I can't blame him for holding to optimism, and so I will only say that I am optimistic that stepping over the fiscal curb will yield a more favorable result when Congress takes action early in January under Boehner's renewed speakership.

The Louie Gohmert (who wanted Newt Gingrinch nominated as House speaker) crowd will be thinned out (Buh bye Allen West) and the Tea Party will be forced to come to order or Boehner will be forced to pass legislation by working with more Democrats in the House.

Can't wait for ObamaCare Taxes to kick in!!

Me too - and watch those tiny little GOP-heads to explode when they find out they haven't been impacted by them.

Great remarks President Obama. You clearly illustrated you have consistently reached across the isle for compromise while the cowardly GOP consistently turned their backs on any and every deal proposed. The BALL is still in the GOP court.

That's a laugh. How are we NOT going to be impacted by Obamacare considering the things already outlined for next year and the year beyond that???

Regardless, they are ALL a bunch of asses when it comes to not getting anything done.

DingleB

You have to be joking. That was reminiscent of his "skills" during the first debate. "Go drink some egg nog"

Way to lead, way to do nothing.

Actually it was Boehner that told them to go drink some egg nog, since he creates the schedule and called off the vote telling everyone to go home yesterday.

"The challenge that we've got right now is that the American people are a lot more sensible, a lot more thoughtful, and much more willing to compromise and give and sacrifice and act responsibly than their elected representatives are,"

You got that right. Boehner thinks happy hour is more important than getting a deal done.

Leadership? If Obama had wanted a deal why didn't he push Congress to get it done months ago? Why didn't Obama take the recommendations of his blue ribbon debt commission years ago? This is simple, give Obama what he wants or no deal. Obama is now worried that Republicans decided to call his bluff. Veto threats, take off your partisan war paint, yeah those are the actions of a true leader. Maybe if Obama was as transparent as he claimed he would be, everyone could have watched these negotiations on CSPAN. Obama set the tone when he came to Washington, tough luck if its not working out. The cliff looks far better then Obama's trillion plus annual deficits, it will be a wake up call to everyone as to what it will take to get out of this fiscal mess. Something none of Obama's proposals were going to do.

The Great Divider of the classes believes he can get it done. Where have you been Barry? Why not lock yourself and the others into a room until you have a deal that everyone can live with? Or is you plan to continue to berate the opposition while you are on your never-ending campaign.

You won guy, now show some leadership. Keep the target in place until you and the opposition party reach an agreement.

I know, after the holidays you will ride in on your white horse to save the nation.

Admit it, you want the money from over the cliff to pay for those Obama phones! Hmmm, will you be using one of them while vacationing in HI?

give me a break Reick,

Obama has been pushing for a deal since the election. Everyone knew nothing was going to happen before that this year. Way before that, it was Obama and Boehner that had the Grand Bargain together in the summer of 2011. The GOP caucus killed that too.

It's not Obama.

Time and again, the president is the one who takes the higher road. But as impressive as that is, I don't want a temporary (kick the can down the road) cave in -- A cave in that the Teapublicans will lick their chops over while plotting another debt ceiling debacle or other crock of crap. Excuse me for not trusting the GOP, especially the Crazies in the House.

Pigotry--I think that is a reasonable compromise.

...cont. from #1.24:

Stock investment is good society..only to a point. When the taxes on dividents are too low, too much hot money flows in - boom and buster..that's one of major reasons for both the Great Depression and this Great Recession. In this globalized world, it's not just American recession, the entire world has gone down in the worst recession since the 1930s.

.

A bit higher stock divident taxes not only contributes to society, but also avoids too hot a market.

Isn't it crazy? Republicans are dropping even LOWER than they did right after the election. It's a given; if a compromise can't be reached it will NOT bode well for Republicans. What a nutty bunch! Don't they know how close 2014 is?

Interesting how the liberal spin thing. GOP leaders try to find a compromise, killed because Not only did it not have enough support from Republicans, it was already stated that even if it passed hte House, AND Senate, the President would veto...

Might explain why it didn't have much support, why bother, after all President is not going to accept any compromise from taxing the rich, but apparently, it needs to require taxing those that earn $250,000 and $1 million... though the so-called target has always been the top 1%?

