From GRAVITY'S ENGINES: How Bubble-Blowing Black Holes Rule Galaxies, Stars, and Life in the Cosmos by Caleb Scharf:

"Ignorance is far scarier than knowledge."

And yet, perversely, a segment of the Right who posts here not only clings to ignorance, but positively basks in it, gloating.

Debt ceiling negotiations Approval/Disapproval
Republicans: 17% / 69% [-52]
Pres Obama: 38% / 50% [-12]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57559686-10391739/poll-50-percent-think-fiscal-cliff-deal-possible-by-years-end/?pageNum=2

There is and will continue to be some anger/disappointment/confusion directed at President Obama over his negotiating skills. That is to be expected.

These same people worked so hard in 2012 to get him re-elected. They care deeply about the direction our country should take to ensure fairness for all. They are the people who not only voted for President Obama in 2012, but as well donated, and worked/volunteered night and day for not only Barack Obama, but for the United States of America and her future.

Today I say – thank you America for making this all possible.

Time Magazine's Person Of The Year

Some Excerpts:

In an age of lost authority, Obama had managed to maintain his. In group after group, the voters told the
researchers they believed the President was honest, lived an admirable personal life and was trying to do the right thing. "Here's what I heard for 18 months," Simas says. "'I trust his values. I think he walked into the worst situation of any President in 50 years. And you know what? I am disappointed that things
haven't turned around.' But there was always that feeling of 'I am willing to give this guy a second shot.'"

In different rooms, behind different one-way mirrors, Republicans made the same discovery. "There was almost nothing that would stick to this guy, because they just liked him personally," Katie Packer Gage, Romney's deputy campaign manager, said after the election. Most of those who had voted for Obama in 2008 were still proud of that vote and did not see the President as partisan or ideological. When Republicans channeled their party's many furies, attacking Obama as an extremist, it backfired among swing-state voters.

Obama says he long ago decided that he should not compare himself to Lincoln. But he nonetheless begins his second term with a better sense of what is possible in his job as well as what is not, something Lincoln struggled with as well. "You do understand that as President of the United States, the amount of power you have is overstated in some ways," Obama says. "But what you do have the capacity to do is to set a
direction." He has earned the right to set that direction and has learned from experience how to move the country. After four of the most challenging years in the nation's history, his chance to leave office as a great President who was able to face crises and build a new majority coalition remains within reach.

http://poy.time.com/2012/12/19/person-of-the-year-barack-obama/

Mr. President. Please stick to your plan. The Repugs are just blustering and have no real ability to bully you on your tax plan. Stick to your original plan for $250,000 and above on the rich. And please leave Social Security alone. It's tough enough to get by on what's paid now without letting the CPI be reduced. The rich don't need it, but the rest of us do.

So, the article speaks of Sec Clinton being "teflon".........very disrespectful.

Where are the Three Stooges, McCain, Graham and Ayotte?....Not only are these three idiots, they are the real teflon stooges of the TeaPeople!

They should be screaming about gun violence......but oh, no, no, no.

My guess is Boehner will once again walk away from negotiations not by choice but because he has such a raucous caucus of don't ever raise taxes on rich people and let's get rid of all those horrible "entitlements" so that elderly people, who have little except social security and medicare, are on their own. That is the trouble with the GOPTP today; they haven't an ounce of common sense let alone compassion for those who have little. The GOPers are the crowd that spent this country into debt for 8 years, never met an unfunded spending bill or an unfunded war they didn't like. Now, they demand an arm and a leg from the least among us while demanding the rich keep every penny. Compromise, raise taxes on the wealthy? Now, those are the ultimate third rail for republicans; their position, however, is simply stupid because real governing requires give and take from both sides.

As for the State Department, it does not surprise me that the independent study would find deficiences within it. I imagine that much of what they faulted are systemic problems which started and continued over the years. That said, the purpose of such a report is to FIX the failures to prevent future problems rather than try to pillory an individual. My sense is that those persons heading the faulted sections will be looking for a new job very soon. That is as it should be.

Why should the Pro-Israel group dictate who is nominated to be Secretary of State? They are entitled to their opinion but they are not entitled to make the decision. Perhaps, such outside groups as this and the NRA have more power than is justified because they are, after all, not representative of the majority.

Time to cut defense.

Mr. Speaker, Don't touch social security and medicare which are the Third rail of US politics. If you touch them, you are electrocuted. Just look at Mr. Voucher (Paul Ryan) who is still licking wounds from his defeat - only a month ago?

Personally, I'm glad Boehner came out with "plan B". During the debt limit negotiations we kept hearing how close he and Obama were to a "grand bargain", but in the end they failed to agree to anything. I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen again.

I'm not very enthusiastic about Plan B for a variety of reasons, but if that's the only thing that can get passed, then it's better than going over the cliff. (and hopefully they can agree to a more significant deal next year when they are not under extreme time pressure)

It is Great News that Time magazine on Wednesday named President Barack Obama as its person of the year for 2012. A well deserved honor.

Thank You, President Obama for being our President.

Team Willard should of been PAYING the reporters for covering that traveling 3-ring circus!

Feisty, at $812, those Welsh Cakes have proven not only difficult to bake, but expensive. Now mind you, this is the idiot that the GOPTP wanted to lead the country as a severe conservative, dedicated to cutting the cost and size of government. Thank the lawd Jaysus he wasn't elected. The cost of Queen Annie's mandatory charred Welsh Cakes would have added another couple of trillion to the debt in just one short year.

Boehner is doing exactly what Obama has claimed he wanted, to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Here is a quote direct from http://www.barackobama.com/ISSUES/ under the tax tab.

"President Obama cut taxes for every American worker and provided 18 tax cuts for small businesses to help them weather the recession. Now, he’s calling on millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more so that we can pay down our debt in a balanced way."

Obama has said it over and over, "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." But no surprise he moved the goalpost. At some point Obama should either mean what he says, or say what he means.

I hope everyone was able to see Lawrence O'Donnell's Rewrite segment last night on the NRA. If not, here it is - and it is unforgettable.

Last Word:

To highlight it, he focused on a recent statement by LaPierre in the wake of a gun violence story going national when the NRA boss said, “There’s a lot of different ways this crime could have been committed.”

O’Donnell argued, however, when it comes to the Sandy Hook horror, there are not “a lot of different ways” that crime could have been committed. ”There is only one way,” O’Donnell said. “The way that Wayne LaPierre wants to preserve: mass murder by firearm, an all-too-common American way of death.”

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/18/lawrence-odonnell-rewrites-nras-blood-drenched-boss/

Compromise. Work in the middle. End class and political warfare waged by FR, Bev, Pig, Tom, Jody, Pat, etc...

Remember we are all Americans and should all have some say. Find the middle of the road and get to work. It worked great for Clinton, and it CAN work for BHO. Neither side wins 100% of the time, and neither side looses 100% of the time. It is a little give and take that makes this country successful! Let's agree to disagree, then get to work like grown-ups.

Thank you to the DC'ers for making attempts to find common ground. Thank you for remembering our problems are bigger than party. Real people are affected, millions of us!

Bobster-1557895,

Maybe we will have our Tech Guy check you out.

Rick,

Millionaires and Billionaires is a definition of their net worth nor annual income

Bobster,

Why do you try so hard to prove my point at #1.2? Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed?

Well look at your pay stub after the first of the year and compare the difference. Then tell me who is taking your money?

This is a real instance of our protection in action:

A man called the police because his neighbor shot several times at his house. He had a total of 4 bullet holes in his home. He called the cops, the policeman while looking at a bullet hole in his window asked him why he moved into this neighborhood. The shooter is a known drug dealer who also happens to be an informant. Nothing happened to him. No jail time, no warning. Nothing, he is still living across the street from the man and his wife. He purchased a gun, cleaned it in his window so his neighbor could see it and has not had a problem since.

So now it is plan B for the GOP. First they cried and said that $250,000 is middle class, they can't afford a 3% tax rise to Clinton rates. Then they said $400,000 is middle class, but they still can't seem to afford a 3% tax rise to Clinton rates. Now this $1,000,000 level is absurb. Only people making a cool million should see an increase in their rates. How this this math add up? What new arithemetic is this to make this hogwash a balanced approach?

The GOP, the supposed caretakers of the deficit, those that moan and whine about a debt being left to their children. They care nothing about the deficit, they care nothing about balance. They are the worst of hypocrites. Their irresponsible, boomer hides just want to squeeze the last drops of "entitlement" out of the government. No Mr/Ms. GOP baby boomer you are not entitled to the temporary tax rates. Neither are any of the rest of us.

Why are the negotiations between Obama and Boehner being held privately?

Now, that is a dumb question.

It's funny that Republicans that were bent on full obstruction of Obama in the first term now want compromise.

You can't have it both ways................

concernedone

Compromise. Work in the middle. End class and political warfare waged by FR, Bev, Pig, Tom, Jody, Pat, etc...

