elliot-3020456

Or the most pathetic of all, 0bitchboys demand for unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling on his own. He wants to change the constitutional requirement of checks and balances by taking the job from congress.

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

Oh...do you mean the WH's push to make permanent the McConnell solution put forth in last year's debt ceiling debacle, in which it allowed the Administration to raise the debt ceiling, maintaining the communication with the Congress and Congress maintaining it's ability to vote symbolically of it's support or lack of support for the increase? If your claim is that the President is shredding the Constitution, perhaps your focus should be centered on the man who made the provision.

And for the record, if made perm., that would the be process for ANY Administration...and if you think a Republican President wouldn't be utilizing it, I've got some prime, mountainside land for sale right here in Omaha.

Well, us Dems can say what we will, but the truth is that it will be a failure for Republicans AND Democrats if this thing doesn't get solved.

The American People will unfortunately pay the price. ;-(

Elliot...Grow up and try to assemble a coherent thought. The problem is on both sides. Remember when Mr. B said last year that he got over 95% of what he wanted during the debt ceiling debacle? We need to be realistic and do the math. I have no problem with raising the retirement age and medicare eligibility age incrementally or getting rid of all the BS loopholes like mortgage interest and earned income tax credits, medical deductions etc. as long as the law is fair to the middle class.

Message to all in Washington:

Stop acting like little children on the playground and get something done for a change. Enough of the partisan BS. If we go over the cliff BOTH sides are to blame. Its like watching little children fight over a toy. I am to the point where I could care less if they raise taxes on all or the top 2%, just get something done.

elliot,

[unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling on his own]

That was a 2011 Mitch McConnell proposal and the Congress can still stop the increase with a two-thirds vote.

Allen, admitting to facts would take integrity that many folks who choose to simply rant lack. The facts distort their perception of reality.

Let's point out again that the initial deal "offerings" are nothing more that starting points for negotiations. President Obama found out last time that the obstructionists were so dead set against making any deal that even when he offered a middle ground the first time, it was rejected. So why not start at an extreme point?

Heck, didn't a certain Senator just organize a filibuster against HIS OWN bill?

Hey speaking of Old mitch mcconnell, he's filibustering his own bill. WTF is that all about?

If this cliff doesn't get solved, I'm blaming both sides!

This isn't about who will look bad, unlike many posters that say "let's go over that cliff!".

People NEED to know how to plan for the huge tax increase this will cause if we go over it! Families are already living on less and less, see wages for last few years! A tax increase on the middle class will be a disaster...

Hey, E-diot (or elliot-3020456)

Do you think First Read will report on 0bama moving the goal post and now demanding extensions to unemployment beyond the current 99 weeks? Or the most pathetic of all, 0bitchboys demand for unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling on his own

Just idiotic name calling - anything constructive food for thought from you? If RWNJs don't learn anything from the 2012 Elections, you should expect more browbeating by the voters in 2014.

.

The speaker simply has no leadership skills, hasn't heeded voters' demand for bipartisanship in working with the President to move the country forward; the speaker has been determined to go off your own right-wing cliff anyway. Expect Speaker Nancy in January 2015.

Obama isn't giving a counter offer, because he already made an offer. The ball is still in your court Boehner. Make another offer that increases taxes on those making more than $250,000 ask for modifications to medicare and medicaid.

This isn't hard. Republicans need to grow a pair, instead of being afraid of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs you promised in 2011 when you became the Speaker. More broken promises from our right-wing politicians

Maybe they're right next to all those "shovel ready jobs" ... oops.

All McConnel did is bring the presidents plan to a vote

If only he did that with the things that matter.

Lil Michelle,
I am with you on that. Its getting old watching these idiots argue back and forth with their "I will take my ball and go home" attitude.

elliot Keep spinning it you can't polish that turd.

Hey, Pigotry, let's talk a little more about "voter's demands", ok. How about the demands of the electorate who voted 242 Republicans into the house, to only 193 Dems? I'd say that gives Mr. Boehner quite a strong mandate to oppose Obama Claus's redistribution of wealth scheme. Whaddya think?

jim-1455434

The reality is that Obama HAS NO INTENTION OF EXTENDING "the Bush Tax Cuts" for anyone at all !

If that were so, then why is Obama backing the Senate bill that already passed that extends tax cuts for 100% of taxpayers for the first 250K of their income? Or do you think that Obama is so crafty that he's relying on the insane refusal of Republicans to pass that tax cut extension so that everyone will pay higher taxes? I guess counting on Republican insanity IS always a bet you won't lose money on.

elliot - try again ...

Reid agreed to the vote and McConnell had to filibuster his own bill.

McConnell made a historical bad move yesterday.

Hold the line, Mr. President! The American people are backing you on this.

spider good point but it got lost in the fact that the republicans lost seats in the house. Losing seats is no mandate.

demanding extensions to unemployment beyond the current 99 weeks?

I have not seen or heard any political leaders asking to extend UE beyond 99 weeks anywhere. Normally, the maximum is 26 weeks, and Federal funding has allowing extensions beyond that, up to 99 weeks in some places (based on the current unemployment rate in each state)

The only extensions that have ever been proposed are to continue funding the extended benefits beyond 26 weeks, up to as much as 99 where unemployment rates are highest. The President has not proposed extending beyond 99.

spider-737231

Hey, Pigotry, let's talk a little more about "voter's demands", ok. How about the demands of the electorate who voted 242 Republicans into the house, to only 193 Dems? I'd say that gives Mr. Boehner quite a strong mandate to oppose Obama Claus's redistribution of wealth scheme. Whaddya think?

The combined votes for Democrats running for House seats was over a half-million GREATER than the total votes for Republicans. The Repubs kept control of the House only because of the shameless gerrymandering of congressional districts in Republican controlled states. Boehner received NO mandate. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Boner is back to his usual game -- let's sit and do nothing and then we'll blame President Obama for the whole fiasco! Unfortunately, it's going to backfire on him since the rank and file of the Republicans are not 100% with him on this standoff!

This is getting really ridiculous.....what bunch of children the GOP have become, especially their "bully" leader, who is the biggest idiot on the playground!!

Hey Smitty....Funny....How about 100% of Dems voting against Obama's budget.

The problem is on both sides....Or, are they working together.

Could it be that they WANT to go over the fiscal cliff so that they can jack up taxes, cut spending, but none of them would accept responsibility or have to have any political courage to do what is right for America?

It's all corrupt. All of these idiots here that believe Obama, a Dem, or Rep gives a rats rear end about you is just crazy.

Pedestrian,

Not all of the American people are backing Obama on this.

Why can't Democrats ever look at the big picture?

How about this... SS deal that I put my hard earned money into with a promise that I will get a check at age 62, that was the deal when I joined... Now they want to make cuts because they (Washington) STOLE money (from the Social Security funds) to balance the budget.

So now, it is age 65, not for what I signed up for (62), and they are talking of making it age 70. Do we trust ANYONE in Washington?

God, Elliot, you do blather on and on and on. . . . Don't you have anything of substance to say?

@elliot

You are mischaracterizing the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is borrowing money to pay for what congress already approved. The way congress spends money is compromise, we’ll spend some money on this left-wing social program stuff over here, and we’ll spend some money on that right-wing military industrial complex stuff over there and we can all agree and the bill gets passed and lets all go home to our mansions. Then the bill comes due (the debt ceiling) and the right says, “whoa hold on a minute, we aren’t actually going to pay for all the stuff that we all agreed we would spend money on until you compromise on that lefty stuff we don’t like and agree to spending cuts going forward.”

It’s like going to the store and agreeing with your spouse that you will both get to buy things for yourself, and then when the credit card bill arrives saying, “I won’t pay this unless you agree that we spend less on you in the future.”

In the past, congress always just paid the bill, because that's what responsible adults do when they spend money, even spending money on credit. It was only under Obama that the republican controlled house decided paying the bill for the money THEY ALREADY SPENT was a tool they could use to blackmail the other side.

Irish 21

Not all of the American people are backing Obama on this.

Yes. Not all. Only about 65% of them:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/06/trio-of-polls-support-for-raising-taxes-on-wealthy/

And the 35% who don't are probably Republicans who want to secede from the Union because ACORN stole the vote for Obama even though it ceased to exist long before the election. In other words, the 35% of the public who are pinheads.

If obama gets the tax increase he wants, that will run the government for 6 days. Seems to me that we have a spending problem not a tax problem.

16 trillion in debt and growing, but i'm sure you lib's will say it's bush's fault.

Just for you Wayne.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15733147-calling-for-stimulus-democrats-cite-real-cliff-if-jobless-benefits-arent-extended?lite

Hey, spider-737231

Hey, Pigotry, let's talk a little more about "voter's demands", ok. How about the demands of the electorate who voted 242 Republicans into the house, to only 193 Dems



The GOPigs lost 5 house seats a month ago, and a few senate seats...didn't you? The voters have started to clean up the house. This is a work in progress. If the GOPigs don't shape up, the voters will ship more out in 2014. We will have Grandma Nancy to be speaker again. You Go Girl.

.

I am piggish and I know it. You GOP are skunky, the voters have let you have it.

Worm.....well said.

Lil Michelle, You're going to live longer than you were projected to 60 years ago. Adjustments for retirement need to be made.

@seeking

to be a Republican you must be crude; classless; have no character; have no integrity; and be ready to lie lie lie!

Come one now...there are just as many crude and classless liberals on this site, at least be honest. Many of the comments from you & Feisty are nothing but jabs at the other side, with nothing positive or constructive to add.

How can you rip into someone calling others names, by doing the exact same thing? Many of your comments are just hate filled rants at other posters but yet you are the first to call out any republican for doing the same things you do...and neither is right.

most would rather win a talking point debate/disagreement than do the right thing....this is about spending and your pres efforts won't amount to anything if they don't stop the spending. On the other hand it does appear he doesn't want to solve this. Stay on point kids; it's obvious when you and your leaders are posturing.

LOL, in other news...

President Barack Obama will accept unlimited corporate donations for his inauguration in January, reversing his position from his first inauguration, according to two sources close to the planning.

The legal maximum donation for an inauguration is $250,000, but four years ago, the president capped all contributions at $50,000 and barred companies from kicking in any money. Obama had also banned corporate money from the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

More money, more power!

Here's a tip for the Republicans.
"It's the middle class, stupid!"
Start representing "THE PEOPLE" and stop being the paid lapdogs of corporations and billionaires. I'm a private sector union member who is watching as 50 million $$ a year CEO's of profitable corporations try to steal people's pension fund money, outsource American jobs, and take away other important benefits from middle class workers.
Seems to me the end result of this type of system is that there will be a few hundred people who are billionaires presiding over a serfdom of 300 million minimum wage, no benefit workers.
The Republicans dont seem to have a problem with any of this. As a matter of fact, to them it's just good ole Ayn Rand style capitalism.

The Republicans solution all along was to defeat Obama ... and the rich bankrolled the idiots!!!!

If nothing is done ... we go over the cliff ... the tax breaks automatically expire for the rich ... and the GOP will take the fall for trying to protect the rich ... where is the incentive for Obama to bargain with these fools that destroyed the economy before he got there??????

All I hear is the dems saying that we need to go back to the Clinton era rates. So , let's do it. For everyone. Then everyone will have some skin in the game. Even Howard Dean said the other day that taxes need to go up for all Americans if we are to ever reduce the debt/deficit. Spending also needs to be cut to balance the plan ( even the military ). Why not adopt Simpson/Bowles ? 20 to 25 trillion in debt in 5-10 years is NOT an option. The talk of leaving this debt to our children & grandchildren will not even be an option when the country is bankrupt.

