Question...if the GOP is so uppity about spending cuts why haven't they suggested any?

the proposal apparently was made as a counter-offer to something the White House had proposed over the last few days.

It is hilarious to see the House GOP accuse the President of slow-walking the process.

"specific details are scarce...."

What's new from these guys?

Jim ... do you READ? The article clearly states that the offer was sent this afternoon and the White House was looking over it. This after Boehner demanded an offer earlier today?

I wonder who told Boehner to do his job and shut his trap?

Sorry, jerk, but seniors PAID FOR THEIR BENEFITS. Social Security does NOT add to the deficit, so there is NO reason for it to be part of these "discussions".

TO: Layton-3733410 who wrote:

"... I wonder who told Boehner to do his job and shut his trap?"

Probably President Obama (I hope).

lol

Right Skylark,

SS has been floating the federal budget for 30 years.

I actually think any and all SS solvency issues 25 years from now can be solved by returning the favor and simply allowing the SS trust fund to borrow money from the general fund for the following 30 years. By then the generational population bubble will have passed, and funding will be again stable and pay-as-you-go. Solved. No other entitlement "reforms" are needed.

TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:

"It looks like Boehner is still trying. Where's Obama ?..."

Boehner has to first have a "deal" with the majority of the Repulicans in the House.

We've already seen what it looks like when Boehner cuts a deal with the President and then goes back to House just to slapped down by the Teagaggers and Eric Cantor.

The fact is, Boehner can't deal with President Obama alone, Boehner has to have the approval of House Republicans or there's no deal anyway.

As others have said, and I agree.... obama has never negotiated a deal in his career.... and he won't this time.

Funny...I seem to recall a deal that President Obama thought he had with Speaker Boehner about a year and a half ago but it turns out the Republicans made the Speaker renege.

Social Security is NOT an entitlement, it is paid for by the employee and does not add to the deficit. Social Security did NOT get us into this financial mess, but 2 unpaid for wars DID.

Cut military spending. Raise all tax rates. I am a small business owner, raise my tax rates back to the Clinton years. Washington has both a spending problem and a revenue problem. Both problems were exacerbated by George W Bush, who cut taxes(revenue) and sent us into two unpaid for wars(spending)

Rick,

If "that's all they ever wanted", then why are they fighting to stop most of the cliff from occurring, while Republicans aren't trying at all?

Time to cut defense spending and other corporate welfare which have worsened national debt.

When Bush's medicare prescription drug benefit law passed 2003, the pharmaceutical lobbyists secured billions of dollars of corporate welfare when they guaranteed that the federal government (the largest buyer of prescription drugs) couldn't negotiate prices, not only giving corporate welfare to pharmaceuticals that really don't need such giveaways, but also adding more to the debt and deficit. This giveaways also make Medicare more costly, adding fuel to GOP argument about runaway costs of Medicare. If so, the GOP caused them, GOP's corporate lobbyists and donors caused it

.

Time to end ALL corporate welfare.

TO: SteveH USA who wrote:

"Time for obama to sit out... this is big boy negotiations..."

They don't come any bigger than the President of the United States.

A GOP aide said the White House plan offered $1.4 trillion in new revenue, but the GOP still not moved from offering $800 billion in revenue.

Is that over 10 years? Talk about nickel and diming. We are so done.

AAahhh BIIGGGG FEASTY ! I am so sorry ... I beat you to the punch and your were not the first poster ... as usual. Perhaps, that would explain the weak attempted put down on your part.

But you FAILED to answer the question .... Where are the details of Obama's proposed spending cuts ? Can't you find these at all ??

Social Security is NOT an entitlement, it is paid for by the employee and does not add to the deficit. Social Security did NOT get us into this financial mess, but 2 unpaid for wars DID.

First, it added to the deficit last year. 2nd, it has unfunded liabilities that kick in about 10 years, ie more will be put out than taken in. You can't look at SS on a year to year basis, it is moronic to do so. In 10 years, the program will be taking in less from younger workers to pay for the older workers.

3rd, the average SS recipient utilizes 30% more than they paid in on average, this is an entitlement. Since the age has not risen with age, it makes the pay in versus pay out weight more to the pay out side, instituting an entitlement. It is not a balanced program due to the liberals dumbness in sticking to 65 years of age retirement.

The wars added only 1 Trillion of the 6 Trillion under Obama. Stop lying.

Why do liberals continually lie about every little budgetary item. It shows an utter ignorance for reality.

The financial mess was also caused by a derivative bubble, not by the Wars. The Wars had nearly nothing to do with the recession. It is an idiotic interpretation of economic matters to assume so.

TO: AG99 who wrote:

"I'm with the GOP on one thing. Let's hear what Obama's willing to cut before giving him more money to waste."

Well, knowing our President, he'll go after all those tax breaks for multi-billon dollar corporations, tax loopholes to the mega-rich, and basically any kind of tax breaks that multi-millionaires don't actually need to continue to be "millionaires".

And knowing Republicans, they'll go after the elderly, the middle class, and the poor, as always.

Boehner is negotiating from a position of weakness. The President would have let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 if he could have.

The right had better offer something serious or all taxes rise. Which is fine.

Start paying down the debt now.

They don't come any bigger than the President of the United States.

If the the dems wanted a real "man" to do be in charge of negotiations they would call on Hillary. She has the only real set of "balls" in the administration.

This is all just positioning and posturing. Boehner's continuing to yield ground to the president hoping he can talk him into accepting tax brackets lower than Clinton's tax brackets. If he ever gets Obama to say "fine, close enough," he'll portray it as a victory for the Republicans, having "stopped" Obama from hiking up taxes even more. Then he'll point to all the reduction in spending as another victory for the GOP. He's not dumb enough to go over the cliff, because if that happens, the democrats get everything they want. The Clinton tax brackets return, and then they can push through a tax cut to the middle class AGAIN and look like heros twice over. The GOP will look worse than when every dolt lined up and voted against health care, only to now watch America enjoy cheaper, better coverage than they've ever had before all thanks to the democrats DESPITE the republican blockade. The GOP won't be that stupid twice. Boehner will surrender and then play it off as a win.

Who was it again who said; "Deficits don't matter"?

*jeopardy music playing*

Who was; Dick Cheney?

Who was it in 2010 who said entitlement growth was the number one driver of the deficit?

*jeopardy music playing"

Who was; Barack Obama?

I remain skeptical that ANYONE on the Repub bench can define the term 'New Offer'. Sorry; but after YEARS of watching their retreads,...New is as foreign to them as Compassion.

But, I tend towards pragmatic with my observations.

pssst... Hey, Jim... ""We sent the White House a counter-offer" means Obama is already there. Do you read these things or do you just rush to post and get your cookie? Obama wants tax relief for everyone making up to $250,000 - you know, the people that go out and spend their money and create jobs.