Remember we are all Americans and should all have some say. Find the middle of the road and get to work. It worked great for Clinton, and it CAN work for BHO. Neither side wins 100% of the time, and neither side looses 100% of the time. It is a little give and take that makes this country successful! Let's agree to disagree, then get to work like grown-ups.

Thank you to the DC'ers for making attempts to find common ground. Thank you for remembering our problems are bigger than party. Real people are affected, millions of us!

Well said.

We need to stop worry about supporting "our party" and start pushing for real solutions for our country.

Bobster Numbers -

There have been some pretty funny Feisty conspiracy theories on here in the last year or so. Up till now, my favorites were that she was both an unemployed welfare cheat living in a double wide at the very same time she was also Jenn Psaki, a six-figure salaried paid spokesman for the Obama campaign.

But I gotta admit, your paranoid fantasies are catching up with them fast.

Hey, if it'll help, I'm actually Feisty, too. Anyone else want to come clean? :)

Concernedone: I appreciate your response. The constant name calling and pigish remarks are what is wrong with our country. To constantly slam your fist on the ground while throwing a tantrum like a spoiled child demanding they get their way is no way to run a country. These "regular" posters who sit in front of their computers waiting and frothing at the mouth to be the first to post a beligerant and rude comment about the republican party are what's wrong with this country. It's a shame. American work together. Not everyone gets their way 100% of the time.....that is not a democracy. Grow up and compromise....Right or left....it's the American way that matters. Negotiations are just that-compromise. It's time for President Obama to learn that!!! Boehner needs to as well. Sick of seeing these rude obnoxious people posting all the hate!!!!

Feisty Jack,

"Why do you try so hard to prove my point at #1.2?"

I don't read your posts. LOL!

subnormal Also just because something is popular does not mean its right for the nation.

Now thats the best line a rightwing person ever posted. I going to say that goes for the republican/tea party. Just because things sound good to you doesn't to the rest of us. Plus that goes both ways for the left and right. Let me make make this point. I'm a "lefty liberal" and a gun owner. A conversation needs to be had about guns. I saying a conversation that will address the problem on the gun issue. Lets get good ideas before the process starts. Maybe with some good ideas from both sides would be better than a bunch of trash talk.

On taxes a combination of tax increases and spending cuts would be a great start. Plus some spending on the infrastructure of the country would create jobs increase tax revenue and people would be spending their hard earned money and that would help stimulate the economy.

JoAnne,

As much as would like to report you as one of Feisty's kooky alter-egos, you came up clean. Too bad. LOL!

Plan B is not puzzling at all.

We have the Fiscal Cliff...we all know what that is.

Plan A is to work on a deal. A deal where neither party is looking to obvious solutions. They focus on individual tax rates and entitlements alone...farm subsidies, defense spending, corporate subsidies to energy companies, stepping up to tax AAPl or GGG on overseas profits... are not even discussed. Plan A is a ideological debate over whether to cut spending or increase taxes- while everyone knows we need both. Step up, get Plan A done, else Plan B is there waiting to avoid the cliff.

Whatever plan is chosen...it is only the beginning. We need better spending limits, we need individual and corporate tax reform. Plan B is better than the Cliff. Obama never should have raised the stakes, this is what he did last time...and we all lost. Compromise and we are done, move on, and get on to bigger discussions.

Both parties are full of con artists like the Boner dude - and because there are only 2 parties - the same garbage gets elected every time. We need real independents and a viable third party to make any headway.

Can anyone tell us why the president is insisting on raising taxes on those making over any amount of money he chooses? What is the purpose of these tax increases? I have my opinion about why he's doing it, but it's just an opinion. Is there any credible reason for raising those taxes and is there any credible reason for him holding firm while this country may slip into recession and everyone's taxes will go up?

When you think about the tax increases on the rich, they don't amount to very much money at all when compared to multi-trillion dollar deficits and a $16.3 trillion national debt. It sounds more like symbolism over substance to me.

The result of increased tax on the high income earners
FY2013 ($ Billions)
Budget = $3803 {Proposed}
Income = $2902 {Estimated}
Deficit = $901
% Deficit Spending = 23.7% and in 2010 it was 41.8% which is where we began to say that 41¢ of every dollar in spending was borrowed money.

The additional tax on income above $200K/$250K will fund our Government for only 8 days which is 2.7% of our annual budget and covers 9.3% ($83.4 Billion) of our deficit. (Some Republican Senators says 11 days, 11 days would be 3.0% and $114.6 Billion not borrowed)

According to many, taxing the high income earners won't do anything to help reduce our deficit and/or address out debt and spending problems. That means a reduction of over $80 Billion a year in borrowing is meaningless.

In a compromise effort John Boehner has said he would agree on a tax increase for incomes above $1 Million. This would reduce the additional tax revenue from just over $80 Billion to just under $50 Billion. President Obama's counter offer to increase taxes on incomes above $400K would split the difference and generate about $65 Billion a year.

Isn't "Plan B" an abortion pill?

Seems appropriate .

Can anyone tell us why the president is insisting on raising taxes on those making over any amount of money he chooses?

the so called arbitrary fair share I'd imagine.

Sick of seeing these rude obnoxious people posting all the hate!!!!

then Red Dawn said

Tough @!$%# if you don't like a taste of your own medicine -

someone call the whambulance for our Resident victim FISTY :o)

First place Piggy.... obama got ALOT of money from the "rich".. Why does he want to raise taxes and NOT end loopholes???? Because all his "rich" friends are already hiding their money from taxes but can't protect from lose of loopholes.

Rick-3416939

Obama has said it over and over, "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." But no surprise he moved the goalpost. At some point Obama should either mean what he says, or say what he means.

Most people with incomes greater than $250K ARE millionaires. If they haven't been able to accumulate a few million dollars in wealth over a few years time, they need to stop splurging on expensive cars and private jets.

Boehner is trying to protect his party's anti-tax reputation while innoculating it against accusations of protecting millionaires and billionaires. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

It really not a surprise, the republicans are never going to agree on any bill..... Mr President it is time to Sequester Congress, do not allow any House or Senate Member to leave until a agreement is passed..... Dear Congress if you want to take anything away start with your Pay & Benefits, after all you have not earned a penny of it in 4 years so it is time to give back.....

Feisty = Can't Understand Normal Thinking

This is why the "Don't touch my guns/genitals" crowd must be ignored as we struggle to find a solution that will stem gun violence. JH-lotsanumbers writes:

"Sorry idiot but cars are not protected by our constitution."

JH-lotsanumbers has displayed a shocking ignorance of the Constitution in a number of cases. I have called him out to no avail. He remains determined to show that he has no intention of either reading or understanding the Constitution.

The Constitution protects neither guns nor cars. It is about the rights of human beings, not things. Guns don't have rights. Too many of the mindless gun lovers seem to think their right to own a firearm is superior to all other rights. That's nonsense.

Here is the text of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please note, it refers to the security of the state - that would be us; not guns, not cars, not cans of nutmeg. US! The People!

The right of the people to bear arms is conditioned on our security, thus the issue of a well-regulated militia. Since the latest mass slaughter, we have begun to very seriously question the issue of our security weighed against raving, seething lunatics who believe their right to own a firearm outweighs our right to security. Further, those who wrote the Constitution represented a very small minority of the citizenry: Free white males, aged 21 or over, who owned property. Gunners don't seem to have noticed, but that's changed, as surely as we can change the laws of the nation.

This time, the lunatics have "stood their ground" using arguments that are finally being challenged as the worthless drivel they are. This time, they lose. We win.

Dennis, Columbus OH

"That means a reduction of over $80 Billion a year in borrowing is meaningless."

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

Granted, there are a lot of nit picky things noted on this board and in political discourse constantly, but this sentence on it's face really just stopped me in my tracks. To call "meaningless", $80 Billion annually of borrowed money. Really? That's the new argument, that this amount of money can only pay for the cosmos for a nano-second, so therefore it is meaningless.

If 'volume' or relation to volume is the new deterrent to action, then nothing, ever should be done again. Too many undocumented workers, do nothing. Too many guns, do nothing. Too many drugs, do nothing. Too much money in politics, do nothing. Can fund the Government for only 2 seconds, do nothing. Too much trash, do nothing. Too much partisan gridlock, do nothing.

You know that we as a Country read too many headlines and clearly can't see the forest through the trees, when see and react to values like $80 Billion annually, $800 Billion over a decade and treat it like it is nothing.

David Walker - the man who knows so little about so much

I'll ask again, do you ever stick to the topic? You sir are a liar. You have called me out to no avail????

Pathetic ignorant liberals will destroy our country. It is either their way or nothing.

Bobster,

I don't read your posts. LOL!

Is that because you can't read?

Mr. Walker - On many issues your rhetoric, although enjoyable to read, steers far to the left of me. At times you come across with an attitude that only you have all the answers. Again your prose and diatribes against the other side are not always fair. However in this case on your stance on gun control we share the same opinion. In my opinion you hit it right on the head. Good post.

edgarw

When you think about the tax increases on the rich, they don't amount to very much money at all when compared to multi-trillion dollar deficits and a $16.3 trillion national debt. It sounds more like symbolism over substance to me.