E. Deboo - I will often say someone is ignorant or a buffoon but that is as low as I go. Check out the far righties comments and they are beyond crude and classless. You feel it is appropriate to refer to the president as "Obitchboy?" Again, apparently crude and classless is a requirement to be Republican.

elloit you are confused. obama did'nt propose the debt ceiling deal. mitch mcconnell did during the last negotiation. he ask for it to be brought back up again yesterday then he fillerbusted his own bill.

thats the facts

obama has made his plan very clear. the rates are going up on the top 2% and if the gop is willing to raise taxes on 98% of the people just to protect the top 2% then we will get no deal. it's just that simple

closing loop holes is a farce. there are millions of loop holes in the tax code and when you close one they use another one. thats why it does'nt aise enough money

Ah the party of obstructionists. How about the Harry Reid obstructionist agenda:

Rejects Obama's: Fiscal Cliff Plan; budgets; 2011 jobs bill; tax plan; plus hasn't produced a budget for four years.

Hi ho, hi ho, it's over the Obama cliff we go. Can't wait to hear the libbies go off when they have to pay their fair share, and the increased taxes of Obamacare. But that will be blamed on the conservatives.

Breaking news update -

Speaker Boner has decided to follow the DeMinted Tea Party senator of SC to abandon ship in January 2013 and to focus on his new career in Boner Therapy to become Boner the-rapist.

.

This has been a Pigotry News Network (PNN) news update - a nun-partisan news network. Our motto: run, nuns, boner is coming.

Houston,

Ok. So you are admitting that all Americans are not behind Obama on this? Proves my point. This is a divided nation right now and it is divided because of idiots in Washington playing on peoples emotions and livleyhoods. Its on both sides.

Conner, Jay Carney, 0bama's White House press secretary said it yesterday on national news. The whole world saw it, except you.

The arrogant bass terds seem to think that the people made no statement whatsoever by re-electing Obama. The people don't want Bonehead's party involved in running the country. Do what the President wants to do, and do it now! The wealthy will remain wealthy and the working class will remain the working class, just don't raise our taxes anymore...

Pigotry - You chastise elliot for name calling and then refer to right wing nut jobs and GOPigs. Do you actually read what you're posting or just type with brain disconnected from hands?

SeekingSanity - Same thing. You call out elliot but ignore Feisty Redhead who has not EVER said anything positive or useful on Newsvine.

You both ignore the fact that elliot is correct. Obama began by insisting that the wealthiest Americans pay more taxes. When the republicans said okay, we'll have them pay more taxes by eliminating deductions and loopholes, now the president will only accept higher tax rates. Who's being obstructionist now? The answer is Obama.

Hey, joemike404 @1.60

Pigotry - You chastise elliot for name calling and then refer to right wing nut jobs and GOPigs. Do you actually read what you're posting or just type with brain disconnected from hands?

Have you heard about the saying - give a dose of his own medicine, & shock therapy?

and U R wrong, in you claim 'eddiot is correct'...oxymoronic? or just moronic!

As long as the Republicans keep insisting that we gut Medicare spending and trim back Social Security from people who have paid their whole lives into both programs under penalty of law for non-compliance, and they keep insisting that the wealthiest couple percent of us be allowed to keep even more of their "hard-earned" money so that they can continue to offshore as many of our jobs as is possible, I don't see a viable likelihood of the passage of "fiscal cliff" relief, period.

The Republicans in the House act like they could care less what the voters wanted when they elected a 56 vote margin to the Senate and re-elected the President, and they are obviously showing us why we voted not to put them back in power too. My hope is that in two years if America is not bankrupt by then that we wisely choose to show people like Boehner, McConnell and friends the door too, as obviously they could care less what happens to the vast majority of Americans just as long as they get their wealth fix, just like heroin and cocaine addicts are allegedly so guilty of too.

Hey voters, you voted and got what you wanted. How's it workin' for ya so far!? While you sling mud in the gop direction, stop for a moment and ponder that Obama is willing to let us slide over the cliff unless the dems get what they want. This isn't so one-sided as it looks: Both sides have their arms folded. Blame all of them- that is more accurate.

The taxman cometh!

Lil Michelle, said. "People NEED to know how to plan for the huge tax increase this will cause if we go over it!"

Are you aware at all? The tax raise on everybody isn't huge. It amounts to 3 or 4 %. Thats not huge, the problem is the whole package of cuts, neither party wants to cut anything. So when I say if the republicans don't want to give on the wealthy tax raise then let it go over the cliff. What it amounts to is returning the tax to the level that Bill Clinton had when our country was strong, at peace and prosperous. Not everything about raising taxes is bad. What they fear is it will slow down the economy and cause another recession. I personally doubt that will happen. Remember the media is over playing most everything these days in order to sell their product.

1funnygirl.. the Obama cliff .... please!!!! And "libbies" please!!!!

Really ... you don't have to say far right nut cases or anything like that ... Republican is bad enough!

You lost by backing an outlandish lair ... get over it ....................

Darkside,

What are you talking about? You want the democrats to the be only party running the country and then you go on to say that you dont want taxes raised on anyone. The Republicans are the ones that are saying they dont want taxes raised on anyone and the dems are saying they want taxes raised on the top 2%. That will turn into taxes being raised on everyone.

Pro freedom, I got exactly what I wanted when my candidate won. Someone to stand up to you right wonders and work for the middle class. It is easy to see that the republican leadership is working and holding out for the top 25%, not the rest of us. So take your little stuff down the hall with you when you leave.

@seeking:

You feel it is appropriate to refer to the president as "Obitchboy?" Again, apparently crude and classless is a requirement to be Republican.

I said both were wrong....never did I say its ok to refer to OUR president (even if I didn't vote for him) as Obithcboy.

Please, you have said far worse than what you claim. You have made plenty of classless remarks yourself. And I am not going to stand here like I am a saint either but jeez the hypocrisy on there sometimes is shocking.

Be honest, do you consider some of the remarks made by Feisty to be classless at times?

John,

Isnt one of the proposals by the GOP to closs tax loopholes? Wouldnt that raise taxes on the rich?

"That will turn into taxes being raised on everyone." and Obama is a foreign born, Muslim radical, with communist/fascist leanings. Right wonders should be seen and not heard. What part of top 2% did you miss?

John in Battle Creek, Are you trying to attribute the economic success of the 90's to the tax rates?

I think you are forgetting a little something called the tech bubble and NAFTA.

Off the cliff with them! The republicons are only interested in protecting the 2%. They are lumping another 51% along with the 47% that they have already thrown under the bus. The total taxes for those 2% are already less than that 51% is paying right now too.

Welcome to the republicon economy.

Worm, well said.

Joemike - it's not worth trying to point things like that out to them. Best we can do is just laugh at them and wish them well.

No Irish, it isn't, they haven't said what loop holes. But in order to raise enough money to cut the budget deficit with an eye on paying the debt more is needed. Just ask yourself how the mortgage interest deduction would effect you. You want to talk tax raise on the middle class that is it.

(not so)funnygirl,

. . . plus hasn't produced a budget for four years.

. . . plus you don't have the slightest clue . . .

Elliot, you have proven yourself a fool. Remember the saying it is better to be thought a fool then open your mouth and remove all doubt? That is you. Give Clinton credit, he handed the keys to the White House to George W. Bush with a balance budget, a nation at peace and a booming economy. Supply side economics has always failed and it will fail again when republicans return to power and screw things up just like Bush did.

I'm going to the store to get Feisty some MD 20/20 and Marbs,

I'm done with you ignorant serfs for now, just remember, 0bitchboy likes his boots spit shined.

joemike - you have no credibility. Your definse of elliot says it all and makes any point you THINK you are making worthless.

E. Deboo - you're a liar.

Has it occured to anyone that non of the clowns in Washingtong give a sh-t about any of us until elections roll around? For some reason I have this picture of Obama and Boehner chest bumping and high fiving each other when the cameras are off.

Last nights evening news showed Obama at a families home touting how he wants to help these middle class families and that under no terms will he agree to not taxing the 2%. This is where I boil inside. He knows full well that the increase he is asking for won't do jack @*%! to help that family or any other middle class family for that matter yet he goes on national TV and puts it out there as such never fully telling them the real truth. Because he can still keep the Bush tax cuts for them without having that 2% tax increase included but he doesn't tell them that. He just wants what he wants and of course the media slants the message to his favor as always.

Howard Dean finally stated the truth that everyone needs to hear and that everyone needs to accept by saying that taxes will have to go up for everyone! I'm not a Howard Dean fan but was refreshed to hear someone tell it like it is and stop the deception and games. We do have a real spending problem in this country and the waste is incredible but no one seems to care. Just tax some more and we'll worry about the spending later. Kind of like when you just keep using those offers the credit card companies give you when they up your credit and you know full well you don't have the money to pay and probably never will, but hey, they're offering, why not!

Obama is not a leader. He talks, talks, talks to the media, twitter, facebook, etc., everyone but congress! I'm with Lil Michelle, so sick of it all. He'll go to Hawaii, and I don't begrudge him a vacation, but when you choose to run for president, your priority number one is the country. He should be rolling up his sleeves and getting into deep talks with both parties how to solve this. He may want to portray that he thinks the Clinton ideas are great, but let me tell you, he is no Bill Clinton!

Doesn't Boehner know, that America will blame the GOP if there's no deal?

John,

I am well aware. My point is both sides are always very foggy on what they actually want. They toss out "ideas" on what their side wants to pit us all against each other. To one of your other points saying that Obama is fighting for the middle class......sorry but he is a politician just like everyone else in Washington. So I believe about 20% of what he says or anyone else running the country. These clowns all lie for a living.

what everyone needs to understand is this is a game. none of them want to resolve this. we will go over the cliff. as was originally intended.

get used to it.

i'll be more than happy to pay a little more in taxes to see the rich have to also.

but none of this is gonna lower the deficit.

So, we go off the cliff..... The Republicans get the blame.... Obama gets his "library" in Chicago..... Got it.

President Obama should enjoy the holidays and let the Republicans drive us off the fiscal cliff. Boehner reminds me of a little kid saying he'll hold his breath until he gets his way. Go for it. The first ones to hit the ground will be those who back the Republicans, i.e. defence contractors and government suppliers. Boy will they be screaming. The middle class has already endured the wort the Republicans can do to us. Let's see how Richie-Rich likes losing his job and home. There's nothing to discuss unless it includes eliminating the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy.

Houston!

spider-737231

Hey, Pigotry, let's talk a little more about "voter's demands", ok. How about the demands of the electorate who voted 242 Republicans into the house, to only 193 Dems? I'd say that gives Mr. Boehner quite a strong mandate to oppose Obama Claus's redistribution of wealth scheme. Whaddya think?

The combined votes for Democrats running for House seats was over a half-million GREATER than the total votes for Republicans. The Repubs kept control of the House only because of the shameless gerrymandering of congressional districts in Republican controlled states. Boehner received NO mandate. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Just like Democrats do in the states they control! It was going on by both parties long before you were born.

