the form of our candidates and votes.

JH - with every post you make you look more moronic and ridiculous. NO ONE believes anyone is going to get rich by taxing the wealthy a fair amount. But, we do believe EVERYONE should be working together to help the country get back on it's feet. Do you even have any concept of what is going on?

Your whiney posts every day are sickening! First, let's be clear, you AREN'T one of the top 2%ers - that's clear. Many of them are against the tax increase but none of them are stupid enough to talk about "you think you'll get rich by taxing the wealthy more." They didn't get rich by being so stupid.

The intelligent top 2% know they will make MORE money if the middle class is strong and thriving - so they are willing to be taxed at a greater percentage - knowing full well it won't hurt them one bit - they won't even feel it in their pocketbooks.

On another note - Apple has just annouced they will be manufactuing an existing MAC line in the US beginning in 2013. They plan to bring even more manufacturing to the US in upcoming years.

@ heyitschuck

Good to see someone making sense, and not just blaming the other party.

Both parties are at fault, I wish I could vote you up a hundred times!

Well, Seeking Sanity, since you believe that "EVERYONE should be working together to help the country get back on its feet", then you will agree that the 47% who currently pay no taxes at all should chip in and pay at least something to contribute to the system of which they are the primary beneficiaries.

Beverly in Chicago - Has it ever occurred to you that insane corporate profits might be linked to the middle classes stupidity to run up credit card debts to buy over-priced garbage. Get cell phone plans that cost more than their power bills. etc etc trying to keep up with the Joneses. Do you know why movie theatres charge $10 for a bucket of popcorn that cost $1 to make? Because stupid people will buy it.

Supply and demand is working.

So while you criticize the corps for their greed, please criticize the stupid people who buy their over-priced products.

Quick quiz - What company has more value than the US Govt....? Apple...who was run by a liberal who shipped jobs to China and had the most immoral, inhumane treatment of humans. Yep...A liberal. He also told Obama to shove it on jobs. Interesting.

@Beverly -- I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. Let me see if I can explain it better. Wall Street is made up of publicly traded companies in which seniors and middle class Americas can invest (buy stock/options) and put them into retirement accounts in hopes they grow. (You with me now? 'Cause if I'm going too fast for ya let me know). These companies are run by management (you so cutely call barons lol) elected by the stockholders (seniors and middle class Americans) to do one thing -- (drum roll please) make money. (Still with me?) Corporate profits are part of the system where people have to rely on for retirement and these people who desperately need this to happen are seniors and the working middle class.

And Ben, who do these managers manage and who buys the companies products or services so the company can (drum roll please) make money?

Such a vicious circle......

Well, Ron Indiana, let's hope that you are very wrong for the sake of the USA.

spider - your stupidity is only overshadowed by your willingness to shout it so loud. Even the Republican leadership is downplaying the 47% idiotcy - but you'll cling to it - it's all you have.

The 47% includes seniors who have already worked and paid into the system; it includes veterans who have served our country admirably, paid taxes, and are having a difficult time assimilating back into the workforce; it includes the working poor who are often working 2 jobs and still struggling to make enough money to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. And, they all pay taxes every day.

You're a blithering idiot and probably receiving help from mommy and daddy because you're too stupid to make your own way! Oh, and all of the 47% are better people than you'll ever become!

Jody,

Interesting thought, but I'm not convinced that the social portion of the economy is better off through the deduction, or that charitable giving will end if the deduction will close. With your point in mind, the argument can't be the middle class charity giving to offset taxation, but must be with the Ultra-wealthy that give tens of millions to offset taxable income.

Either way I'm sticking to my point that raising taxes the money S. corp owners leave in their businesses to either shore up the strength, or go towards future opportunities is not a good answer. It does appease the Obama voters, but to me little else.

Something more productive would be to raise capital gains, and revise the definition of income (such as stock options) from the capital gains rates to federal income rates.

But thanks for giving me something to ponder this afternoon with regard to defining charitable giving deduction.