You're confusing debt with the DEFICIT. The proposed tax increases for those with incomes greater than $250K would equal about 10% of the DEFICIT. The best way to bring the deficit down to zero is by putting people back to work. The same people who are getting unemployment benefits from the government would instead be paying income taxes TO the government. But the Republicons blocked all of Obama's jobs plans in order to make him a one-term president. That didn't work out for them, but it did do great damage to ordinary American citizens. Not that the Republicons care.

Now, they intend to do more damage with their proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Fiddling with the cost-of-living allowance for Social Security wouldn't just hit young people decades from now, it would mean all present-day seniors who voted these idiots into office will get hit with decreases in Social Security payments as their reward. The Repubs know that P.T. Barnum was speaking the truth when he said "a sucker is born every minute."

The question is: What ISN'T Boehner doing? He isn't serving the greater good, unless, of course, the greater good is the entitlement of the Corporate Welfare state and the richest 1%.

Let's all feel sorry for the Poor Rich. They don't hire, don't create jobs, hoard their money in offshore tax free havens in the double digit trillions and now they've made such bad life decisions that living on $250K a year is impossible for them. No. It isn't. It's a Poor Rich BS Sob Story with no happy ending for anyone but them.

If you can't make it on $250K, maybe it's time to move to smaller digs, give up the fleet of gas guzzlers and private jets? Maybe it's time to think like people on Main Street do: Live within your means for a change? And just why should we feel sorry a lunatic of the right can't live on a 6-figure salary?

Face it folks. The subversive agenda of the GOP is now and always shall be....Get rid of SS, Medicare and Medicaid...Do that and you've got backlash that Czar Nicholas still hasn't forgotten into eternity.

Concernedone, pot meet kettle. Maybe you should read what some on the right posted yesterday afternoon for some perspective; those comments are examples of the past year's anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-FR liberal poster hate crowd. It isn't exactly pleasant reading and it certainly is not bi-partisan. Let's just say, spare us your righteous indignation because your side is guilty of what you claim.

OHGuy

It really not a surprise, the republicans are never going to agree on any bill..... Mr President it is time to Sequester Congress, do not allow any House or Senate Member to leave until a agreement is passed..... Dear Congress if you want to take anything away start with your Pay & Benefits, after all you have not earned a penny of it in 4 years so it is time to give back.....

I'm not sure why you say the Reps will never agree to any bill...they proposed Plan B.

Also, luckily we don't live in a dictatorship...the president cannot sequester Congress...

Hey DW, get off your soap box. sit around, pat yourself on the back, talk down condescending to everyone that isn't a believer in Mao Style rule. So go back to rubbing one out to your hammer and sickle and a burning desire for a police state so you can sleep safetly at night. Why not just quarter soldiers too limpy? you talk big over a computer and internet but are no more than the 'know-it-all' kid in the Polar Express, who was told to LEARN. However you're too much of a legend in your mind and pompous f*ckwad to learn. Carry on King David

Sorry idiot but cars are not protected by our constitution.

Nor are guns protected by our Constitution. Or are you one of those enamored gun lovers that thinks guns, like corporations, are people too. Nothing like an idiot calling someone else an idiot.

feisty--your such a class act. And that's not a compliment

Some people have their panties in a knot today.

There is a reason he is called Bonehead Boehner! Protect the rich and corporate world over the Middle Class is all the republicans want to do. Boehner is the worst Speaker of the House in my lifetime. I'm not young either. It sort of fits that he goes along with the Worst President in the history of our country too. (Bushwhacker0 Hiding on his ranch for 4+ years to avoid the Hague's warrant for his arrest for War Crimes. Sort of fitting he is hiding in ?Texas!

The GOP's plan B is actually Pelosi's plan from last April, and the democrats rejected it. Funny that they rejected their own plan, can't let the GOP win. Brilliant move by the GOP.

Only what his corporate masters tell him. And nothing more.

The circle-jerk continues. You'd think they'd find better things to do.

Happy Holidays!

The class warfare wasn't started by me, Feisty or anyone on this website.

It was started by Wall Street, corporate America, etc.

It worked too.

I find it sickeningly amusing tht these clowns can't agree on a deal. The whole reason for the cliff is that they decided to put these measures in place so they would be forced to negotiate and agree to avoid this. This cliff is from kicking the can down the road years ago.

Rather than correct it now, let's posture and then present a second plan so that we can continue to kick the can down the road. Maybe then they can make another plan that has some pretty harsh measures for all of us if they don't agree.

Pathetic.

Jobs1,

You have a tech guy in mom's basement?

Houston, concerning your comment > Most people with incomes greater than $250K ARE millionaires. If they haven't been able to accumulate a few million dollars in wealth over a few years time, they need to stop splurging on expensive cars and private jets.

Can I ask you what gives you the right to say anyone should stop splurging on expensive cars and private jets? If you really believe this, then why doesn't it apply to the government as well? Don't they waste billions of taxpayer's dollars on needless spending? Don't they trump up every program to gain every dollar they can?

How can your statement only apply to those with wealth, and not apply to the government?

feisty--your such a class act. And that's not a compliment

Is this the part where I'm supposed to give a @!$%# what YOU think? lol

Carry on...

it is the tax code stupid, over 100 thousand pages of rules , regulation and exemptions; flat tax, but no one in Washington wants to even discuss it!

Pat Boston MA.

The class warfare wasn't started by me, Feisty or anyone on this website.

oddly the same people the democrat party benefit from. however it is people like Pat and Red Dawn and FR/NBC that grab their pitch forks and go marching through the streets. We saw the occupy movement which was no more than mob rule on the streets. these rich that include a significant number democrats which are portrayed as evil yet you blame the GOP or TP and everyone under the sun. Yep no democrats are evil and rich then the likes of you PAT and FISTY et al get on your bull horns and cite propaganda. Ho Chi Minh would be proud so carry on

F----- Redhead

Your really one to be criticizing anyone about drinking ! Your biggest challenge of the day is to crawl out of your own of pool of booze !

Your a paid political hack and the queen of the liberal hypocrites !

Don't make fun of Feisty. This is her life. : (

saxon

it is the tax code stupid, over 100 thousand pages of rules , regulation and exemptions; flat tax, but no one in Washington wants to even discuss it!

Mostly because the flat tax is harder to manage for the poor. If i make 10 grand a year and flat tax is 20%, i'm going to miss that 2 grand a lot more than someone making 40grand a year and losing 8. Even if it is 20% of funds (and i'm leaving all other taxes out of it) the higher your funds go the easier that 20% is to part with, similar to how people treat their saving and investment habits.

Fiscal sustainability will never be achieved in the US for one reason: too much of the government is privatized. These private vendors just hand taxpayers their bills. No one reviews the value of their work except in the most generic way. So they earn a week's salary for 15 minutes of actual work.

Fiscal sustainability would mean that politicians tied to Halliburton, XE and a host of other military vendors wouldn't be able to finance unnecessary wars.

Fiscal sustainability would mean that people who earn the highest salaries would pay taxes on the highest salaries and that would cut into politicians campaign donations.

Fiscal sustainability would mean that some of the US's biggest corporations who report endless profits would have to get used to paying their own bills without help from tax subsidies.

When you have GOP bullies deciding our entire lives for us, fiscal sustainability is applicable only to payroll deductions that the GOP feels is better served to create a reckless, high risk, Worry Free Wall Street that would never again suffer the consequences of mindless decisions and speculation that causes a crash.

Fiscal Cliff? Yeah...right. Fiscal Cliff is the GOP double talk for Slush Fund For the Rich and Corporate Welfare state.

Saxon...When Steve Forbes, a billionaire, promotes flat tax, he does so in the hopes of snowing people who earn less than he does. Will he agree to a flat tax tied to the cost of living? You bet not.

Will Forbes agree to forego future increases on the costs of his goods and services the next time he wants wealth growth? You bet not.

Flat tax doesn't work if you earn $20K a year and Mr. McBillions can only grow wealth by jacking the cost the living on his goods and services..That's an erosion of the $20K person's salary. Not to mention the erosion by employers who charge back healthcare insurance and pensions to employees as if it was their right of passage to limitless wealth.

What is Boehner doing?

Besides drinking, playing too much golf and being in charge of a "Do Nothing Congress" Boehner, himself doesn't know what he's doing...

He's really a dosgraces to be third in line to the presidency... Scary...

houston -- would a $42k Volt from Government Motors qualify as an expensive car by your standards?

Houston, I'd like to interject a few things within your comments:

You're confusing debt with the DEFICIT. The proposed tax increases for those with incomes greater than $250K would equal about 10% of the DEFICIT. I disagree. If most of those that do the hiring are small businesses, what would give them incentive to hire if their taxes go up? Remember, the tax is not only on individuals, it is also on small business. Many people think the tax increase is on those making this money while holding down a job.