For all the math illiterate out there mostly Liberals.

old rate 39.6% before Bush 35% after Bush = 4.6% difference

Jan 1st 2013 Obama Care 3.8% tax increase + .9% medicare tax increase = 4.7%

35% + 4.7% = 39.7% top margin tax rate

------------------------------------------

Obama says 800 billion in closed loopholes isn't enough, he wants to tack on an additional 4.6% on top of the 4.7% in his Obama Care bill.

OBAMA is just greedy and won't compromise end of story. Hey Obama closing a loop hole is raising taxes ya moron. Also you already got your tax on the rich hidden in the Obama Care bill that had to be passed then read.

Way to go hurting small businesses and redistributing wealth.

@ Feisty...

How does my comment make me a RWNJ? Wow, your ignorance is quite an amazing quality.

I was simply pointing out some of the hypocrisy by both sides...if you dont like what I have to say, take your own advice, and dont read it.

Government's roll is to create chaos and then come to the rescue. Something will get done. It may not be perfect and it may also stir something else to be rescued later. But something will get done.

the easy way to lower the deficit stop paying congress and a national lottery, but that would be to simple.

Agreed. Plus, there can be no "progress" now because if it passed now everyone would have time to look over all the earmarks and debt ceiling BS that they are really arguing about. And as far as leadership goes, they are leading ,they just aren't leading anyone that doesn't have a boatload of money and shared it with them to get elected. Only the super rich are their concern because it was their millions that got them elected and those millions now have to be paid back. Get rid of earmarks, everything has to be proposed legitimately, make campaign contributions to the party only to be shared by all candidates, ban special interest and clean out Washington. That alone will solve our money problems. Oh wait, that would be something THEY would have to give up not US. Keep on re electing them folks. All your'e doing is giving them a free pass.

So Seeking - The only people that have credibility are those who agree with you? I'm so sorry that the truth makes you so unhappy. The president changed his story. When republicans do that, the liberals pounce on them for "flipflopping".

Ed McT - I find your last sentence so telling; "There's nothing to discuss unless it includes eliminating the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy". BTW - the only word in that phrase that should be capitalized is Bush - none of the rest of them are proper nouns. Why is it that democrats slam the republicans for being the party of "no" and being obstructionist and then make statements that are blatantly obstructive and think its okay. Do you people ever listen to yourselves or are the voices in your heads just too loud???

So, the GOP is back to protecting their rich patrons, no matter the cost to themselves or the country. Obama is trying to fufill one of his campaign pledges which it should be noted is supported by 2/3 of all voters. Note to GOP: that number includes roughly 15% of republican voters, so support of the 2% isn't the position of all of you. I can only assume that this percentage represents the non-crazy and/or stupid wing of the GOP.

Since the election of 'Saint' Reagan in 1980, the distribution of weath has shifted even more to the rich. The top 20% held 80% of the total US wealth when he took office; in the years since, they have gained an additional 10%, all at the expense of the bottom 80% who saw their wealth cut in half. There's the real 'income redistribution', so all the GOP pious blather about this is merely to cover up their theft. The 80% want their money back, pure and simple.

These numbers can be easily found with a search, and haven't been disputed by the GOP (merely ignored).

Keep it up GOP; it's 23 months and counting to 2014....

I don't believe it's as big as some are trying to make it out to be. I believe we should just "go over the cliff", and move on. I, for one, do not consider this a tax increase, but just returning to the permanent rate prior to the temporary reduction. Remember it was the Democrats that forced the tax rates under Bush's cuts to only be temporary and not permanent.

BTW, I have not seen any of the liberals saying the Bush tax cuts were great for the country and that is why we should keep them for certain tax payers. The Obama payroll tax reduction should also be allowed to expire (I see Obama wants those extended).

When are the left wingers on these blogs going to admit the tax increase on the so called "wealthy" will do NOTHING to help the deficit spending and it is nothing but Obama's EGO getting in the way. (Hell he has even admitted it is only a matter of his so called "fairness".

The tax rate increases on the 2% will generate around $86 Billion and Obama already wants to spend another $50 Billion on new stimulus bill, extend unemployment insurance and extend the payroll tax reduction act. What spending cuts are Obama and Democrats willing to put on the table?

@seeking...

E. Deboo - you're a liar.

You proved my point for me...thank you.

HopeyChangeyFeely-

Does anyone else picture Feisty as the crazed cat-throwing lady from The Simpsons when she goes on her barely coherent rants?

No.

Only douche bags like you do.

Ms Redhead has more intelligence, class, and style in her left pinky finger than you have in your whole body.

My guess is Lunchlady Doris is the type of person you are attracted to,;

Lunchlady Doris Freedman, is a sardonic chef for Springfield Elementary. She can frequently be seen serving deeply unpleasant meals, such as animal genitalia, shredded newspapers, and ground up gym mats, because of the school budget cutbacks. - Courtesy Wikipedia.

Salud

here is something to think about.

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. hiring gains held steady in November despite disruptions from Superstorm Sandy and employers' concerns about impending tax increases from the year-end "fiscal cliff."

Companies added 146,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent — the lowest in nearly four years — from 7.9 percent in October. The rate declined mainly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed.

TO: muglitt who wrote:

"I would lmao if the top 2% take their money and ship it out of the country, or just set back and live off what they have and dont pay another dime in income tax."

That's exactly what they've been doing, now tell us why you're so happy for every other country, EXCEPT America, and then leave since that makes you "so happy".

"lmao"? Ignorance is bliss.

E. Deboo - I believe stating a fact without the gutter trash name calling of elliot, jim, etc., is not so bad. If you think calling you a liar - because you've actually lied - is not acceptable - stop lying!

The democrats and republicans are responsible for the screw-ups equally. Barry get off of your ego trip, pull your head out and accept you are NOT God no matter what the idiot that made that picture thinks and learn a new word it is called compromise look it up in the dictionary as it is obvious that you did not learn it as a community organizer.

@muglitt...

The rate declined mainly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed.

Sad thing is those on the left don't want to believe this, even though the numbers are true. Funny, unemployment goes down and those on food stamps goes up and the left will run around screaming the economy is getting better.

"The blind leading the blind"

Has ANYBODY asked Who PUT The Cliff there in the first Place?????????? OF COURSE Prez O MUST be careful when dealing with that republicanCrimeCartelSoldier. Would You do a Bendover Deal with The BONER? without A Safety and Written Agreements put Firmly in place??? The Boner is NOTORIOUS For HIS RearEnded Deal Ramming. The republicanAristocratClub, VIA KingGeorge The VacuumBrained, during HIS Notoriously Shameful Shrubber Reign 2001-2008 SPENT THE SURPLUS left by Prez Clinton and then, Giving it all away to Tax EVASION Bonus Legislation for his Masters: The EVIL EVIL EVIL 1-10% And Corporate Rich with The Boner's and Mitch th' B!TCH McConMan's guidance for starting the Iraq War for "WMDs",???????, But REALLY for PROFIT, Racking Up $2Trillion debt, Just For Starters. So OF COURSE Prez O MUST Be CAUTIOUS With The Boner, Wouldn't You Be????

Can't wait to Insert the PB Competence Enema Up Inside Crapital Hill And FlushOut ALL The Politico Sewage there Stinking and Fouling Up LawMaking for America; Well One Huge $H!t, Demented DeMint, is Sliding out of there Soon but, it seems, another fecal brother "legislator" is taking DeMint's place. So BEFORE We can expect Prez O to make Progress with The Boner, He better mount up his Double Chastity Belt. We Need SMART Legislation on Capital Hill. That is NOT synonomous with the Clowns there..........

@seeking...

Where did I lie? By stating that you actually say worse than you claim??

If you cant admit that, and call me a liar instead, I really don't need to say anymore. You've proved my point.

Personally, I could care less what you think or call me.

You've shown yourself to be a hateful scrooge to anyone who doesn't agree with all of you opinions.

The divider in chief said so, so the Left Wing LIBERALS have to believe it.

I was always under the impression that UNITED we stand and divided we FALL. We would the administration try to divide this country so much, just to win an election. Kill the country to win an election. what a bunch of IDIOT those DEMS are.

Then they want to CHANGE the constitution, FU CK NO. leave your FILTY HANDS OFF of it.

NO CHANGES TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

There is certainly equal blame in this whole mess since it has been known to be coming due for the past 18 months and here we are waiting until the last minute. But it says a lot about the willingness to solve this responsibly that the president is spending 20 plus days in Hawaii vacationing. Negotiating with Obama on this issue has been a moving target. Obama said on the campaign trail that 800 billion in revenue increases was his target, and now it is 1.2 trillion. Obama added in the no credit limit requirement, more stimulus spending, and a paltry 40 billion spending cut that is to be determined later. We have Harry Reid calling it a political stunt when McConnell try's to bring Obama's proposal to a vote in the senate. It seems hard to believe that if he were offered everything he has on the table today, that Obama wouldn't change his demands tomorrow. With Obama vacationing in Hawaii and adding new demands, it is hard believe he has any real interest in seeing this issue resolved.

Randy, that is only half of the tax increases. The total increase in taxes is actually estimated to be 38% What you listed is barely 20%. Capital gains increases form 15 - 20%, there is a new tax on all real-estate sales over $250,000 of 3.8%. There is the elimination of the extra child tax credit, and more.

F----- Redhead

The only reason we read your post is for comedy relief !

You are a continuous joke !

We expect that though, from a paid political hack like yourself.

Elliot, 0bitchboy likes his boots spit shined

Yeah, you will be the first in line to polish his shoes since that will be an upgrade to what you currently do for a living.

Who wants to change the constitution Steve? Divider in chief? What country have you been in. Certainly not the U.S.

"Pigotry"...the true definition of class. Your rants make no sense at all. You are probably the most uneducated, one-sided, racists that I've seen on this crap. You spew words of ignorance and that is why you will never be rightfully accepted in any forum. Get an education...Get a job.... Get off your a$$ and do something...ANYTHING productive for that matter, and quit looking for the next government check to arrive. I promise you even that will dry up very soon as well...Your man will see to that! HE IS AN "OBAMANATION" to the human race!

Everyone blathering on about Obama wanting to change the constitution, you might want to look at all the BS that congress put through.

Automatic pay raises for the top three government agencies, no need to vote, just automatically do it.

Full pay and health care after they leave office.

Anyone think that severence package is total BS. Congress member gets voted out of office for doing absolutely nothing, and he gets full benefits till he dies. Full pay at his last rate till he dies. Want to show my how this is not BS. Guess who controls those purse strings your screaming about. The guy in the White House is not to blame for the money problems this country has. Look to Congress for that.

American Girl-724855

you dont have a clue to what is really going on . they are not taking their money out of the country they invest t, just like Obama invested you tax dollars n Fiat via Chrysler or his investment in Canada and Mexico via GM or dont you remember the Auto company bailouts.

The President has made his offer. He's willing to negotiate on spending cuts. But he wants Republicans to name to the cuts, since cuts are what they want. POTUS wants the Republicans to get the blame for spending cuts that affect everyday citizens. And I don't blame him. C'mon Repubs, make us an offer we can't refuse!

Even Howard Dean said the other day that taxes need to go up for all Americans if we are to ever reduce the debt/deficit. Spending also needs to be cut to balance the plan ( even the military ). Why not adopt Simpson/Bowles ?

Ok, you want it? Here it is from the Washington Post:

So here, with an assist from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, are a few facts to keep in mind about the Simpson-Bowles plan. And while you're reading this list, remember: Simpson-Bowles is a centrist proposal.