Actually, tax rates effect debt and deficit very little other than psychological, which is though, often significant. Paying our debt down, managing deficits, will only occur with "full employment". Once "full employment" is attained, at wages commensurate with earners ability to pay His/Her way, hold some discretionary spending ability, and savings, then, primarily, by means of modest inflation, our debt and deficit will rapidly decline.

@heyitschuck #1.96: You are right on all points. Thank you for the factual post. Regards

I didn't take the time to read all of the 105 comments before mine or any of the ones following, so I may be repeating someone else's comment. How many of you have ever looked at the formula for the SS COLA calculation? They want to "apply a less generous" formula for that COLA calculation? The current method used is an erroneous formula for calculation because the CPI index that they use does NOT properly take into account the two most expensive items in a senior's budget...utilities and medical. That is why more and more seniors have to use Medicaid as well as Medicare to cover medical expenses and choose between heat and food. The Medicare "COLA" is actually a premium payment COLA that raises the Part B/C/D premiums based on CPI index and lately has been more than the increase in the amount of SS that a senior gets. Thus, it is a net loss for the senior. The main problem is that the FICA withholdings have NOT had the same COLA applied to them over the years and that is ONE reason (the other is Congressional robbery of the system) that SS Fund can't keep up with the baby boomers as they join the retired system. In case most of you don't understand the "food stamp" program, seniors also have a different threshold for qualifying...it is more difficult for a senior to qualify than a young person because the senior has a much lower maximum income level before they are denied.

@hayitschuck...where have you been the last two years? We could have made a huge difference in this last election IF all citizens would have joined the Popular Amendment Movement and petitioned for a Constitutional Convention to pass the two amendments posted at www.faircampaignreform.us. Download the petitions, sign them, circulate them, email them to all of your family and friends, start a local grassroots movement to collect signed petitions. Get involved.

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Jody:

The best way to reduce the income tax burden across the board is for Congress to completely overhaul the entire tax code. It is filled with special interest tax breaks, loopholes, etc., that result in benefiting only small segments of society at the expense of the rest of us and prevent those types of loopholes from becoming permanent fixtures in the tax code ala big oil subsidies.

I agree with you, but I doubt that real tax reform is likely to ever happen. Big money went into paying high-priced lobbyists to get all those special interest loopholes and deductions, and if anyone tries to tamper with those tax breaks, the high-priced lobbyists will descend upon Washington like a swarm of angry hornets, except they'll be using booze and gourmet dinners at Washington's finest restaurants rather than venomous stings to persuade the would-be reformers in Congress to see the error of their ways. If the booze and food don't work, they'll threaten recalcitrant congress critters with that worst of all venomous stings: "primaries." And special interests will pour huge sums of money into primaries to replace the really stubborn holdouts with Tea Party idiots who will do their bidding.

My guess is that any such tax "reform" would mostly hit the middle class, like removing the employer tax deduction for providing health insurance to employees. The employers would just reduce workers pay accordingly, which wouldn't anger the lobbyist swarms.

TomasGrande

And I'm sure, Congressman Boehner will find a way to re-coup the 2 percent's money some how by screwing the poor and Middle class.

Screwing the poor and middle class is what the Republicans and the media refer to as "tax reform" and "responsible fiscal policy".

Ben-

Calling someone a pontificator when you start out a post about Grey Poupon and finish with that phony BS Salud. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for the reply.

Congratulations, Ben.

I just proved your inablility to understand simple writing techniques like sarcasm, irony, and satire.

Keep up the good work with the Rush/Drudge/Faux talking points.

That is defiantly within your realm of comprehension.

BTW.

Since you think "Salud" is BS and/or pontificating, here is the definition:

The term "Salud" means health, or "to health" (to life). Can also be said after some one sneezes, like bless you or when giving a toast, like cheers.

Most of the world uses the term "Salud" or "Cheers" as a term of good will.