If the Bush Tax Cuts expire for ALL taxpayers, Obama has more to redistribute as he sees fit. Maybe some of the independents who voted for him will wake up then. Democrats will never wake up.

May be you should wake up jim. President Obama already suggested that congress pass and keep in place all the tax cuts for people that make 250k or less...that is the 98% of Americans.

Then continue to negotiate the top margin. the TOP 2%.

But you see jim, republicons are more concerned about the top 2% then the working families. You clearly live in a alternate universe than the rest of us.

The right had better offer something serious or all taxes rise. Which is fine.

Start paying down the debt now.

Obama's offer is to spend 75% of all new revenue on more government spending. Thus his 1.6 Trillion over 10 in deficit reduction is only 400 Billion, a drop in the bucket, less than one half of one year of deficits.

It is a joke of an offer.

According to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, $1.2 trillion of the proposed $1.6 trillion in tax hikes would go toward new spending, while only $400 billion would go toward deficit reduction.

"Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending," Sessions added.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html

May be you should wake up jim. President Obama already suggested that congress pass and keep in place all the tax cuts for people that make 250k or less...that is the 98% of Americans.

Remember how evil the Bush Tax Cuts were until this year? Now they are forever enshrined in liberal budgetary concerns.

How much vile spew came from the left over those tax cuts, claims of it not helping the poor... yet now you are so indebted to them. Hilarious.

The Republicans are wasting their time. Mr. Obama does not care about any opposition proposal....he WANTS America to go over the Fiscal Cliff....just ask ANY Progressive in Congress who swore they would NOT even consider any spending cuts.

Yep, go over the cliff then blame the Republicans. Setting the stage for a Hillary run in 2016 and that will be the joke of all jokes.

These are all corrupt politicians, their biggest worry is how to get reelected after doing the right thing for this country.

TO: NH_Shellback who wrote:

If the the dems wanted a real "man" to do be in charge of negotiations they would call on Hillary. She has the only real set of "balls" in the administration.

Crybaby Boehner can't even stand up to Eric Cantor or the Teagaggers.

We wouldn't want to send Hillary in to embarass the heck out of the Speaker of the House and make Boehner look like a "girly man"!

AG: Well, that's a start (your first paragraph, not the second), but it's not enough. We'll need much more than just closing some loopholes for rich folks and corporations. We need that too, but those things aren't all that lucrative.

SS, Medicare, and DoD are the gorillas that need taming. DoD is an obvious target, but what about the others?

Jesse,

The Bush tax cuts, in and of themselves, weren't bad. It was the spending that occurred after them that made them a point of contention.

You simply can't go on a Bush-like spending spree while, at the same time, reducing your revenue.

Now that the economy is recovering, it's time to focus on the debt. Time for the Bush tax cuts to go.

TO: AG99 who wrote:

"AG: Well, that's a start (your first paragraph, not the second), but it's not enough. We'll need much more than just closing some loopholes for rich folks and corporations. We need that too, but those things are all that lucrative.

SS, Medicare, and DoD are the gorillas that need taming. DoD is an obvious target, but what about the others?"

I'm not sure we can do it all at the same time, being that we're still in our Economic Recovery stages.

We don't need a "shock to the system" right now.

But yes, even Bill Clinton said that Social Security and Medicare will have to be dealt with because, as you say, they are the Gorillas in the Room.

i am still waiting to hear exactally what those cuts would be and what they would be for other than social sewcurity..which congress as a whole has robbed for many years.

Just yada, yada!

It's a NEW and IMPROVED Fiscal Cliff! Act Now, because supplies are limited! And, if you order today, you will get a limited edition Crying Boehner Bobble Head Doll! This lovingly hand-crafted replica weeps real tears when you touch its heart. This stunning, life-like replica is not available in stores. So get yours today, before they are all gone!

We wouldn't want to send Hillary in to embarass the heck out of the Speaker of the House and make Boehner look like a "girly man"!

Sounds like you need a woman's touch, exactly what "Bawling Barack" brings to the table.

TO: Rick-3416939 who wrote:

"It is time for Boehner to walk away and let the chips fall where they may..."

That's all Boehner has been doing for the past 4 years!

John Boehner is the most powerless Speaker of the House I have ever seen!

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

TO: ivan, NC who wrote:

"i am still waiting to hear exactally what those cuts would be and what they would be for other than social sewcurity..which congress as a whole has robbed for many years."

Democrat President Bill Clinton made Social Security solvent for 40 years when he was in Office, and when he left office Social Security had a surplus in it.

By the time the Bush Administration left Washington, all that was left in the "Social Security Lock Box" was an I.O.U. signed by George W. Bush.

I wouldn't expect for President Obama to do much to Social Securty, but if something does have to be done (and we know it does) then President Obama would be the only man I'd trust to do it right.

The only way out of this mess is take a really big axe to the government employee dole and start chopping along with all their entitlements starting with Congress and working our way down ....... This is where the BIGGEST waste is We pay all that money for what these fools are totally useless.....

TO: Sam627556 who wrote:

"The only way out of this mess is take a really big axe to the government employee dole and start chopping along with all their entitlements starting with Congress and working our way down ..."

Republicans really love the thought of stealing other people's money, which is why it was absolutely critical to re-elect President Obama, and that's exactly what we did!

"We sent the White House a counter-offer that would achieve tax and entitlement reform to solve our looming debt crisis and create more American jobs.

If lower taxes create jobs then why aren't there any being created?

Where are the jobs the conservatives promised in 2010? (the tax rate was the same then as it is now?

The rhetoric of the right never seems to materialize? You know, like, job creation. Or, how about making Obama a one term president. Or decreasing the size of government while Dubya doubled it. Or claiming to be capitalist wanting to privatize everything so the taxpayer can spend even more to socialize Wall Street/bank losses. Or deregulating the financial system (they don't need no stinkin' rules). Or controlling the cost of health care. Or, WMD's. Or, union busting, creating jobs. The conservatives want you to believe that everything they do is going to create jobs. They've had 4 years since the economy tanked. Two years with control of the House. What have they done to fix the economy that was trashed after the last conservative administration? And all they've done is hold the American people hostage to their agenda.....while telling us they're the "job creators." I don't need to work to age 70 to pay for the recklessness of the conservatives. You guys created this mess, now you can pay to fix it. Nobody should have work until 70 unless they choose to.

here, here! TJohn from Missouri

Why can't the 47% (Mitt Romney voters!) see how F.O.S. these guys are?

They're always wrong.

From my understanding tax revenues are up 10% in the first two months of the new fiscal year but spending is up 16%. If the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, five million jobs have been created, why is spending so up and how are we going to get the deficit under control?

Remember raising taxes on the top 2% will only raise about $50B this year which the President wants to spend on a new stimulus.

