With all the lobbyists and other special interest groups in Washington, it's so easy for elected officials to get lost in ideological dreamland. It's disingenuous when an elected official says "Washington is broken." Excuse me, Congress and the President are Washington. The people made their choices on November 6. Now fix the problem.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL said:

BOOM!

What?

Interesting they didn't release the wording of the question.

They did however include that liberals will have to accept targeted cuts to spending, which has never been submitted by Obama.

Until there is targeted cuts on the table, no deal will be made...

Jim-O,

R U SERIOUS and stupid, or just joking?

Talk about non-starters …

Boehner’s latest proposal (yesterday) calls for making all the Bush tax cuts permanent

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL. -

I don't know if you are deliberately trading on the celebrity of the original Feisty Redhead who was killed by the Colorado gunman in the theatre massacre or if your avatar is just a coincidence... but I've not seen you on the Vine before and your page shows you as new to the Vine as of 9/12.

The original Fiesty Redhead was well respected as a commenter by both liberals and conservatives, and we miss her and mourn her.

Just throwing that out there.

compromise -- something the empty suit in the WH doesn't understand. You HAVE TO increase taxes and cut spending. Mr. Brainless (BO) wants to RAISE taxes and SPENDING. What part of this makes any sense to you lapdog liberals? If you run a household (on your OWN money) and make say $2k a month and spend $3k a month do you even realize that you will run out of your OWN money. Do you keep banging the credit cards and hitting the banks for loans? Sooner or later you'll max out completely and you either sink or swim. The same with all the freebies the dems unload on their base (keeping them dependent and irresponsible) do any of you realize that you keep raising taxes to pay for these pathetically run programs sooner or later you have more lapdogs then worker bees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. So you don't care about your families future by burdening them with debt that you pocketed on the backs of future generations. Now that is what really makes me sick.

ya' know? It's time for a special election, with regard to our current crop of Congress-persons in the House of "Representatives". How about a vote of "No Confidence" and kick them ALL out. Start over fresh with a new crop of Representatives who are sent to Washington to get the JOB DONE! No more of these BS tactics.

Better than a special election........... and takes less time.

Call their office, fax them, e-mail them.

Put the pressure on them.

screminmimi: What are you talking about? Feisty has been on the vine since 2010. Condolences to whoever you are talking about that was tragically killed in Aurora, but I think you may have your wires crossed?

Just throwing that out there.

Alaska Girl - 435 - 0 in the house and 0 votes in the Senate on his last budget, Great job! And Fuzzy, can you say the same in Michigan? Or do you condone violence and destruction of private property when you lose?

Hey you left wing nuts, remember when two thirds of Americans told you where to shove your health care reform? Pathetic progressives just want everything their way or the highway. Too bad! I hope the republicans in the House tell Obama and all of you where to shove your tax hikes.

We spent ourselves into oblivion for years and now suddenly everyone wants a balanced budget?

What?

Yes???

but I've not seen you on the Vine before and your page shows you as new to the Vine as of 9/12

I'm sorry, but I have been a member of the vine since 6/10 and a First Read contributor since 3/08, using my moniker (which makes me the original Feisty Redhead), you obviously have me confused with someone else...

Don't believe me? Check the FR archives...

I'm sorry for your loss but don't find it necessary for you to "toss that out there"!

The original Fiesty Redhead was well respected as a commenter by both liberals and conservatives

So is this one, at least when it comes to conservatives who aren't bat @!$%# crazy!

PS: As for my avatar, it happens to be poinsettia's for the holidays, how you equate that with the Aurora shootings I'm not sure.

What are you talking about? Feisty has been on the vine since 2010.

PPS: I see you beat me to it, AG! THANKS!

While I agree that revenue has to be on the table and that cuts in programs need to happen, I just read a statistic (unverified yet) that the U.S. Govt is, as we speak, hiring on avg 100 workers/day. So while revenue needs to be included and cuts need to happen, there needs to be real managerial change in Washington on both sides of the aisle. The size of govt is so big and it just gets bigger. I also am inclined to believe that if revenue is offered it will be spent and not in ways to get us out of the problems we have made for ourselves. Funding pet projects will also continue to be a scourge on the American people. The American people are to blame as well. Less than half of eligible voters vote and when they vote, they are often uninformed and vote straight tickets and keep sending back the same bozos that got us into this mess. It wasnt just Bush who overspent and reduced taxes and started a hugely expensive war. The whole govt implemented those policies. This is not the exclusive fault of the GOP or the DEMs. They share equally in the blame and, when a deal is struck, it will not solve the problems. The govt will continue to expand and the debts will continue to mount. And btw, Clinton didn't do anything to create the economy when he was in office. Times were good, confidence was high, people were empoyed and companies hiring, people were spending and we were in a good cycle. I or any of you could have balanced the budget. IMHO, the first Bush was the real leader who made the tough decisions, lost his election because of it and the economy started to thrive.

I would agree with the idea of getting the job done, however before any discussion of SS and Medicare cuts I have to see the following;

1. Every bit of waste is removed from every FEDGOV department, division, etc. without exception

2. DOD gets cut down to $500B (without "creative accounting" tricks)

3. FEDGOV employees are paid on par with private sector employees doing the same work.

4. Converting the beltway bandits from building weapons to re-building the US infrastructure.

5. Then before cutting SS/Medicare end the cap on SS develop a needs test for both, tort reform, group purchase of drugs just like the VA does.

Then if need be very carefully trim SS and medicare based on the realities of the median income / outgo of the average American family.

You all can keep posting.

I'm going to go make some more phone calls.

I want them to believe we have a voice.

WHY are the RWNJ's only willing to cut "entitlements" (which are not really entitlements but something people have paid into their entire working life)?

Feisty. That IS what an entitlement is. We are entitled to it because we paid for it. Entitlement is not a dirty word, and we shouldn't allow the Republicans to turn it into one - especially given that they are the party of unearned entitlements.

Well my balanced budget would also include Congress and Senate - cut their pensions, and no more healthcare for life! What other entitlements do they have - oh wait how about working a full week and no more huge amounts of vacations, etc..

The GOP only believe their own polls.

Let your voice be heard.

Entitlement is not a dirty word, and we shouldn't allow the Republicans to turn it into one

Byron,

It is a pet peeve of mine how they spin it into something entirely different than what it actually is!

I also note, no one has addressed my corporate welfare comment, instead of spewing the usual worn out right wing talking points...

Well my balanced budget would also include Congress and Senate - cut their pensions, and no more healthcare for life! What other entitlements do they have - oh wait how about working a full week and no more huge amounts of vacations, etc..

I don't think that they should be paid at all. No benefits, nothing. That might weed out some of the career politicians. Most of them are rich anyways, they don't need the money to begin with. Being in Congress should be considered a form of public service, like volunteering. Not a profitable career.

Oh Ghost of Feisty please continue to post on First Read!

Is screminmini For Real? I'm sorry if you truly did loose a friend.

But you're coming across as someone off their meds!

Feisty and Pigotry are LWNJ's, in fact they define the very term NJ.

They make some accurate statements and then ruin it all by being so pathetically fanatic and narrow-minded.

(A very poor way to expose the errors of RWNJ's.)

Hey Fuzzy -- that budget "surplus" you claim Clinton had came from Social Security. He used it like an ATM.

Jay,

That hundred that were hired is only to replace the 100+/- that just vacated their jobs either thru retirement or other terminations.

Does that 100 include the military (enlisted/officers)?

While I agree that revenue has to be on the table and that cuts in programs need to happen, I just read a statistic (unverified yet) that the U.S. Govt is, as we speak, hiring on avg 100 workers/day. So while revenue needs to be included and cuts need to happen, there needs to be real managerial change in Washington on both sides of the aisle. The size of govt is so big and it just gets bigger.

Not only is your statistic unverified, but it is also untrue. You can find long term employment figures for the government here: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

As far as Obama is concerned: http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-obama-reagan.html ; the title says it all:

Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

And from
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

That is why Obama is considered to a centrist - he believes in limited government - and he's proven it by shrinking government. The difference between Obama and his critics is that Obama believes in a country that still functions, so he wants efficient, smaller government. Not non-existent government.

His critics want to simply destroy the country. It's rather amazing if you think about it. Nowhere else will you find a country with a major political party whose core platform is the destruction of that country's own government.

Hey, JK-4363698 who writes:

Feisty and Pigotry are LWNJ's, in fact they define the very term NJ.

LWNJ? I can't speak for Feisty, but I am LWNJ - I like Gov. Christie a lot, always lwnj - 'laughing With New Jersey;' as the lyric goes..when I laugh with New Jersey, New Jersey laughs with me.'

.

Best of luck to Gov. Christie and his bid for re-election 2014. I support common sense Republicans, not RWNJs, which stands for 'right-wing-nut-jobs,' BTW.

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

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

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

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

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

The elections of many Representatives and Senators ...why just about a month ago ... is the only poll really needed. Obama plays to the liberal mob mentality that is fully ingrained in people like sandy. Call YOUR Congressman'woman clown .... mine is doing what he was sent to do ... try to force true accountability from the moron-in-chief who has never had a budget passed while President, and who has no desire to see to it that one is ACTUALLY passed !

Obama's financial legacy will be doubling the national debt of ALL his predecessors combined .... while never having a BUDGET !

Sandy, polls are good for elections ... we have the elected members of Congress to decide tax laws.

It's not what the people think that is important, it is what Norquist thinks.

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

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

Entitlements are for the most part giveaways to the lazy. I have seen plenty of no good lazy aholes using food stamps, subsidized housing, emergency room services, unemployment until forced to go back and work, and much more. Fiesty and Byron are full of crap. Mindless libs who fail to see the truth.

"we paid for it" - How pathetic can you get?

I don't mind one bit when I see someone getting help when they really need it but I hate seeing lazy aholes scamming the system. And I am really tired of raising taxes to pay for more of the same BS.

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

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

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

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

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

Our economic problems didn't happen overnight. It's been happening over the past 15-20 years, but the economy was kept going by middle class Americans tapping into the equity on their homes until they were completely tapped out.

It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about doing the right thing for our country and the majority of its citizens. I consider myself an independent voter, but going back to the Reagan days and with the only exception having been Perot, I’ve always voted Republican. But all this single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go! This is the problem with our country. It shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide. (Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals or cheap easily abused labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA) Our leaders are elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to represent the interests of those citizens and the country itself. They are NOT elected by the Global Market Place or foreign citizens!

We need our elected officals to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. We need leaders who will actually stand up for the American people.

We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

I guess we should keep letting Corp Boards, Wall Street, CEOs and Foreign Lobbyists promote sending US jobs to countries where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or no real environment regulations. How's that been working for us?

The so called “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "out sourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world’s customer base out of work. I’m not a lefty or member of any union. I run a business that employs over 20 people and produces products that are purchased by customers that do manufacturing and packaging. I’m just an average Joe, but I've been saying this for more than 10 years now. If I can see it, so can our so called leaders (political leaders) who are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

We need to add tariffs that are proportionate to the inequities in wages and regulations in the country where the goods were produced and or where we’re importing them from. We could then use the money raised by these tariffs to help companies build state of the art manufacturing plants here in the USA, which would create more jobs here at home for US citizens, which would then in turn increase our income tax revenue.

The people with all of the excuses as to why we can’t or aren’t willing to manufacture products here in the US are the same people who have provided us with the thinking that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Over the past 15-20 years, I've seen too many of our customer's close manufacturing plants here in the USA and move those plants to different countries, decimating entire areas here in OUR COUNTRY. And I'm not alone. Returning jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead.

Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let’s keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

These so-called “free trade agreements” have to go. It was obvious when they were passing these agreements as to what was going to happen and sure enough it did. Our leaders had to have known this as well when they were passing these bills. It’s just common sense. We also need to bring customer support services back to the United States of America and staff them with employees who are US Citizens.

The “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field! The whole idea of the tariffs is so we can pay our factory workers a decent wage and not be blown out by these other countries where they don’t play by the same rules.

Why do liberals think the answer to everything is raising taxes on the rich (meaning anyone who earns an paycheck) while they demand government keep the trough running over so that they have plenty of free eats? Its a given, even if the republicans are against it, that taxes are going to have to increase which the President keeps harping about, BUT when has he mentioned anything about a serious cut in spending? It will take both taxes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

@ Jim- 1455434

Let me know how you think of your Rep's. job

when your taxes go up Jan. 1.

Why not cut un-entitlements.

The sad thing about a scenario with this outcome ends up hurting middle class retireees anyway. If the 2% make 40% of the income which is ridiculous, shouldn't their taxes paid be close to if not equal to that? I think the tax code needs to be re-written so that individuals pay an equal tax rate(%) as those under the $250K earnings mark. It shouldn't be that once a certain income is earned that they then begin to pay a dollar amount only equal to 10 percent on every $10,000 above the $250K. For those who don't understand that this loophole alone has cost this country more than the Social security benefits. If I make only $70,000 my tax rate should be what it is around 22-29%, so should the multi-millionaires out their. The problem isn't with entitlements, it's with the taxes and contributions of the wealthy to these programs. One way or another the Republicans are going to screw the middle class regardless of all the claims they made that they want to make it stronger.

"Deficits don't Matter"

From the article above:

According to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 65 percent say congressional leaders should make compromises to deal with the budget deficit, even if that means Democrats would need to accept targeted spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and that Republicans would need to accept targeted increases in tax rates.

I think they should make a list of all the Americans who think Social Security is an "entitlement" and "socialism", and then ask them if they think THEY should relinquish any of THEIR benefits.

For the good of the country, of course.

Then they should make another list of all the programs Republicans hold dear towards their hearts, and ask them if they think THEY should cut any of those programs.

For the good of the country, of course.

Then, they should make a list of all Republican voters who are members of unions and ask them if THEY should switch over to the "Right to Work" program.

For the good of the country, of course.

Salud

The RWNJ 's had to go against the majority. If they didnt, and gave the LWLT their way we would be 20 trillion in debt in 2 years. Bunch of cry babies you liberals are. B!tch b!itch b!itch. Wahh wahh i want i want i want. Gimme gimmee gimmee. I know I didnt earn it but i want to take from the rich because I am somehow entitled to someone elses money.....

Avg Joe,

The plan that President Obama presented to Speaker Boehner on Monday included 27 pages of detailed spending cuts of the 50 pages.

Boehner’s plan yesterday was 2 page long in total.

Maybe Obama can resolve our debt situation "gangnam style."

Avg-Joe-1820350 is absolutely correct, by the way.

Tax cut for the rich, what have we got so far from it? I don't see the increasing amount of job here in the US in the last 12 years.

Why are we keeping the tax cut? Reverse it back already, 12 years is already enough, it didn't work and we all know it.

This is just what it is...pure BS. Until the Feds stop monetizing our debt things will still go into the crapper, they are printing an additional 85Ba month...more borrowing, more spending, more useless bonds from the Feds backed up with useless mortgages.



DB Akron

Obama's statement today that he expects the Republicans to cave to him may make a deal not happen. People need to be aware, Obama's positions are, No deal, you lose, you can only accept the deal I am offering and BTW, you will still lose on that deal.

===========

Riiiiigt...and the GOP say they "won" the House and are putting forth their position in which I'm having a hard time seeing what great compromise they are swallowing and so your ultimate point is what again?

PAUL SOLMAN: The amount you save depends on your marginal tax rate, the rate applied to money you earn once you reach your highest bracket.

ROBERTON WILLIAMS: If you're in the 35 percent tax bracket, you save 35 cents for every dollar you deduct. If you're in the 15 percent tax bracket, you only save 15 cents for every dollar. That means, in terms of the home mortgage, we're subsidizing rich people a lot more than we're subsidizing lower-income people.

PAUL SOLMAN: Some people misunderstand this and think that once you're at the 35 percent bracket, that means all your income is taxed at 35 percent. It's only income above a certain threshold, right?

ROBERTON WILLIAMS: Everybody walks through the bottom tax brackets. Everybody pays 10 percent tax on those first $8,000 or $15,000 of income, and then 15 percent on the next piece.

And at the very top, you're paying 35 percent on that last piece of income. And that's where the deductions come in. They're reducing that top income, saving you money at your top tax bracket rate.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, what's the argument against removing the mortgage interest deduction?

ROBERTON WILLIAMS: One, there will be people who can no longer afford their mortgages. If they don't get that tax savings, they don't have enough to cover the mortgage payments.

Secondly, there will be an immediate drop in housing prices. People will not be willing to pay as much for housing. And, therefore, prices will come down. Every homeowner will suffer a capital loss.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec12/makingsense_12-10.html

Good ol' Boehner and the Boneheads........'nuf said.

Time to pay for the GOP's mistakes. Nothing needs to be done with entitlements but a little tweaking and a big kick in the pocket book for the corporate welfare crowd. Tax reform, single payer, defence cuts and we'll be back in business.

Too bad we do not have a Parlimentary system, the Republicans should give the Democrats everything avoid the cliff and watch what happens. Here is what happened in Canada and Britain. When Canada was down graded, Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin cut entitlements , including healthcare, 30% and introduced new taxes ONLY on a consumption goods and services basis NOT income (lawyers services ect. taxed) rate at18% for everything bought and sold. They have NO inheritence tax because the wealth just left and so did jobs. They had to tank the Canadian dollar to compete, now they have us beat on captial gains (thanks for making that a focus point Mr, President I know two companise who are reloacting north on this issue) and they have us beat on Corporate tax rate and they can't lie anymore their dollar should be worth twice ours, so they have a strong exchange rate now and are a solid AAA rated with overall income averages above the U.S. To top it off France now has an exodus and guess what they speak French in Canada. they have problems like will be what do with surplus and how to contain capital in flow. still too small to not be hurt by our incompetence but one hell of a lot better off than we are.