The best way to bring the deficit down to zero is by putting people back to work. In theory I agree with you. Again, I will ask you, what incentive do small businesses have when their taxes are about to go up? There is no magic formula that says their profits will also go up so they can hire people and put them back to work.

The same people who are getting unemployment benefits from the government would instead be paying income taxes TO the government. How can you think this when incentives for hiring are removed?

But the Republicons blocked all of Obama's jobs plans in order to make him a one-term president. That didn't work out for them, but it did do great damage to ordinary American citizens. Not that the Republicons care. Didn't the republicans in the house present several different jobs bills to the senate? How many of them were passed on to conference? You might want to rethink your republican hatred and state some of the facts before formulating an opinion that the republicans were the hold up concerning jobs. Please do some fact checking.

Now, they intend to do more damage with their proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Fiddling with the cost-of-living allowance for Social Security wouldn't just hit young people decades from now, it would mean all present-day seniors who voted these idiots into office will get hit with decreases in Social Security payments as their reward. The Repubs know that P.T. Barnum was speaking the truth when he said "a sucker is born every minute." Do you have a plan that will keep SS and Medicare solvent? Have we heard anything from the democrats that will keep the programs solvent? You do realize that all the money from SS has been used by the government already and the lockbox was never initiated. That was one idea Al Gore had that I actually agreed with. The government even wants to go after the money in 401K's and retirement programs. How about the government stripping just about every dollar from their own retirement program? If something isn't done about the legal stealing of funds we've paid into all our lives, how will we ever be able to gain back the money we've invested all our lives?

edgarw

Houston, I'd like to interject a few things within your comments:

You're confusing debt with the DEFICIT. The proposed tax increases for those with incomes greater than $250K would equal about 10% of the DEFICIT. I disagree. If most of those that do the hiring are small businesses, what would give them incentive to hire if their taxes go up? Remember, the tax is not only on individuals, it is also on small business. Many people think the tax increase is on those making this money while holding down a job.

They should hire according to business needs. If a business is solely going to hire people because of taxes and not because of business needs or will lay people off because of taxes rather than business needs, it is likely to be a poorly run business.

@David Walker:

Pray tell me how gun control will be effective given our government's astounding success with the War on Drugs and prohibition. Do you really think criminals will not have guns if guns were banned? I'm sorry, but this would only effectively disarm people who follow the law in the first place.

Besides, even if it WERE effective, you are only taking ONE means to an end away. Maybe we should ban fertlizer and gasoline too since they too can cause massive amounts of destruction in tandem with eachother.

The only way contraband policy will ever be effective in this country is if you give the government the right to search homes without warrant and without notice. I wouldn't doubt if this is what you wanted. I like to call it the "bubble society." People want to exchange their freedoms for any false sense of security.

The biggest bang for our buck is to stop tolerating certain mental illnesses and reform mental institutions. We need to be less tolerant of certain behaviors as a society

Well come on all of you big strong men
the GOP needs your help again
Got themselves in a terrible jam
and over the fiscal cliff they will, all of us, ram
They're not afraid to start a war
after all - they're all corporate whores.

And it's one - two - three
What are you fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
The midterms will turn them to ham.

And it's five - six - seven
Open up the polling gates
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why
The GOP is all going bye bye.

(Sorry, Country Joe)

Boehner needs to back off the red wine for a while, use his TAXPAYER-FUNDED health care insurance to go through rehab, then retire with his ill-gotten gains to another country ... with Rush and the rest of the idiots who PROMISED that, if President Obama was reelected, they would LEAVE THE COUNTRY! Frankly I knew they couldn't be trusted to keep that promise.

Repojam set forth this comment > They should hire according to business needs. If a business is solely going to hire people because of taxes and not because of business needs or will lay people off because of taxes rather than business needs, it is likely to be a poorly run business.

When you speak of business needs, you must include that dirty word "profit." If a business is going to pay more in taxes, they will definitely consider not hiring a new employee if those new taxes, plus the cost of hiring exceeds the income a new employee will make for the company. I don't think any business that makes that consideration is a poorly run business.

Boehner is just not that bright.

Rick,

So now you think you should advise people that make 250k how to spend their money? Its their own fault that they are not millionaires? that's ridiculous...absurd! They should save their money to they can pay taxes? I can't even believe I am hearing this. $250k a year is NOT a millionaire. Far from it.

I make about half that....I have four kids and I am nowhere near a millionaire....even if I doubled my money and put me to $250, I still would not be living like a millionare.

You do have good advice though....our government should take some of it.

It kills me how all you guys think you should be able to dictate who pays higher taxes and who shouldn't. Easy to vote for and tax other people's money isn't it?

CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES AND EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME RATES! That is FAIR. The rates are already progressive. The more you make, the higher % you pay. Those rates should be returned to pre Bush rates on everyone....not just people that have done well for themselves. Maybe they worked harder than you.

I also say, don't touch SS and medicare. They need to reform welfare, food stamps and unemployment. No more than 6 months of unemployment and 5 year max on welfare/food stamps....and hand out drug tests on all of the above. That should do it. If your on drugs, NO HELP FOR YOU!

edgarw

When you speak of business needs, you must include that dirty word "profit." If a business is going to pay more in taxes, they will definitely consider not hiring a new employee if those new taxes, plus the cost of hiring exceeds the income a new employee will make for the company. I don't think any business that makes that consideration is a poorly run business.

Business needs are centered around profits and sustainability. If hiring an employee is going to hurt your bottom line, then of course you won't hire that employee. The business doesn't need it. Businesses shouldn't hire people just because taxes are low for a junk position.

Taxes have been at historic lows. If taxes were a major driver behind hiring employees, why do we continue to have a problem with employment? Businesses haven't needed a lot of employees because the demand is weak. If taxes go up and demand stays the same and that is their primary motivator to shed employees, they are likely a poorly run business. If taxes go down and that is the only reason they hire employees, they are likely a poorly run business. Businesses are expected to make a profit as that is a need to continue running. You don't hire someone to sit down and do nothing just because taxes are low. You don't fire employees you still need to continue to do the work because taxes have gone up, that will hurt your bottom line and likely reduce service and send customers to competitors. If you do release staff because taxes go up and you are able to maintain the same amount of service to your customers, chances are likely you were overstaffed or that demand has reduced.

Are you suggesting business owners will make a trade of 45 grand a year profit after paying taxes and insurance and reduce their service so that competitors will look elsewhere for a comparable rate with better service? If so, that is a poorly run business if the contract with the customer is worth more than you are paying in a wage. It is also a consideration on how many customers that will impact. If the gain of 45,000 per year is more than the contract of that business and others, it was likely a healthy business decision and suggests you were overstaffed.

I don't buy the taxes argument, especially when we aren't talking about a large increase. It's a good one to use if you're trying to keep your taxes low and profits higher.

Take notice everyone! "Bobster" has a "Tech guy". Names "John Athondoe". Fact they're both tech guys. Course, neither has yet learned the particulars of unhooking a Bra. Both though, are quite accomplished at unzipping each others flys. Now, if Bobster is able to keep His feet on the floor and His head in John's lap maybe He'll go to sleep and shut the hell up for awhile.

edgarw, a couple questions if you would care to answer...

First off what is your idea of a small business is a business owner with 20 or less a small business <49, 50 to 100 employees? Is middle class someone who makes $250,000, $400,000, $500,000?

Regarding the magic formula you are looking for, there is none, in this market based capitalistic society. Whatever happened to risk, self reliance, standing on your own two feet. Why must tax cuts continue to be at the trough that supposedly are a cure all. Small business owners, large business owners or anyone for that matter hire when there is demand and when there is money to be made. They will not hire just because they get additional tax cuts.

Sorry to tell you but the incentives for hiring have not been working. They've had very little showign these last 10 years or so. The rejected GOP jobs plans that you mention are more of the same. Tax cut after tax cut. How much longer can we sustain this madness? If you are not just a "drown government " drone you must understand that we can not continue to tax at such historically low rates.

To keep social security solvent, repeal Obama's payroll holiday. Per the Debt commission, inch the retirement age for full benefits. Decrease by a smidge the payouts that a person gets at 62 ( if they chose to opt in at that point. People already get less for life if they get out at 62 in lieu of 65 or 67, raise all ages by 6 months. Increase so that social security taxes more than the $110,000 it does now, bump it up to $200,000.

For medicare the best way to address it is to improve the entire health care system to drive down costs. Something that a fully implemented Obama care can do. In addition, growing pains will have to be felt, less treatments will be covered (only completely required treatments). Perhaps medicare elgiblity ages scale up in relation to SS ages (exceptions for poor and or those with serious pre existing conditions).

Spending cuts should include everything no sacred "iron halo" around the defense budget.

____

edit - it looks like others already responded to you

The President has compromised on every issue for 4 years...time for the republicons to anti up and start compromising....

The republicons pledged to vote against every bill that would help America recover. They did exactly that for 4 years.