President Obama is hiding under the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom or playing golf in Hawaii or still campaigning from Air Force One, as opposed to being in the middle of the negotiations.

Where are Presidents like Harry S Truman or Ronald Reagan, they would walk on down to Capitol Hill to negotiate and reach a compromise.

TJohn,

I thought there has been 5 million jobs created in the last two years which coincided with the Republicans taking control of the House

"I thought there has been 5 million jobs created in the last two years..."

And I thought I heard on Hannity, "we keep LOSING jobs....We have LESS jobs than when Obama took over...."

Uh- but really, the job losses didn't start to diminish until 2010? Really- that's what that 'bikini graph' shows?

Why isn't Boehner negotiating with Pelosi instead of Obama? Oh how I remember the crying from the Republicans a few years ago when they were making false claims of being left out of discussion and are now doing what they accused the other party of doing.

Obama has already told the dumb azz what he expects and what he will not accept so why is he leaving Pelosi out of the discussion? Also why isn't Boehner taking a vote on the tax bill that has already been passed by the senate?

jerry l-1335133

TJohn,

I thought there has been 5 million jobs created in the last two years which coincided with the Republicans taking control of the House

Just what has the Republican controlled house done to help create jobs? This is the most do nothing house in the last 100 years. It's even worse than the 1947 house that set the record for incompetence. What got the jobs situation moving positive was the turn around of the mess that the Republicans and Bush caused.

Drive-by,

We now have a few hundred thousand more jobs than when the President took over but we also have a smaller workforce which is why the unemployment rate has come down.

You really should not believe everything Hannity says

What the Republicans refuse to admit is that when Obama took over in 2009, the economy was on a downward death spiral and Obama stopped the slide and started getting positive job growth for the last 31 months.

Another Republican myth is that tax cuts create jobs. That's BS because it's supply and demand that creates jobs. No billionaire is going to hire people and product products that people can't or aren't going to buy. But if the lower and middle class people have money to spend and are looking for products, the billionaires will make sure that those products are produced by hiring people to product them. You could give the billionaires a 50% cut in taxes and they still will not spend it to create jobs unless there's a demand for what they are producing. To believe otherwise is ludicrous.

that's your problem 'Buzz' you watch Hannity. Im sure you watch that because you like to 'know thy enemy'. yep thats it. See I get all my info from FR and the Ministry of Truth aka WH. And today we're at war with Eurasia.

To all of you posters who are wailing "let's see the proposed cuts first" - ahhh, is this your first look at national politics and fiscal cliffs? It sure does sound like it!

Cuts are addressed AFTER we get past the hurdle with the Bush era tax cuts. It is akin to basic accounting, or for the simple minded, how your bank credits and debits your checking accounts (you do have checking accounts and understand this, right? No, don't answer . . . <sigh>)

Try at least one other news source besides FAUX for your daily dose of news . . . jeez, and most wonder why this country is in such trouble . . .

Hey Republicans in the House. Each day as you drag your feet the debt gets worse and worse. We are waiting, are you going to raise the taxes on the rich like President Obama wants? If it is a no, then negotiations are over!!

Oh, and by the way. I want to wish you all a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

This is becoming a game of chicken and my money is on our President.

New offer my a$$! Boehner and Republicans haven't come up with anything new besides voter purging, suppression and gerrymandering out the wazoo! And that wasn't good enough because they got their a$$ handed to them last November. But you won't see that in the GOP's performance because they are still obstructing everything. Obama gave into them before the 2010 election by extending the Bush tax cuts. Well that sh1t is over! If Republicans don't give in then all tax cuts are voided period.

As the Speaker said today, we're still waiting for the White House to identify what spending cuts the president is willing to make as part of the "balanced approach" he promised the American people.

Um, since when did you ask for something (spending cuts) and not specify what it is you want? Obama made it perfectly clear where he was the revenue to come from.

The Republicans want the cuts without owning them, that's why they want Obama to say what he's 'willing to do.'

Not buying it.

The balls in the republicans court. If no agreement is reached the top tax rate goes up toi 39.5% just like Obama wants and the Bush cuts end. Democrats can then put a bill up for a new similar tax cut that just goes to those making less than 250K. Republcans wouldn't dare block it. Why should Obama accept a compromise that doesn't include raising the top rate which was his major campaign pledge thats supported by most Americans including most republicans except those on the far right?

GetReal,

I am sure you realize that the tax cuts for the 98% are the bulk of the Bush Tax Cuts so the President never wants to get past them

I hope the President is ready to cut out all corporate subsidies, and military spending, by, at least, a third. That should do it. Boehner doesn't have to water down His liquor with His tears now.

Jesus wept- it's at times like these that you can tell who your friends are, and who really loves their country, versus those who like to wrap themselves in Old Glory as camouflage for their villainy, shallowness, greed or (D.) all of the above.

See, we Liberals live in the real world, and it's a damn sight more demanding a place than Republican Cloud- Cuckoo Land. Living in reality can be downright exhausting, to say nothing of demoralizing. I could almost excuse the R's for not wanting to spend any more time in Harsh Reality-land than they have to; then I remember all the extra work I have to do and all the taxes I have to pay because of their "something for nothing, screw the other guy, I shouldn't have to pay taxes" fantasy.

In Reality land, when you want something, you have to pay for it. Freeways aren't a crop that grows out of the ground. You can't have a seaport just anywhere there's water; turns out you have to build a bunch of stuff to make it useable, and that 'stuff' is mighty spendy. Wars? Fuggeddubahit- war is f****n expensive, and talk about a lousy return on your investment!

The way things get paid for is through taxes, and we Progressives are perfectly fine with that. We like living in a country where the roads are driveable, the cops are generally honest, our babies live longer than a few weeks, the water's safe to drink, and so on. Conservatives like those things too; they just have a policy of 'buy now, pay later... somehow.'

All those years that the wrong-wingers derided us as 'tax-and-spend' liberals- I'm betting that rings pretty hollow now, after our economy has been nuked and millions thrown out of work, and even their homes, in large part because of 'borrow-and-spend' conservatives. Now we're supposed to trust these guys as the party of 'fiscal responsibility'?

Man, I wouldn't trust that gang of rejects and freaks to dig their own graves.

For those of you who said "What is the spending cut from Obama?" I would like to ask you, what is the benefits of tax cut for the last 12 years?

Even with the same spending, the government takes less tax and that is already create deficit. You can't expect to tax cut and no have a plan at all.

Historically, there are no nations in any period of time EVER use tax cut and then increase spending, that is suicide.

TO: jerry l-1335133 who wrote:

"... I am sure you realize that the tax cuts for the 98% are the bulk of the Bush Tax Cuts so the President never wants to get past them."

Not true!

If that were the case, Bush would have never thought of any "tax cuts".