Martin was rewarded for what is the best solution we have seen, by being thrown out, once he breifly became Prime Minister, by the Liberals who felt he abandoned the core party platform, which he did, social entiltements. 30 years later the Conservative rule and the Liberals, who dominated the 20th century garnered just 19% of the vote last election. Same in Britain. The fact is there is some (not all) merit in trickel down economics and there is no doubt there are abuses in social welfare programs. When you have a obesity epedemic, you can bet we have at least one chicken in every pot overall. If you keep the focus on class warfare you get see trickel out economics especially if we keep taxing just on income and avoid consumption. We have to face the fact we are AA rated and entitlements coupled with the new unlimited health care mandates are not sutainable. They were not anywhere else. We can tax the wealthy still, but this is the last kick at the can after this it has to be about cuts and consumption based taxation. The wealthy are walking, because yes they can, as they did in both Canada and Britain its a big competetive world. Its rtime for the Chinese to rightfully call in the loan for collection.

How about we just cut ALL spending (including military) by 50%, cut federal government salaries to levels commensurate with the salaries of NON UNION private sector people doing similar jobs, and CUT taxes in addition.

hey did however include that liberals will have to accept targeted cuts to spending, which has never been submitted by Obama

True enough, because he keeps asking the Repubs to submit what cuts they want. They refuse of course - and tell the potus to submit the cuts to THEM. I guess so they can blame him for cutting SS/Medicare later, despite the fact that they are the ones demanding the cuts. Or maybe it's because they have spent so much time whining about 'entitlements' that they have never really thought about what they would do in the real world when they actually get the opportunity to cut.



with the salaries of NON UNION private sector people doing similar jobs

Lol, you do realize that private sector employees make a whole lot more than Fed employees - right? I know a lot of contractors who worked in a similar position in the Gov't now earning 150K plus, when before they were making around 60-70K in Govt.

I have not read or heard any reports of any serious spending cuts being offered, not saying they haven't, but the speaches our President is giving is all about raising taxes. If he wants unified support he should let the public know about his planned spending cuts.

@Neale Osborn

Romney said he will increase defense spending from 800 billion to 2.4 trillions and most GOP support it. Funny thing is GOP said they want to cut spending, but they plan to increase one of the biggest spending by 3 times the amount.

I don't know where they plan to get money for that and what do they want to do with more defense? I bet that will be more wars.

Byron Raum

I looked up your link, that is state governments not federal jobs. Both the losses in that sector for Reagan as well as President Obama had to do with a recession, not a policy of smaller government.

Social security is both something we have paid into and an entitlement. You will receive much more in social security payments than the money that you have paid into it.

Basically it comes down to a year of working equals about 1 month of retirement pay.

How is adding 1.6 trillion dollars of revenue compared to a short fall of 10 trillion dollars balanced?

I see the liberal drones are out in force today.

I have a suggestion. Perhaps the 53% who actually do pay federal income taxes can split off and start their own country. It will remain the USA since we are the ones who actually believe you have to work and pay for what one gets from government.

The other 47% can split off and be called the USSA. The United Socialist States of America. It's okay, we'll keep the military so you won't have to pay for that. You get you little butts in trouble we will gladly protect you for a fee. What a savings for you eh? You will be everyones friend. You won't have to pay for much military because you will love everyone and they will love you back. You will only have to pay for the military when you need it. No crying wolf though. That will cost you extra.

You can keep it all as is, SS, Medicare, Medicade, etc as they exist today. We will start our own programs. Now the problem is we won't be paying anything more into your tax structure. But no problem right? You can set up whatever you want and be happy about it. Right?

I would absolutely love to see something like that happen just to watch your smug little butts spiral into third world status in short order. Because that is exactly what would happen. The USSA would be weeping on our doorstep in short order for hand outs.

Maybe your country could grow dope and make a run of it. It's legal in a couple states now. So maybe there is a modicum of hope for you. Small sized modicum that it may be.

Hey Fiesty!!

Going to have to disagree with you on oil companies. I was out here in the 80's when the bottom fell out of the oil business. I watched this part of the world decimated. Lost jobs, housing bottomed out, economy was horrible for well over 15 years. I watched a lot of people ruined. I could go on, but you get the point.

Have a Merry Christmas if I don't talk to you again!!!

Why do liberals think the answer to everything is raising taxes on the rich (meaning anyone who earns an paycheck) while they demand government keep the trough running over so that they have plenty of free eats?

Why do Republicans have such a simplistic world view? Liberals think that the "answer to everything" is considerably more complicated.

On the other hand, Republicans think that the "answer to everything" is to lower taxes on the rich and somehow everything works out. The world is a lot more complicated than that. Grow up.

We will never have a balanced budget and the country will go under as long as Obama keeps spending trillions. What is so hard to understand that in order to reduce you have to quit spending-including the 4 million dollar vacation he is taking to Hawaii on our money. I have never seen a president and his family and relatives take so many vacations on our dollar. Obama said from the beginning he would not raise taxes, not one penny, and now all he wants to do is raise taxes in every way he possibly can. And the entitlement programs that the republicans want to reduce should not be called entitlement programs. They are programs that working people have put their money into for their future. Entitlement is what the gov't gives you for free like food stamps. I don't hear anybody saying that needs to be reduced, because there is so much waste and misuse of food stamps and welfare. Food stamps could be drastically cut.people should be allowed to by only what is necessary on food stamps. People should not have to work until they are 67 or older to receive their SS or medicare. You worked your entire life for this and most people, especially labors, cannot work anymore, so what happens then? People may be living longer, butit doesn't mean their quality of life is better, many people have medical problems at that age and they want to cut out what the people paid for. And if Obama thinks that taxing the rich is going to get the country out of debt he is ignorant. Maybe he wants to give more the foreign nations. This country got like it did because people chose to live beyond their means. It is not the fault of the rich, it is the fault of those who try to live like they are rich when they can't afford it and now those who didn't cause this are the ones who Obama thinks should pay for it. With Obama it is his way or no way, everyone had to agree whether he right or wrong. I remember him saying, we will work together and come up with a plan and now that the election is over it is back to the same old lies he has continuously told this country for the last 4 years, he is not at all trying to compromise on anything. Thank you Obama, for dividing and destroying what was once a great nation. I hope Boehner stands his ground and let Obama sink with the ship!

Dennis of ohio...

You wouldn't mind giving us the specific 27 pages of detailed cuts obama proposes do you? Many here will wait to see that WH.gov link dated dec 10, 2012 outlining said cuts.

Unfortunately for many Americans, it appears that obama and company have no plan that they are confident enough in to share with the American populace in order for America to move forward fiscally.

Yes, I put the onus of this mainly on obama and company, for he is the one that has used only rhetoric on this matter. Who can forget how he relished cutting down the right after his parties 2010 midterm "shellacking" through ridicule of specific RW proposals. As long as it continues to be obama and companyies way or the highway, all of America loses.

BTW - There was an interesting little tidbit on bloombergTV this morning. The politicians aren't talking about "real" spending cuts, just in "cutting" the "rate" of spending. If so, then we will never achieve any type of fiscal stability without EVERY TAXPAYER having to contribute more in taxes at every level.

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 forced to live in poverty 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 comfortably. 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.

Avg Joe,

Whitehouse daily press briefing, Jay Carney, 12/11/2012

Carney: This is the document that contains the specific spending cuts. The Speaker of the House sent us a proposal that was two pages long that included one sentence on revenue. The proposal here includes, I believe, from pages 17 to 45, details on proposed spending cuts by the President -- pages 17 to 45. I recommend them to you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/11/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-12112012

I am a democrat that is siding with the republicans over cutting of entitlements. What most of you are neglecting to see is that Social Security and Medicare has become the bottomless piggy bank for deadbeats. In Massachusetts this past week there were 11 drug dealers rounded up and police confiscated hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and drugs. Well 8 out of the 11 that were arrested were "disabled" and were collecting disability payments through SSDI. It is Social Security who pays for these scumbags!!!! They are too disabled to work an honest job, but not disabled enough to sling drugs on the street. This is just one example...... It is time for logical reform of these programs. It's not a "Republican Thing" it is an American thing folks...

@ Dotties girl: The analogy between federal budgets and family budgets is a false one. The federal government can, does, and in circumstances like we’ve been in since 2008, should, print money to fund economic stimulus.

But if you’re going to try to make the analogy, how about trying it like this: You’ve been
under-employed for decades, and as a result you’ve run up a pretty hefty credit card balance. However, as the result of some cost-of-living raises and some budget-tightening, you manage to get to the point where you have a little bit left over at the end of each month. Will you (a) use the excess income to start
paying down on your credit card debt, or (b) take a voluntary reduction in income?

Answer (b) is insane, right? No family in their right mind (or who aren’t crooks) would choose (b),
wouldn’t you agree?

Well, I hate to tell you this, but the Bush tax cuts are answer (b). Remember “deficits don’t matter”?

Deficits only don’t matter when Republicans are cutting taxes for the rich. But OMG they’re a screaming world-ending disaster when there’s a Democrat in the White House.

Logic. Go figure.

Hey Feisty and Pigotry...

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better.”

SENATOR BARACK H. OBAMA, MARCH, 2006

Apparently, President Obama was a RWNJ or he was lying. Silly Obama cultists.

Balanced is the way to go. Conservatives don't mind higher taxes, we just mind higher taxes going to more handouts that support the likes of Illinois feistiest redheads.

Answer these simple questions: How does/did your Social Security payroll tax contribute to the national deficit? How will reducing Social Security Benefits reduce the national deficit?

Why do liberals think the answer to everything is raising taxes on the rich (meaning anyone who earns an paycheck)

Some of you people are so pathetic that you border on stupidity. What an asinine statement, "anyone who earns a paycheck."

Let's see now. Reagan, the right wing hero, tripled the national debt and signed 17 debt ceiling increases into law, and remember Dick Cheney's famous 2002 line: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Bush II doubled the national debt. His administration created $5.07 trillion of debt by new policies, including two unfunded wars, and tax cuts for the rich. Obama's new policies, on the other hand, created only $1.44 trillion in new debt.

These useless republicans, led by the useless Boehner need to get off the millionaire/billionaire's tit, and do the work the American people voted them to do, not work for their super-rich corporate sponsors, and their lobbyists.

Pigotry & Feisty -- You can not spend nor tax yourself out of debt. The only way to get out of debt is to REDUCE SPENDING not Increase Spending as O'Bama states. Contrary to Mr. O'Bama's belief - people that create businesses and employ others are the risk takers, This group puts everything on the line to make their business successful and they do this to earn a profit. Business people have businesses to make money - if they make money they can hire more employees who also make money. If Businesses have to pay more taxes they make less profit (people creates businesses to make money not to give it away) - less profit means less employees - less employees means people are out of work. O'Bama has "hid" over 22 NEW Taxes in his O'Bama Care plan alone. People that work for a living (I don't consider Welfare deadbeats and those that depend on Entitlement Programs to be working for a Living) can not, at any level, afford any tax increases. Entitlement Programs, there are hundreds and hundreds of these in addition to Social Security and Medicare) have gotten to the point that they are unsustainable for the future. Very simple. if you get a Government handout, you need to produce (work) to get those funds. You may work picking up trash, maintaining Parks or whatever else needs done. You don't want to do these task, you get NO handouts PERIOD! If O'Bama raises taxes on Business owners, they will close their operations - terminate their employees - take their operations to Canada and/or Mexico (like the U.S. Big 3 Auto Makers) and hire Canadians or Mexicans for less and sell their products in the U.S. at an increased cost to the consumer. When the money runs out and it will because O'Bama is spending and printing money like water, as any good Socialist/Dictator plans. The Union Thugs and O'Bama will have no one to blame except themselves to blame. The U.S. Economy will be destroyed beyond repair and Legal U.S. Citizens will have to Learn Chinese.

I have a suggestion. Perhaps the 53% who actually do pay federal income taxes can split off and start their own country.

The whole "47% should pay fed income taxes" thing is probably one of the dumbest concepts out there. It really only takes a few seconds of critical thinking to realize that such an exercise is pointless. Politicians know this, but not the knuckleheads who espouse it because they like scapegoating and demonizing the poor.

For one, people who don't pay fed income taxes are the same people who spend basically 100% of their income every month. That means all their earnings go directly back into the economy and into local/state coffers. They don't invest overseas, or earn capital gains, or interest, or anything really. They get paid, and they spend it all.

This little factoid makes it so that taxing them would accomplish nothing but moving funds to the Fed that would otherwise go into the economy and local coffers. In reality, the deduction acts more like a subsidy to the states from the Fed than anything else - because it puts less burden on the states to assist the poor.

You can not spend nor tax yourself out of debt. The only way to get out of debt is to REDUCE SPENDING not Increase Spending as O'Bama states.

Not only is it untrue that the potus states that... you are seriously underthinking the debt.

For example, why is the debt and the defecit two different things? Because of growth in GDP. Spending in key areas can in fact increase growth, which will thus reduce the defecit. Spending cuts will also speed up this process. So will increased revenues from things like taxes. Once the defecit is reduced, and revenues/growth exceed spending - the debt will begin to shrink.

I have never seen a president and his family and relatives take so many vacations on our dollar

Don't get out much do you?

Again with the vacation bull@!$%#!!!

Don't you ever grow tired of making a fool out of yourself?

Those who criticize the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation don’t want you to know that George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford.

The right wing has been outraged at the four million dollar plus price tag for Obama’s family Christmas vacation, and they constantly hold George W. Bush up as an example of how thrifty a president should be when going on vacation.

The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.

If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers.

In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of scheduling, “work events,” while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush’s vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, “Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio

http://www.politicususa.com/

What is so hard to understand that in order to reduce you have to quit spending-including the 4 million dollar vacation he is taking to Hawaii on our money.

Source please! On what day is President Obama scheduled to leave?

@ 9ballpro...

yep,, as a conservative I am making obscene amounts of money, truly obscene. I make enough to pay for a $90k house, I drive a luxury $1500 '95 Blazer. I take expensive staycations. Just exactly who are you talking about... George Soros, etc

I say to Boehner, give the the Dems what they want, and when it turns out like everything else the Dems do, we'll have elections in 2 years to clear them out.

Say What,

AND IF you are correct, then the following will upset you even more!!

The race and ethnic changes are already seen in pockets of the U.S. and in the younger age groups, where roughly 45 percent of all students in K-12 are Hispanics, blacks, Asian-Americans and others. Already, the District of Columbia and four states — Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas — have minority populations greater than 50 percent; across the U.S., more than 11 percent of counties have tipped to "majority-minority" status.

Dennis - What is your source for the Obama counter offer on Monday (post 1.63)? This is all I could find on the counter offer you mentioned:, UPDATE: 6:13 p.m. -- A White House aide confirmed to The Huffington Post that the president made a counteroffer to Boehner on Monday. The details of the offer aren't readily available, but multiple reports state that it calls for $1.4 trillion in additional revenue. That number is $200 billion less than what the administration first proposed. No mention of 27 pages of detailed spending cuts. I would very much be interested in what those cuts are. Thanks

@DumbFarmBoy - I guess the name fits.

I'm talking about the fact that the Tea Party/Conservative/Liberatarian pundits (rich people) have convinced you and so many other like you (middle class people) that their solution is actually good for you.

lets cut off all foreign aide, how many billions do we spend supporting countries that blame us for everything that happens , from the tsunamies to hurricanes then say we could have done more to help.

Byron raum...

I love bursting your bubble, The bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were across the board for all wage earners. Even during the last presidential campaign romney was promotying across the board cuts as well. How droll that you and others feel that it is only about cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Let the bush2, obama extended tax cuts expire across the board and let the 98%'ers come to the decision on how much they want to pay for runaway government spending and their own entitlements. We already know that the 2% can afford it, will the 98% accept higher taxes to fund entitlements?

POTUS "pie in the sky" obama has sold many on "don't worry, someone else will pay for it". What a deep descent into economic @!$%# have the democrats made since the heady days of JFK saying "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Heck, even reagan was able to unify the populace with a spirit of "can do" optimism after the morase of the 70's.

so jh - any idea of where MOST of the money in the budget goes? How about 43% to "defense" - cut that in 2 and we MIGHT be able to stand the rest - oh, sure - we will ONLY be spending as much as the next FOUR countries COMBINED but don't we deserve it? After all we ARE policeman to the WORLD".

isn't it GREAT when SARCASM is REALLY TRUTH?!?

The reason there was a surplus in the later Clinton years is because the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

Interestingly, I just finished reading the list of targeted cuts outlined by the GOP and nowhere was Medicare and Social Security ever mentioned. It seems Obama and his bunch always used the aforementioned programs to frighten the gullible which is all the more deceitful considering that it is Obama that's stealing 718 billion from Medicare to help pay for his Obamacare, not the republicans.