Salud

I am pleased to see that so many of we Liberals and other fair minded people are positive in our hopes for the immediate future of some cooperation between our two parties, but these are only hopes .The Rep/T.P. is still in thrall to its masters and pressure must be brought to bare on their far right wing. I hope that the Republican Party realise that to survive they must abandon their slavish support to the Super rich and start to support the American Majority who work for a living. I agree that most unfunded entitlements should end and only those that are necessary should be given,but our payed for entitlements for all of our citizens i.e. S.S. and Medical ,which too many Americans assume are of our enactment should be protected and improved.Contrary to belief of too many of our citizens,a belief that is voiced by the conservatives ,the Rep.T.P. and right wing groups, we are the only industrial nation of the western block who are behind in this enforcement.

Houston, there is a way to do it. Add a petition to the www.faircampaignreform.us website for a Taxation Constitutional Amendment along these lines:

Gross Income Tax where ALL sources of income must be included in the tax rate calculation. It would be a very simple form. First line: Gross Income. Second line: $25,000 (subtract from line 1) Tax Free. Line 3 Balance to be taxed. Subtract Line 4 $250,000. Line 5: if a negative number, then that is the taxable amount at 15%. If Line 5 is a positive number, subtract Line 6 $750,000. Line 7 negative number taxed at 30%, positive number is taxed at 45%. There are NO deductions, credits, subsidies, or any other means under this plan for reducing your taxable income. All filings are by individuals. No married couple filings, etc. Corporations, since the SCOTUS has ruled them to be "persons", would file under the same process.

If a person wants to have ten kids, that is that person's responsibility to support them, not the rest of the taxpayers. If a person wants to get married, the same thing. Why should single people pay the burden of supporting another person's choices.

We know that lobbyists will keep Congress from ever passing any real tax reform, so maybe we need to go the route of calling for a Constitutional Convention and passing a constitutional amendment

"Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them,’ said LaTourette, a close Boehner ally who is retiring in January.”"

Wow. I'm proud of myself. I just said that yesterday when I was quibbling with some RWNJ named Elliott, that the Top 2%ers are more concerned about the Stock Market staying at and beyond 13,000 than they would be about paying another 4 cents on the dollar in taxes.

Yeah me!

"TomasGrande

Ben-

Calling someone a pontificator when you start out a post about Grey Poupon and finish with that phony BS Salud..."

Thank you..."

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

Tom: LOL ! Now that's what I call a very nice way to eat someone alive.

"Grey Poupon pontificator" what a tickle.

Anti trust proponent, the reason why those things are in the tax code is the government wants Americans to get married and have kids. Whether its right or wrong its that simple. The idea is to eliminate some of the financial burden involved in those dealings to help sway anybody it would disincentive due to financial obligations.

It may sound stupid, but in some sense having children is an invstment in America it leads to future Americans, no kids = no population(not saying anyone should HAVE to).

Though we may disagree I see this issue differently. You can talk all you want about personal responsibility and all but I do not agree that a single person making $250,000 is under the same financial burden as a family with 3 children making a combined income of $250,000 and I appreciate that our tax system is progressive enough to recognize that. If the kids grow into productive citizens, they will probably end up paying that tax break their parents recieved during the time that they themselves are single.

John in Battle Creek said, "My prediction is Obama will get his way next year and with the war ending in 14 or sooner I see a balanced budget by the end of his term. I see Obama being wildly successful, and a hero that will be talked about for the next 100 years or more. Spoken in the same sentence with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Clinton. Notice a couple of them were Republicans, way back when they were a real party."

John, I wish the President's plan was to do that very thing, but here's a question for you...if the debt is Bush's fault for the "two unfunded wars and cutting taxes for everyone" and the President is going to balance the budget to finally stop the bleeding, then why does the President feel it is necessary to have a "blank check" on the debt ceiling? His plan only takes the country much deeper in debt. I want to SOLVE the nation's problems, not compound them. It is projected that Obama will double what the debt was when he took office.

concernedamerica,

We are the only country that has a debt ceiling.

What does it do, accomplish? How does it help with anything?

Dennis,

From my point of view, the debt ceiling helps to limit out of control spending. Perhaps instead of a $$$ amount, it could be tied to a % of debt, or of GDP. Pinning it to financial ratio's.