The reason Bush put through those tax cuts is because folks like his family and the uber-rich got the bulk of the money, not to mention Members of Congress who also benefitted from the "Bush Tax Cuts".

The 98% got the short end of that deal.

CuongDNguyen,

You are wrong in your statement:

Tax revenues in 2000 were $2.025 Trillion

in 2007 $2.568 Trillion

in 2012 $2.468 Trillion

while spending has gone from $1.789 Trillion to $3.795 Trillion

So you can see that taxes are up 20% in the 12 years while spending has more than doubled.

American Girl,

Sorry but 75% of the tax cuts went to the middle class and poor through increased child credits, Alternative minimum tax, and lower brackets. On a per dollar basis the rich did better because they make more.

Getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% raises $800 Billion over 10 years while if they get rid of them for the 98% it raises $3.2 trillion.

Jesse-Az

Social Security is NOT an entitlement, it is paid for by the employee and does not add to the deficit. Social Security did NOT get us into this financial mess, but 2 unpaid for wars DID.

First, it added to the deficit last year. 2nd, it has unfunded liabilities that kick in about 10 years, ie more will be put out than taken in. You can't look at SS on a year to year basis, it is moronic to do so. In 10 years, the program will be taking in less from younger workers to pay for the older workers.

Social Security is not part of the federal budget; it is merely put on the budget as a simpler accounting method. The program did technically have a deficit, but I would assume they would exchange the bonds in the Trust Fund for hard cash.

3rd, the average SS recipient utilizes 30% more than they paid in on average, this is an entitlement. Since the age has not risen with age, it makes the pay in versus pay out weight more to the pay out side, instituting an entitlement. It is not a balanced program due to the liberals dumbness in sticking to 65 years of age retirement.

Well, that is not exactly accurate. The average life expectancy age has risen significantly, but that of lower income levels has not; ergo, raising the retirement rate would hit many lower-income people whose life-expectancy have not increased as much. And technically, there are more efficient ways to save the program; I for one would simply raise the payroll cap to 90% of earned income, adjust the CPI indexing of benefits, and (if that doesn't balance the program) raise the payroll tax by 1%.

The wars added only 1 Trillion of the 6 Trillion under Obama. Stop lying.

Why do liberals continually lie about every little budgetary item. It shows an utter ignorance for reality.

Obama only added $4.8 trillion to the deficit; the 2009 budget was not technically Obama's budget (it was Bush's, even if he didn't sign it), and even then I subtracted half of the deficit for Obama (2nd round of TARP and stimulus).

If the Republicans want to get a serious deal, they need to be willing to raise revenues considerably. $800 billion isn't nearly enough to close the gap, and ironically that was the beginning offer of the grand bargain in 2011. Obama won the election, so he ought to get a larger share than he originally bargained for in 2011 (including the $1.2 trillion figure). Democrats also have to be willing to accept major entitlement reforms, although those can include more progressive means as raising the payroll cap and allowing negotiation of drug prices along with conservative means like adjusting growth in benefits and increasing the share of costs on beneficiaries.

American Girl,

Sorry here is the quote from the New York Times:

The revenue stakes were huge. Ending the tax cuts for the rich would bring additional revenues to the government of more than $678 billion through 2020, the administration has projected. Keeping in place the tax cuts for everyone else would cost nearly $4 trillion, and more counting the interest on that increase to the federal debt.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/taxation/bush_tax_cuts/index.html

Not true!

If that were the case, Bush would have never thought of any "tax cuts".

Do you just make this stuff up as you go? This is so far from reality its almost not worth even discussing this.

The reason Bush put through those tax cuts is because folks like his family and the uber-rich got the bulk of the money, not to mention Members of Congress who also benefitted from the "Bush Tax Cuts".

The tax cuts were an extension of the trickle down theory. Keep in mind, the economy was growing each year, the unemployment rate was below 4.7%, the CPI was low, housing starts were double digits and our deficit was trillions lower. Lower taxes benefited EVERYBODY.

Sure you can pump up your liberal drivel and continue to blame a President who hasnt been in office for nearly 5 years when the current administration had a majority in the HOUSE and SENATE for 4 of them (2 years during Obama's first term when he couldve just about passed any bill he proposed) and that solved NOTHING.

The truth is the Bush tax cuts created more jobs by allowing employers low operating costs.

The 98% got the short end of that deal.

The 98% will ALWAYS get the short end of the deal according to people like you. This country has more millionaires per capita then any nation on earth. Everyone can start a business, develop a product, invent an item or start from scratch and win big here. Its the people that want hand outs that will sit and bitch about the last sitting president or the opposing party and how they are keeping the man down. Get a spine and stand up and make something of yourself. Im not asking for an Obama phone no matter what. I can buy my own and stop blaming others for my situations.

Jessie in AZ: Social Security does not get any money from the Federal Budget, and it adds NOTHING to the Federal Deficit. Yes, there are unfunded liabilities, mostly due to politicians from both parties using SS as a personal slush fund.

We have a President in the White House who really has no plan except to tax and spend. That won't cut it with any group that is putting in their two cents. Tax and spend was acceptable when we didn't have such a huge deficit. Dems your guy better get his sh*t together; with something better than tax and spend for the next 4 years.

@jerry l-1335133

Then tell me, how is the value of dollars between 2000 to those period you mention?

What the tax revenue of them come from most? Let's me see, weapons, oil are just the tip.

Sure we got more tax, but historically we also spend more for tax cut than we can get back in. That's negative revenue there.

For 12 years, we spent more than 1 trillion for tax cut and it barely give us back. The value of dollar decreased a lot during the 12 years period while the Feds keep printing out more money, of course we would see the increase in tax, but that is barely offset from the money we used for tax cut in the first place.

Let's not forget to adjust the values of inflation and you will see we actually got less tax.

Dear Mr. Speaker what part of who cares what your offering do you not understand..... The voters have already told you want we wanted so give it to us already..... Mr. President it is time to Sequester Congress, do not allow the House nor Senate to leave until this issue is resolved..... Yes that means no Christmas for them unless they finally get the job done.....

We have a President in the White House who really has no plan except to tax and spend. That won't cut it with any group that is putting in their two cents. Tax and spend was acceptable when we didn't have such a huge deficit. Dems your guy better get his sh*t together; with something better than tax and spend for the next 4 years.

Dr821: Yet you seem to have no problem with republican spending. The only major economic plan Obama has initiated was Obamacare which is fully funded. Romney on the other hand wanted to cut revenue 500 billion a year yet increase the military budget 200 billion a year that no top military people were even asking for. Romney also pledged to restart the space program at a cost of many 10's of billions a year. Why would any thinking American concerned with our debt support republicans? The increased spending on social programs occurred when the economy crashed under Bush and the numbers would have been the same had McCain won. You can't dump 6 million people out of work and expect anything different. Obama hasn't created any new programs he's simply paying for Bush's failure.