Feisty, You of all people - being from Illinois know "Entitlement" means something some politician who has long since retired, died, or gone to jail - promised in order to get elected. The Entitlements are usually unfunded, or they once were funded and other politicians spent the money. My Dad paid in his whole working life - 30 some-odd years. He's beet withdrawing for 20 years so far - and -knock on wood - will do so for 20 more. But.... After 2 or three years of withdrawing had had taken out all of any money he put in.

Saying - or feeling "I'm entitled" only makes him one stakeholder in several insolvent systems. Eventually, the courts will push it into bankruptcy like procedures, and will force a haircut on him. He will be unhappy, as will I. But there are not enough rich to fulfill the past promises. We the people and our representatives over promised. Soon we will start under-delivering.

It only gets to that point - forced by the courts - because we as a public lack the will to change our deficit spending and start finally cutting actual debt.

Illinois is hosed by this. The unfunded pension debt is insurmountable. We can tax everyone double, and it wont work because business continue to leave and State Government continues to write script for bad debt. They cut here and there, but it will not be enough.

If we were serious, we would have 10% cuts on all things. Military. SS., MCare, etc... No sacred cows. So long as we have people trying to exempt someone, we Will not succeed.

Cutting benefits that Americans have paid into their whole lives should not be an option, if Congress had laid off of steeling from these funds, I wonder how much money would really be there with interest?? Another issue is make everyone pay the same percentage in Social Security on all money earned... Problem solved..

Cutting CORPORATE WELFARE and THE WAR MACHINE'S TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET should be..

Being cops of the world so the Oil Barons can get rich shipping their black crude across the oceans we police for them with American taxpayer dollars needs to END. Let these thieves hire their own Blackwater mercenaries..

Entitlements, it's exactly what it is. WE paid into IT! This is not a dirty word, that is suppose to bring visions of junkies and baby machines sucking from the public tit. That's the vision the Right wants you to have. That way their corporate buddies can suck this nation dry with the public "FREEBEES" totaling in the billions, if not trillions, while you demonize your own brothers and sisters for their pleasure..... Let's fix those "entitlements", That were never paid for, by the receiver(Rich).

Power to the PEOPLE!!!! ( corporation is not, nor ever will be "People".)

Much Love All,

Da Pup

>:o): PuRrrRrRrRrRrRrrrr ( Hi Feisty )

Here is my problem. SS is owed no telling how much from the government. Johnson paid for Vietnam with IOU's to SS. That money was never paid back. How many Trillions do you think that is???? We should know that. There is something else I am getting sick of. This entitlement BS. We all pay into that fund. So Who's money is it? O that's right its ours. Not the Speakers or anyone else in DC. These guys need to go with out pay for a while, No health insurance. Just a few months and see how they hold up. They need to have to live like the Millions of us that had to do just that. Many of lost everything because of what these Rep's did to this country. I think the Rep's just don't want to have to pay the IOU's off from Vietnam. I would bet Iraq and Afghanistan, used money from SS as well. Where else would that money have come from. Opp's that's right, it wasn't paid for. Bonner was right there when Bush and the Rep's spent all that money on the Country's Credit card. Now the bill is due and Bonner don't want to pay for the drunken spending during the Bush years. The Rich took all that money and now they want to 98% to pay it back. Typical Rep. thinking.

How come no one talks about the tax loop whole that allows Romney to pay only 10% That used to be 30% and only the rich use it. Close that sucker.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006

I see a lot of conservative liberal-haters on this discussion blasting the President for not making concessions and sticking to his guns on taxes. They think people on unemployment, social security and medicare are lazy do-nothing takers who should be cut off and made to fend for themselves. The sheer ignorance of that attitude is astounding to me. Wait until they retire and lose their pensions and savings, or get forced out of jobs because some rich guys decided to screw the system and collect big bonuses making leveraged buyouts. Then, let's hear them cry out against cuts to social programs.

The problem with Congress now is lack of leadership. John Boehner is not the leader he claims to be. He can't control his own caucus. That's why he keeps coming back to Obama asking for another deal with more concessions. He can't engineer an agreement within his own party. He's got the Norquist nabobs insisting that tax rates for the rich can't be touched, and only cuts to social programs are acceptable. He and his party are going to have to stop following a failed ideology and listen to the will of the people. Otherwise, they will lose.

If Businesses have to pay more taxes they make less profit (people creates businesses to make money not to give it away) - less profit means less employees - less employees means people are out of work.

If this were true, we wouldn't have an employment problem today - because businesses are currently making record profits.

If more profits = more employment, then why don't record profits = record employment?

That's because trickle-down is bullsh!t - to put it bluntly.

The key is demand. People need to make enough money to afford the things businesses sell. And businesses need to make enough money to afford employing people who make enough money to buy the things they sell. Right now, businesses are making record profits - execs are experiencing record salaries, bonuses, etc.

All that money going up, is NOT trickling back down. If it trickled back down - we'd see a different America today. It's instead going into the wallets of execs and Wall Street 'investors".... I put that in quotations because less than 1% of all money going into Wall Street makes it to business capital, the rest is just a money generating apparatus for traders.

That's what's sadly amusing, is that people like yourself have apparently fallen hook-line-sinker for the same ol' empty promise that created the Bush Tax Cuts in the first place. Oh, if we cut taxes on the richest - the rich will 'trickle down' on us. Now they are basically saying that "hey, just a few more dollars and I promise this time it will trickle down instead of going elsewhere like it has been, I swear..." --- and AGAIN you are falling for it like a dupe.

No one really knows how much of the budget goes to defense. Senate Democrats have refused to pass one in 4 years letting the government to run on continuing resolutions and allowing Obama to spend 3.6 trillion every year however he pleases.

Have a Merry Christmas if I don't talk to you again!!!

Hiya Tex!

Same to you & yours! We still have to have that margarita one day! ☺

>:o): PuRrrRrRrRrRrRrrrr ( Hi Feisty )

Come on over here Pupster, I have a good tummy rub waiting for ya! lol

This poll is very accurate. The issue lies in how one defines 'balance'.

Balance is one of those words, like fair, that is subjective. It differs for each and every individual that you come across, and ask them the polling question. As such this poll, and non-story, is very lacking. Everyone agrees that 'something' has to be done. Everyone is also pragmatic enough to know that it will include some things that you don't like. (Be that taxes or entitlement reforms) But no one wants to really define what balanced means.

If someone looks at the problem Mathmatically, 'balance' is going to upset people who are for entitlements a lot more then people who are for low taxes. You can raise the taxes to what Obama wants them raised to and the government will still only collect about 80-100 billion (from the numbers that I've seen reported). However the deficit is 1.1 Trillion, each and every year, currently. If your definition of 'balanced' is a budget without a deficit then we're going to have to cut approximately 1 trillion dollars per year from the current budget. Or as someone stated above, go back to the 'Bush' (dirty word I know) budget from 2008.

If your idea of balanced is just an equal amount of tax increases and spending cuts, we're going to raise taxes roughly 100 billion, and cut 100 billion and we'll still have a budget deficit each year of approximately 900 billion dollars. In other words we would still be up the creek without a paddle. Fact is this country has a spending problem that needs to be addressed, but no group of people, especially the people in Washington DC, have the guts to address it.

When Bush was in Crawford, he was working.

OoOoOoOooOOooOOoOOoOooo Tummy Rubs >:o): PurRrRrrRrRrRrRrRRrrrrrr

Hehe TY Sweetheart

Much Love,

Da Pup

Americans want compromise, Obama don't have themandate of increase taxes without reducing spending. Americans wan SS and entitlement reform , they are going broke. Obama and the leftest Democrats wants to kick the can down the road. Republicans agree to increase taxes to the wealthiest, but Obama do not want to cut anything only defense (the group where Democrats get the minority of votes) , everything else is untouchable. However, in order to make more difficult the negotiations Obama wants unlimited power to borrow money, he already borrow 5 trillions and for the end of his 8 years he will borrow 8 trillions. Let Democrats and their followers pay for the debt

Shuklack...

Once the defecit is reduced, and revenues/growth exceed spending - the debt will begin to shrink.

You mean, that once deficits are eliminated, revenues exceed spending with the excess paying down debt, then debt will be reduced barring exogenous events like war, natural disaster and recessions.

Right? When we get politicians who don't look at an excess of revenue as a means to spend it frivously or for the taxpayer to look at a surplus as a means of justifying a tax cut, then we may get somewhere. I can hardly wait for the FED to raise interest rates and watch our borrowing costs on our $16 trillion + debt skyrocket.

Clinton years spending 1.8 Trillion. Obama years 3.6 Trillion. Bush pushed budget to 2.9 T plus 700 Billion of stimulus spending that Obama added to it. Spending has doubled since the Clinton years. I don't think everyones income has, so the only way to solve is to concentrate on spending with whatever revenue increases we can get, however restoring Clinton taxes on rich will bring in less than 100 Billion, way less than 10% of our deficit spending.

The politicians want to wait until the U.S.'s credit rating goes down again before they will do what the public wants.

You okay with people saying Christmas Fiesty? Seems alittle too politically incorrect for you.

When Bush was in Crawfor, he was working.

You're right!

Shrub was working hard clearing brush & riding his bike while ignoring urgent security warnings...

SO, when is President Obama scheduled to leave on his 4 million dollar Hawaiian vaca again?

*crickets*

Jon-998022-

I have a suggestion.....

The other 47% can split off and be called the USSA. The United Socialist States of America.

Maybe your country could grow dope and make a run of it.

It's already been done.

It's called the Netherlands.

LMAO!

Seriously?

It will remain the USA since we are the ones who actually believe you have to work and pay for what one gets from government.

Why do you think America's problems are because of Democrats, Jon?

I would absolutely love to see something like that happen just to watch your smug little butts spiral into third world status in short order.

Because that is exactly what would happen.

Sounds like someone has issues with revenge and hatred.

The USSA would be weeping on our doorstep in short order for hand outs.

Naw, Our new Utopia would be much better. We'd all be stoned and loving and caring for each other and helping each other out.

You know, kind of like "It takes a Village".

But the best part about your made-up psychotic utopia for us Democrats, is we'd be free of people like YOU all of YOUR BS and lies.

I think you should spark one up yourself, Jon, and then go download some more Megyn Kelly images.

Salud

Worst,

Bush made 77 trips to Crawford. That is an average of one trip every 5 weeks. How much did we the tax payers spend to have all his staff, Cabinet Members and Czars to travel back and forth for his meetings?

Balance the budget without touching SS or Medicare (1.3 Trillion needed). Return Clinton tax rates on rich - 80 B., Cut following spending in half: Defense (345 B), Means tested Welfare (includes medicade) - 355 Billion, all other non SS/Medicare Dept. - 450 Billion. Total savings 1.23 Trillion. I can live with that.

The stupid left wing agenda. Instead to be obsessed with the rich , spread the wealth and promote a welfare state, they should be obsessed demanding more jobs.

More jobs= less welfare

less welfare= less debt

more jobs = more revenue

more revenue = more infrastructure, schools ........

on-998022-

I have a suggestion.....

The other 47% can split off and be called the USSA. The United Socialist States of America.

Maybe your country could grow dope and make a run of it.

Actually, a nation that can freely grow (dope) Pot would have the corner of a world wide market that could be worth trillions. Personally, I'd indorse a world wide legalization of Cannabis in all it's forms of Fiber, Fuel, Medicine and MUCH MORE. It could quite easily change a 3rd world nation into a major competitor in the world. Ummmmmm, maybe that's why corporations and small minds hate it so much.

Much Love n Peace,

Free Da Weed

Da Pup

>:o):PurRrRrRrRrrRr

Fyte for justice...

Hmmmm, Obama is being the fool trying to pass off only a tax rate increase on the 2% as being the "balanced" let alone "fair" approach. We should all acknowledge that even should the top 2% have all their assets siezed those few $ trillions still wouldn't pay off our debt.

While many european workers have agreed to higher personal taxes to fund their social program benefits, obama and others still want to promote that in a fair and balanced way let someone else pay for them.

Obama could do far better in establishing a lasting legacy for his administration by taking the donkey by the ears and creating a lasting fiscal road based on everyone contributing rather than impying that just the 2% do.

LiberalsAreTheWorst-

You okay with people saying Christmas Fiesty? Seems alittle too politically incorrect for you.

Of course we celebrate Christmas.

Afterall, Jesus was a Liberal.

Merry Christmas, Ms. Redhead!!!

and Happy Festivus to you LATW!!!

LMFAO.

Salud

Merry Christmas and Blessed Yule,

Da Pup

>:o):

I just have one, simple question for republicans:

I understand they believe that we spend too much in entitlements, particularly welfare and food stamps. I have heard the claims that we are "giving" too much money to the poor. We are creating a class of "dependency". Ok... so according to republicans, the poor are "getting too much of our money". The claim is that we have been "taking" money from the successful, and "giving" it to the poor. Redistributing down to the lower class. Giving more money to the poor than ever before.

Right? Everyone understands? Did I miss anything?

Now, everyone also knows that over the last 30 years, the wealthy have seen their share of the wealth increase many times over. The top 2% hold around 90% of all the wealth.

At the same time, the share of wealth for the middle class and lower class has decreased. The the middle and lower class have LESS of the overall wealth, while the wealthy have MORE of the share. Over the last 30 years, the wealthy have gained more of the wealth, while everyone else has less.

So... how is it possible that we are giving the poor too much money, when their share of the wealth has decreased? How can you say that we are "taking" money from the rich, and "giving" it to the poor, when the rich have received more of the wealth? How can you say that we are "redistributing" to the poor, when the money has shifted to the rich?

I honestly do not understand it. They claim that we are taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, but if you take a step back and look at the last 30 years, the rich are the ones who have been getting a greater share of the money, while the poor get LESS.

Can any republican give me a logical answer. I really want to understand this.

We need to be self-supportive. We need to settle up our debts with Japan, Great Britain, and China.

@ Moshuluu

[Reagans] administration created $5.07 trillion of debt by new policies, including two unfunded wars, and tax cuts for the rich. Obama's new policies, on the other hand, created only $1.44 trillion in new debt.

You may want to do some PCC/PCI's before you post.

According to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 7.1

President Reagan increased the deficit by 1.6 Trillion over 8 years.

President Obama increased the deficit by 2.8 Trillion over 3 years.

Lets not forget those Reagan era tax cuts were Bi-partisan.

Follow me! Hooah!

OK Scott send in 65K for you and 65K for your wife, 65K for each kid and that should do it.

Maybe its closer to 70K each.

Let me know when you send yours in.

mguy-478-

Can any republican give me a logical answer. I really want to understand this.

Awesome Post!!!

I'll go make some nachos and get us a couple cold beers.

Can't wait to hear their explanation.

Salud

Fiesty,

Come on over here Pupster, I have a good tummy rub waiting for ya! lol

Well a couple of good magarita's and you just never know!!! HA! Brings a whole new meaning to Merry Christmas!!

Vin1112,

End illegal alien support!

We had better just go ahead and make them citizens and make sure they have a SSN. We are going to need all the help we can get. Besides, it is kind of like the gun situation. There are just too many out there to ever collect them all.!

Mguy, Shuklak

Merry Christmas to you LWNJ's as well.!!

Can tell there is alot of IGNORANT people on here thinking that the republican party will be done in a few years. HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE TO THINK ANYTHING OF THE SORT. That is like thinking the DEMORATS will quit there spending way.

The DEmorats are supposed to be cutting spending from back when Reagan was president, yet to this day they still have not done the cuts they promised to do. How is anyone supposed to believe them NOW.

Mguy-478,

Do you understand "HARD WORK"? Do you think the rich waive a magic wand and somehow make 20 dollar bills vanish from your wallet and land in theirs? No.... They have earned their money just like you hopefully have earned yours. Why is it okay to penalize someone for being successful? If Hispanics made more money than an Asian, would it be okay in this country to tax only Hispanics at a higher rate to offset the inequity in wealth for the Asians? Of course it wouldn't... So what don't you understand?

LiberalsAreTheWorst

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006

@ SabotAndHeat

Here are 15 things the GOP doesn't you to know about taxes and the debt.

1.President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans

2.Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

3.George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt

4.Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven

5.Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

6.Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes

7.The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs

8.Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality...

9....But Not Investment

10.The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses

11. Income Inequality Has Reached an 80 Year High...

12....While the Federal Tax Burden Has Hit a 60 Year Low

13.Romney-Ryan Plan Another Massive Tax Cut Windfall for the Wealthy

14.Romney, Ryan Won't Say Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks GOP Will End

15.Romney-Ryan Will Add More Debt Than President Obama

2. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

Among the Republicans who prophesied the default doomsday scenario that almost unfolded last summer was none other than conservative patron saint, Ronald Reagan. As he warned Congress in November 1983:

"The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar."

Reagan knew what he was talking about. After all, the hemorrhage of red ink at the U.S. Treasury was his doing.

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

It's also no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as his greatest regret.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/15-things-gop-doesnt-want-you-know-about-taxes-debt

Raising the debt ceiling:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2011/07/15/18/11/RWrEn.La.91.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

fuzzy44- Of course we do! There is no one easy way out of this hole we've dug ourselves in. It will take a balanced approach to get us back to those pre-Bush years.

Uh, huh. You make it sound like it was really great during the President "I did not have sex with that woman" years. Your post indicates that you were NOT a cognisant Adult during those years.