Jack you poor insane asswipe, I have never done anything? Really, how would you know? A weasel? What would you call someone who wants somebody elses money that they earned, and give to someone who did not earn it? Well we'll just them Democrats! Dumb Ass! Both me and my worked our way up from nothing. I started a small buisness, and my gorgeous wife worked her way up from secretary to multi-million dollar steel purchaser. I will be with my gorgeous wife tonight, and you will be with your hand!

cdahl,

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.

It's not like they pass a bill to increase the Debt Ceiling before they pass spending bills.

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

Dennis,

I'm not an expert at the definition of the debt ceiling, but by your definition it seems somewhat mis-defined and needs to be re-defined. I guess that I'm too simple minded and assume that should Congress get together, estimate revenue and spend appropriately (even deficit spend for now). And if they hit a "ceiling during the planning process that this would be the time to address whether or not it needed to be raised. Not after the fact as you point out.

That being said, I would hope that butting up to the ceiling would be a warning about out of control spending. I'll have to read up on it a little more this weekend.

So funny to hear you dems telling the right to quit bitchin. Thats all you guys do! Complain and bitch about the right. I hope it all does go your way. I hope the GOP gives in and gives you everything you want so we don't have to hear YOU bitch anymore. Then, just MAYBE you will all realize that you need a lesson in ECON 101 because nothing you have done has worked, unemployment is at all time high and this country has run out of other peoples money. Then its a for sure win for the GOP come 2016. I just hope it won't be too late.

cdahl,

If you notice every time they increase the Debt Ceiling they know approximately when it will need to be increased again. That is because they already know how much they will spend and the unknown is how much revenue will be collected which becomes an estimate.

Again, no other country has one so if it is so important wouldn’t you wonder why.

Wouldn't it be more productive if both parties worked together to draft bills that could be put up for a vote together, rather than each party trying to draft their own bills and just trying to pass them as a Republican or Democrat bills.

Bills drafted and proposed by members of both parties as Americans, rather than as a Democrat's bill or Republican's bill, would be much more likely to pass. Or does that make too much sense?

The ONLY REAL FIX is to Raise Revenue, by Bringing Back Jobs to US Citizens who Pay Income Tax.

Massive cutting just puts more people on unemployment, which just depresses the economy even further.

Returning private sector jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead. We need our elected officials to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. We need leaders who will actually stand up for the American people.

The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

Wouldn't it be More Productive if Our Elected Leaders Started Working Together as AMERICANS for AMERICANS and AMERICA, instead of just bickering, stalling and posturing for the next election as democrats and republicans! The American People have had it with this unproductive BS! The way that both parties having been operating for years just stinks! Neither party has really been looking out for the best interests of the US Citizens who elect them and who they're supposed to represent.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide.

It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens. All the single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go!

Both parties need to start working together and actually start doing something to fix the real problems in our country like "out-sourcing", illegal immigration, the out of control costs of health care insurance and our reliance on foreign fuel. If they don't start working together making progress by the next election, American citizens should run a nation-wide campaign to vote out all incumbents regardless of party to send the message.

And yes - I'm Angry - As are most American Citizens right now!

My prediction:

We will see the GOP slowly try to curve back towards the center, alienating the far-right Tea Baggers as most people see this divided GOP as the reason for the election loss.

However, in 2013/14 the supreme court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. This one ruling will re-energize the extreme far-right Tea Baggers. They will use religion as an excuse against the ruling, and we will hear accusations of "government destroying my religious freedom". Some will take up the Bill O'Rielly stance that "Christianity is a philosophy, not religion" and try to use that as an excuse to pass christian-based laws.

This resurgence of the extreme religious-right will push the 2016 election in the same direction as the last one. The Republican candidates will have to veer to the far-right during the primary, to win the base. We will hear more claims that "rape babies are gifts from god", and that gay marriage represents a "war on Christianity". It will come down to Christie, Jeb Bush or Rubio.

Once a GOP candidate is selected, the winner will once again try to veer back to the center for the general election. Gay marriage will be the focus, and the Republican candidate will "promise" to over-turn the ruling if elected. His base will be energized. Independents and moderates will be turned off. He will lose to Hillary.