The republicons pledged, like traitors, to Norquist not to raise taxes on the rich, over their pledge to the office they were voted into.

All republicons should have to renounce publicly those pledges they took against America and Americans, or be tried for treason.

Hey, Feisty,

Why is Brianb . . . err . . . edgarw running loose?

Looks like he escaped his cage again.

ewent,

Liked your posts--especially your comments on the scandalous privatization of the government. Taxpayer dollars going to the wrong people. Why doesn't the Right see this?

Good to see the F'N hypocrites out in full force again today.

They did nothing but bitch about the Bush tax cuts and horrible they were, now they bitching that they might end for themselves.

They want more gun control because 20 poor children died at the hands of a lunatic, but tell his us that it is perfectly acceptable to end the lives of thousands of children prior to be born.

Hey dems/libs way to use a tragic situation to for your own political gain.

Finally their side voted for the defense and entitlement sequesters and now don't want them to do them.

They loved OBAMACARE, but whined that up words of 40K people are going to lose their jobs because of the medical devices tax.

Must be nice to live in the delusional world, where getting 80 billion in taxes solves a trillion dollar plus spending problem.

Looks like he escaped his cage again.

Dang it Jack!

I thought it was your turn to watch him! ☺

edgarw

Can I ask you what gives you the right to say anyone should stop splurging on expensive cars and private jets?

Your sarcasm detector needs a tuneup.

Obama has said it over and over, "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." But no surprise he moved the goalpost. At some point Obama should either mean what he says, or say what he means.

The President does say what he means. Just don't expect to take a year to agree. When you do that the penalties and interest accrue. Just because something was on the table a year ago, doesn't mean it's still there.

If $80 billion is a 'rounding error' Then why the problem for Republicans extending unemployment benefits or the payroll tax holiday, Hurricane Sandy relief, or anything else that compares in price?

Got to love how liberals justify Obama saying "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." It is combined wealth. Even though we are talking about income tax rates and not wealth tax rates. Wealth is how liberals can justify you paying higher taxes. I would bet if you added up the value of homes, retirement packages, and other assets many people are now well within the wealth definition that justifies for liberals, what Obama meant when he says "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more."

edgarw

Again, I will ask you, what incentive do small businesses have when their taxes are about to go up? There is no magic formula that says their profits will also go up so they can hire people and put them back to work.

If a businessman won't hire more workers because he'll only make 60 cents on the next dollar of profit rather than 64 cents because of a small marginal tax increase, he's not a very good businessman. But it's been pointed out repeatedly that the REAL reason that businesses are not hiring is because the demand for their products is weak, and the demand for their products is weak because people with no jobs don't spend much money. It's a vicious cycle that Obama tried to break with additional spending on jobs programs that the Republicans blocked because they feared those programs would work and help Obama get re-elected. Now they don't have that motive for blocking jobs programs anymore, but probably doing it out of spite is enough motivation for some the Louie Gohmert and Michele Bachmann types.

Wait didn't two years ago he say that you shouldn't raise taxes on anybody?

Wait didn't two years ago he say that you shouldn't raise taxes on anybody?

Tom, that ship sailed November 6th. You still want to re-litigate the election you LOST?

Houston you an idiot.

Have you every heard of margins?

If you have a business and hiring a employee costs $25 per hour, how much does that employee have to make you and hour to make it worth hiring?

Rick-3416939

I would bet if you added up the value of homes, retirement packages, and other assets many people are now well within the wealth definition that justifies for liberals, what Obama meant when he says "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more."

You still don't get it, do you? Someone who has saved up a million dollars by retirement age may be a millionaire, but his income at that point in life is unlikely to be above the $250K limit per year that Obama proposed. The point is not to go after people with a million dollars, the point is that the people who profited the most from the Obama Recovery from the Bush Recession should pay more to solve the deficit problem that they constantly squawk about.

Stop, I didn't run for public off on the 6th, so I didn't lose any election.

Of course you mean since Mitt Romney lost (A guy I didn't vote for) I some how lost an election.

What is the old saying about making assumptions?

If you have a business and hiring a employee costs $25 per hour, how much does that employee have to make you and hour to make it worth hiring?

$25.01 if the $25 is right....

Houston you an idiot.

"You an idiot". Right. Glad you made that clear.

Of course you mean since Mitt Romney lost (A guy I didn't vote for) I some how lost an election.

What is the old saying about making assumptions?

Tom, it makes no pragmatic difference whether YOU voted for him or not. The fact is that prescription lost on 11/6 (which you seem to be advocating - pardon me if that assumption was wrong too).

Now, what point were you trying to make?

Tom - Plymouth-3672298

Houston you an idiot.

You no speak English so good. Moron.

If you have a business and hiring a employee costs $25 per hour, how much does that employee have to make you and hour to make it worth hiring?

You no can do math, either, I see. If paying an employee an additional $25 an hour results in $35 in additional revenue and therefore ten dollars per hour more in profit, then the businessman's net income gain would be $6 with the highest marginal tax rate rather than $6.50 without it. If that businessman passes up the $6 because of the extra 50 cents he would pay in income taxes, then he an idiot, too.

Stop, so you hire that person at a margin of .01 per hour (2080 hours) you would make $20.80 at the end of the year.

You would need to hire 1924 employees to make $40,000 a year.

Tom - Plymouth-3672298

Of course you mean since Mitt Romney lost (A guy I didn't vote for) I some how lost an election.

It's amazing that Romney managed to get 47% of the vote when hardly anyone will admit that they voted for him now.

democrats fight the republicans...republicans fight the democrats.who cares.its not about them its about us.do whats best for the most of us idiots in washington.can you do that for just a few days please

Houston, in your scenario, the business makes about 17K instead of 19K (both rounded). And may or may not consider hiring in either case.

But that isn't the only tax increase next year is it?

Houston -

"It's amazing that Romney managed to get 47% of the vote when hardly anyone will admit that they voted for him now."

Couldn't you say the same about Obama around 2010, when the dems got destroyed?

It is simple I don't and didn't vote for an candidate that is for giving the Federal Government more power and raising taxes without getting spending in order give the Federal Government more power.

the flat tax being pushed by Forbes, and business schools, has a generous first deduction, it gives about 15 k per year deduction for every person ; it kicks in a 5%, and goes to a max of 17% for a adj income above 500K per year; corporations pay a flat rate of 15% of any amount of profit above 500 K per year; (Exxon last year made profits of over 5 billion, paid no income taxes, even got back over 100 million from IRS)

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has largely been Teflon in all the scrutiny on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi... But that Teflon quality might be over"

Give her a break. She doesn't make the security decisions - someone else does.

The more troubling aspect of the Benghazi fiasco is about the White House watching the 7 hour attack by a drone camera feed while doing nothing to help, and then Obama, after the Americans are killed, flies to Las Vegas for a fundraiser a few hours later and tries to cover the story up until after the election - throwing Susan Rice under the bus after she loyally sacrificed her credibility to help Obama in the cover-up.

I think Hillary is the only competent part of this Administration.

The GOP stance that it is unfair to tax the people that actually have the lion's share of all the wealth in the country is untenable.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

I'm not surprised at the number of posters claiming the right is made up of ignorant people. It almost would make one laugh if it weren't so bass akwards. Ignorance is wanting Socialism to take over our country. Ignorance is thinking that anyone has the right to someone else's money. Greed and ignorance has grown to the extent in this country that it re-elected the worst president we have ever had. One who sends jet fighters and all kinds of heavy duty war weapons to those he chooses in other countries, bombs where he chooses the protestors as the should be winners and then takes advantage of a tragedy to try once again to take guns away from Americans so that when he makes his attempt at takeover there won't be enough resistance and those other countries holding our weapons won't cross thier benefactor because they look at him like Jamie Fox and think as many of the ignorant here that he is the Messiah. Fools will bring on thier own destruction unfortunately they may take the rest of us with them.

Repojam "Business needs are centered around profits and sustainability. If hiring an employee is going to hurt your bottom line, then of course you won't hire that employee. The business doesn't need it. Businesses shouldn't hire people just because taxes are low for a junk position.... You don't hire someone to sit down and do nothing just because taxes are low."

Exactly correct. Expecting a company to hire people because they have 'money in the bank' is ridiculous. Any CEO that wastes the resources of a company will soon join the ranks of the unemployed. The 'Profit Motive' is what has make America the envy of the World, and created more wealth and opportunity for more people than any other thing in history. The idea that we should 'punish' that will only make ALL of us weaker and poorer.

Its times like this that make me wish I lived in one of the districts that the do-nothings come from, where my democratic vote might mean a little more, instead of living in a state where sanity still reigns supreme.

Hmmmmmm, seems to me that First Thoughts question should be: What is Barrack Hussein doing?

Plan B is basically Nanny Piglosi's plan on tax rates. Of course Barrack Hussein rejected it quicker than Yasser Arafat rejecting the offer from Israelis at Oslo that basically promised him his entire wish list.