Jesse Az First, it added to the deficit last year. 2nd, it has unfunded liabilities that kick in about 10 years, ie more will be put out than taken in. You can't look at SS on a year to year basis, it is moronic to do so. In 10 years, the program will be taking in less from younger workers to pay for the older workers

Jesse were we're you at Ronald Reagan purged Social Security and where we're you at when papa Bush got us into Kuwait and purge more out of S.S you were probably like Ryan in your diapers

AG-99 Like I say if it sounds like a Republican and acts like a Republican it probably is that;s what you are! it;s like I seen another person username liberal Republican PLEASE!

Out of curiosity?
What exactly changed from the last offer????
He is still offering the same $800b in loophole "revenue" and still offering $600b in entitlements... pardon me, but wasn't that the last offer???? So uhh, how is this any different? I think he is simply repeating his offer and calling it new to gain political cred... tell me if I'm wrong here...

jim-1455434: "It looks like Boehner is still trying..."

Yes, he is; trying everyone's patience by trotting out the same pig over and over with various new shades of lipstick.

If this were vaudeville (and Speaker Boehner certainly treats the process as such), the audience would be pelting him with spoiled cabbages and rotten tomatoes.

40 empty chairs: "AG-99 Like I say if it sounds like a Republican and acts like a Republican it probably is that;s what you are!"

Oh, please. Grow up and go bother someone else. You're not even worth debating, just a one-note wonder. In your world, anyone who isn't far-left is a Republican.

Jerry, I think you missed something.

The 800 Billion over 10 years is by raising taxes on the top 2%. It was going to be only $300 Billion over 10 years for the top 1%.

Most people seem to have missed that Obama's demand went from 1% ($250,000 and above earners) to 2% ($200,000 and above earners).

Instead of moving to the middle, Obama moved away from compromise.

Not only that but when Boehner offered $800 billion over 10 years in capping deductions, Obama basically is now saying we will take those and still want the tax increase on the 2%!

Democrats seem to think this is compromise, seems to me that Democrats spend a few years selling used cars before they go to Washington.

Jim: Obama actually does not want a settlement ... that way he can raise taxes on everyone .... and play the usual "blame game" of finger pointing at the Republicans.

If the Bush Tax Cuts expire for ALL taxpayers, Obama has more to redistribute as he sees fit. Maybe some of the independents who voted for him will wake up then. Democrats will never wake up.

WTH??? And just how do you know all of this? It's what you've built up in your mind? Heard it on Fox? Limbaugh?

Obama has said repeatedly he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class - only for the wealthiest Americans, which makes perfect sense, since they are paying a smaller percentage of this income.

Unless you have proof otherwise, you should stop vomiting all your crazy nonsense.

Does anyone remember when the Federal Government forced ALL states to stock up on Tamiflu because of recommendations of a Pandemic Swine Flu outbreak? Didn't I read that Tamiflu doesn't work, approved by FDA, then recended by the FDA, are their any plans for Malpractice of lying to government officials? How about a rebate from the manufacturers of Tamiflu? Nope, guess the taxpayers will just absorb the bill, like we always do. And do we even need to wonder why we are broke, when are job creators are creating a friggin mess out of the lies and greed they sow?

Trust ...

Didn't I read that Tamiflu doesn't work, approved by FDA, then recended by the FDA, are their any plans for Malpractice of lying to government officials? How about a rebate from the manufacturers of Tamiflu?

I'm not sure what you read (nor am I sure why it is relevant to this post!) but having suffered through swine flu (I felt like a steam roller had rolled over me!) When my doc prescribed Tamiflu, it helped like none other.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20121114/does-tamiflu-work-questions-continue

As far as the government asking for stock-ups ... you need to cite a source. I couldn't find one.

Go eat an orange.

I have seen a change already and some of you may have also! My change is in my mothers Bank Account at 5/3rd. Being on Social Security Disability her bank offers an account that lets her borrow or get an advance they claim on her directly deposited check. It used to amount to 1/2 her monthly check. As of December her Advance Account has been reduced to almost 1/3 of her check. There has been no explanation for this change so I am assuming that her check might possibly be getting reduced which is exactly what the GOP wants to happen. Has anyone else seen this or know of someone in their family that this has happened to?

. Everyone can start a business, develop a product, invent an item or start from scratch and win big here.

@riley

No, everyone can't just start a business and "win big". It tends to take money to make money - a lot more than most have in their savings right now. Sure, try and get a loan. If you can get one, there is no guarantee your business will thrive. Most small businesses die. Then you are in trouble. In other words, unless you have a well-to-do family or friends to back you up, you can forget it. Few businesses "win big".

But let's get into the real issue here. Not everyone has an equal opportunity to begin with. That's the problem with that philosophy - we have our unique experiences that influence our abilities. There is always an element of chance to our lives, from birth to death. You can have a work ethic of 5 people combined and only go so far if you are, say, disabled. You can be a military vet who comes back to the states, more than qualified for a great job - but for whatever reason never gets that second interview. You can serve a company well for 30 years and suddenly get axed after new management takes over. Then what do you do, work 4-5 minimum wage jobs? Good luck finding another decent paying job because you will be at the bottom again and more likely to be among the first to get cut.

Assuming we all have the same opportunity is a denial of how the real world works and what hands we are dealt to begin with. Equal outcome has it's own problems as well.

The issues are more complex than most folks like to believe. Telling someone to get a spine and make something of themselves (bootstrap argument) is a crude oversimplification.

Like somebody said, "just more yada, yada". I feel like we're back in the 60's at the used car lot and some sleezy salesman just said, "well - we don't normally do this, but for you kid, I'm going to have to run this past my manager over there...." But I want my balloon and free boiled hot dog on a stale bun if I have to watch this.

@americangirl

Republicans really love the thought of stealing other people's money

Ma'am. It is NOT other people's money. Wow. How is it other people's money? Most people (in the real world) provide a service for which they are paid. From that money that THEY EARN, they pay taxes.

Paying for the common defense is one thing.

Otherwise, it's the Government taking the money that one set of people earn to give to another set of people (under the rules set by the Government to support their voting blocs as established by their respective voting blocs.)

Under threat of imprisonment if you don't pay, I might add.

The only "stealing" going on here is the legalized extortion/theft (under the guise of taxes) coming, by and large, from the left (so-called liberals redistributing money for the "greater good".)

Trynka-1213219 #1.34,

While all this BS going on between Congress and the WH, how many of you noticed the cost for health care for the new year have already been set. Businesses can only wait so long for the government to provide data so that they can plan accordingly, otherwise they (the health care providers) must make a best guess.

This is NO way to run either a business or government.

Our government is "broken" in so many ways. We need to convene a "constitutional convention", as soon as practical. This will NOT get us out of our current mess, but hopefully we'll survive our current dilemma until we can clean house and reduce the power and scope of our federal government.