1) Simpson-Bowles ends the the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. And note that they do that before they reform the tax code. The expiration of the tax cuts is built into their baseline. That way, their reform of the tax code starts from a revenue level that includes the revenue from those upper-income Bush tax cuts.

2) There are a lot of tax increases in Simpson-Bowles. $2.6 trillion over 10 years, to be exact. That's more than President Obama ever proposed. It's way more than the Republicans have ever proposed. It's $1.8 trillion more than in the "Bowles plan" that Boehner is proposing. Think about that: To follow the Simpson-Bowles recommendation on taxes, you'd have to take the $800 billion Boehner is proposing and then raise taxes by more than the $1.6 trillion Obama is asking for.

3) There are so many tax increases that the plan is nearly 1:1. According to CBPP's calculations, Simpson-Bowles includes $2.9 trillion in spending cuts and $2.6 trillion in tax increases. That's 1.1:1. If you add the $800 billion in projected interest savings to the spending side, then it's 1.4:1.

4) Simpson-Bowles taxes capital gains and dividends as normal income. The key difference between Simpson-Bowles-style tax reform and the tax reform plans we heard about through the election is that S-B eliminates the preferential rate on capital gains and dividend income. That amounts to a huge tax increase on the rich, and it's how S-B manages to lower rates while raising revenue and retaining progressivity.

5) Charities, homes, health care and states. Simpson-Bowles turns the deductions for charitable contribution and mortgage interest into 12 percent, non-refundable tax credits. It caps the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care and then phases it out entirely by 2038. It eliminates the exemption for state and local bonds.

6) Simpson-Bowles raises the gas tax by 15 cents. Just saying.

7) Congress has already passed 70 percent of the discretionary cuts. Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending will be $1.5 trillion lower from 2013 to 2022 than was projected in the Congressional Budget Office's 2010 baseliner. That means that 70 percent of S-B's cuts to discretionary spending are done.

8) Simpson-Bowles cuts security spending by $1.4 trillion, not including drawing down the wars. That's far deeper than what's in the law now, far deeper than anything the White House or the Republicans have proposed, and deeper, I believe, than the sequester cuts that so many think would devastate the military.

9) The Social Security changes. Simpson-Bowles makes three main changes to Social Security. It increases the taxable maximum on income to 90 percent of all income, which raises $238 billion over the next decade. It uses a different measure of inflation to slow cost-of-living adjustments. It raises the retirement age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075.

10) Paul Ryan voted against Simpson-Bowles. And so, for the record, did Dave Camp and Jeb Hensarling, the other two House Republicans on the commission. Of the House Democrats, John Spratt voted for the proposal, and Xavier Becerra and Jan Schakowsky voted against. Among the senators, it was just the reverse: All three Republicans (Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, and Mike Crapo) voted for it, as did two of the three Democrats (Dick Durbin and Kent Conrd). Max Baucus voted against it.

11) Simpson-Bowles went down in the House, 382-38. In March, Reps. Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette brought a modified version of Simpson-Bowles to the floor. This incarnation of the proposal was actually quite a bit to the right of the original, including smaller tax increases and defense cuts. It failed, and failed big.

These 11 facts should shed light on a couple of Washington's enduring mysteries.

First, it should be fairly clear why the White House figured Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter. They thought that if they endorsed it, Republicans would oppose it en masse, and hang every unpopular tax increase and spending cut around the White House's neck. In retrospect, I think the White House miscalculated here, but it's easy to see why they made the decision they did. The proposal the White House ultimately released included far fewer tax increases and security spending cuts than Simpson-Bowles.

Second, as popular as Simpson-Bowles is among the CEO community, and on Wall Street, most of those folks don't know what's in it. Wall Street doesn't tend to be hugely supportive of taxing capital gains as normal income, for instance.

Bonehead is fighting for the rich, if they raise my taxes I don't have that option..Is there a psych ward in the whithouse.

StoptheCannibals, thanks for the information - great post. Alan Simpson was on Jon Stewart the other night and it was a great although short interview.

The UE rate went down because more people dropped out of the workforce? I though sure y'all would again say it was because they were cooking the books, just like the pollsters when they showed Obama in the lead in the last election, just like archaeologists when they find rocks millions of years old, just like NOAH when their research shows the earth warming, just like...

Oh well, I suppose it's progress. At least this time you think the UE rate actually went down.

Hey Fiesty. You sound like a liberal democrate. Don't tell us what to do. That is akin to me telling you that if you don't want to be read.... don't write. Kippa the mouth shut.

The Obama payroll tax reduction should also be allowed to expire (I see Obama wants those extended).

When are the left wingers on these blogs going to admit the tax increase on the so called "wealthy" will do NOTHING to help the deficit spending and it is nothing but Obama's EGO getting in the way. (Hell he has even admitted it is only a matter of his so called "fairness".

There we go...proof that Republicans only care about the rich. The payroll tax holiday costs the same as the tax increase on the so called "wealthy" but Republicans are more than willing to let those tax cuts expire.

Where is Grover and the Republicans when it comes to middle-class tax cuts? They are out-of-action. Do we need to send out a search party?

Steve: how do liberals want to change the constitution? I hadn't heard about that.

Man what hate in this room. You know what. This is what the Koch Brothers wanted. Al long as we are at each others like this, they get away with what ever they want. The Koch's spend near $100 Million a year to fund these so called think tanks. Witch are just people being paid by them to say the thinks they want being said. And these so called grass roots movements, These people know right where to go to find the back wood Hillbilly's to come out in force. They went right to the KKK and shipped them to where ever they want them. These people are still Confederates. They never swore an oath to be in the Union. Never. They are for the most part uneducated people. I remember this one lady at a rally, here in here tea bag hat. She said the President is a lair. When asked what lies? She couldn't say one lie. She had no Idle what she was talking about. The Koch brothers know right where to go to find these people, and at the rally's they all say no one is paying them to be there. That is the lie, and why would they say that to start with? because everyone knew they were paid to get on that bus and go where ever they were needed. Given a brown bag lunch a few beers and there in. Koch's spend $100 Million and make $4 Billion more in profits. What an investment. They keep polluting the air, water and land. They paid off the Governor of WI and the Congress as well. What did they get in return? Timber for free, for there paper mills. They got total control of the power when Walker sold them all the Dam's that produce electricity. And they got a total free pass on all regulation, In other words they can do what ever they want to do in that state. We all need to wake up to this. I kinda think Elliot and Steve and some of the others in this room are paid by the Koch's.

It's everyone's fault.

Let's get the Economy going again!

I love it when conservatives say they are fighting to protect our freedom. What a line of baloney.

The "freedom" that conservatives are really talking about, means the freedom to make, and keep, obscene amounts of money, while suppressing the economic advancement of middle income Americans. It used to be that most Americans had a pension plan, paid health care, and regular raises in pay. Now, corporations pay their top executives extremely well and most ordinary workers have gotten the shaft. Unions are being vilified and laws are being passed to marginalize them. Corporations claim they cannot be competitive while paying workers a decent salary with benefits. Yet the same companies report record levels of profit. It's not that they can't afford worker benefits. It's strictly greed on the part of the upper echelon of society.

In a great nation such as ours, there is no good reason for this economic disparity. There's nothing wrong with being rich. Most of the rich would still be rich, even if they paid 90% in taxes. But there's a serious moral dilemma when retirees are squeezed dry after working all their lives. Yet somehow, cops, school administrators, teachers, politicians and other government workers seem to be doing fine with their retirement packages. Why aren't conservatives screaming about the drain they cause on the government coffers?

Today, more and more people are unable to retire. How can you save for retirement when you barely make enough money to live day to day? The average balance in a 401(k) is around $40,000. Who can retire on that?

So the burden of providing some level of care for retired workers has fallen on the government, through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Now they want to take that away too. Just because they want to keep more of their immoral amounts of money.

And the biggest shock to me is that somehow these conservatives have convinced approximately 48 percent of us that this is the American Dream! Wake up people! It's only a dream for the top 1%. For the rest of us, it's a nightmare.

To Elliot and Steve. Elliot you seem to be well educated. That being the case, then you must know that it is not the President that needs to be doing this budget. That is Congresses Job. Now we all know that Congress passed the Ryan plan witch went no where, The Senate countered, The Congress just stopped right there. It is there job to work this out with the Senate. The President don't need to send anything down. That is not the way its done. I guess Bonner don't know that. Bonner whats the president to do the Congresses job for them. You also should know that debt ceiling fight is for money that has already been spent, like the wars that were never paid for. You guys keep saying the president spent all that money. I would like to quote Ron Reagan " The President can not spend a dime. The Congress spends the money" The President can not spend a dime. So the truth is that Congress would do well to just turn that over to the President as Mitch McConnell offered up. You guys seem to want it both ways. Tell me, how well do the Koch Brothers pay and do you make over $250K?

Is Boehner's only statement after drinking 3 to 4 drinks is "Serious"? Can he say anything else besides "Serious"?

On the so-called "debt ceiling", there is no question that Congress can not refuse to pay the debts of the United States:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

US Constitution, Amendment 14, section 4.

Any action by the Congress to attempt to declare the debt of the US invalid would be unconstitutional.

The debt "Ceiling" is itself unconstitutional since it only authorizes borrowing to pay for the debts that have already been authorized.

Has anyone told Oblamo that he can't run for president anymore? Politcal grandstanding for the purpose of grandstanding when he should be leading is pathetic.

Don't blink John! We've paid more than enough in taxes. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

@TomasGrande: Riiiiiiiight. Someone whose drivel starts with "WHAAAA! WHAAAA! WHAAAA!" - what class and intelligence.

People normally grow out of the fake/mocking crying tactic in 1st grade.

The leaders of both parties need to force all the Senators and Congresspeople to sit in the capitol 6 days a week, 10 hours a day with a lunch break and two 15 minute breaks until they come to some compromise.

No days off, no Christmas break just do the work they were hired to do. If they aren't willing to do that then they need to quit immediately.

Lead, Follow or get Out of the Way!

For anyone on Obama's band wagon, just ass up more tax's voluntarily, and We will all be happy. You all will see a large increase coming anyway, You are just to blind to see it. I've paid My fair share, as well as the top 1%. I don't think they deserve not one penny more, period !! The Government is the most wasteful institution in the History of the world, and You Libturds want to give them more ? Do You think they will suddenly fix their spending habits and balance the budget ? I hope the Republicans stand their ground, because that is what we elected them for ! I wouldn't raise tax's on anyone, would cut the pay of the congress, Senate, and president in half, and then make some incentives if certain objectives were met. This president has increased the debt more than any president in the history of the country, and He expects us to believe that He will implement these cuts, after the Republicans cave to His demands ? I am ready to go over, and will love it when tax's increase on everyone, middle class especially ! Ya'll voted for the greatest divider in the History of this country, live with it !

I never thought I would be typing this, but I think Ann Coulter said it best on the Hannity program last night on FOX. This is what she said, as best as I can remember it:

Coulter: "We lost the election, we need to make a deal with the President."

Hannity: "You mean raise taxes on the rich?"

Coulter: "No....well...YES, raise taxes on the rich.

Hannity (something like) "Really?"

Coulter: "We lost the election Sean."

Well, Kiddies, I couldn't have said it better myself. Ann Coulter, the Queen of Mean, the Wicked Witch of the East, the leading candidate for the title "Ilsa, She-wolf of the SS", says they lost the election and they need to cut a deal with the President, raise taxes on the rich and get on down the road.