This obviously proves that Barrack Hussein has shown less than the slightest inclination to, "come together in the interests of all Americans," with regards to the, "Fiscal Cliff," negotiations. Even the dullest bobbleheads at PMSNBC should be able to realize that Barrack Hussein just rejected his own plan because it was not punishing enough to American Taxpayers.

This proves that Barrack Hussein and the Liberals/Progressives could care less about the economy as long as they can just feel like they hurt the most productive members of our society. This is the bogeyman the Libbies all feel they have to hurt because they are incapable of attaining success on their own. They insult themselves so far as to believe in a cartoon depiction of their existance in the "Life of Julia" nonsense.

What I don't understand is, if the tax rate increases were the driving force of the great Clinton era economy, why don't we just let the Bush tax cuts end and everyones taxes go back to the Clinton rates and let's just watch the economy boom?

I mean, according to Liberals/Progressives, higher taxes create more growth and good jobs, right?

We have Obama saying "millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more." Yet Obama is calling upon those making 250K to 400K to have their taxes raised. On May 23, 2012 Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to speaker Boehner and here is a direct quote, "Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit." She is asking for exactly what Boehner is proposing in his Plan B, and yet Obama says he will veto it. Giving Democrats what they want, what they ask for, is just not good enough.

Here is the link to the entire Pelosi letter of May 23, 2012 http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press/pelosi-letter-boehner-allow-house-vote-now-permanent-extension-middle-income-tax-cuts

There is no denying that Democrats neither mean what they say, or are saying what they mean. Everything to do with this tax increase and avoiding the fiscal cliff is a moving target, what Democrats say they want today changes tomorrow.

The Debt Commission appointed by Obama (Simpson and Bowles) studied all of the options to address the Debt issues and get the economy back on track, and they made two very important conclusions;

1 - Lower the tax RATES, but eliminate the 'loopholes', which would stimulate economic growth AND bring in additional tax revenues.

2 - Cut spending, primarily by reforming 'entitlements'- mainly health care.

Interestingly, this is the same position that is being espoused by the Republicans, and Obama keeps pushing the exact OPPOSITE policy - Raise the tax RATES, and leave spending on entitlements alone.

@Roy Wilson#1.110: The troubling aspects regarding Benghazi are in fact shared by all relative officials, not the least of which is the Congress, and Ambassador Stevens Himself. The actual report did nor indicate indictments against the SOS any more than any other authority relative to that tragedy. Course the media wishes to dramatize it as much as they can. Real disappointment to the crazies, and all those whose existence, and pseudo intellect depends on the exploitation of those crazies. Now, they'll be looking for another rock to upend in their search for haints.

What I find Puzzling is Bonehead, America is Screwed with this Clown !!!!!!!!!!!

hey guys... at least Feisty has a valid purpose here. In case you didn't know, it's to help many of you look like the circle jerkwad a-holes that you are. Of course, to your defense... most of you don't need any help. Bobster and Lil Ceasar being prime examples

Wow, First Read, obtuse much?

Boehner wants to scuttle the deal so he can do several things, first and foremost, keep his

Speakership.

Secondly, appeal to the Tea Party no nothings thus accomplishing goal one.

Thirdly, generate a false equivalency with the President, as President Obama is killing Republicans on

the compromise issue. By wrecking any agreements with "Plan B (from outer space)", Boehner can

weepily claim that the President wouldn't compromise to protect the "job creators" and put Nana

and Pop Pop on that cat food diet they so desperately need.

It should be as obvious as the "J School" diploma you might have hanging somewhere on your wall.

Why don't you report that, instead of trying to make all of this look like an episode of "Survivor"?

Yeesh!

Tom

They want more gun control because 20 poor children died at the hands of a lunatic, but tell his us that it is perfectly acceptable to end the lives of thousands of children prior to be born.

And if his own mother ended "his life, prior to being born", those 20 children would still be alive today. It's a shame she did not make the right decision. I suggest you don't bring up the abortion debate... because in this situation, one abortion would have saved over 20 lives.

Now tell us again how your definition of "smaller" government really means BIGGER government in our personal lives? I just love it when Republicans prove they are not smart enough to know the definition of "smaller".

This is hilarious. Obama campaigned on raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires so Boehner proposes raising taxes on just millionaires and billionaires and Democrats go psycho. Caught ya'all in your big lie eh?

Ignorance is thinking you can change the present system with a minority. The people voted Obama back in office alone with the senate. The only reason the Republicans have control of the house is gerrymandering.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/gerrymandering.htm

So Boehner comes out in support of Pelosi's plan and suddenly she no longer supports it. I'm sick of all these games! We need to raise taxes AND reform entitlements and unfortunately neither party wants to do both.

@Roy Wilson#1.117: The President didn't agree with Bowles and Simpson and I sure don't either.

1-Raise the tax rates on the wealthy and keep the business deductions. This will bring in some additionally tax revenues, but mostly jobs. Business will spend on equipment, fixtures, and services that employ people, then write off those costs, while continuing to own those things while earning more from them, and those working people will be able to pay their own way along with taxes.

2-Health care is a cottage industry, scattered, and often overflowing with redundancies of every description. Everyone is entitled to adequate health care appropriate to need. No moral reasoning can circumvent such a basic imperative. Containing health care costs will require ultimately, a government run "single payer system", or even a system of "universal health care". We need to quit stalling and be about the business of constuctive idea's relative to such a system which will save money and advance good care for everyone.

The president is right to oppose the republicans on these issues.

Q22,

Millionaires and Billionaires is a definition of their net worth nor annual income

removing loopholes is pointless when with a well placed "contribution"they can be bought again.pretending our government isnt corrupt is silly

I have never, ever in my life had ill-wishes for an individual or a group of people. That has changed with Boehner and the GOP with their last minute "Plan B" (does the "B" stand for bulls#$t?).

If they take us over the fiscal cliff in attempt to gain leverage, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits. May a plaque of pustules visit all of them!

Hang on middle class America - if Boehner and his croonies have their way, the repercussion and fall out will make the recession the Bush administration inflicted on us look like a walk in the park!

Obama's plan and someone said it earlier...Obama's plan raises $70-$80 billion. Obama just committed $60 billion for the hurricane relief....The tax increase is essentially already spent.

Now what? No reduction in anything. So, what are you going to do now? Right back to square one.

Come on liberals...Where's the reduction? Answer, there isn't one. It's a spending problem.

No matter how you liberals spin it, it's a spending problem and Obama has no plan to cut anything.

Do the math for yourself...assuming you can....How you gonna reduce anything when Obama's already spent the tax increase that you liberals are having orgassms about.

Stop, so you hire that person at a margin of .01 per hour (2080 hours) you would make $20.80 at the end of the year.

That's $20.80 more than if I didn't hire the person. If I have profit as my only motive, then yes, you would be stupid not to hire someone if they made you money.

Obviously, this is just to illustrate what Warren Buffett is saying....if a tax increase of 4% still makes you profits, you would be stupid to stop selling your product or service, and, most would still sell. To complain about it is a political choice, not an economic one.

Americans pay $1.00 in tax and Obama spends $2.06. The deficit of $1.06 is borrowed from China (and Japan, Great Britain, and others) and adds an annual $0.05 interest payment due.

We are renting our own country. As of this moment each and every American tax payer pays $2990 rent to China each year. It's going up.

It's the same as a credit card and we make monthly payments that are one half of minimum due.

@Ron-1861300 I agree on comprimise but how about they lay off the social security, medicaid, etc. How about cuts to foreign aid? That's one hell of a start. How about going through government contracts and weed out the ones that are eating us alive, like before where u had hammers for $18,000 or whatever. Making a profit is not wrong, making an outlandish profit on the government is. We are the payers of the government contracts. The idiots in Washington don't make the money to pay it, it is the people. How about going through congressmen, senators, judges entitlements. why do they sit one term then can be retired if they lose the next election? Why do judges keep sitting and some doing nothing but continue to draw big from us? Why don't all of them pay into social security, instead of having their own special retirement? If I had their retirement plan right now I would be in heaven instead of still scrimping and having to find work to supplement my social security! How about a president that is really the head and goes through what we spends and actually does something about it. They know but they don't care. They have theirs. Well give us ours!

What do all you "rich pay their fair share" expect to gain by raising taxes on the rich? It won't make your taxes any lower, it won't increase your pay check, and it won't create any new jobs... and it will barely make any dent in deficit of the federal budget. Under Obama, we are projected to have a deficit of $1.6T per year, and raising taxes on the rich probably won't even knock that down to $1.5T. Also, when a company like GE can pay ZERO federal taxes on earnings of $14B, that to me says that loopholes are the problem, not the tax rates.

If you look at the numbers after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, unemployment DECREASED and federal revenues INCREASED every year (other than the 2008 due to financial market meltdown). So you better hope that raising taxes doesn't have the opposite effect.

As for the blame it on Bush crowd, at what point do you hold your president accountable? And speaking of blame it on Bush, how exactly did he get us into this mess? The recession was due to the collapse of the financial markets and the housing bubble burst. It is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that sets the banking policies, not the president.