The financial mess was also caused by a derivative bubble, not by the Wars.

Over and over again, we hear this. Has anyone asked why? What fueled that derivative bubble?

Let's look at a little history:

From the moment Bush entered the WH, he was pushing his American Dream Downpayment initiative. From a radio address to the nation in June, 2001, just six months after Bush took office:

For instance, while the rate of homeownership amongst all Americans is nearly 68 percent, the rate among African-American and Hispanic families is under 50 percent. One particular program, the American Dream Downpayment Fund, will provide $200 million in downpayment assistance to help 130,000 low-income families buy homes.

What is the American Dream Downpayment Fund? This fund was established by the American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by George W. Bush in 2003. Here are some quotes from a fact sheet that was passed out in the push for this legislation one year before it was passed. Note that these are things that had already been done to make minority homeownership easier:

The Administration also implemented a hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product that makes it easier for new homebuyers to stay in their homes in the first few years.

Substantially increasing, by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market specifically targeted toward the minority market.

ARMs existed before Bush but what Bush is referring to here is a program by HUD directed at providing "Mortgage Backed Securities" specifically for Hybrid ARM loans. In short, HUD, through the FHA and VA, started providing the very derivatives you mention as a cause of the financial mess. And here is George W. Bush taking credit for it!

The secondary mortgage market is exactly where all of the "derivatives" you mentioned are sold. And here is George W. Bush taking credit for pumping $0.44 trillion into that market through "government sponsored enterprises" - politico speech for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA. All that extra money provided the fuel for the derivatives bubble.

From the bipartisan Congressional report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the subprime mortgage crisis released in 2009:

The Government Sponsored Enterprises led the way into the housing crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leaders in risky mortgage lending. According to an analysis presented to the Committee, between 2002 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie purchased $1.9 trillion of mortgages made to borrowers with credit scores below 660, one of the definitions of “subprime” used by federal banking regulators. This represents over 54% of all such mortgages purchased during those years. (p.24)

Make no mistake... George W. Bush, in his zeal to provide home-ownership to minorities, brought this recession on us. It is aptly called the Bush Recession.

Boehner purged the liberty folks who actually are fiscal conservatives from having anything to do with finance and treasury. That's right, the people who are good with money aren't being allowed to contribute whatsoever. The republican party is now the Whig Party and will die off soon if they continue down this road.

EEngineer # 1.98,

You may want to know where this started.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

You'll see it started on WJC's watch.

MSNBC has an article that DEMOCRATS are trying to delay ObamaCare TAX increases in medical supplies because it will kill jobs.

Why? You won on Obamacare. Liberals scream that tax increases don't hurt jobs. Then why are Democrats delaying taxes that everyone knew was coming. By delaying Obamacare costs will go up even more. Liberals said Obamacare was great for America as is....why the sudden change?

Are Democrats admitting that tax increases hurt jobs? Or, did some Democrat just get bought off?

I see that some people still come down very hard on the republicans. I dislike both sides of the isle because the republicates are to far right, where the democrats are to far to the left and NOTHING get done thats good. Now the issue with most plans in washington is that one day in 30 or 40 years, or less, we will have an issue like Greece where we as the US cant borrow money because our debt will be SO BAD the Taxes wont cover anything. I see one day washington will be required to overhaul itself to the bare minimum of defense and infrastructure, NO Medicine, NO Social Security, NO Vet Benefits, and so on. We the Governement CAN NOT KEEP SPENDING SO MUCH MORE THAN IT MAKES.

The other option is declare BANKRUPTCY!!!

The right had better offer something serious or all taxes rise. Which is fine.

Start paying down the debt now.

Btone - I half agree, we should let all the Bush-era, "temporary" tax cuts expire. This would bring us back to the tax levels of the 1990s, when our nation came the closest it has been to having a balanced budget since the 1950s. It was also a time of strong economic growth.

But, we should not achieve this by just letting the tax cuts expire, and enacting sweeping, across the board spending cuts. It should be done in a controlled fashion.

To do otherwise would apply spending cuts where they should not occur, and perhaps allow some undeserving programs to be preserved. It also is unsettling to the public, and the economy, that our beloved government cannot even govern, except via a series of near disasters.

Alas, Congress is highly polarized today, and both sides are pursuing their goals with the dedication of a holy warrior, and it is the public which will feel the edge of the sword, not the politicians.

djrashn

Social Security is NOT an entitlement, it is paid for by the employee and does not add to the deficit. Social Security did NOT get us into this financial mess, but 2 unpaid for wars DID.

Cut military spending. Raise all tax rates. I am a small business owner, raise my tax rates back to the Clinton years. Washington has both a spending problem and a revenue problem. Both problems were exacerbated by George W Bush, who cut taxes(revenue) and sent us into two unpaid for wars(spending)

I don't know where so many of you are bringing in this Social Security issue to the fiscal cliff talks. I didn't see it in the article, and I didn't see anyone mention it prior to you guys saying it's not an entitlement. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see it. It is an issue that will need to be dealt with, sooner rather than later, if people want to actually have it work for them in the nearing future. It's not going to last at it's current rate. I'm not saying what needs to be done, only that the money will run out!!

You can argue all you want about about the spending, I won't disagree with you, but the wars themselves weren't the primary factor in spending.

However, you are asserting that Bush cut taxes, therefore there was less revenue. That's just not the case. In fact, under Bush, there had never been more Revenue taken in, in the history of the United States.

Here is a link to the actual numbers of both "receipts" or Revenue, and "outlays" or Spending.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

In 2000, the US took in 2.025 Trillion in revenue, and fell each year through 2003, when the US took in 1.782 Trillion. After 2003, the Bush tax cuts took hold, and the economy began to grow, with an increase in revenue each year through 2007 when the US took in 2.568 Trillion, with a very slight dip in 2008 when the US took in 2.524 Trillion, but almost unchanged from 2007. We all know what happened after 2008. The US has still yet to take in as much Revenue as it did in those 2007 and 2008 years. You can argue all you want as to why the recession happened, why the housing market fell, or even the effects of the global recession.....but you seriously can't argue that there was less revenue after the Bush tax cuts, because it's just not true!!

The tax cuts did create economic growth, thus leading to added revenue. It's a fallacy to say that the problems we are dealing with are a result, even in part, of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Bonehead - "Here Lies Democracy" GOP and their Loonies are a death sentence to America !!!!

Obama has more to redistribute as he sees fit.

A total misstatement of fact. Obama is reliant on congress (more specifically the House) to establish spending parameters and amounts. I've noticed something rather unusual ~ so long as the "redistribution" is in a vertical mode, there is little objection heard from the Right. But if it is laterally or downward, they kick over tables and chairs in protest. Boehner has yet to face reality ~ Obama has a four year, no-cut contract. Boehner and his House cohorts have just 23 months, as do 33 Senators. And public opinion is already stacked against Republicans (57%) on where blame should attach. Good luck with that, John.