There you have it folks, the seventh sign of the end of the world has been revealed, sinners repent, the end is near!

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio looks like a man who is caught in a position of doing what is wrong, but he is determined to do it any way.

Democrats:

I am a man married to a woman and we have 1 son, a family of 3. Why should a family of 3 have to pay more taxes than my family of 3. Or why should we have to pay more taxes than any other family of 3. Are not the government services provided equally for all of us?

We need $2.5 trillion dollars in taxes to meet the current deficit, that's $20,000 to each working adult. Can you afford that much in taxes? No. I'm glad you agree. Now tell your boss how you feel and have him cut the budget spending.

I love this:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC

People still haven't learned anything. Will they ever? We need to stop living off of government handouts.

I'm no Democrat, but Republicans are so out of touch with what the people who really matter want.

John in Battle Creek says:

Pro freedom, I got exactly what I wanted when my candidate won. Someone to stand up to you right wonders and work for the middle class. It is easy to see that the republican leadership is working and holding out for the top 25%, not the rest of us

You got what you think you wanted. In fact, didn't you know that Obama's plan to tax the upper crusty doesn't include all the wealthy? It's a ruse, smoke & mirrors. Also, the dems are poised to allow the fall over the cliff... and how will that sit with your theory about the middle class? Not well- we stand poised to be taxed into oblivion.

Hehehe. Do you know that when the republicons controlled Congress they only worked a 4 day week? Year after year. Why should they bother showing up when ALEC wrote the laws for them and told them when and how to vote?

Pelosi changed that in 2007, and you could hear the wailing for miles. What changed in 2011? Ayup, the republicons went back to their short work week. You know they are already gone on their 5 day weekend right now. And you wonder why there is no deal...............

Phinster,

Why should someone without any kids have to pay taxes to support the school your kid attends? Why should you get a deduction for your kid while those without children pay more to support the services that you and your child are provided?

How about every time the givernment needs more money, we just raise taxes? It's so simple to understand.

Nevermind all the freebies and waste going on out there. Just raise the taxes! The givernment needs your money to survive!

I am amazed at so many armchair lemmings! He plummetted the US in the first four years, you re-elect him only to bury the US deeper? Wow! Obviously none of you have a government job because those of us that work with the military, for the military, contractors and government service (GS) personnel will feel the pain if both sides does not come to their senses. Why should they rush though? Because they still have a job and a fat paycheck as of January 2nd whereas there will be a lot less jobs in our area because of their lack of concern for the american public. Ignorance in a big way. I cannot live off disability alone, yet I cannot afford to move because of finances, lack of know what is going to happen, how deep our CIC has buried our world in its entirety. And yet.....the armchair QB's here will rush to make their comments and gang up on others to try to convince others that a turd is not truly a turd. Amazing how much ignorance flows through our society. Saddened greatly

With the inept, incompetent and failed leadership in the Senate, House and the White House. What do you expect? Its exactly what America voted for.

Live with it

The only proposal I've seen from Bonehead Boehner is cut entitlements, cut SS cola's and eliminate some of the tax write-offs that actually would affect the middle-class far more than his rich Republican friends which is exactly why the Pres. won't buy into it. Yes, he has agreed to some changes in SS and medicare eligibility, but what he has proposed won't get US back into even keel in 40 years. The Bonehead's proposal won't do it either as it is. The Repubs seem to think that small businesses are those who make in excess of $250,000 a year, I'd say those folks are in an upper class not small business.

Boenehead is a complete a$$ !!!!

Pigotry, American Girl, and Fiesty - love all you ladies - I agree with you!

Outgunned, outflanked, outmaneuvered. In short, Republicans have been ousted; ousted as neophyte negotiators unable to grasp basic arithmetic, ousted as children playing checkers while the grown-ups play chess. They are practitioners of Palinesque petulance. The GOP - the party of mean girls, doddering old fools, and tactics that would embarrass Machiavelli. These people have no business sitting at a table planning the future of this country.

Here stands John Boehner, desperately trying to hold his government job, hoping that citizens will forget that he was spending government money like there was no tomorrow, while George Bush held the Presidency. He must assuage the know-nothing Tea Party faction, while holding the loyalty of the more reasonable Republican legislators who loathe right-wing ignorance....and threaten their re-election. Here stands Boehner pretending he has leverage in the budget process, when he gave away any leverage he ever had with sequestration.

Here stands Boehner defending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, when the overwhelming majority of Americans tell him to simply let taxes on the wealthiest rise to Clinton levels. Here stands Boehner pretending that Obamacare is a negotiable issue. Here stands Boehner, knowing that plotting behind him is his Cardinal Richelieu, Eric Cantor. The Speaker of the house is out of his depth.

In the Senate, Mitch McConnell, whose goal was the destruction of President Obama, failed miserably. Not only did the President crush McConnell, Democrats actually picked up seats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid is positioned to change the rules to reflect the common sense belief that the wishes of the majority should carry the day. Somehow, government by the minority chafes American sensibilities.

Boehner and McConnell come to the table with nothing to offer, nothing to negotiate. They have no leverage, but they are desperate to remain at the government trough.

For all their bluster, a quick look tells even a novice political observer that the denizens of Congress love Washington, D.C. Allen West hated government and he hated leaving it even more. Cantor trashes government, but that's where he's made his living since he entered the "work" force. McConnell says he hates the wild spending, yet he's voted for it time and again. He can't get enough of D.C. Paul Ryan hates government so much, he ran for Vice-President and hedged his bet by also running for his Congressional seat.

You can't even call these people hypocrites. They're magnitudes of order beyond that. Their actions show them to be dishonest in the extreme. We just came through an election, where Republicans lost on every front. They lost seats in the House, they lost seats in the Senate, and President Obama scored an impressive victory. To me, that says the nation is fed up with obstruction, posturing, and outright lying. Let's get this show on the road.

I love all the posters who insist that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!

No, republicans had a spending problem. The rest of us now have a revenue problem.

At least the whole bunch of them are proactively discussing the issue...

But seriously folks... it seems there are not too many people that like the idea of a fiscal cliff, so it must be OK.

Just for you Wayne

Elliot - thanks for the article that proves my point. They are discussing whether to continue funding for the extensions for weeks 27-99. In some states, it is not 99 anymore, but rather 86, 73, 60, or less - it depends on the unemployment rate. In any case, nobody is asking to extend beyond 99 weeks, so it makes no sense for people to continue arguing against going beyond 99.

Hey Andres,

Since the president wants it, doesn't that by definition for liberals mean that it matters?

To all,

Can we solve this rather than engage in petty partisan hackery, insulting one another in turns? Mr. Obama wants the top 2% to pay a higher rate. Mr. Boehner wants to find the revenues from closing down deductions, credits, etc. Both sides claim to want to simplify the tax code. Spending will have to be cut regardless of the tax code solution, so how about we Republicans present an alternative. Don't raise rates on the top 2%, but do cut the rates on the other 98%, and reform the code to either minimize or eliminate deductions, credits, etc.

We get the revenue both sides claim to want. We get the code simplification both sides claim to want. We get the protection of the 98% Mr. Obama claims to want (I don't think he cares about them, but that is another debate). We also get more progressivity in the code with the top 2% paying a higher rate relative to all others. To me this is not good policy, but it is what liberals demand in order to not crash the car over the cliff. So, more revenue, more simplicity, more tax rate progressivity. Call it a modified Simpson-Bowles plan absent the spending cuts we must enact in any case.

So, yes or no? Or do you just want the political fight. The president's ideas are not good and are not acceptable to conservatives, and Boehner's ideas are not good and are not acceptable to liberals. But this idea serves the fiscal purposes of both sides. Unfortunately, as with so many other political debates, a solution may not really be wanted.

common:

So when you take office with an economy in free fall, you stop the bleeding and turn the economy into long, steady growth for almost 3 years, that's called 'plummeting the US'?

You don't have to like this president or how he's done things, but to make ridiculous over-the-top pronouncements like that just shows how stuck you are in the echo chamber. I am also saddened, but no longer amazed.

I suppose we're going to have to step back a bit to find out where we disagree on the definition of things. I'd say that at night, the sky is dark, and during the day, the sky is light. Would you agree? Or do you need time to hear what Fox and Friends has to say about it?

Hi Snakebone,

As a liberal who I've read many posts from, I take it you think deficit spending is the way out of recession. But your last post seems to also indicate you think deficit spending is what caused the recession. Could you square this circle please? In anticipation of your asking me, I think the deficit spending under Mr. Bush was a fraction of what it is under Mr. Obama, and so even though I think both are bad over the long term, one is worse than the other. But just from a logical point of view, the smaller cannot be the cause of the illness for which the bigger one is the cure.

It's easy John if you want a deal all you have to do is raise the rates on the top 2%, quit being Grover's bitch, you said you would get more money from rich people by closing their loopholes, more money from the rich is more money from the rich however you get it, so you must be lying about that. As much as I am not a big Ann Coulter fan I do think it is damn funny ever time she has to tell republicans that she told them so. She was right about Romney and she was right when she treated Hannity like the damn fool he is. Say it John, just say we will raise the rates on the 2%, stop being Grover's battered wife, speak up and set yourself and your party free. On the other hand you can go down in flames, that is another way to go. One last question John if you go off the cliff do think you will a screamer or a flapper on the way down.

Hi Snakebone, again,

Sorry, it turns out it was your previous to last post. As far as your last post, if your premise were true (free fall inherited, long steady growth for three years after), then your conclusion would be true also. But our economy wasn't in free fall, it was in decline, and would decline until firm values could be identified. As in all recessions there is as well a negative bubble, to coin a phrase. What it means is that because uncertainty over values increases, market prices decline further than reality would indicate, and continue to fall until reality kicks in.

This is why the DJIA fell so far, and then quickly began to rebound. People wanted out until they could gauge how far the fall would continue to preserve whatever gains they had, or to limit whatever losses they were facing. It's all part of the very simply macroeconomic laws. In the same way your slow, steady, growth claims are false too.

Is there slow steady growth? Yes, but nominal growth is a useless metric. We continue to not produce enough new jobs to cover even population growth, for instance. Inflation is running at 2.2%, and so real GDP growth is just, for the last quarter, 0.5%. And this is following massive increases in spending compared to levels just 5 years ago. From an economic perspective a fair argument can be made that the trillions we are spending to get the billions in benefits reflects a pitiful and plummeting economy. This all might be a bit esoteric for you, and if so I am sorry. A good analogy would be when your wife comes home with lots of new stuff and explains to you how much money she just saved. Yeah, you got more stuff, but did you need it? Was it worth it to go further into debt? These are questions seldom asked, let alone answered, by American liberals.

Dang Sputnik-3557225 you missed the point. Comparing apples to apples; families of 3. Now for you, you'd either be single or married. Ask yourself, should you have to pay more in taxes than another single person or any married couple. No, I'm glad you agree. There's still $2.5 trillion dollars to come up with. Now go tell your boss to cut the budget spending.

American liberals understand we are not talking about fancy clothes and big screen TV's (or wars). We are talking about basics - food, shelter, education, medical care. Spending money on those things will have benefits.

Think about it like this: If I am at the gas station and my tank is empty, my bank account is empty, I need to get to work, and all I have to pay with is a card, what are my options? 1) Skip work and get fired, thus missing payday. 2) Use the credit card to buy gas, go to work, and pay the bill on payday (which I will now have since I made it to work).

All spending is not the same.