So much for compromise, but they want the GOP to approve spending, without any compromise?

BTW, Leadership is one that demonstrates direction, not dictates direction. It terms of time, no Democrat has spend as much time working on the issue. Take into account GOP leaders have spent much of hte time trying to negotiate with the President, then within their own House.

Yet, where has Reid been? From all accounts, he has not been part of much of the meetings taking place at the White House.

Compromise requires give and take. GOP doesn't want to raise taxes, they tried to offer up a solution... both sides objected... what should GOP leaders do, force other Republicans at gun point?

And just for the record, Polls are useless. Many had Obama trailing prior to election day, just to prove the obvious point.

What does matter is voters, and many of those Republicans in the House of Reps are from Conservative Districts, districts they represent and elected them for their stance on taxes. They are doing their job, only by representing the views of their districts, NOT YOURS!

Government works best when they do nothing. They profess all the time that "we did this" or "we did that" but "doing" for them always involves spending our hard earned money. Some economists claim that the "cliff" will cause a recession. Personally, I doubt it. Those that work, will keep working. Those that are wealthy will still be wealthy. And those that are on the lower end will have no choice but to motivate to do something for themselves. Teach a man to fish, so to speak. Sorry, but realism must kick in at some point. We all live in this country, and it is "all" of our responsibility to get our country on stable footing for the sake of our children, and to not subject them to 40 years of servitude with nothing for them in the end.

It disturbs me that our 2 party system has been so polarized that they can't agree on anything, but the "cliff" as they call it is the most non-partisan thing to come out of Congress in decades. Lobbyists cannot control policy on this one, which means that no special interest is special. Everyone will pay, as they should. And government will be cut, as it should, until such time as the children are allowed to pull their noses out of the corner and behave.

I am sorry for those that don't agree with my perspective, but the American public must balance their checkbooks, why should we accept anything less from those we hire to represent us. Although I do wonder how many of them have ever balanced a checkbook.

Disclaimer: This is not an attack on either party, or the President, It is an attack on them all and a point of view. BRING ON THE CLIFF!

Far from the “impeccable leadership skills”, this is nothing but a smoke screen from the president. He knows that whatever the GOP comes up with to fix the problem, nothing will get through the Senate or the Oval Office. For anyone who thinks that the GOP is in charge, you’d better think again! The president will never allow them to take credit for turning things around, he will allow them to contribute a little, but they will not be allowed to fix anything. Such are the politics of the current Government.

DingleB

...Way to lead, way to do nothing.

WTF? Which Party is responsible for pre-meditated obstruction, has accomplished the least historically under Boehner, including inability to pass the Farm Bill and Violence Against Women Act, yet split for the holidays? The Teapublicans are solely responsible for the current Do Nothing Congress.

LiberalsAreTheWorst

Why do Democrats love Big Government?

Why do you hate our government? Self-deportation...now the idea is starting to sound good - ha.

The Senate Bill has already passed, no reconciliation required (it somehow got through the Filibuster Maze). If Congress will pass the Bill, then they don't have to fool with doing it retroactively in January...but Congress seems to need the fresh air of a new year in order to allow rates on the top 2-3% to increase. Odd political manifestation of perception.

MERRY CHRISTMAS to one and all and may there be peace around the world! Remember To Give To Those Who Are In Need and Give Someone A Hug!!

Why won't Bonner raise taxes on the wealthy DEMS? They welcome paying more and they do make up much of the 1%.

What a loser, he think the only peeps making money are Cons

Aside from American love for violence, self-imposed drama, and shallow pastimes, it's all about me, Me, ME huh Kallie? You aren't the only one who has suffered. But seriously, we're supposed to cry for the poor little rich boys and girls? Reality check!

john-737278

Government works best when they do nothing.

Wow, just wow. Self-deportation comes to mind again. Our country works best with Rule of Reason, not simple-minded talking points from idiots like Limbaugh.

What do they mean, "we will work for a short term solution after Christmas break ?" There is nothing short term about it, Congress has had over a year to find a long term solution, and they have not done squat. Are our elected representatives of the mind set short term solutions equates to job security ?