Voters
Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

This is very easy just figure out what President Obama spent $2.1 Trillion on that was not previously budgeted for, resulting in President Obama's Demand (President's Proposal) to US Congress for "Across the Board" Budget Cuts to All previously Budgeted for Programs (like Medicare, etc.), Projects (like Longterm US Infrastructure of the US Army Corps of Engineers), Agencies (like FEMA, Department of Education, Veteran's Affairs, etc.) including chopping the Entitlements and Benefits of the "47%" (actually 49%).

Basically, the waitress just handed the $2.1 Trillion bill for the meal that President Obama ate and now he is expecting everyone else to pay.

fuzzy44 - Remember when Clinton had a budget surplus?

No, I remember that US Congress Appropriated more money than he could spend and "sandbagged" the Clinton Budget. Kind of like being given $10.00 to buy something that costs $4.00 (including taxes, transportation, etc.), so your "Surplus" is $6.00.

The real economic indicator is the Interest on the National Debt as President Clinton's $18.9 Billion, President Bush's $16.6 Billion.

Why should we listen to those that live at Failed States (those people that voted for those Politicians in their States) instead of basic survival by leaving, unless we (US) want to copy their Failures also (repeat the same mistakes and expect a different result). As you copy success not failure:

49. Illinois
> State debt per capita: $4,424 (13th highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 13.8% (23rd lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (25th lowest)
> Unemployment: 10% (10th highest)

Illinois has fallen from 43rd last year to the overall second-worst run state in the country. The state performs poorly in most categories, but is worst when it comes to its credit rating. Illinois has a credit rating of A+, the secondworstgiven to any state, behind only California. The state has been on credit watch since 2008 because of budget shortfalls and legal challenges against then-governor Rod Blagojevich.

50. California
> State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
> Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio,

You can pull a Poll from any source to make whatever point you want. The actual standard of measurement has been the Misery Index as the Report Card for US Presidents.

Report Card of the Presidents (higher the number the more Miserable US Citizens are):

Barack H. Obama Average 10.66 (down .02)

George W. Bush Average 8.11

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyPresident.aspx

One really fed up boomer,

First, the Government Spending:

60% Entitlements

20% Defense

13% Discretionary

7% Interest on Loans (like from Chinese)

Second, Like I stated before about US Defense:

US Defense employs directly and indirectly almost a hundred million US Civilians. That then spend their money on Fast Food, Car Dealerships, Real Estate, Theaters, Retail, etc..

President Obama, 2012, "A US Defense Budget Cut of 10% will result in a Million (US) Citizens becoming Unemployed".

Included within the US Defense Budget is US Intelligence, as previously Gutted by President Clinton resulting in the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading to the 9/11 2001 Attacks (Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission (Committee) Investigations, Findings and Recommendations afterwards Former President Clinton saying, "I'm a so sorry".

Repeat President Clinton's mistakes and expect a different result.

It was President Clinton's opinion (not fact) that the US Intelligence built up by the Director of the CIA Bush (President (41)) was not necessary, just like the US Military was no longer necessary eventhough he kept volunteering the US Military for UN "Non Wars" anddemanding (1998 State of the Union Address) US Law H.R. 4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Justification Section 2 Weapons of Mass Destruction, Section 3 Overthrow of President Hussein, with US Congressional Appropriations (later becoming 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom), and his failed 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox resulting in the Islamic World condemning the US as the Great Satan.

The US Infrastructure Projects of the US Army Corps of Engineers is also included in the US Defense Budget; also previously Chopped by President Clinton with the Result of the US Army Corps of Engineers not having the money to do as they recommended as the Upgrades, Repairs, building new, modifications, etc. for the Levees at New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina. Bipartisan US Congressional Katrina Hearings. This can also been seen with the US Army Corps of Engineers lacking the Funds for Bridges, Dredging (current floods and droughts), "Berms" (Levees) at New Jersey (Hurricane Sandy Flooding), Sea Walls, Water Reservoirs (current droughts), Beach erosion, Irrigation Canals (current droughts), etc..

US Army Corps of Engineers example:

Sand dunes spare NJ homes from Sandy's destruction. December 11, 2012 7:15 PM

part of $16.8 million Army Corps of Engineers project completed six months before Sandy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57558606/sand-dunes-spare-nj-homes-from-sandys-destruction/

So are you sure you want to chop the US Defense Budget again like President Clinton did before.

The US Military previous Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military as Ordered by President Clinton as Commander In Chief, resulting in more of the necessary support functions of the US Military previously done by cheaper US Military Personnel taken over by overpaid too expensive US Civilians (Hundreds of thousands still at Iraq. Hundreds of thousands at Afghanistan).

Recently President Obama as Commander In Chief has Ordered the Reduction In Forces of 90,000 US Military to be thrown on Unemployment further straining the Veteran's Affairs, as well as 108,000 US Civilians employed by the US Military thrown on Unemployment. The US Military Personnel are paid below minimum wages while the US Civilians employed by the US Military are the majority of the US Military Spending. President Obama demanded another cut not later than 2013, the US Military will no longer be able to conduct Two Wars Simultaneously just like after the President Clinton Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces (RIFs) of the US Military.

And One really fed up boomer,

Feisty Redhead Roselle, ILis correct about the term for Social Security and Medicare as "Entitlements". Using the term "Entitlements" is how the Politicians justify Stealing from the US Citizen's Involuntary Contributory Funds of Social Security and Medicare, etc. and promising to pay those back (LOL).

As far as Medicare Reform:

President Obama, Face the Nation, September 20, 2009:

Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

First, Uncle Sam is not the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc., Uncle Sam is the US Citizens paying for this Fraud against US Citizens, US Government, etc..

Second, why didn't President Obama fix this known Fraud in his ACA aka Obamacare; but, instead rewarded this behavior with $67 Billion to the Insurance Corporations, $23 Billion to the Medical Device Corporations, and $20 Billion to the Pharmaceuticals Corporations. President Obama stated that this was his Bailout of the Insurance Corporations as one of the largest Businesses at the US.

Third, as Quid Pro Quo, President Obama received $1 Billion in Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions as required to keep his 2008 Campaign Offices open till 2012; with his buddy "Mr.Corporate America" leveraging the US Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions before the Citizens United Case made it's way thru the maze of the US Court System. This was extremely smart as this also got the US Supreme Court to indirectly Rule against the US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

You might want to educate yourself as to who President Obama's Buddy "Mr.Corporate America" is. As well as watching the PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal".

If all of you learn to do a Causative Timeline maybe, just maybe, some of you will learn the Causes so that you can figure out the Viable Solutions.

@ MGUY

How can you say that we are "taking" money from the rich, and "giving" it to the poor, when the rich have received more of the wealth?

Really? You need an answer to this?

Does consumer guilt ring a bell? Did you just have selective memory loss? No one forces you to spend money on the goods and products that "the evil rich" make. You CHOSE to spend your hard earned money.

Now explain to me why taxing the wealthy so you can heal your consumer guilt and cover for your lack of motivation, planning and preparing for your own future is the wealthys job?

Class dismissed.

Shuklack...

Trickledown is what drives our economy, oh not in the very limited way you look at trickledown (only offered by the wealthy) but in the reality of the demand that you touched on. After all where would Apple be today if steve and steve couldn't find capital? Or the tech boom and bust of the mid to late 90's of which the freedom to fail is a great economic boom as well.

As for corporates record profits, would they be that great if there was that demand you talked about that would allow said profits to be reinvested to meet that demand? How about if they did take on a higher degree of risk in their investments. Workers would still pay a price if that venture failed, and that is still trickle down. Interesting on how these "record profits" are still on the company books waiting for a reason to invest.

the poor do pay taxes...the regressive ones... payroll taxes and sales taxes, such as gas taxes and other taxes for goods and services the poor purchase, although such taxes are the most unfair ones.

skip wrote:

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will be fine as long a Congress leaves them alone.

Are you confident that Congress will leave them alone? I'm not. Regardless, survive!

SayWhat

So what don't you understand?

You didn't answer my question.

This has nothing to do with whether they "earned it" or not. Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Over the last 30 years, the wealthy have increased their share of the overall wealth, while the middle and lower class have seen it decrease. So, where has the money gone? Who has received the majority of the wealth?

I know... "they earned it"... "hard work" ... blah, blah, blah. We get it.

But, over the last 30 years, who has received most of the money? Who NOW holds 90% of the wealth?

So the question is: How can you say we are "giving" too much to the poor, when the poor now have LESS of the wealth and the rich have MORE?

The math does not add up. The rich have received MORE of the money, but you claim the poor are getting more. How can you say the poor are getting more of the money, when the facts show they are getting less? It doesn't make sense.

mguy,

You probably won't like my answer.

Your post is factually correct, however, it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we do not have a 'wealth' tax in this country, outside of the estate tax, which amazingly all those uber wealthy people know how to avoid. And I'll also point out, most of the outlandishly wealthy people in this country, those that benefited the most during the time frame you gave, are also outragiously liberal in their politics and views. So you probably have a much bigger beef with your own party then Republicans.

The truth is that no one, democrat, or republican is going to really go after those that benefited so outragiously. And the only thing that we, as a country, could do is establish a structure that would hamper further growth of those at the top and middle, to achieve your idea of income distribution, or fairness. However, that will do nothing to correct the massive amount of capital that the top 1% currently has, and that capital will continue to grow and make money at a rate far faster then the money the other 99% of people have. Because it can flow anywhere. You raise taxes here, they move that capital to Canada, or France, or the UK, or Germany, or Belize, or China. Either way you will not correct the already disproportionate setup that is inplace here in the US. The 'damage has been done' so to speak.

So we're going to have to cut entitlements and spending, as well as correct the injustices in the tax code, and essentually start from an almost 'ground zero' approach to addressing this problem. You're not going to get the problem fixed from the 'current' mega wealthy. They got their's and they have effectively escaped the system. Best you can do is limit the destruction going forward. However, fat chance of that with the current crop of bastids on the hill now. Our government is owned, from both sides, "lock, stock, and barrel", as they say.

@ Pigotry

Payroll taxes (denotes a job)

Gas taxes (denotes a vehicle)

Sales taxes (denotes spending)

Poor? Pfff.

Afterall, Jesus was a Liberal.

Tomas,

And a long haired "pinko" hippie at that! lol

Merry Christmas, Ms. Redhead!!!

Right back at you! Tis the season and all for being nice & naughty! ;o)

Salud!

Well a couple of good magarita's and you just never know!!! HA! Brings a whole new meaning to Merry Christmas!!

Tex,

FA LA LA LA LA... LALALA...

SabotAndHeat

You didn't answer the question. See above post #1.143

If this simple question is above your head, and you fail to understand it, don't reply. You only look foolish.

MGuy,

Answer: Who holds the majority of the wealth is irrelevant. Most of the "poor" need to get off the pity train and get a "JOB". And please save the "I'm not poor by choice" stuff. I understand there are those who truly do try but can't get ahead. But for every 1 truly poor person, I am willing to bet there are 3 that are living off of the system by choice. It is easier to be poor and get a check or foodstamps from the gvt than wake up and go to work. Living off of the system is giving them too much. Taxing someone who worked hard at a higher rate of tax than anyone else to help support deadbeat lifestyles is the real issue. Hard working people are now being penalized for being successful.

@ MGUY

How can you say we are "giving" too much to the poor.

Give me your computer.

P.S. your first question was...

How can you say that we are "taking" money from the rich, and "giving" it to the poor, when the rich have received more of the wealth?

Your second question was...

How can you say we are "giving" too much to the poor, when the poor now have LESS of the wealth and the rich have MORE?

Perhaps you should read your own "question" before stating we didnt answer it.

Cniht

You are missing the point. I am not talking about taxes... I am talking about a claim that republicans make.

I don't care what party the wealthy belong to, how they got their wealth, and all the ways they avoid taxes.

But REPUBLICANS are claiming that we are "taking" money from the rich and "giving" it to the poor. That CLAIM is what I am questioning. Factually, it does not make sense. If they were correct, then we should see the poor increase their share of the wealth, because we "give" it to them. That has not happened.

Again, I am just questioning the claim that republicans make. Not tax rates, or how people earned the money... just the claim.

Kanic: First of all, the president isn't spending $4M on a vacation....he pays for his own vacation. We, the taxpayers, pay for his transportation to and from because he is the President and, I believe, the Constitution says he has to be protected. Same goes for the Secret Service....because of his position, they are required to be there 24/7/365. Secondly, your comment that he and his family take more vacations....you may want to fact check that since ex-President Bush spent more time at his Texas ranch than ANY other president past or present! Lastly, even tho' our president is on vacation, he is still working. He gets a briefing EVERY MORNING on what is going on and takes care of anything that needs to be dealt with. I can assure you, he most likely will not be going too far from Washington until the budget is decided.

A discussion and understanding of The monetary system would seem to be required in order to understand where money comes from and where it goes. This aspect never gets the coverage it deserves. I read the argument quite often: "government takes 'my money' and redistributes it to people less industrious than I in acquiring it - it should be left up to me to decide how I use the fruits of my own labor". Where did 'your money' come from? In what way was it made possible for you to acquire billions of times the wealth as some who exist in the same system? Is there contrivance and manipulation on a grand scale?

The history of money (monetary policy) and politics in this country (and the world) is an interesting study.

P.S. Lot's of good reading today courtesy the usual suspects, happiness for pups and dogs (we're so easy). Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, there is no war on Christmas.

SayWhat

But for every 1 truly poor person, I am willing to bet there are 3 that are living off of the system by choice

Please show me the factual evidence that supports this claim.

And again... you miss the point.

If you want to talk about whether it is "fair" to tax the rich, that is fine... but a different discussion. What I want to know is why YOU say that we have "taken" MORE money from the rich and "given" it to the poor, when the last 30 years prove that the poor have LESS of a share of the wealth.

That's it... I am questioning your talking point.

Now if you admit that the talking point in question is false, that is fine. But THAT is all I am focusing on, the talking point that is not supported by facts.

Personally, I'm getting tired of both sides. Congress does little but shoot spit balls at each other and the President tries to tow the Democratic line by supporting unions for government workers, of all things.

Obviously the people are smarter than our elected officials. Taxes are too cheap; to pay off our debt, we have to raise taxes AND cut expenses. I'm all for eliminating the Congressional pension that you serve one term and then collect $175,000 for life. That is crazy. Government employees have far superior heath care benefits than private company employees. Time for all of us to have comparable benefits and share the cost of same. Why should we taxpayers provide BETTER healthcare benefits to our employees (government workers) than we get?

While we're at it, all government jobs should be non-union. Do you honestly believe we so abuse our employees (government workers) that they need a union to run interference for them? Seriously? Besides, eliminating unions from government jobs means we can reduce salaries because government workers will no longer be paying union dues; another cost cutting measure.

Also, there should be a minimum tax of $250 per person in this country. I don't care how poor you are;you use roads, schools, police, fire and other services and they are not free. Accordingly, EVERYONE should be required to pay something in taxes and for the cost of their medical care.

@ 9BallPro #1.96

@DumbFarmBoy - I guess the name fits.

I'm talking about the fact that the Tea Party/Conservative/Liberatarian pundits (rich people) have convinced you and so many other like you (middle class people) that their solution is actually good for you.

I don't know about you, but it was not the TEA/Conservative/Libertarian pundits that convinced me. It was Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and to some extent Madison, et. al. who convinced me, their way was the right/correct way. And I did not need them to tell me either, common sense and a little wisdom will tell you Governments(people with power) cannot trusted. So why would I trust the people in government to do what is "Best" for me, when they don't know what is best for me. Only an Elitist Snob would think they know what is best for me. Which is why I believe in limited (not non-existent) Government at both levels, but more State control, and less Federal.

And at this level of discussion, I am less worried about what is "good for me". and more worried about what is best for the Country and its future(as it relates to later generations). I am not a selfish, "what can government do for me liberal". Kennedy had a good quote on that one.

Who convinced you Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Marx? Jay? Hamilton?

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

Mguy -

You are missing the point. I am not talking about taxes... I am talking about a claim that republicans make.

I don't care what party the wealthy belong to, how they got their wealth, and all the ways they avoid taxes.

But REPUBLICANS are claiming that we are "taking" money from the rich and "giving" it to the poor. That CLAIM is what I am questioning. Factually, it does not make sense.

Their claim is 100% about taxes. We are talking about increasing the taxes only on the rich correct? So metaphorically speaking they are taking from the rich to give to the poor.

You clearly do not understand the issue yourself.

Their claim is 100% about taxes. We are talking about increasing the taxes only on the rich correct? So metaphorically speaking they are taking from the rich to give to the poor.

If we are taking more from the rich to give to the poor, then why have the poor seen their share of the wealth DECREASE over the last 30 years?

If their share of the wealth has decreased, and we are supposedly "taking" it from the rich... where did it go?

@ MGUY

Cont.

Your first question revolved around "taking from the rich"

Your second question revolved around "giving too much to the poor"

The first question was answer appropriately.

The second questions answer is: Taking $1 from me is too much, if it is to be given to those who can work but do not.

The answer to your third question...

then why have the poor seen their share of the wealth DECREASE over the last 30 years?

BECAUSE THEY ARE SPENT THEIR MONEY FASTER THAN THEY EARNED IT.