Hey Forrest,

If the deal can only be for raising tax rates on just the top 2%, then I say go over the cliff. Such an idea would mean we are negotiating with economic imbeciles, so why give imbeciles what they want? But another question for you arises. Was Mr. Obama honest in 2011 during the debt ceiling debate that $1.2 trillion could be obtained by eliminating or minimizing tax deductions, credits, and adjustments, aka tax expenditures? Or is Mr. Obama being honest today when he says that $800 billion cannot be found by eliminating or minimizing tax deductions, credits, and adjustments, aka tax expenditures? It seems to me both claims cannot be true. It's also possible that neither claim was true.

Rich:

I don't think Bush's deficit spending caused the recession. I think his decision to cut revenue and then go ahead with out-of-control spending put us in a deep hole, weakened our economy, and severely limited our options in terms of investing in the economy to grow it out of the recession. Obama spent much, much less than Bush, but since he started with a large deficit and rapidly shrinking revenue, all of his spending was and is necessarily deficit spending.

We know that trickle-down didn't give us a good ROI, and Obama is trying to go back to the tried and true method of investing in the middle class for economic growth. But it is very dangerous to continue to grow the debt, so now we have a revenue problem. Of course, even if we can't get new revenue, it will still be necessary to invest for growth (as every business turn-around expert knows). We'll just have to hope that those investments pay off before rates start to rise, or we're sunk.

Hey Wayne,

It is absolutely true that not all spending is the same. Just as it is absolutely true that neither before, nor after, Mr. Obama became president that app spending was of one variety or another. The shifts have been fairly subtle in relation to one another, and because of this aren't exactly the kind of economic stimulus socialists and liberals would claim them to be. I think the point here is that after the added trillions in spending and quantitative easing (why can't we just call it printing money?) the "benefits" are far less valuable than the costs. In other words, the policies failed if their goals were stated honestly.

Phinster,

No you missed my point. The tax system is not equitable nor is it supposed to be. They have crafted the tax code to allow deductions for lots of different things to appeal to various segments. These variances make it seem unfair to many depending on their particular circumstances but there is an ultimate goal to provide ample revenue to offset expenditures that our elected representatives have agreed upon.

Since I am proud and happy to live in the USA I am willing to pay more than another single person may pay to help protect my country so that I may enjoy the fruits of my success that I likely would not have had if I was raised in another country.

Those with more have more to protect and therefor should be willing to pay more for that security.

Would I favor a change in the tax code? Of course. But I'm sure my ideas vary from yours and that is why our elected officials are supposed to work together to make the best code possible and I think they failed a long time ago on what to spend and the best way to raise revenues.

I would favor a flat tax that every man, woman, child, business and church should pay on gross income without any deductions whatsoever.

People are either dumb as SH_T or have their heads in the sand, America has gone over that cliff when BUSH was the President and no amount of BS will bring those good times back, you all think the MORONS on either side can fix this problem with a bandaid, it's simple to fix the problem but NO one has the balls to do what is needed, fire a couple Million government workers to start with, and cut all government workers pensions and medical plans, but this would be the second phase, first phase CUT ALL the politicans pay by 75% to start, along with their pension & medical plans. Do you people think these idiots deserve a hundred thousand or more a year for what any idiot can screw up like them.

Jack in Portsmouth

. . . plus hasn't produced a budget for four years.

. . . plus you don't have the slightest clue . . .

Okay Jack, where is the budget Harry has presented to the Senate for approval during the last four years? He hasn't followed the process of government in place, has he.

So Jack, please show us all the documents to disprove my statement.

FeistyRedHead- In response to you and all you Liberals on this panel, when the Democrats had both the House and Senate they could of taken care of this problem back then not wait until the last minute. I am so sick and tired of this blame game garbage by the LIBERALS/LEFT. I am so sick and tired of you narrow minded people on this panel and the bias crap. Who is in charge people? Obama is and yet this President shows zero leadership on the matter, instead he brings out his puppets to do the work. What's the matter, Obama is affraid to get his hands dirty? Spend, spend and no budget or reforms. When is this Government going to be responsible with our tax money? It's not their money they are gambling with its ours. Obama and his cronies can stick their blame game garbage up their you know what.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Rich, again:

The last quarter of 2008, our GDP lost 9%, the largest drop since the Great Depression. We were shedding 800,000 jobs a month. You can call that a 'decline' if you like, and guess that it would have stopped on its own once 'firm values' were found. But of course, all the economists working for both Bush and Obama, warned that if no government action was taken to stop what they called an economy in free fall, then we would have no functioning economy at all. These guys, all of them, told our leaders that we were looking at the potential collapse of the American economy, and in a very short time.

No responsible leader should have ignored those warnings, and none did. To come along much later and say 'oh, it would have been fine, we should have just let it go, it would have worked itself out', is to ignore the reality of the situation we faced. It is to forget that our economy has collapsed in the past, and it can do so again.

Forgive me in advance for not responding to your next post immediately, but I have to go back to work now...

Hi Snakebone,

Sounds plausible, but it isn't. In the year before recession we had a $160 billion deficit. This was amount smaller than in most years for the previous 20 or 30 when compared as a percentage of GDP or of governmental spending. So your first premise is a fail. Your second premise is that Mr. Obama has been cutting and slashing the budget compared to what he inherited. This is flat out false.

FY09's budget doesn't have Mr. Bush's signature. He did begin the fiscal yera as president, but the government existed on continuing resolutions as Democrats wanted to avoid a budget compromise until after Mr. Obama took office. The big change then from that $160 bn amount was Mr. Bush's TARP program, some of which he spent, some of which Mr. Obama spent, and most of which was repaid. I didn't like TARP, and I think it was a constitutional mistake, not to mention an economic travesty, but it is what it is. What you can attribute to Mr. Bush, if you ignore the reasons of the recession itself, was the decline in tax revenues of a few hundred billion. But I'll be kind and give Mr. Obama even more negative inheritance. How about we say Mr. Obama got a deficit handed to him of $700 billion.

But, in FY09, the ending deficit was $1.4 trillion. I think the stimulus had much to do with this. Mr. Bush certainly can't be charged with the stimulus. And TARP was a joint venture that was largely, but not entirely, repaid. So let's even hit Mr. Bush with the $100 billion or so we've not got back (I'm going large here to help Mr. Obama, despite the fact he's a pathetic president, even more). The worst we can say, then, is that Mr. Bush handed Mr. Obama a $800 bn deficit. It is in every year since been far, FAR, higher. Sorry, but Mr. Obama isn't cutting what he was handed. So your second premise is a fail as well.

As far as trickle down, there is no such thing as trickle down. There is also no such thing as a "tried and true" policy of growing the economy through the middle class. What grows an economy is not government direction (see Japan, USSR, North Korea, et al), it is letting the market determine values so that invested money goes to its highest productive use. Government operates on a political profit motive, not an economic growth motive, which is why every pro-growth economic policy ever known that has produced real, as opposed to nominal, GDP growth has limited government influence in the markets. Sorry, but your conclusion is a fail as well.

Bonerhead and his Tea Loonies run on jobs, what happen ????????????

Looks like this Crazy Party is more concerned with hampering our Economy !!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Snakebone,

Your post at 164 makes the point I'm driving at in 165. It was a political choice to intervene or not, and how. And any economist you ask would, I think, tell you the same general thing: That to save the economy we must do "fill in the blank". Voters demand that politicians act, and so politicians will act. So my point is that of voters were economically literate then the conditions which caused the recession could never have developed, and no major "rescue" would have been demanded. I'm not second guessing, using 20-20 hindsight, that a rescue plan would be executed. I'm saying that the benefit we got from it has not, and will never, exceed the cost for it.

For you right wing nuts and extremists who have been sleeping on the job please note! The FOX Approval Poll went from up 7% to up 10% for Obama just in one day. That is up 14% since a month ago. People are sick of you so keep it up. Bonehead will lead you to even worse days ahead. Your party is a pile of crap!

I hope all the Americans that voted for this do nothing Republican/Tea Party congress are proud. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Republican Party will do anything it takes to bring down our economy. Just look at how their dragging their feet on this fiscal cliff thing or better yet how they caused the country's credit rating to drop costing American tax payers billions of dollars.

People might ask why would they do this. First off the Republican Party is completly controlled by the super rich in America; the Republicans stopped representing the people decades ago. Think about it, the filthy rich Republicans that tried to buy the election are still pursuing their goal of destroying the economy so they can buy up everything for 5 cents on the dollar and turn the rest of us into their economic slaves........ The super rich are waging economic war on this country but yet there are millions of foolish Americans out there that still believe all the phony Republican rhetoric.

When are the republicans going to realize just who won the election??????

elliot-3020456

Do you think First Read will report on 0bama moving the goal post and now demanding extensions to unemployment beyond the current 99 weeks? Or the most pathetic of all, 0bitchboys demand for unilateral ability to raise the debt ceiling on his own. He wants to change the constitutional requirement of checks and balances by taking the job from congress.

First of all, the original Constitution did not have the debt ceiling in it; it was added in the early 20th century so that Congress could borrow (yes, borrow) more money for the federal budget, since before that Congress voted on every debt issuance. Secondly, since the debt ceiling was a tool designed for Congress' use, it may not be the best way to resolve the debt ceiling issue. But, considering that we now have a system in which the minority party uses the limit as leverage for bargaining concessions and the fact that any other method of resolving the issue (moderating the GOP, reforming the debt ceiling) would take too long and would be too complex, executive control of the presidential debt ceiling is probably our best option. Besides, Congress has already assumed most of the discretion over the federal budget; we might as well return some power back to the president.

Okay, somebody please remind me why the Republicans don't lap up and accept the President's deal??? If you think about it, it is quite centrist, if not center-right; for every dollar in revenues, at least 1 dollar is officially stated, and more will come due to long-term negotiations. Someone made a very good point; Simpson-Bowles, a centrist deficit reduction plan crafted by Republicans AND Democrats, call for a nearly 1:1 ratio for tax hikes and spending cuts, including tax hikes for entitlement reform and heavy defense cuts. Conservatives, stop bitching about being the party of low-taxes and grow up. According to your logic, eventually cutting the top tax rate to 0 will raise more revenue than the current tax code. And by the way, you should be lucky that I am not the one you're negotiating with. I'd simply let the fiscal cliff happen and pass a bill with $1.2 trillion in immediate stimulus over 3 years, and $300 billion in tax cuts for those making under $70,000 (not a fan of tax cuts, but willing to do so to mitigate the cliff).

When all is said and done, it will be clear that the actions and incompetence of our President, Barack Obama has contributed significantly to our rapid decline and move toward socialism along with making the world a much more unstable and dangerous place.

We're living those historical mis-steps today that others will read about and study in the future.

Hi BigAl,

I think your entire post is variously gibberish or hystrionics, but in the sad chance that you actually do believe these things, and have thought out your position, I just have one question. If the super rich, whoever you think these people are, control the GOP, then why do so many of them contribute to and vote for liberals for office?

In my state I voted against our Democrat president, our Republican senate representative, and one of our Democrat house representatives.

All three won.

We voted for this to happen. This is what happens when you keep horrible incumbents in forever. They use us. Well done everyone.

BigAl, I apologize, but I did have a second question. Your claim is that the super wealthy are waging war on everyone else. I suppose, since the current fight is over tax policy (spending too, but it's getting almost no media coverage by comparison), you think this is where one of the battles is occurring. Which makes logical sense since you are writing about it on a thread begun to discuss the fiscal cliff stalemate over tax policy.