@Pat Boston Ma.#1.14: You're right. Today's republicans, especially House members, have neither the will, nor the sense, to even consider anything unfamiliar to their native prejudices, let alone governance contrary to lunacy tea bagger interpretations. I fear our President is likely a bit overly optimistic here. Additionally, I believe Speaker Boehner is quite cognizant of His pack of loons, and would do much better if He could. Truth Is though, he can't. Regards

Fiscal Cliff put into a action:

Watch for a "Domino Effect" on all American citizens, including the poor---

Are the poor, those on Government Programs willing to pay taxes as well?

It's going to happen. Big Taxes. All Americans are created Equal. Better start saving pennies for cash---"Hear that Giant Sucking Sound"? "No 'mon", no fun". We are headed for a deep Recession again. Housing Market on the downside again, businesses not hiring more employees; Aren't you people tired of the same old?

Guaranteed.

if they don,t vote in our favor vote them all our of office the next time, they don,t deserve to work for us. if this was an employee you would fire them for not doing the right job.

Kallie, if you're going to have to pay 31% on your dividends, I don't think you're still living in that hatchback.

Merry CLIFF-Mess...

.

OK - I am overdoing it - I admit.

Kallie,

That dividend money you're getting is because the companies invested in are making profits and sending you a chunk of it because you're a part owner of it. Rates on dividends need to go up because they're the primary means which mega-rich people use to avoid paying taxes. Now, rather than raise them to a 31% rate (which i'm not sure is even accurate, the only number I've seen proposed was an increase from 15% to 20%) I'd rather they just be counted as normal personal income and be taxed at whatever rate the owner falls under.

As for the emotional cry about retired people needing that dividend income, well, thats what IRAs are for. You can either save your tax money on the front end with a traditional IRA, writing it off contributions on your taxes year to year, or they can pay the taxes up front for a tax-free withdrawl later in life with a Roth IRA.

No person should be investing with the intention of those investments funding their retirements without taking advantage of a Traditional or Roth IRA (Hint: Roth is the better choice).

Brownstain:

The republicans are the ones who have been framing this as a 'tax hike' all along.

And since they want to make it permanent (no longer a holiday) it very well could be called a tax "hike" on the middle class because both sides want to make it permanent for 250k and below. The republicans just want to make it permanent all the way to the top.

Semantically, you're correct. In the world of rational, thinking adults. You're wrong.

There's no getting by the Petrificus Totalus curse on Congress until after New Year's Day breaks the spell. Even Boehner with his big old Thor's Hammer of a gavel couldn't get his own Party to back his own counter proposal. That's some curse!

"F" the republicans. Obama stick to your guns. You are the elected one, they just can't get it through their think (empty) skulls, and THEY will pay dearly next election!

If John Bonehead were really a leader, if he had any clout, he'd have locked the doors and told those morons they can't leave for the holidays - unless they got something agreed upon. Oh well.

Both the millionaires in the Democratic Party and the billionaires in the Republican Party have held the average Americans hostage too long.

They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all of which help the elderly. They don't care if there are people starving, as long as it is Americans and not some foreign nation that doesn't need our help to make a mess of their own country.

Tell your Representatives and Senators not to cut the lifeline of the elderly; it is the only hope for many.

On the other hand, those who are rich, who make over $250,000 a year, do not need this help. Sure the first $250,000 would not be taxed (and that is a lot of money folks, no matter where you live). Nobody who is that rich "earns" that money without the help of others, and it is the rest of us who pay for them to party while we suffer.

It is appropriate that today this debate is going up, because we did not see the end of the world, but if we let the rich dictate everything that goes on in America, then it is the end of this country as we know it.

Feisty: With any luck, Santa will bring you a copy of "Basic Civics for Dummies"... make sure to read it!

Not a bad idea! Basic Civics has not been taught in schools since the mid sixties.

Many people have little knowledge of the workings of our government.

TO: DingleB who wrote:

"... You have to be joking. That was reminiscent of his "skills" during the first debate. "Go drink some egg nog" Way to lead"

Well they've already left to have their egg nog anyway, wo what's the harm.