Dottie's Girl: compromise -- something the empty suit in the WH doesn't understand. You HAVE TO increase taxes and cut spending. Mr. Brainless (BO) wants to RAISE taxes and SPENDING. What part of this makes any sense to you lapdog liberals? If you run a household (on your OWN money) and make say $2k a month and spend $3k a month do you even realize that you will run out of your OWN money. Do you keep banging the credit cards and hitting the banks for loans? Sooner or later you'll max out completely and you either sink or swim. The same with all the freebies the dems unload on their base (keeping them dependent and irresponsible) do any of you realize that you keep raising taxes to pay for these pathetically run programs sooner or later you have more lapdogs then worker bees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. So you don't care about your families future by burdening them with debt that you pocketed on the backs of future generations. Now that is what really makes me sick.

You missed a point Dottie. If the president is the guy running everything, Why does he have to go to Congress to get money. That is your complaint money is being spent wrongfully. Here is a thought you might want to ponder. Congress has the purse strings. So in your example, getting 2k and spending 3k, would it not be a better thing to look at the guy pouring out the money and tell him to stop it.

Another thing, if your business suddenly decided that one group would get full pay and benefits for the rest of their lives as well as pay rate increases yearly without going to you would you have a problem with it. Congress, the house, and the president sure do not. I can not understand the president or congress or the house. I would also point out that these people make millions of dollars while in office and then when they get out of office their health insurance is paid for by you and me. Anyone else see a problem with that.

Didi...

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...drink some more of that kool-aid!

Your savior, the big-eared bandit and campaigner-n-chief, and his wife have spent more of our money than any other. He's also teed off more times on the greens...now he continues to campaign after he barely won the election. Tell us, really, what is He good for?

There isn't any talk from anyone in Washington about a balanced budget deal. So I assume that is just a play on the balanced approach Obama touts but doesn't mean. No Democrat controlled congress has put forth a balanced federal budget for over 40 years, and they have no plans for one anytime in the next decade or so. Republicans are just as bad, but they were the ones in control when the budget was balanced under Clinton.

Obama is spending this country into oblivion and so far there isn't much to show for it. Obama is going to leave Washington after his second term having added more to the national debt then every previous president combined. Maybe liberals can find ways to insulate Obama from his portion of the blame for this fiscal mess, but history is going to treat him very harshly. Obama is by far the biggest spender ever to sit in the oval office, and the country is going to pay a heavy price for his opulence.

There is simply no way anyone in Washington can be trusted to put partisan politics aside and do what is right for the country. This argument over this paltry tax increase on the top earners proves there is neither the will or desire to actually solve our fiscal crisis. Washington can't agree on a paltry 100 billion today, how are they ever going to reduce the government by the 1.2 trillion it will take just to break even let alone what it will take to actually start paying down our debt.

This debt crisis is now and will remain a partisan political divide. Obama has no interest in any deal that does not hurt Republicans and that means the nation can expect no true leadership toward any real solution. Nothing short of term limits for members of congress, total tax reform, and a balance budget amendment has any hope of restoring this country's financial health regardless of whom you blame. At this point blame does nothing to solve the problem, and what happened to moving forward?

Sabot

No, the question was:

If we have been taking more from the rich, and giving that money to the poor, then why have the poor seen their share of the wealth DECREASE over the last 30 years?

If you are rich, and Bill is poor. 30 years ago you had one hundred dollars, and now you have one million. 30 years ago Bill had 10 dollars, now he has 5. You claim that we have taken money from you, and given it to Bill... even though you now have more, and he has less.

@ MGUY

Again, MGUY that was your first and third question, not your second which you responded was not answered properly. Read your own posts.

"The poors share of the wealth."

Silly liberal.

They are either poor...without wealth.

Or have wealth and are not poor.

If the poors wealth has "decreased" that denotes that they had "wealth" at some point.

Now genius, where did it go?

Answer #1.139.

Love it when someone points out the budget surplus of the Clinton Years but blames the Republicans for the budget problems now. The House and Senate were controlled by Republicans in 6 of his 8 years in office, actually the last 6 when the budget really got healthy. The surplus allowed Bush to enact Tax cuts when times were good but they were not meant to be permanent. Repealing them for all is the first step and have everyone pay their fair share.

If the poors wealth has "decreased" that denotes that they had "wealth" at some point.

"Poor" does not mean zero. Poor people do have wealth, it is just below the standard of living.

But we are talking about the SHARE of the wealth. You obviously do not understand the concept of SHARE. It's basic math... have you ever seen a pie chart describing market share?

This is too far over your head. Obviously you are not capable of grasping this simple concept.

@ MGUY

To re-answer in another way, heres the answer for the "Me and Bill" story.

Bill spends too much and didnt think about the future.

Does Bill deserve $1 of my millions? Perhaps from generosity, but not Constitutionally.

Cont. from #1.165

They do have wealth. Now your just speaking in riddles. They are poor but wealthy. Then great I hope they enjoy their wealth.

There is no "Share" of the wealth. That is a completely Communist ideal. The only thing the Constitution grants, as far as happiness is concerned, is the right to pursue it. That again, denotes effort, not handouts.

To "Put a fork in it"

I'm not sure where you got your figures - "47% of the budget goes to defense" - but you are WAY off. 17-20% of our budget is spent on defense.

I really hate seeing all the bashing of wealthy people. The majority of these people worked hard to get where they are today and we're going to punish them for working hard?? What a great message to send. But we seem to have no problem sending the message that we'll give hand outs to those who do nothing - not those who need help - but those who can work and don't because they can get more in handouts than if they work. Another great message we're sending. No wonder our society is so screwed up.

@ David 475776 # 1.138

Darn fine post, Too bad most of the people who read it won't understand it, or will ignore it.

Did you happen to notice on page nine of the slide show in your link they had Boehner's picture? I would have thought that Pelosi would have been a better fit, but it is MSN afterall, and there is no media bias there. ;-)

What if your stuck in that bracket you know, the one where if you make so much you don't qualify for any help (education for your kids in particular) and if you made anything less you couldn't take care of them,is there anyone out there with half a brain cell that knows what I'm talking about..

I can't pay another lick of taxes when inflation has drained our family..If I were per say to agree on higher taxes for one second, would I be satisfied I could trust my do nothing Government to solve the problem? With their track record I don't think so!

So who are these 2/3 nimrods that agree..Agree to pay for Wars since the start of Kuwait which got us in this mess?

2/3 of the Nation my hairy a$$

Let's see, there is the fiscal cliff which settling is a joke of negotiating power; how does one negotiate with the Great Divider?

Then there is the debt cliff, brought on from years of of liberal borrowing for entitlements that get progressives elected. Start with the New Deal of FDR, move to the LBJ years and onto the Spending for Economic Growth of Obama. Boy, those progressives have received what they wanted throughout the years, and now blame others for their reckless spending ways. Have we seen a positive movement out of poverty as LBJ said? Seems like more people today are on the Obama dole than ever before.

The Obama plan doesn't seem to be working. How is it that so many people are on the poverty level when unemployment is at a record low for this administration? Why are so many more on welfare and food stamps if the economy is so robust?

@Alaska Girl - there are Republican women out there and here, but you will not accept them as equals, you only choose to vilify them. A$$wipe.

@ MGUY

It is you that must grasp the U.S. Constitution.

If you do not, it will be you without a job, without food and without security of any kind because you sat in the shadows waiting for what you thought you were entitled to, but were not.

Who will save you from your lack of motivation?

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time To get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries –six cents worth.

http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/04/20/obama-to-cabinet-cut-100-million-from-budget

For the ill informed ... This cut is for the entire budge

This is why we have such inept people in Washington

Before you cut SSI and Medicare first have all monies "borrowed" from the fund returned. That should fund the system without cutting it. The word entitlement denotes something that is given for nothing. Anyone who works pays into the fund therefore it is not an entitlement. When congress pays into their pension fund and their medical, best money can buy, then they can talk. Their funds are entitlement as they pay nothing into them and receive the benefits for life even if they only serve a single term. That is an entitlement. Before they look at what the average person receives they would do better to look into their own coffers. I never was able to choose my salary increase why should they have that ability. Why are we paying for their perks, they don't even put in a full days work just add up the number of days they are in session.

@ Bob

Thats awesome.

I initially thought you might have to skip a candy bar. Apparently, not even that, just a mint.

The Deer in the headlights straight fact is""are you ready"".

the middle class will do the brunt of the suffering,(like we already haven't).

Yes the middle class, the ones that WORK with NO entitlements, the ones that can never catch a break..

Soon to be forgotten.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Afterall, Jesus was a Liberal.

Tomas,

And a long haired "pinko" hippie at that! lol

no he wasnt, he had no time for political affairs. Jesus would have never been a Liberal or Republican, Commie or Fascist. Both of you wear ignorance proudly and loudly.

Render unto Caesar

@ Lady Cat #1.173

Before you cut SSI and Medicare first have all monies "borrowed" from the fund returned. That should fund the system without cutting it. The word entitlement denotes something that is given for nothing. Anyone who works pays into the fund therefore it is not an entitlement. When congress pays into their pension fund and their medical, best money can buy, then they can talk. Their funds are entitlement as they pay nothing into them and receive the benefits for life even if they only serve a single term. That is an entitlement. Before they look at what the average person receives they would do better to look into their own coffers. I never was able to choose my salary increase why should they have that ability. Why are we paying for their perks, they don't even put in a full days work just add up the number of days they are in session.

And just who exactly will return those funds? The magic fairy that took them? The money comes from the US taxpayer, which surprisingly enough is...us. And if we do not have the money to pay for the current budget, how are we going to come up with the money to reimburse SSI?

from M-W.com
ENTITLEMENT 1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

I am not sure where it denotes something for nothing. I would say 1b and 2 pretty much define SSI. I really would like to get my hands on one of those PC dictionaries so I could understand what you liberals are talking about.

But I do agree we need some serious restructuring of the Congress' compensation package. Along with some term limits. I am sick and tired of hearing about CAREER politicians. They are more concerned about keeping those cushy jobs, than they are about us.

@mguy #1.162

Sabot

No, the question was:

If we have been taking more from the rich, and giving that money to the poor, then why have the poor seen their share of the wealth DECREASE over the last 30 years?

If you are rich, and Bill is poor. 30 years ago you had one hundred dollars, and now you have one million. 30 years ago Bill had 10 dollars, now he has 5. You claim that we have taken money from you, and given it to Bill... even though you now have more, and he has less.

It is called inflation and financial planning. Bill is still getting the same hand out he got 30 years ago, but is now worth less because of inflation. Even if the handout was adjusted for inflation, the property tax, sales tax, etc has risen faster than the rate of inflation cutting into that handout.

"You" took his money and invested it hedging for the future inflation.

TO: AlaskaGirl-759554 who wrote:

"Here's a question that only a Republican can answer: Do Republicans get a hard on (this is obviously a question for a male Repub!) every time there is talk about SS and Medicare reform? This would explain alot. Republicans seem to eyeball SS and Medicare like it's porn for them or something. I just don't get it."

Republicans see Social Security and Medicare as "a big pool of money out there, that doesn't belong to anyone" and they want to take it, steal it, covet it.

They will NOT allow themselves to believe that that money just does NOT belong to them.

Republicans see Social Security and Medicare as being unguarded and whoever gets their hands on that money first, gets to keep it, and that's EXACTLY what Republicans want to do with our Retirement Money - keep it.

fiesty------------obama leaves for hawaii between dec 17-jan 26,not hard to look up--stay off huffpost and msbc all day and check real news you can find it

How is the use of my own money (Social Security and Medicare) considered an "entitlement"?

Up State N.Y., A Company called Saratoga Sweets in Saratoga Springs N.Y., makes Peppermint Pigs, I was just thinking that would be a nice gift for the GOP Tea Loonies for their Holiday Tables !!!

TO: Debi-1314897 who wrote:

"How is the use of my own money (Social Security and Medicare) considered an "entitlement"?"

I think it's just a term they made up to make it seem more like it's either their money, or money up for grabs.

They want to take it out of the "It's your money" category, and make it seem more like "It's the government's money and they really don't think it belongs to anybody".

It's how they prepare people that they're about steal from, by trying to make it seem like it's not ours to begin with.

So they put a different label on it to make it easier to steal.

Since when has social security and medicare been an entitlement. Employees pay into these programs. And when they retire or are disabled they draw out. Its insurance people. Not welfare.

If I pay into an insurance policy and die and my spouse takes the payment. That is not welfare that is not an entitlement. That is insurance. I have worked since i was 12 years old as a paperboy. I have paid into the Social Security Program since I was 15 and 1/2 and a union worker at a grocery store. Every week they pulled a bit for medicare and Social security.

An entitlement is sitting on your duff collecting Food stamps and pumping out baby after baby to stay on welfare. Saying you cant find work. That needs to end. Not taking away what the elderly have paid into for their lifetimes.

To tell the truth I am no where near retirement yet still have over 25 years to go. But to take away what the elderly have paid into is just plain disgusting.

Debi-1314897

How is the use of my own money (Social Security and Medicare) considered an "entitlement"?

Because of a few pesky facts:

1. YOUR money was spent as it came into the govt coffers...there is no magic savings account with YOUR money in it.

2. What you call "your" money is actually paid to you in retirement by your kids and grandkids...because these programs rely on new investors to pay out old investors, aka a Ponzi Scheme.

3. The fact you think when the govt extorts (taxes) you that it's still "your" money shows an inability to grasp basic logic. You don't get to pay protection money in a racketeering scheme (and Ponzi Scheme) to a mafia (compulsory govt) and then complain to the don when you don't like how he spent that cash. It ceases to be yours the moment they extort it from you, logically. Anything else is fantasy built on irrational nostalgia for the very malignant tyranny you THINK is bengn and beneficient.

4. YOUR money is actually not likely enough for you to retire anyways. Most people work for 40-50 years and yet get more back in retirement and medical funds via SS and Medicare than they EVER paid in. I did a math equation on this once, and figured that if you need 2 million to retire (and cover avg med expenses) for Generation X, that you'd need to work more than half a century at a gross income of about $80,000 a year just to, on average, break even with what you received by the avg age of death vs what you paid in while working.

It's always been an entitlement where the rich subsidize the retirement and medical expenses of the poor. They have an arbitrary cap on SS for this reason (to keep them from paying even more of a subsidy unfairly). This is why means testing for it is a good idea...rich people recieve a check just so we can convince ourselves it isn't a entitlement program, when if they didn't we could more easily sustain the Ponzi Scheme for those in need. Of course, the logical pursuit is to let young people opt-out over generations and end the Ponzi Scheme. The hole blown in the SS budget by doing this can be covered by ending all foreign Empire (bringing home troops from wars and closing most bases overseas that have NOTHING to do with actual defense of this country).

One last point: If any private organization rtan this Ponzi Scheme we call SS and Medicare, people would ikely be put in prison. But then again, if they were in bed with the central bank, they'd probably get away with it just like your beloved govt does.

Wake up people.

Would it make a difference to everyone if you all knew that because of the tax cuts for the wealthy that the government lost over $36 trillion dollars over the last 30 years, or you can say the 1% made that amount since they didn't have to pay it for taxes. From where I'm standing, I didn't see any of that money "trickle down" my way, and considering there are less jobs in the USA than there were 30 years ago since the bulk of jobs the wealthy created or had previously went overseas to cheap labor pools. Just saying, since them 1%ers didn't keep their end of the bargain, don't you thing that they should be held accountable and made to pay all that money back to the government? Seriously, if you gave me $200 to mow your lawn or something while you were on vacation for a couple months and you came back to jungle of grass 3 foot high, wouldn't you expect your $200 back?

The wealthy have been increasing their salaries over the past 30 years while they have cutting the salaries of their employees as well as cutting their work benefits. Now, those top 7 or 8 employees in a corporation make around 3600 times more than their average worker while also enjoying full medical care and other bonuses. They make in an hour what their average employee makes in a year. Most Americans work unending hours so a very few people can enjoy unending leisure.

Now the government is going to cut Social Security. The only reason SS is in trouble is because the government has been dipping into those funds since Lyndon B. Johnson stated, "There is so much money in Social Security that it will never run out." But they have never put anything back into it. I'll give you three guesses where that money was spent, but you'll only need one: 1) Programs for the poor. 2) Programs for Veterans. 3) Programs for the wealthy.

So now the wealthy have enjoyed lower taxes for over 30 years. They've received money out of Social Security (which they never have to pay back) to fund their own projects and now the middle class and poor must pay them more.

The bulk of people who support all of this and who are not the wealthy are people who do not understand how our government spends money and where it goes to. Many of the people who are in favor of these cuts to "so called" entitlements do not understand that people have paid into them for most of their lives. They are not entitlements, they are earned! The government has been taking money out of them to support the wealthy and now that the well is almost dry, they and the wealthy do not want to put what they took and the profits they made off of that money back in.

Cut the 60% FRAUD and WASTE that is the bedrock of the 80% that is being "TAKEN" to administer the other 20% of the resources. GIVE 'EM THOSE SELF-CUTS, NOT ANY CUTS OFF RECIPIENTS!

Polls: 87% DISAPPROVE of the job Congress is doing and then vote them right back in to continue doing the same thing. Now we should again listen to what the polls are saying we should do?

The United States Citizens did not cause the deficit. Don't punish American Citizens due to the state of our economy. A great answer is to let everybody help fix our deficit. Start by STOP giving money to other Countries. Cut out most Foreign Aide. We are not in a position to help others Countries so generously till we can help ourselves. Charity begins at Home.