Dennis, how's this for an answer...

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from
foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to
$8.6 trillion.That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed
from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed
from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the
President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder
why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220
billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt
than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on
education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It
is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated
gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the
Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities
and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and
levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in
education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and
health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment
in America's priorities."

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

And now PRESIDENT Obama wants a blank check and to take us over $20T. It's hard to know where some people stand when they are against something one minute and then for it the next. 'Sounds like Harry Reid on the filibuster rules.

concernedamerica,

That still does not explain why we need much less should have a Debt Ceiling.

I do not agree with everything our Presidents has says.

My thoughts on the Debt Ceiling have always been the same and no one has ever been able to explain how or why it is useful or necessary.

Dennis, what is so hard to understand about, "Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities"? What do you not understand about people that have high credit card debt and can't dig their way out? If you don't understand the need for spending limits, reducing debt, and basic math, I'm afraid I can't help you. Maybe you should just go ask Fiesty Red or the President why he changed his mind about fiscally responsible actions.

@Dennis, Columbus, Ohio: Debt ceiling works much like a clock that measures currency balance rather than time. In the case of our debt ceiling, It's Government spending relative to GDP, Federal reserve established interest rates, taxes, employment, wages, and trade import/export balances, primarily. Supposed to allow ignorant politicians a simple arithmetic guide in their determinations of relative policy considerations, and/or modifications of said policies. Not meant as a smartass. Best regards

concernedamerica,

The Debt Ceiling does NOT control spending.

What is so hard to understand about that simple fact?

It is only reactionary. If we don't increase it we will default and our interest rate will increase causing our debt to increase even faste.

It depends on how you think about it, Dennis ! When I am broke and my credit card is maxxed-out, I can become quite the tightwad. If our country gives Obama supreme authority over the national debt limit, there ia absolutely nothing in place to make him cut the expenses.

Remember: Our country needs to trim duplicate efforts and bureaucracies, eliminate fraud and find ways to make our government more reasonable in cost. Necessity is the mother of invention. No BUDGETS from Obama indicate no effort to control costs.

jim,

During the election our President suggested consolidating 5 departments and got laughed at by Republicans … so just who is serious about cutting government?

I think Boehner did a great job in beating back the Teagagging members of his own party, which I believe he had to do in order to get them in line, AND in order to make deals in compromise with the President.

The Teagaggers can be blamed for losing the Presidential Election AND for lowering the United States' Credit Rating the last time they had that crazy fight over raising the debt limit and had the whole world looking at the United States cockeyed.

I must say, a bunch of us turned out to be wrong about Cantor knocking Boehner out of the Speaker's chair.

Seems as though Boehner had a few rocks in his pocket, and he used them against the Teagaggers AND Cantor (who's also a Teagagger).

Boehner figured out how to get rid of the Teabaggers BEFORE the next mid-terms.

Yeah Boehner.

@Concernamerica#1.130: Actually, the Countries debt is nearly all interest free. Of our total debt only a miniscule amount is owed to other countries, and generally they owe us more in credits than that total debt. Overwhelming amount of our debt is owed to ourselves. Too, portions that are given to, and spent by consumers end up at a profit, since the spenders always are assessed some sort of state or federal tax on that spent currency. Example: Unemployment compensation. Fed charges treasury no interest on money lent. Government sends funds to unemployed who spend it for necessary essentials. Profit and taxes are realized on these interest free debt funds. Debt measurement is more properly used to determine proper balance policy. Again, do not mean to be a smart ass. Best regards

I understand your points guys, but I have to agree with Dennis here. The debt ceiling is not acting like a barrier to spend. To try to bring it to a credit card analogy which does not really work.

*Not 100% I have this right either, so correct me if I am wrong*

It is more of the idea of you having a credit card with a 5k limit and you promise yourself you will only spend 2k. It turns out you already spent 3k. The debt limit is that promise to yourself that you won't spend more than 2k. So you are voting basically on not paying that 1k you went over your promise or any of the interest that comes with it... which is stupid would be stupid like Dennis said.