So, unless you are just writing because you have nothing better to do, in other words, you mean what you write and why, then can you explain how the GOP is conducting a battle to harm you when, following the Bush tax cuts being implemented, the super rich have paid in a GREATER share of income taxes than before? My question to me seems so easy to understand, but as it uses facts and applies logic and reason to them I figure you may be lost. If so, let me know and I will try to make it even easier to comprehend for you.

The facts are that Americans are paying the lowest taxes since the 60's and to solve our deficit problems, brought on by bush tax cuts and wars,the republicans keep failing to negotiate, compromise and walk out the door. Who better to pay than the rich who seem to be averaging 14% tax rates due to loopholes? If you think that the bottom 2% should pay anything you're nuts and the top 2% need to pay a rate similar to the middle class. My old party has become a pile of crap!

Can anyone tell me what will happen if we do fall off this so called ”fiscal cliff”. If the “cliff” is another way of saying that we are living beyond our means then let it happen! Wouldn’t it be a wake up call for all of us?

Right now the President is in no hurry to end it, as his popularity, thanks to this “fiscal cliff”, is not being adversely affected. When the political game runs out of steam, we may be able to move forward.

Thirty five years of tax breaks for the wealthy. Those tax breaks were given with the promise that those wealthy would use the saved money to create jobs in the USA. HA!!! By now, you'd expect the job market here in America to be overflowing with jobs. So many jobs that there aren't enough Americans to fill the positions. Well, actually, those wealthy did build new factories and industries and create new jobs. Only they didn't do it in America, they did it in China and other countries! Can you believe people still support these politicians who not only want to keep these tax breaks for the wealthy, but also to increase them so the wealthy pay near ZERO percent in taxes?! Do you really think doing that would benefit middle class Americans?! We need to increase taxes on those greedy bastards and when they ship money off to banks in other countries, that money should also be taxed - 40% sounds like a good round number! They want their money, they want your money and they want the government to give tax money to them. Basically, they want it all and they want you to have nothing!

feisty always great post's,Layton thank you for the link to the sus/ban link kind of upset cannot read comment's i know you you have nothing to do with it.Elliot your still a dumb @!$%#, probably get suspended for it but it is what it is.I will tell everybody now I'm a moderate Democrat middle left and always will be.

Rich-281385

BigAl, I apologize, but I did have a second question. Your claim is that the super wealthy are waging war on everyone else. I suppose, since the current fight is over tax policy (spending too, but it's getting almost no media coverage by comparison), you think this is where one of the battles is occurring. Which makes logical sense since you are writing about it on a thread begun to discuss the fiscal cliff stalemate over tax policy.

So, unless you are just writing because you have nothing better to do, in other words, you mean what you write and why, then can you explain how the GOP is conducting a battle to harm you when, following the Bush tax cuts being implemented, the super rich have paid in a GREATER share of income taxes than before? My question to me seems so easy to understand, but as it uses facts and applies logic and reason to them I figure you may be lost. If so, let me know and I will try to make it even easier to comprehend for you.

Well, that argument is used A LOT by conservatives; John Boehner even used it before the election to oppose tax hikes on the rich. Unfortunately, if you take a look at income distribution levels in the United States over the past 30 years, the share that the top 20% has grown to well over 50% of all income earned in the US, and the top 1% control just about 25% of all income. And that has coincided with the advent of supply-side economics, signified by tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of the financial industry. Essentially, the very tax cuts that were supposed to provide "tax relief" to the wealthy actually increased their taxed burden. Why: because the income share of upper earners has increased, thus increasing the tax base on the wealthy even while rates are cut. The Bush tax cuts were one of the largest tax cuts in US history, if not the largest, and the vast majority of the benefits went to the top 20%, those making over $88,000. While that may include a healthy amount of upper-middle class Americans, most of the wealth still went to those at the top. The only reason why everyone else got some kind of tax cut (however meager it may have been) was because you cannot sell tax cuts for the rich without tax cuts for the poor; therefore you can argue that you have to cut taxes for the rich in order to be fair and equitable.

Conservatives give it up we are not going to win this one, they need to be shown the error of their ways, get prepared we will be needed to clean it up. Sometimes the child needs to fail to grow up.

Rich:

Reading through your numbers gymnastics in post 165 to come up the desired answer for who was to blame for the '09 deficit, I decided the easiest way to answer is this:

In a January report, two weeks before Obama was sworn into office, the Congressional Budget Office projected 2009 deficits to be "well over $1 trillion".

They were factoring in the continued policies of GWB like tax cuts and part D, the continuing wars, and the effects of what was by then known to be a very bad recession.

So you'll excuse me, Rich, when I say that no, I do not believe that he was handed a to-be-nice, at-the-outside $700 billion deficit. Or do you think that the CBO was factoring in the profligate spending they foretold Obama was going to do? In the end, his policies, including the stimulus, came in at around 10% of the deficit.

The '09 deficit has been reduced by about $350 billion, and the Obama plan, even with more stimulus, would cut the remainder in half, another $500 billion.

Nice to see this morning that former republican Gov. Crist of Florida is sick of the republicans doing noting and going home and walking out. He's now a Democrat! I wish some of you would be so smart, just like I was in '84!

obama signed the "fiscal cliff" into law and now he is trying to lay the blame on the republicans. Since obama is trying to make a point with his continuous campaigning for increasing taxes that won't negate his spending, let's go over the cliff.

Call his bluff. He's strutting across the country with his entourage of media minions like a bull in rut. Imagine the look on his face when he realizes that he just cut his own nuts off because of the law he enacted.

Hi Snakebone,

No numbers gymnastics, sorry. Here is why your analysis of the facts is wrong. First, it IS a fact, like you say, that a report showed that the deficit would be over $1 trillion. You conveniently leave out the largest component of that deficit projection, which was TARP. That was $600 bn, and for the most part was paid back. The real deficit that Mr. Obama inherited, then, was the projected amount minus the repaid TARP funds. I gave you a number that was well in Mr. Obama's favor to the tune of more than $100 bn for the year. The fact that you choose to ignore that those monies were repaid, and so therefore reduced deficits (either that FY or the ensuing FYs depending on how you want to account for the money) can't be ignored by me. Your analysis remains flawed.

Hi Freshieee,

Thank you for the reply. Your numbers are wrong, and so your conclusions are wrong. According to the IRS, in 2010 the top 1% of income earners earned 20% of all income in the USA, and paid 38% of all income taxes. The top 10% of income earners earned 45.77% of all income in the USA, and paid 69.94% of all income taxes.

Also according to the IRS, in 2000 (before the first Bush tax cuts went into effect), the top 1% earned 20.81% of all income and paid 37.42% of all income taxes. The top 10% earned 46.01% of all income, and paid 67.33% of all income taxes.

Your claim is that the tax cuts did these people well to the detriment of those in the lower income groups. The numbers above don't show much more than the normal kinds of fluctuations that you see in IRS data from one year to the next, and certainly show no dangerous trend resulting from the tax cuts. For the lowest 50% of earners the portion of income was 12.99% in 2000, and 13.48% in 2009 (sorry, don't have the 2010 number for some reason), and of taxes paid their share was 3.91% in 2000, and 2.25% in 2009. Again, not much change in distribution, but certainly the lower income earners earned more as a group and paid even less.

I think you want a solution to income disparity. No shock there. Most liberals can't stand the idea that someone earns more than they think should be earned, and someone earns less. But I think you are barking up the wrong solution tree. If the Bush tax cuts aren't the blame for the dire situation you and other do-gooders thinks exists--and there are no numbers to show your case has merit--then maybe we should go another route?

We've tried the minimum wage route. Anyone who can read a table can see in the IRS numbers that minimum wage increases do nothing over time to alter the income distribution in the USA, and since prices (including wages of those earning more than minumum wage levels) increase as a result, it's little more than an exercise in digging a hole into the water.

We've tried redistribution. Well over $15 trillion since just the mid-60s has been directly transferred from those with, to those without. Again, if anything the disparity has grown worse. But like the minimum wage you leftists are determined to prove that Mr. Einstein's definition of insanity is false.

I think two issues should be considered. First, there will always be poor people. A minimum level of support, just enough to keep them off the streets, in suitable clothes, and fed, might be both right and moral. More than that from the government has failed, and so we should re-think our social welfare policies. Second, there is a high degree of correlation between the size of government and the flattening, and now decline, of middle class and below wages. Whether it is causitive or not I don't think I can convince you of because the simple fact that no data supports your tax cut theory hasn't dissuaded you from that position. Yours is a political goal, not an economic goal.

It's because of this I see no solution. Every compromise with you only brings us further into the hole you claim you want to get out of. It may be that the only solution, given Tyler's thesis on the life cycle of great nations, is to protect myself and my family and friends as much as possible, and go through this storm with you hoping that at the end of it you will have discovered the laws of economics.

I might have more luck teaching calculus to a gnat.

Hey Republican'ts! Another day and another 1% gain in approval for Obama on the FOX Approval Poll. Oh, another loss of a republican to the Democratic Party. From down 4% before the election to up by 10% yesterday and 11% today. Keep it up at this rate you will be extinct in about a month!

Rich,

And each of the past years the top %, whichever number you want to choose, keeps owning more of the wealth. I take the top 5% and it has gone from 40% in 2009, to 42% in 2010 to 45% in 2011. I think they call this an aristocracy by any name of the book! Off with their heads and let them eat cake!

Rich,

And each of the past years the top %, whichever number you want to choose, keeps owning more of the wealth. I take the top 5% and it has gone from 40% in 2009, to 42% in 2010 to 45% in 2011. I think they call this an aristocracy by any name of the book! Off with their heads and let them eat cake!

I must say, when Norquist buys these so called Representatives of the American people they appear,to me, to stay bought.I would fire the lot of those who pledged themselves to a lobyist and are still determined to go down with that pledge and to he** with their employers.

It is truly amazing to watch Rich work with numbers. He has the uncanny ability to cherry pick and spin numbers to reach a conclusion that has no relevance to reality. If we find a tree in the forest that had been struck by lightning, Rich could easily start crunching the numbers on how lightning strikes had gone down in that region, how few lightning strikes actually hit trees, etc., to prove that in fact, lightning did not strike the tree - no matter that reality proves otherwise.

So we have the CRS report that shows no correlation between lower tax rates on the wealthy and economic growth, but does find a correlation between lower tax rates and concentrated wealth at the top. And indeed, we have seen that gap widen since the beginning of trickle-down in the '80's, and with the Bush tax cuts, an income gap that now exceeds any point in history since the Civil War. But wait, Rich hasn't got his numbers game going. He has identified $15 trillion in wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor since the '60's! So, logically, it must be that if we increase tax rates for the wealthy...the income gap will widen! Look at that. See how easy that was?

The CBO projected deficits of over $1 trillion before Obama took office, and the accepted economic breakdowns of the '09 budget put Obama's stimulus at about 7% of that budget, with all of his spending at about 10%. But wait, Rich has yet to work his numbers magic. TARP! Don't forget TARP! TARP means that Obama was not given a deficit of over $1 trillion, and in fact his stimulus accounts for almost 50% of the '09 budget. Done! Wow, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh, and the charts showing our economic turnaround started with the stimulus, with consistent, positive growth since the middle of '09? Ridiculous! Rich has a theory of market anarchy (sorry, freedom) which says that in fact, the stimulus had no effect, and was a waste of money. The market came back by itself, you see, and any rules on the market is like Korea and Russia. Forget that the only truly unregulated markets in the world are those from third-world African countries with rich, violent despot rulers and a destitute populous. Forget that the greatest period of economic growth in this country occurred under the policies and regulations of FDR's Great Society, with very high top marginal rates and strong market regulations. We're supposed to forget all that because Rich has some magic numbers.