Jim in Texas

Obama has more to redistribute as he sees fit.

A total misstatement of fact. Obama is reliant on congress (more specifically the House) to establish spending parameters and amounts. I've noticed something rather unusual ~ so long as the "redistribution" is in a vertical mode, there is little objection heard from the Right. But if it is laterally or downward, they kick over tables and chairs in protest. Boehner has yet to face reality ~ Obama has a four year, no-cut contract. Boehner and his House cohorts have just 23 months, as do 33 Senators. And public opinion is already stacked against Republicans (57%) on where blame should attach. Good luck with that, John.

What's your beef with people making(earning) money?

When you run a business, you do so for financial gain, so of course there is no argument against "redistribution" of wealth in a vertical mode.....That's called business.

No one that ever started a business, thought, "you know what, I don't need to make money" (profit).

TO: jerry l-1335133 who wrote:

"American Girl, Sorry but 75% of the tax cuts went to the middle class and poor through increased child credits, Alternative minimum tax, and lower brackets..."

If 75% of the tax cuts wet to the middle class, which is NOT true, then why does Mitt Romney pay 14% of his earnings in taxes, and I pay 35%?

Get real!

What's your beef with people making(earning) money?

Good question. I'd say the issue is not one of being anti-rich, but of being alarmed at the increasingly skewed distribution of income and wealth in our society.

The "47%" of which Romney complained is not composed simply of welfare cheats and people receiving disability payments. The bulk of these people are comprised of the working poor: people who earn subsistence level incomes by working sometimes 2 or more jobs.

Rather than ask why are you against making money, perhaps one might ask when did our society cease to offer opportunities to earn a decent living for almost half of its citizens.

The last time the distribution of wealth and income became this skewed was just before the Great Depression.

American Girl,

Nobody in this country pays 35% because it is a progressive system and you pay a lower amount on lower brackets. Did you read the link to the New York Times article I posted before which was post 1.78 ?

I also stated that on an individual basis the rich cut more dollars but of the total amount 75% went to the middle class and poor because of how many people take advantage on the alternative minimum tax, increased child credits, increased college deductions etc. Just on the AMT you have 28 million filers saving about $2000 each.

TO: jerry l-1335133 who wrote:

"American Girl, Nobody in this country pays 35% because it is a progressive system and you pay a lower amount on lower brackets..."

I am right about 35% of my earnings in taxes, and Mitt Romney admitted to paying only about 14% of his earnings in taxes.

Now you want to come along and try to tell me and Mitt Romney how much we're paying in taxes?

I wouldn't call you a liar or anything, you just don't know what you're talking about.

It wasn't anything new. It was the exact same offer they made before Still no compromise and no negotiation! Bonehead needs to be removed from office for the sake of Ohio and the country.

The Speaker better not give in to Bozobama's phantom cuts, which will NEVER happen. As soon as the Republicans cave on taxes, the country is screwed, as the liar Bozobama will SAY he'll cut this or that, but never will. Hold out, Mr. Speaker, make Bozobama raise taxes on EVERYONE! Then the House should introduce a bill first thing that reinstates the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE!

American Girl - Romney pays 14% because of how his income is structured....by capital gains rather than an income. It's the same way Soros & other rich people do. In addition, he gets big credits for substantial donations to charity. Why don't you look at what Romney donated to charity and compare that to what Joe Biden donated to charity?

Then you will see who cares about those less fortunate than themselves.

American girl..

You're confusing the items here, You may very well pay 35% in total taxes, but speaking solely on federal taxation, you are not paying 35%

Paws93 has it right on how the tax structure works.

You see, you and i go to work, and we earn a pay check, and we get taxed on it.

So lets say we then take whatever it was we did save, and we invest it in the stock market. Lets say over the years you managed to save $10,000. That's post tax money, free and clear for you to do whatever you want with it.

So you take that $10,000, and lets say you invested in Google before they made it big. Your investment (risk) of $10,000 turns into, let's say $20,000. the original amount you invested is not taxed, but the $10,000 in profit that you made from your investment (risk), you are taxed at a rate of about 15%. Anyone at any income level gets taxed at this rate when they do this. This is exactly what Romney is/was doing, he was just doing it on a much larger scale. You see, the money he invested (or risked), is money that has already been taxed at an earned income rate.

He also donated over $4 Million to charity, of which he only claimed $2.5 Million, so in reality he could have deducted another $1.5 Million. Because everyone at all levels can deduct donations to charities, that's how his tax rate dropped from 15% to 14.1%. Keep in mind American Girl, that Romney paid well over $2 Million in taxes that ONE YEAR, which is more than the common American will pay in their LIFETIME!!

People who complain about Romney only paying 14%, aren't understanding the tax code. If it's simply that you don't like the tax rate on investments, then by all means say so.

dman-353357

What's your beef with people making(earning) money?

Good question. I'd say the issue is not one of being anti-rich, but of being alarmed at the increasingly skewed distribution of income and wealth in our society.

The "47%" of which Romney complained is not composed simply of welfare cheats and people receiving disability payments. The bulk of these people are comprised of the working poor: people who earn subsistence level incomes by working sometimes 2 or more jobs.

Rather than ask why are you against making money, perhaps one might ask when did our society cease to offer opportunities to earn a decent living for almost half of its citizens.

The last time the distribution of wealth and income became this skewed was just before the Great Depression.

With regard to Romney's statement on the 47%, I will only say that I believe when talking about 47%, he was talking solely about those that will Vote for Obama, and how they feel the government should run. Obviously you aren't going to feel the same way, and rehashing this topic will get us both no where, as we'll probably never agree.

But, I don't disagree with yours, and others concerns about a disparity between wages of higher ups and everyday workers in various companies. However, I think the vast majority of American companies don't operate that way. However, I believe with education, and peoples willingness, or lack there of, to make purchasing choices based on this topic, then the free market will handle this type of issue. Education would be key to that. You see, most people just don't take the time to learn about the companies they buy from, they do nothing more than search for the best deal, or lowest price. Look at black friday. That's not a day when people are concerned with where the profits go, where did the product come from, etc. It's a day when people are looking for the best deal and/or lowest price, and these people come from all walks of life, all races, all political affiliations, and all income levels.

If you really want to battle this topic, I'll ask you to do two things the next time you make a purchase. 1) Always choose something that is American made, not just American assembled. 2) Always choose the higher priced item that is American made (chances are the higher priced item, in most not all cases, will be the item made by a smaller company that is likely to pay more fairly) My guess is the vast majority of Americans aren't going to do this. So there are two choices to make, either you do what I just said, or your learn how operate in a global economy, because I can tell you, global economics is not going away!!!