If you never paid that 1k owed your credit would suffer and it will effect future transactions. The key concept is that the money is already spent. Yes, having no limit is wreckless and I do not think I agree with that, but what I do not see is how in any circumstance a vote on the raising of the debt limit could ever be considered political leverage. It appears more to be temporarily holding the country hostage.

I say jump! Screw the Bush Tax cut... I loose about $1800 in taxes, but the avg 1% will lose about 500 to 1,000 times more. So, lets play. We already know what is the worst that can happen;

We all go back paying the same tax rate under Bill Clinton and Early GW Bush.

The Stock market will move about wildly for a few days. The rich will pull investments out, and the steady investors will remain steady.... Big freakin deal. I say let them sink their own ship since they chose to ram it in the first place. So why did thy settle for the terms at the end of last year??? Was that a joke???? CALL THE BLUFF... Perhaps McConnell will be the Secretary of Heritage Foundation.

LOL

Akeem,

Well said and … if we want a Debt Ceiling then …

Have Congress make a law that forced them to make sure the spending limit would not be exceeded
(estimated) before passing any spending bill or if the spending would exceed the limit, then they must pass a bill (or attach an amendment) to increase the limit before the spending bill can be passed.

Put the decision up front !!

Funny how all you libtards just blame the the "rwnj" for all of this. Just because the gop pushes back a little on obama's outrageous demands for total control of the economy and the ability to raise the debt ceiling without congress is absolutely ridiculous. Only congress can approve the level of national debt, not the president. That part of the constitution, oh but i keep forgetting the constitution means nothing to you.

The dem's and obama need to take an equal part of the responsibility here too. they are unwilling to bend or negotiate anything on this. its obama's way or the highway.

Big government is a bad thing. There has not been a big government in history that has done anything good for it's people.

I feel sorry for all of you who believe that a tax increase on the top 2% will be the answer to any of our problems.

That will be just the beginning. prices on everyday items will sharply increase. Yes this means you will be paying for their increased taxes. At the pump, at the grocery store, at the farmers market, clothing, utilities, all of it. Small business's will continue to struggle under the weight of these new burdens and will be forced to pass their increase onto you.

Then just wait until ACA kicks in fully. Even more of your middle class wages will be needed to survive.

Better start learning how to be more and more self reliant, by learning how to live like your great grandparents did. Because there is going to be less and less money available for charity.

Mac, if it's true... "portions that are given to, and spent by consumers end up at a profit, since the spenders always are assessed some sort of state or federal tax on that spent currency. Example: Unemployment compensation. Fed charges treasury no interest on money lent. Government sends funds to unemployed who spend it for necessary essentials. Profit and taxes are realized on these interest free debt funds" then we just need to SPEND BABY SPEND and DON'T RAISE TAXES! Woo hoo! Free money for everyone!!!

The problem is that the limited, if any, taxes collected on this money do not equal the amount of taxpayer money given away. Also, those who are receiving the "entitlement" money are primarily the ones that are not paying taxes. Therefore, you have a deficit. Correct?

BTW, I would fully support a balanced budget amendment to promote fiscal responsibility.

Dennis, apparently NOTHING in Washington DC controls spending. Why do we as Americans continue to put up with this irresponsibility?

@concernedamerica#1.142: Respectfully, you are both correct and incorrect. Correctly those who receive such benefits generally do not pay federal taxes on those funds. However, when they spend the funds for essentials, as I mentioned, the costs of those essentials are crammed with taxes and profits. Think of products moving along a transactional line with frequent buy and sell intervals. Profits and taxes are assessed, and added to price at each interval. True, it's more on some products than others, but all will generally yield a total wealth in profit and taxes in excess of the final price. Sometimes more than double or triple the price depending on rate of inflation at time of production. To be even more precise here, we would have to get into intangibile Government costs of denying unemployed people emergency survival funds, which we cannot do here, since this forum isn't meant for such a lengthy thesis. We used to track back from the retail price of thimbles, in economics class, to the point of raw material procurment. Always found He/She who purchased a thimble created more wealth than the retail price paid for the thimble. It's the beauty of American Capitalism. Best regards

Hmmmmmm,

So, Barrack Hussein is going to get a "big deal", we just don't know how big. Interesting.