The government took $70,000,000,000.00 out of the Social Security trust fund in 2011 and used the money for pet projects that benefit the wealthy. So cutting the entitlements for people who receive SS money for what it was intended for, they will get less or pay more into it and this in turn will free up more money that can be spent on the wealthy - what a deal, GOP!!!

Oops! Let me clarify: The polls say 87% DISAPPROVE of the job Congress is doing and then they go out and vote them right back in to continue to do a "disapproved of" job; and "Now we should do what the polls are saying that People "think" we should do"?

Cut the 60% FRAUD and WASTE that is the bedrock of the 80% that is being "TAKEN" to administer the other 20% of the resources. GIVE 'EM THOSE SELF-CUTS, NOT ANY CUTS OFF RECIPIENTS!

It isn't necessary to cut any recipients benefits...but it is necessary to start raising the retirement age to keep up with the increasing lifespan. When the program was incepted we lived less years...and the longer you live on it, the more you cost the system. You either pay more as you work (which no one should want...but I could allow if it was voluntary only), or you raise the retirement age some.

Also, just let young people opt-out, and replace that money with cutting overseas spending on empire. And by all means cut corporate welfare.But I can assure you fraud will continue to be rampant unless you decentralize and localize the programs policing...it's easier to fool a centralized program than people on a local level who know people that are abusing the program. I can name 10 people off the top of my head getting SSI for being "crazy" (actually they are just lazy and full of it), as just one example. Locals know who is lying...it's easy to fool the Feds.

Would it make a difference to everyone if you all knew that because of the tax cuts for the wealthy that the government lost over $36 trillion dollars over the last 30 years...

There are two logical problems here:

1. You assume that the economy would have been the same size and would have grown at the same rates without those cuts, which is impossible to prove or disprove.

2. The govt would have just spent that money and then some. No govt in history has been a sustainable venture...they all grow larger and larger, and the richer the populace, the larger they grow and more they spend. They always end up spending themselves into oblivion or being conquered/taken over by rebels from within. Egypt started as a bread riot, and Tunisia started as a man setting himself on fire over govt regulations being too harsh for him to prosper as small businessman (a food vendor I believe). We're richer, so it takes more before people have had enough.

The government took $70,000,000,000.00 out of the Social Security trust fund in 2011 and used the money for pet projects that benefit the wealthy.

And that's a bi-partisan corporate welfare scheme. Ron Paul called for an end to subsidies on corn in Iowa...didn't go over well. People think they are entitled to that money. Some of those subsidies, BTW, were "green" energy (some of which environmentalists have admited now are not as green as they first thought) and subsidies that are both left and right programs. We're going to piss people off...I, as a libertarian, am ready for it. Are you? Are you tready to give up your goodies? I'll give up mine tomorrow with no problem...but you have to do it too.

And let me end this by saying: "balanced approach" is nonsense. The tax increases, if Obama got everything he wanted, would run the govt for like a week and a half. Then we need to do 10-15 dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. They aren't going to cut that spending...clearly. It would get them unelected. So this fiscal cliff will either occur (deflecting the blame politically to Parties as opposed to individuals facing re-election down the road), or it will materialize as a short term deal (kicking the can down the road to the next Congress, like every Congress has done before this one).

Sabot

There is no "Share" of the wealth. That is a completely Communist ideal.

Wait... you think "Share of the wealth" means sharing the wealth?

Jesus Christ, did you drop out of 3rd grade math? Did you seriously just say that the mathematical concept of "share" is a communist idea?

So what do you think it means when someone says that a company has 20% market SHARE? Or when people say that the wealthy have a 90% SHARE of the wealth? Or if you get a 10% SHARE of the pumpkin pie?

Is that company a "Communist" company? Are those wealthy people "Communists"? Are you a "Communist"?

Sabot is the typical republican we have to deal with, and people wonder why we say that republicans are uneducated. Well folks, HERE IS THE PROOF.

Another BS poll from NBC/WSJ The top earners and corporations profited obscenely from the tax cuts and loop holes since Regan. Now it's time to pay the Piper and they want the poor to pay for their gifts.

Sabot is the typical republican we have to deal with, and people wonder why we say that republicans are uneducated. Well folks, HERE IS THE PROOF.

RepubliBloods AND DemoCrips are uneducated. The first sign is they support a false paradigm like "left' and "right", blue or red, and the forced upon us by rigged laws "2 Party system".

Black and white thinking is a symptom of psychosis. We have a nationwide psychosis. This "either/or" mentality is also a logical fallacy. So not only are the majority of people fairly uneducated, but their intellectually lazy and illogical.

@ Moshuluu #1.89

Let's see now. Reagan, the right wing hero, tripled the national debt and signed 17 debt ceiling increases into law, and remember Dick Cheney's famous 2002 line: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Bush II doubled the national debt. His administration created $5.07 trillion of debt by new policies, including two unfunded wars, and tax cuts for the rich. Obama's new policies, on the other hand, created only $1.44 trillion in new debt.

These useless republicans, led by the useless Boehner need to get off the millionaire/billionaire's tit, and do the work the American people voted them to do, not work for their super-rich corporate sponsors, and their lobbyists.

From TreasuryDirect.gov

From Jan. 21, 2009 to Dec. 11, 2012 the national debt rose $5.75 Trillion. {on track to double it again}(3 years, 10.5 months) Obama We are still in recession, and what else have we got? More trouble in the Mid-East. Obamacare? how much is that going to cost

And how many people in here are aware that the US Taxpayer is getting ready to send Morsi 20 more F-16 Fighters? Courtesy of Obama. ($213 million)

From Jan, 21, 2001 to Jan. 20, 2009 the national debt rose $4.899 Trillion. {but yeah about double}(8 years) Bush II We retaliated against a brutal attack, recovered from a mild recession, and liberated two countries from oppressive regimes.

From Sept. 1981 to Sept. 1989 the national debt rose $1.877 Trillion.{but yeah about triple} (8years) Reagan And we recovered from a major recession, and defeated the Soviet Union.

Not sure about you, but I voted for my representatives to protect me against a Socialist take over of my government. So they are doing what I elected them to do.

Here are 15 things the GOP doesn't you to know about taxes and the debt.

1.President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans

Only if you don't count the added debt we will have to pay for, Obamacare, and the super inflation that is to come due at some point in the future do to all the money he is printing.

2.Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

Not quite, but close enough to call it. But I already knew it.

3.George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
Not quite, but close enough to call it. But I already knew it.

4.Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven

Actually I believe it was 18, but ....I already knew it, because the Dems that controlled the House only raised the limit in small increments, to continually force Reagan back compromise table, sound familiar?

5.Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

That is ridiculous and asinine,
Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts.

6.Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes

Well dirka dur. Any time anyone spends money, they usually pay sales tax, if you pay rent or a mortgage you pay property tax, if you have a car, you pay fuel and property tax. Again, utterly asinine, the reference is to FEDERAL INCOME TAX,

7.The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs

Then just exactly who does create jobs, the same Magic fairy that is going to replace the funds "borrowed" from SSI {all you Liberals need to really research the history and SCOTUS rulings on SSI} Of course the Government is really good at creating 'jobs', but they don't generate wealth do they?

8.Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality...

If you are with dealing Capital Gains Taxes, there is already income inequality. If you have enough income to invest in things that produce capital gains, you are already making more than the average American. What is the point, with or without capital gains there is income inequality in this country and the world for that matter. Should we stop giving welfare to the poor because there much poorer people in the world?

9....But Not Investment

Perhaps, but the chart in the article shows that as the tax was reduced investment went up in a worsening economy, even though it showed an increase in investment, in a growing economy, with an increase in tax. What the article demonstrated to me was that it depends on the economy, whether or not the tax rate affects investment.

10.The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses

ARE YOU JUST STUPID!!?? I am not sure if you are aware or not, but land prices have sky rocketed as of late. (some of the aforementioned inflation). A 3500 acre farm (about average for the area from which I came, used to worth about $4 million, today it is in excess of $12 million. It still produces 40 bushel wheat, or 60 bushel beans or 225 bushel corn, just as did years ago. But if the Estate tax reverts to 55% over $5million, then anyone who inherits it is going to be hit with a minimum tax bill of $3.85 million. Yeah, try and pay that in a drought year.

11. Income Inequality Has Reached an 80 Year High...

It probably has, but question me this. In the last 80 years, Democrats have controlled both houses simultaneously for 52 of those years and the Republicans have held that same advantage for only 14. Yet somehow, this is the Republicans fault?

12....While the Federal Tax Burden Has Hit a 60 Year Low

And who's fault is that, Obama lowered taxes on everyone, remember? Now if we had a booming economy, the revenue would be higher, wouldn't it?

13.Romney-Ryan Plan Another Massive Tax Cut Windfall for the Wealthy

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

14.Romney, Ryan Won't Say Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks GOP Will End

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

15.Romney-Ryan Will Add More Debt Than President Obama

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

ProIndividual

In my experience, liberal minded people generally have a much higher education and are capable of understanding simple math concepts... like how the concept of "share" is calculated.

This does not hold true for every single person, but over a large sample set... well, just look at the responses in this thread. Not a single republican... NOT ONE... was able to comprehend the concept of "wealth share". These scholars actually thought is meant "sharing" the wealth.

Now how would you classify a group of people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand one of the most simple concepts in mathematics?

My Friend's Father, a Social Security Recipient in his 60's......HOMELESS.....(chronic Alcoholism, in and out of detox programs and Shelters for years), FINALLY agrees to make my Friend his SS payee and stay at her house awaiting a housing program that will get him permanently housed with her as his payee (in charge of his money so he won't go out and blow it all at the beginning of the month on drinking and staying in hotels until it's gone and then be back out on the streets and in and out of Shelters). Can he wait at her house, in the company of his Daughter, Son-in-law and 2 Grandchildren for this permanent housing to become available?

NO. He was forced to leave her home and go to a Shelter where he cannot leave, except by "pass" for a couple of hours every now and then and be assigned a Case Manager, who immediately goes on vacation for a week, then doesn't show for the first appointment made with him and suddenly can't be bothered to even return phone calls to the Daughter, anymore; (and this is after "hinting around" that she, as his payee, will probably have to pay for what they're forcing him to do, be at the Shelter, etc, out of his SS money) He has already been there now for weeks, couldn't be with his Family for Thanksgiving, etc.......AND THE GOVERNMENT IS BEING BILLED FOR THIS WHOLE "AGENCY" AGENDA ALONG WITH SHELTER COSTS that He and his Daughter are now being forced, misled and misrepresented through, as being necessary, etc, etc...on and on......

Why are all those resources being spent on him when he could be at his Daughter's (in a room, not just on the couch) and a real Homeless Person, with not even a couch-surfing option, could be at the Shelter in his place, using the GOVERNMENT RESOURCES, instead? The "AGENCY" that is handling, forcing all this to be done, and whose AGENDA the Government is being for "supposedly" on the Father's behalf and for his own good and what he needs is _____,Inc.

It's a TRUE story. This is how the Government "can easily" be made to spend $25,000 a year on 1 Homeless person. (ON PAPER, but of course)

I just noticed the error in my math as it pertains to number 10 above. The tax rate is set to revert to 55% of anything over ONE million not five million. so it will be a $6.05 million tax bill, not $3.85.

DumbFarmBoy

It is called inflation and financial planning. Bill is still getting the same hand out he got 30 years ago, but is now worth less because of inflation. Even if the handout was adjusted for inflation, the property tax, sales tax, etc has risen faster than the rate of inflation cutting into that handout.

Then they are not getting MORE, they are getting LESS.

Adjust it for inflation, don't adjust it... the FACT is that their percentage of the share of wealth has DECREASED.

DECREASED means LESS... NOT MORE. They have received less of the overall wealth, not more.

This is my whole problem with republicans. They claim that we are giving the poor more of our money, but they are receiving LESS of the overall share. When adjusted for inflation, they receive even less.

But I am tired of going around in circles with you republicans. Obviously the simple mathematical concept of "share" is beyond you.

Here's a new question for you: 80% of our economy is based on consumer spending. That's a fact. Do you believe that the spending habits of 2% of the population can sustain an economy that is 80% consumer spending? Honestly, do you think 2% of the population can spend enough to support 80% of our entire economy?

ProIndividual

In my experience, liberal minded people generally have a much higher education and are capable of understanding simple math concepts... like how the concept of "share" is calculated.

This does not hold true for every single person, but over a large sample set... well, just look at the responses in this thread. Not a single republican... NOT ONE... was able to comprehend the concept of "wealth share". These scholars actually thought is meant "sharing" the wealth.

Now how would you classify a group of people who lack the intellectual capacity to understand one of the most simple concepts in mathematics?

I unfortunately am a Republican, as a voted for Ron Paul. However, my philosophy is libertarianism, not conservatism. I tell you this because I do know what wealth share is...and that it's largely irrelevant. What concerns me, and should concern anyone poor or liwer middle class is total real compensation (wages+benefits accounted for inflation). That can actually grow as income share and wealth share (two separate concepts) decreases for those folks, and as wealth and income shares increase for the richer folks (top 20% of incomes, top 10%, and top 1-2% as well). How? Because income share and wealth share supposed to infintely grow and accumulate toward the top of market economies...because the economic pie is not finite.

So, not only did ar least one RepubliBlood (a reluctant one) understand the terminology, but they (me) understood economics enough to know it isn't sper relevant to standards of living for the poor and middle class.

Lastly, I'd point out total real compensation has been flat for years (along with wages, which actually fell slightly during this trcent recession)...not growing. That isn't because of what most people think. It's because:

1. Corporate personhood and federal reserve policy has funneled above-market-levels of income and wealth to individuals and companies beyond what would have happened otherwise. We need to end that state protection of companies that is NOT free market anyways.

2. Patents and copyright (aka "Intellectual Property") has done the same thing. End IP...ir's not free market anyways.

3. Well intentioned regulations have stifled competition more than they have saved lives or improved air and water. WE need to direct regulations at those who screw up, not the majority of competitors trying to wrestle market share away from these parasitic corporates who are in bed with the state (and vice versa). You do that by making regulations post-action and not pre-emptive (as in "innocent until proven guilty" instead of "assumed guilty for doing any business'). The current regulation methods help the corporates that we both see as a problem by creating unnecessary barriers to entry into their markets. Also, fines shouldn't be flat fees, but instead a percentage of profits, up to and including bankrupting the offenders and auctioning off their assets to responsible competitors.

4. I can list 20 more things, but if we EVER achieve the first 3 we'll be in good shape. Most of the illegitimate accumulation of ealth and income sahre comes from that...and that should NOT be misconstrued as meaning egalitarianism is a goal, that higher taxes somehow "equal the playing field", or that all large market share holders or large income and wealth sahre holders are somehow automatically guilty of being in bed with the state, and therefore holding that wealth, income, and market share illegitimately. The only way to know who is holding legitimate and illegeimate wealth, income, and market share FOR SURE is to end the protections of those entities handed to them by the state, and to allow the market to part fools and their money over a period of time. If they are parted from that money, they held it illegitimately...if not, they are benefiting consumerts enough to keep it without state protections, and therefore hold that stuff legitimately.

Oh, and libertarians have a higher IQ on average than both loberals and conservatives:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/smart-people-are-more-libertarian.html

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/04/iq-and-liberaltarianism/

But I'm not one that beleives any test can truly measure such an intangible like intelligence, to be fair. I put more stock in personality types. I'm an INTJ on the Briigs-myers scale...rare and usually highly intelligent. Many libetrtarians are INTJ or one of the other 3 Rational personality types. All of them are exceptional in terms of intelligence.

ProIndividual-3906907, #1.191- Thank you so much for replying. I'm not just talking about Social Security, as to retirement, per se; and am actually speaking more generally and referring to "benefits" more peripherally to the generalization, I think, because of Medicare and Medicaid being in there, too. And "affect" to them is not as straight forward and "tangible" as a known of and fixed dollar amount; but nonetheless any "affect", especially negative and "detrimental" is a direct hit to the Recipient.

FRAUD and WASTE (and "waste" in this case is a lot of FRAUD, really, is so pervasively and detrimentally rampant, I believe) AND, I also believe that NOW IS THE TIME and there couldn't be a better time than now, to FINALLY and REALLY and once and for all END IT!

Thank you, again, for replying. I only had this small amount of time. My Son is now waiting for me to join him to watch a movie "Coming to America" (we both some laughs!)

Here is the personality test for your use:

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Pardon all my typos above. It's "liberal" not "loberal", and "believes", clearly...lol. And it's Briggs Myers typology (expanded from Carl Jung's famous theories...he was an anarchist, aka libertarian, BTW).

ProIndividual-3906907, #1.191- Thank you so much for replying. I'm not just talking about Social Security, as to retirement, per se; and am actually speaking more generally and referring to "benefits" more peripherally to the generalization, I think, because of Medicare and Medicaid being in there, too. And "affect" to them is not as straight forward and "tangible" as a known of and fixed dollar amount; but nonetheless any "affect", especially negative and "detrimental" is a direct hit to the Recipient.

FRAUD and WASTE (and "waste" in this case is a lot of FRAUD, really, is so pervasively and detrimentally rampant, I believe) AND, I also believe that NOW IS THE TIME and there couldn't be a better time than now, to FINALLY and REALLY and once and for all END IT!

Thank you, again, for replying.

No problem, thank you as well. But again, if you want to stop waste adn fraud you have to police these massive programs...and to do that you must decentralize and localize them.