Rich's colleague - Einstein - understood that if his numbers end up contradicting reality, there was a problem with the numbers, not with reality. Time will tell if Rich will one day find his way out of his partisan tangle of trees to see the forest with the rest of us.

Rich-281385

Hi Freshieee,

Thank you for the reply. Your numbers are wrong, and so your conclusions are wrong. According to the IRS, in 2010 the top 1% of income earners earned 20% of all income in the USA, and paid 38% of all income taxes. The top 10% of income earners earned 45.77% of all income in the USA, and paid 69.94% of all income taxes.

Well, they do pay higher taxes than their share in income, yet their incomes have grown by nearly 275% over the past 30 years while tax burdens have SHRUNK for them by 37%. And in actuality, the top 1% controlled roughly 23.5% in 2005, with a growing share after that. Even after adjusting for the recession, the wealthy control well over a fifth of collective income earned in the United States. That is a high that has not been seen since late 1920s, ironically before the Great Depression.

Also according to the IRS, in 2000 (before the first Bush tax cuts went into effect), the top 1% earned 20.81% of all income and paid 37.42% of all income taxes. The top 10% earned 46.01% of all income, and paid 67.33% of all income taxes.

That was most likely due to the Clinton boom, which benefited the wealthy yet also gave out relatively large gains for most households. And Clinton also raised taxes on the wealthy, increasing their burden and thus shrinking their share of after-tax income.

Your claim is that the tax cuts did these people well to the detriment of those in the lower income groups. The numbers above don't show much more than the normal kinds of fluctuations that you see in IRS data from one year to the next, and certainly show no dangerous trend resulting from the tax cuts. For the lowest 50% of earners the portion of income was 12.99% in 2000, and 13.48% in 2009 (sorry, don't have the 2010 number for some reason), and of taxes paid their share was 3.91% in 2000, and 2.25% in 2009. Again, not much change in distribution, but certainly the lower income earners earned more as a group and paid even less.

Well, technically the lower groups did pay a lower rate, yet the relatively meager gains of the Bush years undoubtedly pushed many middle income Americans into income levels that led to little if any taxation under the income tax. The tax cuts given to the poor to mask the cuts for the rich was mainly used to maintain some financial stability; they paid for everything else by either working more or borrowing from their home values.

I think you want a solution to income disparity. No shock there. Most liberals can't stand the idea that someone earns more than they think should be earned, and someone earns less. But I think you are barking up the wrong solution tree. If the Bush tax cuts aren't the blame for the dire situation you and other do-gooders thinks exists--and there are no numbers to show your case has merit--then maybe we should go another route?

I don't want a solution for income disparity; I already have one. Some people are either better skilled than others, have more intelligence or expertise, or are less content with their status in life, whatever it is. But that is an excuse for normal income disparity, the type of disparity that is normal in any society, particularly a capitalist one. What I seek is a solution to unnecessary income inequality, the inequality that has increased ever since the supply-side genesis in the early 1980s. I don't blame the Bush tax cuts for the rise in income inequality; I blame the entire concept of supply side economics.

We've tried the minimum wage route. Anyone who can read a table can see in the IRS numbers that minimum wage increases do nothing over time to alter the income distribution in the USA, and since prices (including wages of those earning more than minumum wage levels) increase as a result, it's little more than an exercise in digging a hole into the water.

The minimum wage does have an effect, yet is mitigated by the fact that it mostly affects low-earning workers. And while prices can increase with wage increases, the increases are relatively negligible.

We've tried redistribution. Well over $15 trillion since just the mid-60s has been directly transferred from those with, to those without. Again, if anything the disparity has grown worse. But like the minimum wage you leftists are determined to prove that Mr. Einstein's definition of insanity is false.

Okay, first of all, most of that redistribution went to social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which tend to benefit the old, the sick, and the poor. That is important, but not quite. Secondly, $15 trillion in social spending over 50 years is not enough; even if they spent that much since the 1980s, that work out to an average of 6% of GDP a year; not a lot. And poverty has been increasing significantly only in the past 30 years, ironically during the period in which income inequality has grown along with a drop in economic gains for middle-income earners. And thirdly, it was redistribution that enabled America to become the greatest country in the world via middle class prosperity and social safety programs that bolstered our standard of living.

I think two issues should be considered. First, there will always be poor people. A minimum level of support, just enough to keep them off the streets, in suitable clothes, and fed, might be both right and moral. More than that from the government has failed, and so we should re-think our social welfare policies. Second, there is a high degree of correlation between the size of government and the flattening, and now decline, of middle class and below wages. Whether it is causitive or not I don't think I can convince you of because the simple fact that no data supports your tax cut theory hasn't dissuaded you from that position. Yours is a political goal, not an economic goal.

First of all, programs like Social Security and Medicare do provide a minimum safety net; more extensive government programs (like national state-run insurance, or a better-funded higher education system) would actually do much more good, as seen in other Western nations like Britain, France, and Canada. Secondly, there is also a high correlation between the collapse of middle-income groups and the rise of both the financial industry and the share of income going to top earners. My theory IS an economical goal in that I am seeking to reduce income inequality. Besides educating the labor force and countering the effects of globalization, much more inequality has occurred due to policies that have skewed benefits to those at the top.

It's because of this I see no solution. Every compromise with you only brings us further into the hole you claim you want to get out of. It may be that the only solution, given Tyler's thesis on the life cycle of great nations, is to protect myself and my family and friends as much as possible, and go through this storm with you hoping that at the end of it you will have discovered the laws of economics.

What compromise??? Every compromise since the 1980s has been tilted in favor of conservatives. Reagan managed to cut taxes on top earners by 60% and drastically expand the financial industry in a matter of years; Newt Gingrich and his Reagan fanatics were able to reform welfare in the United States; George W. Bush was able to cut taxes drastically and offer a serious proposal to privatize Social Security; President Obama reformed healthcare using a conservative alternative to state-run insurance and offered a market-based solution to climate change!!! How the hell is that not a compromise???

Interesting that on Meet the Press this morning no one on the round table felt the Republicans would shoulder the blame for any recession that would follow going over the fiscal cliff. They all said Obama is the president, he would get the blame, as he is the one expected to be the leader. So far Obama has shown no interest in being a leader, just a bully that draws lines in the sand. The problem Republicans have in this mess is that if they just give in the demands from Obama will never stop, and the goal post will continue to be a moving target. But Republicans also know that Obama is concerned about show, and once he claims victory on the fiscal cliff nothing meaningful will happen to solve our massive debt and deficits. The 4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years that Obama touts is paltry, and in no way a serious attempt to fix anything. Obama simply likes to spend everyone's money, including future generations.

No Progress? No surprise!!!!!!!

Clwyd, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if your numbers are correct. You didn't cite a source, but it would make sense if during a few years of major real estate value declines that the wealthy, who generally have less wealth held in real estate as a percentage of their total, would see their "share" of personal wealth increase. It isn't because they are doing so well. It's because everyone else is doing so much worse. Maybe if you thought about and focused on those causes you could get what you want. Your other comment about their heads? Well, let's just say that if your ideas prevail the very idea America was built on must be rejected.

Snakebone, you can continue if you want to make up straw-man arguments which you attribute to me and then knock them down if you want. So long as you don't respond to the points being made and instead make up your own points you wish your opponents HAD made and respond to those, then you can remain as blissful as you appear to be.

You did make one point which matters. The economic slide didn't stop with the stimulus. The recession technically ended before any of the stimulus money was distributed. You might argue that the stimulus would end up preventing a double dip, but that would be a different claim. Your claim is false.

Freshieee, I think you missed, in its entirety, the point. All of the micromanagement of the economy over many, MANY decades, has failed to achieve the goals you claim you support. So why keep going down that particular road? You want, apparently, not to reduce incomes but to reduce wealth disparity. Pretending you are serious, the only way to do that is to reduce incomes, whether derived from those assets or not. If, as the liberal mantra today is true, that you just want the nirvana (relatively speaking) that we had under Mr. Clinton, then your claim to want to achieve the goal of wealth more fairly distributed is false, as wealth disparity grew during that administration as well.

Why not go truly radical? I say this with all sincerity too. All the sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, and the like, that liberals just love to enact and increase, hit the lower income people harder than the rich. So do away with them all. Have, at least at the federal level, one tax and make it a flat rate tax on income. Do a single deduction per wage earner if you want to protect the poor. If we have $9 trillion in personal income, and you want to spend $3.5 trillion, (and say $1 trillion would be excluded due to a single deduction like I said), then you would establish the rate to be around 45% of income. This helps you deprive the wealthy of their soon-to-be-wealth from income, and the truly poor are excused from paying.

I think liberals would eschew any suggestion. Not because it would actually accomplish what they claim to support but have failed to achieve. Because people, if they knew their actual effective TOTAL tax rate would demand so much less government that liberal wet dreams of a socialistic state would evaporate. In other words, we can never get where you claim you want to go because if we tried to actually succeed at it most Americans would reject everything you stand for. So we go about it piecemeal, and all the while our freedoms erode and your goals remain elusive.

The breeze....NOOOOO I want to go back to the Eisenhower rates!

If I recall correctly, one of the sticking points of the Bush tax cuts, when they were being debated in 2001 and 2003, was that over 70% of the cuts were aimed at American business and the wealthy. Doesn't anyone remember the comment by Warren Buffett, that he would pay a smaller percentage of taxes then his secretary? It only makes sense, that when these tax cuts finally start to expire, that it would be the wealthy who would get the majority of the increases, since they received the majority of the cuts.

Hey tweet,

Unfortunately you recall incorrectly. The elimination of those cuts, if that happens, would bring in something around $80 billion a year. Your 70% number, if it were true, would through the magic of math, mean that the entire tax cut for all payers is only about $114 billion a year. So, why are you wrong? Well, it's because liberals have argued in the years since the tax cuts were enacted that they are costing us hundreds of billions every year, or more (depends on which liberal is speaking, and when). And since, despite the variance in what liberals say about the cost of these tax cuts, we are told liberals can never lie, then your 70% number must be false. It's either that or liberals lied. You can choose.

This will almost certainly get lost in the ether but one poster mentioned that Boehner is listening to the American people because the Repubs got more seats in Congress than the Dems. Which is true, however, it is only true because of Republican gerrymandering.

The Repubs even lost the Congressional actual vote count by a couple million votes, however, thanks to their gerrymandering, they were still able to keep a majority of Congress.

If you cannot win fairly, cheat! Remember the attacks on the voter rolls? "voter ID" ring a bell?

Hey Rich,

Do all Republicans ALWAYS use the same numbers? Of course not. So that means they are lying and nothing they say holds any merit or credibility.

That's the gist of your post. Now that you're on the receiving end, do you see what the silly little logical fallacy you used?

You do of course realize that numbers change from one economist to another, one think tank to another, one year or even quarter to another. And, I know this will blow your mind, sometimes people make mistakes...er I mean Liberals sometimes make mistakes since you Conservative Republicans never make mistakes.