Just how much more money, borrowed money I may add, will we allow this incompetent community organizer to redistribute with no significant improvement in the economy or growth? There can be no amount of money, borrowed or printed, that can fix the dysfunctional economic policy this pathetic president has presided over for 4 years.

Can you Libbies please tell me what have any of Barrack Husseins policies done to help our long term economy? Realize we have literally burned through the $2.4 trillion we raised the debt ceiling to last August. This means we have been spending over $130 billion every month for 18 months. Where is the $timulu$ effect of all that money? If the $863 billion $timulu$ was responsible for allegedly creating 5 million jobs, low-wage/low-no benefit jobs, where are the extra 15 million jobs from the $2.4 trillion dollars in spending.

This is the convoluted thinking of the Keynesians who believe in deficit spending. In addition to the $863 billion $timulu$ we have been adding all this deficit spending to the economy and all we've created is 5 million low-wage/low-no benefit jobs.

Let the fiscal cliff happen and let sequestration proceed. The majority of the illiterate unwashed masses who have no concept how the economy needs to be fixed will just continue to wallow in poverty and squalor, this is what Barrack Hussein wants. As he continues to promote middle class mediocrity rather than Americans achieving more the Liberal/Progressive useful idiots will just submit willingly to the statist mentality.

Part of me says the Dems shouldn't take a deal before stepping off the fiscal curb unless Defense Budget Cuts are included, otherwise we aren't likely to get any - and I believe we need to cut defense spending.

If the opposite of Pro is Con the the opposite of Progressive is Congress..

Ron Indiana You don't know what you are talking about. If the dow goes up to 13,000+ where it was 5 years ago, the people who stuck it out over the last five years would be looking at a loss of about 3,500 points. Money depreciates and if you use a simple time/money calculator going back five years the last time the dow was at 13,000+, you would see that with inflation and depreciation of the dollar, that the 2007 dow of 13,000+ would be the equivalent of 9,500 dow today.

Therefore getting back to 13,000+ is a net loss of about 30%. To be at the same level as in 2007 the dow today would have to be at about 17,000.

Celebrating that the dow is the level as 5 years ago is foolish.

What it shows is that Obummer is ignorant of economics and how to put the economy back in shape. He had four years and we are 30% more in the hole than we were 5 years ago. Taxing more the people who run the engine of the economy is a disincentive for them to work more to improve the economy.

First put in the spending reforms. All politicians and public servants take a 30% tax cut. Then cut out the fat in the budget, including the 3 billion dollar bone that Obama threw to the unions every year. Reform the illegal laws that the government have showered on the unions.

We don't need 11 aircraft carriers. Cut that down. Each aircraft carrier has to manned by 5000 sailors.

Get the hell out of AFGHANISTAN today. Carpet bomb the area TODAY so that the terrorists know what will happen in the future if they remain as force against Afghanistan and save that trillion dollars a year going down the toilet.

Lets see honest permanent cuts before Obummer asks Americans to give him more money to dole out as payoffs to the people who voted for him.

Barry was speaking about the possibility that the Republican's (LOL!!!) might DARE to use the leverage they have over raising the debt limit to counter the leverage he has right now in the fiscal cliff fight.

The nerve of those ELECTED Representatives!!!!!!

Oh bull@!$%#. In case you forgot, the LAST time those so-called "elected representatives" used the debt limit as leverage, we got DOWNGRADED and the markets took a run. Why the hell should we have to go back to this @!$%#, especially since our public institutions have taken a HUGE hit in public confidence, both here and abroad????

The American people owe a great debt of gratitude to the founding fathers for the foresight they had in writing the Constitution in such a way as to ensure that a President could not govern like a King, issuing orders that must be obeyed by royal fiat. Especially with a President like Barry who in predisposed to governing like an all powerful monarch.