Our political show is mix of top 2-4%, vs the next 4-8% in pretense that they're the middle class abetted by little bribe routine that's actually about paying themselves and not about the under $50,000 group whom they are really stealing from.

Great post ! Obama avoids the "hard stuff" like real negotiations with the elected members of Congress. When he makes speeches, they are always "set up" with lots of "yes" zombie people in the background ... and no one to challenge him !!

Why should Obama respond? Let the House pass a bill and send it to the Senate. If Obama doesn't like it, he can veto it.

And why is Boehner complaining about 'the lack of leadership' from the White House? Maybe the problem is that Boehner doesn't have the votes to pass anything. Of maybe Boehner would rather wait until the new Congress convenes in January just to make sure he's still Speaker!

The President was elected to stay inside his house?

Bruce, they did pass a bill and sent it to the Senate, and President Obama signed it. Its called the fiscal cliff, and probably the only bipartisan thing they've done in a long time! It ain't pretty, but its a lot better than the Democrat or GOP plans. I say let's do this. Time to get off the gravy train, pay our "fair share" and balance the budget.

How can Obama make a counter offer, he is never at the place where he was elected to be, in the White House, he is to busy running around the country making stupid speeches, the thing he does best!!

What, doesn't Speaker Boehner know how to get in contact with the President when he's not in Washington?

iowaretiree -

For crying out loud, this is the year 2012. Trust me, there are a hundred different ways the President of the United States can communicate with Speaker Boehner in this day and age without physically being in the White House. Speaker Boehner doesn't even have to be in his own office. Imagine that!

And neither of them have to report every word of every conversation they have to you or me or anyone else.

So calm down before you have a stroke or something.....

.

Good Lord iowaretiree and jim ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule

He's at the White House today ... how HARD is that to look up????

That little Republican talking point is as stale as your party. Get over it. You have heard of email, telephones? The president, as is any president of the U.S., connected 24/7 so it really doesn't matter where they are at any given time. I'm sorry that Obama and his aides don't check in with the likes of you and jim, but he is a very busy man and right now he and his staff are working on the deal. K? Please either try and keep up, or maybe you both could just be quiet for a bit and pay attention. I know you are retired, but no reason to let your brain go dotty on you! Peace

Layton!! Thanks, I was going to post the WH schedule for the retiree, but you beat me to it. Must be helpful to our seniors!

Let me guess layton, you are giving him a spit shine aren't you ? How do those boots taste ? Sorry to disappoint you, my work prohibits me from watching his every move with baited breath like you Obama leg humpers.

If he is at the White House it is probably to pick up his golf clubs and leave on his next stupid speech tour!!!

Layton and Alaska Girl -

I'm always getting on the guy in the next cubicle for sitting there all day listening to the local sports talk radio station - which, as near as I can figure, seems to pretty much consist of 200 people a day calling in and whining that "Andy Reid sucks!" He's a smart guy and I keep telling him he could spend his time much more wisely.

But after reading some of the comments on here anymore, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I shouldn't join him! :)

I mean, seriously.....golf clubs?????

Gee, jim, your "work" doesn't seem to prohibit you from humping your computer all day long to post your Republican rants. Just sayin'

I take short lunches Alaska Girl. What's your excuse ?

"my work prohibits me from watching his every move with baited breath like you Obama leg humpers."

hmmm, doesn't seem to have kept you from posting 35 times so far just today on just this blog alone though.....that's a lotta "lunch"!

She already checked her traps this morning and filled her oil lamps for tonight!!!

I take short lunches Alaska Girl

More like permanently OUT to LUNCH!

Oh JoAnne darling ... What is your excuse since you are no stranger to this site as well .... got a government job with the GSA ??

Awww, Alaska humor! Aren't you too cute, iowaretiree! So funny, but I guess you are the type to stereotype. Gee, I guess if I wanted to stereotype I would probably guess that living in Iowa you are probably very obese. But, I don't do play the moron game. Anyhoo, are you and jim by chance an item? You both seem so chummy that I wonder if perhaps you are both sitting in a room together sharing a laptop.

No excuses, jimmy. My job allows me the freedoms to chat this way. As long as my work gets done and my boss continues to give me great reviews and my yearly wage increase, that is proof positive that I do my work to the satisfaction of the company that I am employed with.

jim -

You'd have to take that up with one of my two bosses. Maybe after they've each known you and your work ethic and production and value to the company like they've known and respected mine for the last 30 and 40 years respectively, they might even listen to you - get back to me when they do, okay?

Hey, JoAnne in PA #3.6

iowaretiree -

So calm down before you have a stroke or something.....

that's pungent, hilario...right on.

There are some who are not wired;

These are people who are bit weird.

TO: iowaretiree who wrote:

"How can Obama make a counter offer, he is never at the place where he was elected to be, in the White House, he is to busy running around the country..."

If all else fails, you can reach the President on "Twitter".

The President can, excuse the vulgarity, Piss on anyone, any where, any time from any where, at any time and Boehner knows that first hand. Just Posturing from get serious to this offered trash.

The CBO estimated if the Bush cuts were eliminated completely the economy would lose 1.5% growth. If it was extended only for those making 250K or less it would only decline .25%. Proof that even though the 1% got 70% of the money they aren't the engine of growth. The 98% that actually spend the money drive the economy.

How can Obama make a counter offer, he is never at the place where he was elected to be, in the White House, he is to busy running around the country making stupid speeches, the thing he does best!!

Maybe iowaretiree and jim are so far behind times that they should ask their grandchildren that question. In this age of communication you can actually see who you are talking to on the phone so personal contact is so 1990s.

What good would it do for Obama to stay in the White House anyway? Boehner can't even get his own party to agree on a plan and Obama would be wasting time waiting on him to get a plan together.

jim-1455434 . . .

Let me guess layton, you are giving him a spit shine aren't you ? How do those boots taste ? Sorry to disappoint you, my work prohibits me from watching his every move with baited breath like you Obama leg humpers

What a LOVELY post about YOUR President! From what I see, you so wish someone would pay you a little attention and in order for you to get it, you post @!$%# like that. Knowing the President's schedule is as easy as using google. Of course !! that !! may !! be !! to difficult !! for someone such as yourself. Grow up already (and learn reading comprehension while doing so.)

Sorry Layton, but your logic is sadly flawed .... you see, I am not fixated on his every move and his every bowel movement like you seem to be. What I see from Obama is weak leadership coupled with this bizarre sense that he CONSTANTLY has to sell himself to the American People .... instead of just tackling the hard work in front of him !!!

It looks like Obama is the one DESPERATE for attention ! LOL !!

Jim, based on your comments, you are seeing all kinds of things that do not exist. I doubt anyone is fixated on his every bowel movement, but you seem to be constantly criticizing him with things you "see", all which is based on your subjective slant and utterly ridiculous.