How do you people not realize that Obama added $6.4T to the national debt in just 4 years, compared to $4.4T in 8 years under Bush? (for those of you not smart enough, adding to the national debt is a bad thing) Sure, Bush was a bad president, but Obama is even WORSE! In 8 years under Bush, unemployment exceeded 7% only one moth (his final month), yet under Obama unemployment has never gotten below 7%! What do you think you have "won" by getting Obama re-elected? Four more years of record deficit spending and four more years of high unemployment, is that what you really want?

Anyways, to get back on subject, what do you liberals think you will gain by raising taxes on the rich, other than a warm fuzzy feeling that you get when you "stick it to them"? Please, do some research for your self to see what kind of impact it will have on the federal budget, unemployment, and the economy in general.

I need to stay away from PMSNBC, the liberal stupidity on here makes my brain hurt.

scott,

In 2010 we spent $1.42 for every dollar collected (42% borrowed).

Today we spend $1.24 for every dollar collected (24% borrowed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Uncle Joe,

FY2013 ($ Billions)
Budget = $3803 {Proposed}
Income = $2902 {Estimated}

Deficit = $901 Billion, Not $1.6 Trillion

OK, Libbies lemme ax you this question again.

Even if we agree to the $1.6 trillion in tax rate increase Barrack Hussein doubled from the original $800 billion. this will pay for about 16 days of spending or 53 days of our current deficit for the year. What do we do about the other 349 days or 312 days respectively left to pay for?

What cuts will cover the rest of the deficit? How will we balance our budget with more spending, $timulu$ and raising the debt ceiling endlessly? When will our growth begin to be 5%-6% needed to create dramatic revenue? When will we have a trade surplus again, rather than a trade deficit, to drive our massive Debt and Unfunded Liabilities.

The Liberal Progressive convoluted idea of $1.3 trillion in tax increases and $850 billion spending cuts being a balanced approach just shows how irrational they really are.

Jim Spence,

The additional tax on income above $200K/$250K will fund our Government for only 8 days which is 2.7% of our annual budget and covers 9.3% ($83.4 Billion) of our deficit. (Some Republican Senators says 11 days, 11 days would be 3.0% and $114.6 Billion not borrowed)

According to many, taxing the high income earners won’t do anything to help reduce our deficit and/or
address out debt and spending problems. Does that thinking mean a reduction of over $80 Billion a year in borrowing is meaningless?

In a compromise effort John Boehner has said he would agree on a tax increase for incomes above $1 Million. This would reduce the additional tax revenue from just over $80 Billion to just under $50 Billion. President Obama’s counter offer to increase taxes on incomes above $400K would split the difference and generate about $65 Billion a year.

Jim,

They just had on FOX that Bonehead's proposal involved no new spending cuts and most of what he is proposing he said years ago he was against. He's really living up to his conservative bonehead name and lack of reality, except for the rich.

@edgarw

Can I ask you what gives you the right to say anyone should stop splurging on expensive cars and private jets?

They are more than welcome to buy whatever in the hell they please. The problem, with our current tax code, is that they have their company buy the items for them and the company writes it off as a BUSINESS EXPENSE, which lowers the gross on which the company pays taxes by the amount of those purchases AND, although those purchases were made as a necessary corporate expense, the executive (PERSONALLY) has exclusive use of them.

If they had to buy these items out of their own pockets they would not be able to write them off AND they would need to use their own income to make those purchases. These items should not be allowed to be written off because they are NOT NECESSARY to the company AND, since they are for the exclusive use of the executive, the value of them should be factored in as part of their income.

The middle class work, earn an income and pay for our cars, fishing boats, vacation homes, etc. out of pocket. Why shouldn't the same apply to the top 1% or to corporations?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

I understand all that. But it still doesn't answer my question.

How do we pay off the rest of our deficit? We will be downgraded, again, if we don't at least match the $4 trillion total over 10 years, the ratings agencies demanded of us last August during the last debt ceiling debate.

I don't mean to question your above stated deficit of $900 billion but I have to.

We just raised the debt ceiling last August by $2.4 trillion. This equates to $134 billion per month. This is based on needing to renegotiate the debt ceiling again in February or March. This equals an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion a year. The numbers have to add up, right? Even if you extrapolate the numbers out over 24 months this creates a $100 billion deficit per month, or a $1.2 trillion annual deficit regardless of revenue. That’s nearly $300 billion more.

Also, if the revenue of $2.902 trillion is from the Tax Policy Center estimates, this means the revenues as a percentage of GDP is about 17.8%. This is almost at the historic average of 18.1% we have been collecting for more than the past 70 years. This is WITH the bush tax cuts in place.

Now, if we have spending at the same Clinton era rate of 18.2 % we are looking at a near balanced budget WITH the Bush tax cuts in place. Actually by 2017 revenues as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be at 19.2%, which if spending is kept at 18.2% we are in a surplus.

So, why aren't we dramatically cutting our spending instead of playing this dysfunctional envy of the rich nonsense?

Here is my link from the TPC:

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

Jim Spence,

By last August you mean 16 months ago – Right?

If we dramatically cut spending we will encounter the same problem other countries have … causing another recession.

We need to cut spending slowly while allowing jobs to recover. No one has threatened us with a credit downgrade if we didn't cut spending sharply or increase revenues quickly. What the rating agencies are looking for is the long term trend that shows we are addressing our debt problem.

Neither Romney's nor Ryan's budget plans called for immediate deep spending cuts.

What do all you "rich pay their fair share" expect to gain by raising taxes on the rich? It won't make your taxes any lower, it won't increase your pay check, and it won't create any new jobs... and it will barely make any dent in deficit of the federal budget. Under Obama, we are projected to have a deficit of $1.6T per year, and raising taxes on the rich probably won't even knock that down to $1.5T. Also, when a company like GE can pay ZERO federal taxes on earnings of $14B, that to me says that loopholes are the problem, not the tax rates.

We can live with the "barely make a dent".

Corporate taxes (and loopholes) will come soon....stay tuned.

And, more spending cuts? What do Republicans suggest (besides stealing more from Seniors)?

If we dramatically cut spending we will encounter the same problem other countries have … causing another recession.

We need to cut spending slowly while allowing jobs to recover.

But we're never really cutting anything. All the alleged "cuts" are just reductions of already bloated spending.

We're spending 24.3% of our GDP, the cuts are based on this level of increased spending. Unless we get economic growth better than Reagans 6.3% we'll never see a balanced budget, let alone a decrease in our Debt. The chances of us seeing a 6.3% growth rate again with our multiple systemic defects is highly unlikely. By this time next year we will be exceeding a $17 trillion Debt, if not closer to $18 trillion, how will the ratings agencies react to that?

Once again, where has all the money gone from our raising the debt ceiling last August? According to the Treasury Department, the government is about $66 billion below its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling and will run out in January or February by the latest. Where did the $2.4 trillion that you and I and every other American citizen are responsible for.

Dennis do yourself a favor and never quote from wikipedia. Anybody can make changes on there to anything they want. Quoting from there only shows your true stupidity.

A few people haven't been paying very close attention

Obama's original position. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000

Boehner's original postion. Don't raise on anyone.

Obama's new position. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000

Boehner's revised position. Let us cap deductions.

Obama's new postion. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000.

After a pause Obama's new Position. Raise taxes on the rich making of $250,000 AND because that won't be enough let's cap deductions too!

Boehner's revised position. Let's raise taxes on the rich making over $1,000,000.

Obama's new postion, that is not really what Boehner means, he is not really raising taxes or the Rich, and even if raising taxes on the rich making over $1,000,000 is true it is not enough. Let's raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000.

Boy, Obama sure is bending over backwards, isn't he?

Geez! Mr. Shaking my Head must have been in a coma during the Bush Years! Too bad they didn't hook him up to some kind of subliminal spelling and grammar program because that was quite a bit of wated time......

Now, the Republicans are saying that instead of gun control, we need to be looking at mental health issues as a way to deter mass killings. Well, Republicans, wouldn't that be a LOT easier if you did not so vigorously oppose a national healthcare plan??

DB,

Obama’s counter to Boehner’s increase taxes on those making above $1 million was above $400,000. Boehner has not responded since the offer was made … two days ago.

Dan,

You are factually incorrect

What a bloody embarrassment the present Speaker of the House is for our country. Emperor Nero merely fiddled while Rome was burning, ...but he had the good sense not to stand in the way of the firefighters!

Mr. Boehner's protection of the wealthy, at all costs to our Republic's economy, is so extreme that he has made an offer to make only a very small adjustment in effective tax rate for earnings over the first $1 Million in annual income -- THE FIRST MILLION DOLLARS -- and calling it a generous compromise. That is more money than the majority of Americans will earn in their entire working lives, TOTAL!