First of all, the Founding Fathers also ensured that Congress could not dictate laws without negotiating with the President and the minority party, lest Congress become a modern-day parliamentary system where the majority party essentially rules by decree. Secondly, it is REPUBLICANS who have predisposed to governing like dictators, even when they are still the minority party!! Don't you remember that their goal was to unseat the President??? The debt ceiling was created in the 20th century to enhance borrowing methods; it was not meant as a tool to hold the American people hostage to the whims of a minority party interested only with the interests of the wealthy elite.

Barry is going to have to suck it up and realize the Constitution REQUIRES him to deal with other co-equal branches of govt. The Republicans have an opportunity to bop Barry on the head with his own deficit spending spree sock. I think it was George Will's column where I read the best suggestion to keep Barry on a short leash in the debt limit battle: Don't threaten to shut down the govt. The lefty liberal MSM will kill them for doing that. Instead, put Barry on a weekly allowance increase in the debt limit that keeps the bare minimum essentials of the federal govt running, but, which does not fund any of the lefty liberal fluff and free stuff. Soon enough, King Barry will have to "play dat game".

What you fail to take into account is that this would DESTROY the economy. And by the way, the president might be able to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling himself using the part of the Constitution mandating that all loans have the "full faith and credit of the United States." I'm pretty sure that you don't want to unleash yet another monster of executive power, if you believe in what you say you believe. And by the way, I doubt Obama is going to fall for that mess again. No longer will the President be made a mockery of by the GOP; they ought to play hardball now.

I think Howard Dean made the best point on reducing the deficit; if we want to really reduce it and restore our fiscal health, we ought to let the fiscal cliff happen. Yes, the consequences will be dire, but it is the only way to actually fix our deficit predicament. To my fellow liberals; we ought to simply let the fiscal cliff happen and offer bills to mitigate its short term effects. It will be painful, but it does give the us the revenue that we desire and the defense cuts that we need. In addition, it will allow us to have another stimulus package to fix the economy, one based on infrastructure spending and unemployment insurance, not useless tax cuts. We can actually fix our infrastructure and possibly expand healthcare reform. And finally, it will buy our nation time to focus on long-term tax and entitlement reform that will have more revenue in the baseline. It may hurt the economy, but only if we let the fiscal cliff happen without short-term stimulus.

What's the REAL problem with the Debt?

I have just researched the problem with health care entitlements, and it is far worse than most people imagine. I used the President's own Budget (OMB) for 2013 as the basis for the basic information, and here are the results;

The projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid (Payroll taxes) over the next 10 years are $2.823 Trillion.

The projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years are $11.134 Trillion.

That leaves a net Deficit in the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $8.311 Trillion, which is even greater than the total projected Federal Deficits of $6.684 Trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, if we did not have a Deficit from health care, we would have a budget SURPLUS of more than $1.6 Trillion over the next 10 years. These figures include the implementation of Obamacare.

Obviously, something needs to be done with this HUGE 'entitlement problem', but it's a shame that the media does not give us the information that we need to make intelligent choices. Here's the link to Obama's Budget to verify - See Table S-5

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $75 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

Of course, we could save an estimated $4.7 Trillion over 10 years by cutting spending by only 10% each year (We have increased spending by 27% over 2008 levels). There are several ways that we could address the Debt problem – all we need is the political will.

By the way – The proposed increase in taxes on the 'rich' would raise less than 10% of the revenues needed to overcome the Deficits (and would likely curtail job creation because it would primarily affect small businesses), so obviously something else needs to be considered. And the proposed EPA regulations will cause consumer utility bills to spike at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet.

I welcome any comments.

on't care...

Funny - all these posts...Debt ceiling doesn't control spending...true...because they just always raise it...or they scream crisis....just like these last 4 years.

Spending has never been in control. That's why it's $16 trillion in "admitted" debt and many trillions in unfunded liabilities.

And the liberals do not think we have a spending problem. Sorry, but your tax increases won't even scratch the surface of the financial disaster brewing in this country.

They say cutting govt spending will hurt the economy.....This ignores the fact that out of control spending is going to absolutely destroy the economy.