I'd only add that we can do all this without taking directly from current recipients. I'd even offer only ending programs like these where possible should occur humanely if we do it. That means only reducing benefits where need is no longer present. That means raising standards ofl iving elsewhere for these people, and setting up incentives for them to increase their standards without being forced. I wouldn't cut medicaid, for example, until it wasn't needed. I'd be faster to cut housing and food stamps where it can be shown through localization and decentralization of these programs that the recipients are fraudsters. I think the medical is actually good to allow them to have short term until they can get work that provides them and their kids with medical. The same is true of most programs...but because medical is so expensive it should be the last thing they lose.

Anyone who is reliant on these things legitimately can't be cut off. But in terms of several generations, we should stop letting people think these programs are things to which they are entitled.

That which holds you up can only let you down if you rely to heavy upon it. It should not be a crutch, but instead a helping hand at best. I want people to be upright and strong on their own, preferably. That may never be fully trealized, but the goal is better than the alternative. There isn o perfect answer I suppose, but there are a bunch of imperfect answers...some more imperfect than others.

Pro

I actually have more respect for Ron Paul libertarians that the current Republican party. And I am surprised you associate with Repubs considering they basically gave you, and every RP supporter, the middle finger and told you to go f*** yourself... at their convention.

I'm glad you understand the concept of income share and wealth share. If you read my posts, you will know that I am not as concerned with how important they are... but the fact that the GOP talking point does not match reality. You see, people grasp onto these talking points when they are simply not true.

We have not given more money to the poor, they have received less, as a percentage of the whole. So cutting welfare and food stamps will hardly make a scratch. And given that our economy is 80% consumer spending, we need people to spend money. And who spends money? The middle and lower class. And where do they spend? In businesses owned by the wealthy. So where does that money go when they spend it? To the person who owns the business.

It boggles my mind how republican business owners are demonizing the very people who buy their product. Sure, let's cut out food stamps and welfare. Now that family can't buy food at the local grocery store, so the store takes a revenue cut. And the family can't afford new clothes for their kids, so the local clothing takes a revenue hit. Now both those stores can't make payroll, because their revenue is down. So what happens? They cut payroll by laying off a few workers. Now those middle-class workers who had jobs and a steady paycheck, don't have any income. So what happens? They cut back and stop buying coffee each day, they put off buying that new computer, and any other purchase. Now the coffee shop takes a hit to revenue, and can't make payroll. The computer merchant takes a revenue hit, along with the manufacturer. So now those businesses need to cut back and lay off workers... then those former workers can't spend money... and on, and on it goes.

That's how the economy works. People spend money, which provides revenue and jobs, so other people can work and get money to spend in other businesses.

See, I have a business. Taxes will not hurt me nearly as much as lost customers. I sell primarily to the middle class, products which are not cheap but not luxury. Taking money out of the middle and lower class, so that the rich can have even more, will hurt my business more than any tax increase. Because it doesn't matter how low my taxes are, if I don't have customers, I don't have a business. And the 2% of the population that are considered wealthy do not spend enough to support mine, or any business. Why we go out of our way to protect 2% of the population, at the detriment of 98% is beyond me.

fuzzy44

Of course we do! There is no one easy way out of this hole we've dug ourselves in. It will take a balanced approach to get us back to those pre-Bush years.

Remember when Clinton had a budget surplus?

While I do agree with your premise, the problem is that the Clinton years weren't the paradise that we think they were. Yes, unemployment was low and economic growth was high, but wages weren't very much changed since the 80s and outsourcing (particularly of manufacturing) was rampant. Rather, I propose we try to go to the 1950s, when income inequality was low, wages were high and rising, manufacturing was big, and the government was efficient, effective, and accountable.

Here are 15 things the GOP doesn't you to know about taxes and the debt.

1.President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans

Only if you don't count the added debt we will have to pay for, Obamacare, and the super inflation that is to come due at some point in the future do to all the money he is printing.

I don't really like tax cuts at all, but the Obama tax cuts (besides giving tax relief to the average Joe) were essentially a concession of Obama in order to get Republicans to sign the stimulus package. Inflation (or hyperinflation, as you presume) will probably not happen in the United States for the foreseeable future; remember that it is natural that central banks print money to stimulate economies. Problem is, when real interest rates are too low, more money doesn't do much. And Obamacare REDUCES the deficit; ask the Congressional Budget Office.

2.Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

Not quite, but close enough to call it. But I already knew it.

3.George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
Not quite, but close enough to call it. But I already knew it.

Yes, and they turned the US into a debtor nation by following the idiocy of supply-side economics.

4.Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven

Actually I believe it was 18, but ....I already knew it, because the Dems that controlled the House only raised the limit in small increments, to continually force Reagan back compromise table, sound familiar?

Either way, Reagan (and Bush) still focused on tax cuts and not being fiscal conservatives. The fact that their tax cuts and military spending hikes broke the budget prove that (and by the way, no amount of cuts to social spending could pay for either the tax cuts OR the increased spending).

5.Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

That is ridiculous and asinine,
Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts.

Actually, the concept that tax cuts pay for themselves is ridiculous and asinine. After the Reagan tax cuts, there were huge deficits (along with after the Bush tax cuts). Clinton raised income taxes (he only cut capital gains taxes), and the capital gains taxes tend to fluctuate violently because investors will obviously invest when lower rates occur. Things are different when you talk about income taxes. JFK didn't cut taxes in the way Republicans did; he focused tax cuts on the DEMAND-side of the economic equation (for the poor and the middle class).

6.Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes

Well dirka dur. Any time anyone spends money, they usually pay sales tax, if you pay rent or a mortgage you pay property tax, if you have a car, you pay fuel and property tax. Again, utterly asinine, the reference is to FEDERAL INCOME TAX,

Actually, numerous conservatives (on this vine and elsewhere) argue that 47% of Americans pay NO taxes and are therefore moochers, even though they pay other federal taxes and state and local taxes and are (for the most part) too poor to pay the income tax.

7.The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs

Then just exactly who does create jobs, the same Magic fairy that is going to replace the funds "borrowed" from SSI {all you Liberals need to really research the history and SCOTUS rulings on SSI} Of course the Government is really good at creating 'jobs', but they don't generate wealth do they?

First of all, the concept that rich people create jobs is faulty. DEMAND creates jobs, not supply; essentially, consumers are job creators because they create the demand that justifies increased production capacity (aka more workers). The rich are merely a figure overseeing this equation and often (wrongly) take credit for job creation.

8.Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality...

If you are with dealing Capital Gains Taxes, there is already income inequality. If you have enough income to invest in things that produce capital gains, you are already making more than the average American. What is the point, with or without capital gains there is income inequality in this country and the world for that matter. Should we stop giving welfare to the poor because there much poorer people in the world?

Income inequality isn't in itself bad; it's the price of being in a (capitalist) society that values people based on merit (although wealth does play a big role in our economy). The problem is the amount of inequality, which is currently reaching levels not seen since right before the Great Depression. Capital gains taxes in effect create inequality when the tax rate is extremely low because it transfers wealth and income (aka redistribution) to the wealthiest Americans. Inequality also hampers growth over the long-term, as it distorts the market, creates an inheritance-based aristocracy that controls the means of production, and fuels social unrest (remember Occupy Wall Street?) and economic/political instability.

10.The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses

ARE YOU JUST STUPID!!?? I am not sure if you are aware or not, but land prices have sky rocketed as of late. (some of the aforementioned inflation). A 3500 acre farm (about average for the area from which I came, used to worth about $4 million, today it is in excess of $12 million. It still produces 40 bushel wheat, or 60 bushel beans or 225 bushel corn, just as did years ago. But if the Estate tax reverts to 55% over $5million, then anyone who inherits it is going to be hit with a minimum tax bill of $3.85 million. Yeah, try and pay that in a drought year.

I think what he's trying to say is that estate taxes only affect the very wealthiest in society. After all, the current cutoff is for those making over $5 million. I would personally reinstate the 55% over $1 million under Clinton, mainly because the estate tax is the best way to fight long-term inequality and prevent inheritance-based aristocracies from forming. And while the value goes up (and thus the tax on it), it still increases the value of the land after taxes. And by the way, how many American families have $5 million in assets ready to go to heirs and heiresses???

11. Income Inequality Has Reached an 80 Year High...

It probably has, but question me this. In the last 80 years, Democrats have controlled both houses simultaneously for 52 of those years and the Republicans have held that same advantage for only 14. Yet somehow, this is the Republicans fault?

It is Republicans' fault because it has been THEIR policies of low regulation, low taxes for the rich, and senseless anti-government program policies that have created this boom in inequality; Democrats are mainly at fault for either falling for this bull@!$%# or letting it happen.

12....While the Federal Tax Burden Has Hit a 60 Year Low

And who's fault is that, Obama lowered taxes on everyone, remember? Now if we had a booming economy, the revenue would be higher, wouldn't it?

True, then again if we simply repealed the Bush tax cuts and went back to the Clinton rates (or better yet, the pre-Reagan rates), revenue would be MUCH higher, wouldn't it???

13.Romney-Ryan Plan Another Massive Tax Cut Windfall for the Wealthy

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

Irrelevant at this point, maybe (the fact that people actually voted for this bull@!$%# counts); speculation, no way. The Romney plan called for a 20% tax cut across the board which would (by most accounts) increase the deficit AND give the rich a huge tax break.

14.Romney, Ryan Won't Say Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks GOP Will End

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

Pure speculation: no, Romney and Ryan refused to say which breaks would end. Irrelevant, yes, because (as you know) Obama won.

15.Romney-Ryan Will Add More Debt Than President Obama

Pure speculation, and irrelevant at this point.

Well, if went under the Romney plan, the debt would probably reach $26-27 trillion by 2022 (assuming that the current deficit is $7 trillion over 10 years) due to his $5 trillion tax cut and his $2 trillion increase in defense spending (minus about $2 trillion in spending cuts).

mguy #1.199

DumbFarmBoy

It is called inflation and financial planning. Bill is still getting the same hand out he got 30 years ago, but is now worth less because of inflation. Even if the handout was adjusted for inflation, the property tax, sales tax, etc has risen faster than the rate of inflation cutting into that handout.

Then they are not getting MORE, they are getting LESS.

Adjust it for inflation, don't adjust it... the FACT is that their percentage of the share of wealth has DECREASED.

DECREASED means LESS... NOT MORE. They have received less of the overall wealth, not more.

This is my whole problem with republicans. They claim that we are giving the poor more of our money, but they are receiving LESS of the overall share. When adjusted for inflation, they receive even less.

But I am tired of going around in circles with you republicans. Obviously the simple mathematical concept of "share" is beyond you.

Here's a new question for you: 80% of our economy is based on consumer spending. That's a fact. Do you believe that the spending habits of 2% of the population can sustain an economy that is 80% consumer spending? Honestly, do you think 2% of the population can spend enough to support 80% of our entire economy?

I think I understand what you are talking about now. But the PC dictionary you are using is a little confusing to us conservatives who not up on the latest re-definitions you liberals use.

You are discussing what 'poor' people as whole have as percentage of the total national wealth, rather than the 'monetary wealth' they receive from the government. Instead of saying they are 'receiving', you should say they are 'holding' or 'earning' less of the wealth. Which is true.

But if you are talking about the inequality of this wealth as a function of the government to redistribute based on some arbitrary need, then you are talking Socialism, and that is national suicide.

I posted this in another venue:

True Altruism has never been a part of what made this country great. Our founding fathers understood human nature very well, which is why they set up a Capitalist Economic system, to take advantage of that very human nature.
The problem has come from the collapse of the family business, which cannot compete in the consumer driven “cheap at any cost”, Government regulated “protect the people from themselves” environment. I don’t know who posted it, but somewhere on here someone mentioned the fall of union enrollment follows the decline of the middle class, perhaps. But, the middle class, historically, was predominantly made up of shop or store owners and the fall of the middle class follows the decline of the family business.
If you people want to regulate something, regulate how big a company can get, not what it has to do for their employees once they get that big. This makes it nearly impossible for a new business to grow. (of course the question then becomes "How big is too big?)
I can pretty much guarantee you, once we break up these huge banks and conglomerates, and remove distance between Upper management and workers, there will be little need for unions or regulations. It has been my experience that a business owner takes better care of his employees than a CEO (Chief Employee Only)
Something else to add into your equation, is the employees. You talk about the GREEDY Wealthy Elite, how about the greedy employee?(to include the aforementioned CEO) The ones that show up and expect a paycheck just for showing up. The ones that expect a raise just for being there for a period of time, but contribute nothing extra to (generate the revenue) cover their raise. The ones who think they are ENTITLED to benefits, just because they “work” there. The ones who fail to understand they were hired to do a job, at an agreed upon salary at the beginning. (When you take you car to a mechanic, and he quotes a price to fix it. Do you A) expect your car to be fixed? and B) at the price quoted? Are you upset when the car is not fixed or the bill is higher than quoted? Do you think it is any different for an Employer?

Oh, the consumerism mentality started back in the 70’s and to some extent even back into the 50’s, but it really didn’t have an effect until the 90’s boom and having a Walmart (big box store) on every corner squeezing out the mom and pop shops and their vendors. Of course there are multitude of contributing factors, but the nuts and bolts is the consumer attitude. And that is a paradigm that needs shifting.And why do think I brought up the “Regulate how big a business gets”? Because with big business comes big unions. They both have the money to buy or influence politicians. Why do you think the auto companies got bailed out? Was it the unions? or the CEO’s who bought the bailout? And who gets stuck with the check? we peons in the middle. Welcome to Generica; a national chain ‘whatever’ in every strip mall.I know Teddy was a bit of Progressive, but I would like to see someone go to town with those Anti-Trust laws he came up with.

I am not quite convinced that 80% of the economy is "Consumer" driven. To me consumerism the expenditure of disposable income on 'luxury' items, i.e electronics, fashions,(not ordinary clothing), entertainments(video games) , those things that are not truly necessary for life, followed by those things that make life easier, but are not life and death critical i.e cell phones, computer, internet, dining out, etc.

But we are still consumers of life's 'necessities', like clothes, food, things from the hardware store, cars(for those of us out here in the wilderness of the mid west, without public transit), household appliances, etc. So how much of the economy is true consumerism, and how is just being a consumer? People will always need to buy food, clothing etc, so that percentage of the economy will always be.

And in answer to your somewhat preposterous question, no, 2% cannot support the 80% any more than taxing the rich will get us out of the financial mess WE are in.

My solution to the current wealth inequality problem is in the last line of my quote, bust up these huge mega-corps, just like they did the Bell Company. Do away with the regulations that pertain to these Goliaths, e.g. Frank-Dodd, Obamacare, and to some extent the EPA. Regrow the family business, and let Capitalism thrive again. Government's role is only to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity, not an equal outcome. (And I agree, right now the deck is stacked against us, but who's fault is that?)

One more thing to think about, not sure of the validity of the ratio, but it is said that it is a 60/40 split, if it is a locally owned store 60% of the money spent there stays in the community, if it is a national chain, 60% leaves the community.

which do you think will work better, the government taxing people or Corporations and giving the money to the 'deserving poor'? or letting the money stay in the community to serve the people there?

There is about 160 years of successful American history to back up my way of thinking. There is about 70 years of unsuccessful Soviet history backing up any one else'.

@ Freshiee

It is late and I don't really have time to get into it right now, but suffice it to say your ignorance is beyond the pale. Unintended consequences being one of them.

let's take number 10, the estate tax as an example. OK, let's reinstate the Death Tax. When my folks pass and it comes time to inherent the farm. (which three of my brothers still farm) Even though it will be worth millions, it only produces several hundred thousand in revenue, and most of that is expenses. So, in order to pay the tax bill, some of the land will be sold. This has happened many times in the past. One of the reason the family farmer is becoming an endangered species. And more than likely one or two of the brothers will be forced out. Granted my folks are doing some estate planning to mitigate this, but the cost is still going to be high. Now, multiply that by the 1.8 million or so farmers still left. Now. I often hear, and I do so myself from time to time, bitch about these huge oil companies racking up the profits, think about huge Agricultural companies doing the same thing, only, you have to eat.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I like having a safe, reliable food supply, and I think the family farmer is the best way of doing that. But hey, if you want Con-Agra, Monsanto, ADM taking over production as well as the rest of it, then continue down the path. Maybe you can get the government to regulate them, if you can get passed the politicians they bought.

@ MGUY

#1.162 you- If we have been taking more from the rich, and giving that money to the poor, then why have the poor seen their share of the wealth DECREASE over the last 30 years?

#1.666 me- There is no "Share" of the wealth. That is a completely Communist ideal.

# 1.192 you- Wait... you think "Share of the wealth" means sharing the wealth? Did you seriously just say that the mathematical concept of "share" is a communist idea?

When taken in totality, yes a "poor" person has his percent (share) of the wealth, regardless of how small.

But, their is no percent (share) of the wealth that the "poor" is entitled to...that is the Communist ideal you are pushing and which I have continually exposed in your posts.

Continue to scream and holler about education levels all you want, but it will be you standing in a bread line because of your inability to compete in the real world. In the end, it's why you want the cushy insurance of government programs... so you can live without responsibilty or strength of character.

This whole train of thought started with Bill Clinton had a spending suplus. This maybe true, but what I don't get is WHY did wasington find ways to spend that money and not start buying it's own debt back? I know those people who receive money wouldnt like that idea. For the government creating jobs, The government SHOULD NOT be doing the hiring, our federal government has to much dead weight, look at the department of education. All states have that and its the STates job to govern it's schools.