0.18% ... LESS than two-tenths of 1% of taxpayers in America will pay one penny more than they do now in effective tax rate, and THIS is Mr. Boehner's response to a deficit which he himself and his entire Republican caucus says is the paramount issue of the day. It's as bewildering as it is irresponsible.

Got that? He is holding 99.18% of all Americans hostage in a vacuum of financial uncertainty, to play-out this ridiculous political-theater vote tomorrow which will be straight party line and will not even be presented in the Senate.

Six more days now waisted since his initial proposal, which offered no effective tax rate changes at all, after no action whatsoever over the preceding 17-months since his own Congress invented the so-called "fiscal cliff" because they failed to get their work done and decided to kick-the-can down the road.

Less than two-tenths of 1% of only the most wealthy individuals in America is the limit for the Republican "leadership" in the Congress of the American people, and in exchange for that "concession" they are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the nation's safety-net for our seniors and disabled. What a grossly pathetic spectacle. We should be ashamed of what is transpiring in the House Chamber of the US Congress.

PS. Who is that bronze-orange in the later part of December, anyway? When Mr. Boehner makes his daily accusatory , but perfectly coiffed appearances before the TV cameras and microphones, I reach for the remote to adjust the color and hue of my TV.

I wish Mr. Boehner would spend half as much time working on the business of the American people as he does on his personal vanity.

Oops, typed too fast. That should read 99.81% rather than "99.18%". My bad.

Uncle Joe Tait

What do all you "rich pay their fair share" expect to gain by raising taxes on the rich? It won't make your taxes any lower, it won't increase your pay check, and it won't create any new jobs... and it will barely make any dent in deficit of the federal budget. Under Obama, we are projected to have a deficit of $1.6T per year, and raising taxes on the rich probably won't even knock that down to $1.5T. Also, when a company like GE can pay ZERO federal taxes on earnings of $14B, that to me says that loopholes are the problem, not the tax rates.

First of all, have you ever considered that some Americans don't want their taxes lowered, and that we actually don't want tax cuts??? Not everybody thinks that the government is just an evil money-taker. Secondly, raising taxes on the rich isn't a means of economic stimulus; it is a means of (A) reducing the deficit and (B) reducing income inequality. Thirdly, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year eliminates the cumulative deficit (the deficits over 10 years) by about $800 billion to $1 trillion, or about 10-15%. That is a huge chunk; personally I say repeal the entire Bush tax cuts, get $4 trillion in savings, and reform the tax code from there.

If you look at the numbers after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, unemployment DECREASED and federal revenues INCREASED every year (other than the 2008 due to financial market meltdown). So you better hope that raising taxes doesn't have the opposite effect.

Not really; unemployment decreased, but only naturally (since the dot-com recession eventually subsided and unemployment went down), and also because of the housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 and artificially boosted the economy. Nominal revenues did increase, but that does not account for economic growth, population growth, or inflation; revenues to GDP, a more accurate comparison of revenue growth, shows that revenues went down below the 18% average (which we can blame the recession with) and stayed down (which we can blame with lackluster economic growth and the Bush tax cuts). The ONLY time when revenues to GDP increased to over 18% was in 2005-2007, although that was most likely due to the housing bubble.

As for the blame it on Bush crowd, at what point do you hold your president accountable? And speaking of blame it on Bush, how exactly did he get us into this mess? The recession was due to the collapse of the financial markets and the housing bubble burst. It is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that sets the banking policies, not the president.

Bush was another pawn in the hands of financial investors, the wealthy elite, and the supporters of a dumb philosophy where wealthy people are the center of society and economics. Bush didn't re-regulate the financial and housing industries (which were deregulated due to bipartisan flaws), and he cut taxes extensively when he should have been smarter with the federal purse. Some of those tax cuts, especially on dividends and capital gains, may have contributed to the investment bubbles and over-speculation.

How do you people not realize that Obama added $6.4T to the national debt in just 4 years, compared to $4.4T in 8 years under Bush? (for those of you not smart enough, adding to the national debt is a bad thing) Sure, Bush was a bad president, but Obama is even WORSE! In 8 years under Bush, unemployment exceeded 7% only one month (his final month), yet under Obama unemployment has never gotten below 7%! What do you think you have "won" by getting Obama re-elected? Four more years of record deficit spending and four more years of high unemployment, is that what you really want?

Actually, Obama increased the debt by roughly $4.8 trillion, and Bush increased it by around $5.5 trillion. You also have to take into account that Obama was dealt with a recession, which takes out anywhere from 40-60% of the total amount added to the debt. As for the unemployment figures, you have to remember that Bush didn't face a depression (the dot-com issue was a mere pothole compared to the mess we just got out of) until the very end of his presidency; Obama faced that AND the slow growth (which normally occurs after a deep depression/financial crisis) that followed. No, we don't want 7%, but we don't think that cutting taxes for rich people and cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and education will create more jobs than Obama did.

Anyways, to get back on subject, what do you liberals think you will gain by raising taxes on the rich, other than a warm fuzzy feeling that you get when you "stick it to them"? Please, do some research for your self to see what kind of impact it will have on the federal budget, unemployment, and the economy in general.

It will have a negligible impact on the economy and unemployment, and will have a positive impact on the budget. Plus it also proves that America is not necessarily stuck on the path of decline and that we might be an exception to the societies that crashed because they focused on the wealthy few instead of the many.

DB Akron

A few people haven't been paying very close attention

Yep; you can see most of them on the right side of the spectrum...

Obama's original position. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000

Boehner's original postion. Don't raise on anyone.

Yep; pretty one-sided. Don't see any compromise there.

Obama's new position. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000

Boehner's revised position. Let us cap deductions.

After the election, and still way under the revenue targets that both tried to work toward in the 2011 debt ceiling debate.

Obama's new postion. Raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000.

After a pause Obama's new Position. Raise taxes on the rich making of $250,000 AND because that won't be enough let's cap deductions too!

Revenues were going to be $1.2 trillion of a $4 trillion deal; since you only get about $800 billion to $1 trillion from the rate hikes, you'd need $200-400 billion in more revenues, and deduction caps work well.

Boehner's revised position. Let's raise taxes on the rich making over $1,000,000.

Obama's new postion, that is not really what Boehner means, he is not really raising taxes or the Rich, and even if raising taxes on the rich making over $1,000,000 is true it is not enough. Let's raise taxes on the rich making over $250,000.

Yep; not to mention all the new spending cuts the president proposed ($1.2 trillion, to be exact) and the reduced revenues ($1.2 trillion). You also forgot to mention that he went up to $400,000 for tax hikes, or essentially the top bracket and the top 1%. And the benefit cuts to SS due to chained CPI.

Boy, Obama sure is bending over backwards, isn't he?

Yep he is. Those Republicans have it lucky with him; if I were over there, the Bush tax cuts in their entirety would be on the table, entitlement reform would be dealt with in 2013, and I'd be willing to go over the fiscal cliff and stay off and pass a stimulus bill that would include about $1.8 trillion in stimulus spending over 3 years, including a $300 billion tax cut for Americans making under $85,000, an $80 billion infrastructure bank, and $1 trillion infrastructure spending. I'd also demand the elimination or lifting of the SS payroll cap, an increase in Medicare taxes and premiums, and a drug rebate/negotiating powers for Medicare, along with making all of the payments based on performance rather than operations by 2024.

The idiot Bonehead has told the president to take it our leave it. He has told Americans to take it or leave it. I say, go to H#@$ and take the consequences both your are your crazy party want to take. Americans voted for Obama and not you and the polls show you will pay high price. The latest has your numbers up to 58% compared to the Democrats only 32%. The ghost of what will be the party of nobody, but the rich and fruitcake Teabuggers! President Obama, Veto this Bill!

PLAN B - ".....while TWO (2) MILLION Americans would lose unemployment insurance", on December 29th,2012.

I know of 2 million Americans and their families who will not be having a "Merry Christmas" is this passes as advertised.

Jimmy Spence. It may not amount to much to have those earning over a certain amount pay more in taxes but it will make the rest of us feel better when we see that those who can afford to, do pay their fair share. And we do need to cut costs. I wouldn't cut the unemployment to 6 months since we want to keep people from ending up living in their cars. And Medicare/medical and Social security really can't be trimmed by much so the reality is we need to cut down, way down on our military espenditures (course this will mean less people with money in their pockets to spend, but we have no choice) and also cut off all foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan etc.

I've learned to hate a lot of people in my life, but with Bonehead it is so easy and it comes naturally!

Don't touch Medicare or Social Security, Pigface?

Really?

So, you have a solution to keep them solvent, without entitlement reform, that the best minds in the country haven't been able to develop?

Typical idiot Democrat you are....just give me what I want, and I don't care if we can pay for it or not.

Dude, if you ever want to match brains with someone with a B.S. in Economics and get off your bull@!$%# DNC talking points, you let me know.

You're outta your league, pal.

Maybe you should start studying some Economics 101 textbooks instead of sitting in front of your computer screen EVERY GODDAM DAY waiting to get the first post.

Get a life.