ProIndividual:

1. YOUR money was spent as it came into the govt coffers...there is no magic savings account with YOUR money in it.

Yes, the same thing happens when I deposit money into my bank account. It's not lost.

2. What you call "your" money is actually paid to you in retirement by your kids and grandkids...because these programs rely on new investors to pay out old investors, aka a Ponzi Scheme.

Private banks operate in the same manner. If it wasn't for government guarantees (protection), banks could go belly up and your money would be gone.

4. YOUR money is actually not likely enough for you to retire anyways

It was never intended to act as a full retirement. Companies who profited off of the backs of their workers were supposed to do their part and chip in.

One last point: If any private organization rtan this Ponzi Scheme we call SS and Medicare, people would ikely be put in prison.

Soon soon you forget. It was called the Mortgage Meltdown, and no, no one from the banks or Wall Street who were responsible for the greatest theft of wealth from the middle class went to prison.

You appear to overlook the sins of capitalism just because they go unprosecuted.

SabthAndHeat: spouting more hate and rhetoric... Communism? You would not know the difference. So what do you call police? Fire Services? Communism? Libraries? Highways? You are so full of it...

As for the rest of us who are in reality... According to CNN Money, the latest corporate profit report for the 3rd came out indicating an excellent report for the Corporations at a 18% increase from past year. However the down side is that the wage level is at record low. You can read this for yourselves at http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record-corporate-profits/index.html

The real question that comes out of the article is really how American Corporation view their assets. Are American employees considered as real assets by their corporate employers? If they do, how is it that that the gap is growing at an alarming rate. The trend generally indicate exporting of jobs and loss of confidence toward internal employement pool. Which may also be the case, being that our kids are perhaps less educated than foreign students?

So what are the solution? Outsource employement pools at the risk of further damaging the US wages and in the long run kill off our consumption power (the golden goose)? Because that is what the Republicans and short term fools such as SabathAndHeat are selling you. Or simply take the long road and start shoring up our education system and force the corprations to contribute more as they reap the resulsts of American employement pool.

@ Thturd

Communism? You would not know the difference.

Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, #2 of 10 points to destroying Free Trade and installing Communism...

#2 -Install a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Apparently, I do know the difference and its purpose is to re-distribute wealth.

So what do you call police? Fire Services?.............. Libraries? Highways?

I call that the proper use of the General Welfare clause, because these are available services to every American, not specific targeted people.

@ Thturd

Notice I proved you wrong and didnt even call you a fool (as you do on numerous occasions)!

It's because your debating skills are poor and the future of your free meal tickets are wrapped up in these debates.

I don't suffer from this lack of security, as you do. Therefore I can simply debate, absent of name calling, to prove my point.

@ Debi-1314897 #1.210

ProIndividual:

1. YOUR money was spent as it came into the govt coffers...there is no magic savings account with YOUR money in it.

Yes, the same thing happens when I deposit money into my bank account. It's not lost.

NO, not the same thing. SSI is exactly as Pro describes it. In reference to #2 below, SSI is a pay it forward program.

You might wish to check out these links,(you'll have to edit them a bit, since I can not post direct links

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

w w w.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/26/social-security-iisi-ponzi-scheme/#ixzz286WBQvR6

2. What you call "your" money is actually paid to you in retirement by your kids and grandkids...because these programs rely on new investors to pay out old investors, aka a Ponzi Scheme.

Private banks operate in the same manner. If it wasn't for government guarantees (protection), banks could go belly up and your money would be gone.

Evidently you don't know how a bank works. They take in money, Savings, CD's etc, They then loan out a portion of that money at a higher interest rate. Along with fees, the difference in interest is their "profit". SSI takes money in, and pays it out immediately. They use accounting manipulation to show you have "money" in your "account". When in fact there is none, they are showing you what is "owed" to you, since they already dispersed those fund to current recipients. A bank actually should have real money in your account, or enough assets to cover a complete withdrawal from everyone.(granted it would take them time to liquidate those assets). Also, they pay FDIC insurance premiums for those "Government Guarantees", just like you pay auto insurance.

4. YOUR money is actually not likely enough for you to retire anyways

It was never intended to act as a full retirement. Companies who profited off of the backs of their workers were supposed to do their part and chip in.

You are absolutely correct in that statement. However, even with the employer's "contribution", anyone who should qualify for SSI, will withdraw more than they paid in, even if you were to factor in interest.

We no longer have slavery or indentured servitude. An employee is not forced to work for a company other than by his own circumstances. It is a companies business to profit, or else it goes broke and everyone is unemployed. BTW, no company "pays" taxes. Just like sales tax, they collect the tax. Property tax, to a certain extent, Income Tax etc are figured into the the cost of the goods produced and passed along to the consumer. When an employer looks to add an employee, they factor in SSI, U.I, Work Comp etc, into the cost of employing a person, deduct that, what is left is what the employee gets, so in essence the Employee is paying those expenses, even though they don't see it.

One last point: If any private organization rtan this Ponzi Scheme we call SS and Medicare, people would ikely be put in prison.

Soon soon you forget. It was called the Mortgage Meltdown, and no, no one from the banks or Wall Street who were responsible for the greatest theft of wealth from the middle class went to prison.

You appear to overlook the sins of capitalism just because they go unprosecuted.

You evidently don't understand the root cause of the mortgage meltdown either. The reason so many "Bankers" are not in jail, is because they were doing what the Government demanded they do.

Back in the 70’s, Jimmy Carter started a campaign, “Everyone has a ‘right’ to own a home”. It was born out of the civil rights movement and the discrimination against minorities to borrow money. I’m sure there is some truth to this and the liberal’s intentions were good. But as my mother told me, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

The government began a program through the HUD and FHA to help (pressure lenders) minorities get mortgages. The program was curtailed, but not killed under the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations. The Clinton administration revived the program and expanded it to garner support from minorities.

The Fed, which controls the banks, was directed to "make" banks loan money to minorities and those of certain income levels. If a bank wanted to expand or anything that required FED approval, they had to have a certain number of these types of mortgages. Mortgage companies also had to provide "a product" for these groups. Of course in return for these demands, the FED, the HUD, FHA, Freddie and Fannie, backed these loans. Thus began the 'Sub-Prime' mortgage, and the following fiasco. The government did not "bail-out" these banks, the government was on the hook, because they had agreed to back these loans.

What started off as an innocuous program to help low income families soon morphed into a corrupt and fraudulent scam, do in great part to a lack of forethought and close oversight by those who started the program.

If you want someone in jail, I suggest we start with politicians who authored and signed this legislation and go from there.

The reason so many "Bankers" are not in jail, is because they were doing what the Government demanded they do.

No one, not even the government, "demanded" Wall Street bet against their own bets.

And btw, the government loosened regulations. Banks were offered the forbidden fruit, but they didn't have to eat it. Haven't you read the stories of those in the business who raised the red flag and were summarily fired?

Jay12456

This whole train of thought started with Bill Clinton had a spending suplus. This maybe true, but what I don't get is WHY did wasington find ways to spend that money and not start buying it's own debt back?

Washington didn't find ways to spend that money. Rather than start paying down the national debt, George W. Bush frittered it away in ill-advised tax cuts.

Just before he started 2 wars -- 1 of them on false pretenses.

@ Debi

The reason so many "Bankers" are not in jail, is because they were doing what the Government demanded they do.

No one, not even the government, "demanded" Wall Street bet against their own bets.

And btw, the government loosened regulations. Banks were offered the forbidden fruit, but they didn't have to eat it. Haven't you read the stories of those in the business who raised the red flag and were summarily fired?

""You evidently don't understand the root cause of the mortgage meltdown either.""

""What started off as an innocuous program to help low income families soon morphed into a corrupt and fraudulent scam, do in great part to a lack of forethought and close oversight by those who started the program.""

Did you read the whole comment or did you just stop when I brought your beloved 'Government Programs" into the argument? And you really should not take a quote out of context, it gives people the wrong impression.

And the fraud and corruption are at all levels. It is a good thing for these people that I am not in charge, the US population would decrease by about 3%.

Let me start over. The root cause was the government program or initiative to get low income families into their own home. (A noble cause, but a bad idea) But the banks soon learned that they were losing money on these loans, as I said, and I have witnesses, which they were coerced into making. So, the big boys went to congress which relaxed other regulations so the banks could hedge against their losses. After all, and I know this goes against your Communist mentality, a business is in business to make money, not to support the 'unfortunate'. (that is up to the Individual, and they can't do that if they are losing money, due to government mandates)

You should also remember the Democrats held the Senate during the time these Regulations were relaxed, I don't remember hearing them screaming about it then?

So, had the Government (and I include both Parties in this fiasco) done their job, which is NOT to ensure everyone can own a home, from the start. This would not have happened. period. But no, the Democrats have to meddle in this stuff, and the Republicans turned a blind eye to the issue. "Hey the economy is bustling, don't mess with it". And neither Party gave a thought to the consequences.

I guess my point is I am sick and tired of you people blaming the "Redumblicans" and Wall street ONLY, when the other side of the isle bears the brunt of the blame. If they had not started the program, there would have been nothing to defraud or corrupt. Which is the nature of every government program.

Perhaps you can begin to understand my reticence to allow the Government any more power than the Constitution strictly allows. But hey, You go ahead and keep believing the Government is the solution to social problems like SSI and the ACA.

Or do I misread your comments? and owe you an apology.

OH, and how do I know so much about, I was, REPEAT was in the residential construction business, I knew something was hinky in 2006 when Country Wide Mortgage started getting into trouble and I started asking around. I even contacted my representatives, yeah they listen real well.

The reason so many "Bankers" are not in jail, is because they were doing what the Government demanded they do.

The government did not "demand" anything. They loosened regulations.

@ Debi...go talk to a banker or a mortgage broker. Ask them about the "Products" they were required to provide to the "low income" people.

But yes, I guess you could say they "loosened" the regulations, in that they (the lenders) could not ask for proof of income in some instances, or "stated income" was acceptable. Nor was the 20% down payment.

...(the lenders) could not ask for proof of income in some instances, or "stated income" was acceptable. Nor was the 20% down payment.

Would you mind citing your source?

@ Debi

My neighbor, Ron W., a mortgage broker. (Although, not in his area). It was a restriction put in place, (it has been three or four years since we discussed it), but think it was in mostly in the north east. But I do know that "Stated income" , that is the applicant could just write in what ever they wanted, was accepted at several "big" brokerages, Country Wide, BOA, First Horizon, and I think WF to name a few.

Like I said, go find a broker. not just some lending officer at a branch bank, but the President or VP of a local full bank or brokerage, someone who knows what the regulations are not just the banks 'policies'. Get it strait from the horses mouth. Because it has been a while since I got into this, and the details are getting fuzzy.

Here's what I got in quick Google search "Fairness in Landing Acts

In 1993 President Bill Clinton made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act(title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977) to make mortgages more obtainable for lower and lower-middle class families. The changes ushered in during the Clinton Presidency encouraged (a nice little euphemism) banks to make mortgage loans to people who otherwise would not have qualified for them. {wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination}

The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.^[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. {wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act}

You will notice the disclaimer per sect 802b and 804(1), wink, wink, nudge, nudge. and that is where the Government fell down on the job.

Note also the law does not list specific criteria. wink, wink, nudge, nudge. again.

It may have been officially written down, but from what Ron told me, the FED still pressured banks to move in the direction they did. (btw, Ron did not succumb to the pressure and is still in business. He would touch the sub-prime stuff, but like I said, he didn't have to, nothing he was doing i.e. in the way of expansion, required Fed Res approval.)

Also from Forbes

What the Community Reinvestment Act does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are under served.

forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html

You know if you people paid attention to the world going on around you, rather than listening to these babbling liberals always bashing this conservative or that Republican, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe if you put a little CRITICAL thought into why are we doing this, instead of jumping on the emotional knee jerk band wagon, you would understand. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

Less government, not NO government, Less EPA, not NO EPA, NO SSI, well maybe SSI, but they way it was advertised, not the way it was applied.

Now, go do some research for yourself, I the words of Glen Beck, "Don't take my word for. find out for yourself", and get your info from some where other than Bloomburgs, Huffington Post and MSNBC or at least try and find 2 or 3 sources. (Oh, and despite what the liberals tell you, Conservative Outlets actually do have some accurate information (from time to time ;-). even if it doesn't fit one's round peg world. Look at me, I am on MSNBC, too. One does after all need to see both sides of the story.

You know if you people paid attention to the world going on around you, rather than listening to these babbling liberals always bashing this conservative or that Republican, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess.

I believe that's the same critical thinking and less listening of the "babblers" I was asking you to do when I asked for the reliable citation (not your mortgage broker) that the government forced the banks to make liar loans.

Try a little more practicing what you babble, err, preach.

And just how do you know he is not a reliable source? What do you think these reporters do, they go talk to people in the industry and try to repeat what they said, (it has been my experience they are not very good at that last bit)

And I am still left with the impression that you think this is all the Republicans fault. When it was in FACT the Democrats who started this mess. Yes, the Republicans to my knowledge did nothing to stop it. Yes they may have exacerbated it, but I have seen nothing to prove that it was solely the Republicans that did so.

Or am I wrong in my assessment?

SabathAndHeat, your one liner bullet point response proved my point about your knowledge and analytics.... Yes, Police, Firefighters, Highway, Librarians, those are for the general welfare.... DUH!!! Communism = Karl Marx is your answer to knowing Communism??? Yes, I absolutely see you points .... ROFL...

Oh, I forgot your "redistribution of wealth".... hahahahaha... any form of tax is a redistribution. What stupid bullet point that only idiots would use as a defense, because it sounds good. Face it, in reality, you agree to rob other people's hard earning $. Amazing that you don't have the moxy to say it!!!

Another article noted that some republicans in congress were reconsidering supporting a deal after Norquist said he'd be willing to accept some increase in order to prevent a much larger tax increase January 1st. As this article notes the majority of republicans accept the need for compromise but our elected representatives wait for a nod from Norquist before deciding to support compromise. If you're a republican it's time to accept that your congressional representatives work for a man never elected to any office and not you.

OH, and how do I know so much about, I was, REPEAT was in the residential construction business, I knew something was hinky in 2006 when Country Wide Mortgage started getting into trouble and I started asking around. I even contacted my representatives, yeah they listen real well.

Dumbfarmboy: You built houses so you have inside knowledge about policies that caused the housing meltdown? Your names appropriate. That's like saying I sell computers so I know how they work. Encouraging banks to loan to poor people by allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen loan requirements so they could buy more loans didn't require banks to provide no doc loans or not to require mortgage insurance. Banks decided to do this because of the massive profit in under writing loans.

A 3rd grader much less a bank CEO making 50 million a year should realise that a McDonalds worker claiming to make 250K a year should provide proof before being loaned 1/2 million dollars as they should realise that making 1% teaser loans to people making 30K a year that when they reset would require payments exceeding their gross income in a few years was stupid. Making loans with nothing down assuming house prices could never go down or none would default was also insane. Congress never required any of these changes which is why Fannie and Freddie have sued and won many 10's of billions from banks for loans sold to them that didn't meet their standards. Banks and mortgage lenders assured Fannie and Freddie that all loans were verified and met government standards which they didn't.

People like you never accept blame for anything. After eight years as president the buck stops there. Trying to go back to previous presidents or congressional actions to excuse a meltdown and ignore who was president for eight years shows ignorance. You blame Obama for everything bad with the economy from his first day even though the country ran on Bush's budget for another nine months yet comb through twenty years of actions by others trying to find something to relieve Bush of responsibility.

But yes, I guess you could say they "loosened" the regulations, in that they (the lenders) could not ask for proof of income in some instances, or "stated income" was acceptable. Nor was the 20% down payment

You lie to back up your points. Banks were fined heaviliy for selling Fannie and Freddie loans without vetting them by requiring proof of income and no law was passed changing the long standing practice of requiring mortgage insurance for less than 20% down. Countrywide started loosening the rules and banks went along out of greed.

Loan processors were given little guidance, the suit said: Checklists for making sure that loans were compliant - for example, assessing whether the income level that a borrower listed was reasonable - were eliminated. Bonuses were based solely on how many loans an employee could process, not the quality.

The lawsuit said that Countrywide executives were aware of the dangerous path they were treading. For example, a quality review in January 2008 showed that 57 percent of Hustle loans went into default.

Instead of notifying Fannie and Freddie, Countrywide instead set about concealing the quality of the loans it was selling them, the suit said. It said Countrywide even offered a bonus to quality-control workers who could 'rebut' the default rates that the review had found.

According to the lawsuit, Fannie and Freddie don’t review the loans before they purchase them. Instead, they rely on banks’ statements that the loans meet certain qualifications.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222636/U-S-government-sues-Bank-America-1BILLION-mis-selling-Countrywide-mortgages-known-Hustle-loans.html#ixzz2FkvO05hF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Why don't you make another program that suits just what you have in mind that we also cannot pay for. Liberals tend to be really good at that. Before you jump down my throat I also think that everyone should be taxed the same amount for everything, period. It doesn't matter if it is capital gains, payroll income, whatever. Thats the only FAIR way to do it. Might I also add that what you wrote above comtributed nothing to the vine other than spewing venom and not making any points on anything.