I suggest Republicans hold on to that first debate for as long as possible, because that was last time Republicans were happy about anything.

Drew,

If you make over $250K your dividend taxes are over 43% because Obamacare has a 3.8% tax separate from income tax

"With no action, investment tax rates will soar beginning January 1, 2013, with the top tax rate on capital gains jumping to 23.8 percent from 15 percent and the top tax rate on dividends nearly tripling to 43.4 percent from 15 percent."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/14/to-avoid-a-fiscal-cliff-dive-extend-todays-dividend-tax-rates/

Feisty...1.44

Of course, our Constitution deals with it perfectly. But let’s not get sidetracked, we both talk about the same thing, leadership. There are many definitions of what a leader/leadership is.

Northouse describes it perfectly — Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

The fact that we are still going around in circles would indicate that the only person who could make a difference is the President and that he is not fully engaged in the process. To-date the only thing he has confirmed is that he is a player, not a leader, despite the fact that he has been blessed with wonderful oratory skills.

It appears we will have to agree to disagree, so let’s not argue about this.

Merry Christmas.

The republicans are the ones who have been framing this as a 'tax hike' all along.

And since they want to make it permanent (no longer a holiday) it very well could be called a tax "hike" on the middle class because both sides want to make it permanent for 250k and below. The republicans just want to make it permanent all the way to the top.

Semantically, you're correct. In the world of rational, thinking adults. You're wrong.

In the world of rational, thinking adults...objectivity is the rule, not emotional partisan spin. There is no "raise" in the tax rates because the TEMPORARY tax cuts expire...this is not a "semantic" statement, it's a logical statement of fact.

You may make the arguement that people will "feel like it's a tax raise" or that people will "view it as a tax raise" but that is not an accurate, factual statement of what's going on if the temporary tax rates expire and we revert to the rates that preceeded the tax holiday.

And it's been Obama CAMPAIGNING on erasing the "Bush tax cuts" for six years (even though they are now and have been the "Obama tax cuts" for the last 3 years) on "the rich" and not "raising taxes on the poor and middle class"...not the Republicans.

J R Browenstein

"Bush tax cuts" for six years (even though they are now and have been the "Obama tax cuts" for the last 3 years)

Whew...finally some fresh air.

Dear Obama don't give in, let them collapse the economy again, I will sacrifice and risk losing everything a thrd time (three wars go figure) at least I have my faith and Santa knows who's on the naughty list..

Dan M,

Business owners are taxed ONLY on the PROFIT after all the business expenses are deducted. The tax is only on PROFIT above $200K/$250K.

If you friend has a PROFIT of $300K then the additional NEW tax will only be $1,800. It is the exactly same as an office manager that has a salary of $300K before taxes.

Feisty Red Head, suck on this! Obama is President, not Emperor! He has to deal with the Republican-controlled House to get his money! I know that he (actually the only President ever) has not had a single budget passed in his first term! This even occured during his first two years during which the Dems had control of the House, Senate and Presidency! Ever wondered why the Dems in the House and Senate wouldn't pass an Obama budget..... Because it was political suicide to put your name on that trash! Why didn't they raise the taxes of the 1%ers back then?..... Because it was political suicide! Guess what Dems?.... You are committing political suicide now!

It's time to go over the cliff and let the chips fall where they may. The fundamental issue is that our folks in Washington will continue to spend way more (way more) than they take in; for some reason they cannot help themselves.

All of the taxes in question (including the Obama extension of the Bush tax cuts) were meant to be temporay. Let them all expire, go with the cuts in defense and social programs that both parties and the president agreed to last year and lets see what happens. My money is on nothing material will happen.

I am so sick of the bozo's who got us in this mess trying to get us out of it (ala the billions lost on the GM deal). They need to get out of the way and let everything else take care of itself.

Going over the cliff is the best solution for everybody. Time to be done with this issue--Obama and Boehner are idiots in crime. Pelosi and Reid are worse and Cantor is somewhere in between.

It's go time. No more kicking the can down the road. In other words, stick to the agreement they all agreed to and was signed into law a mere 12 months ago. Idiots (almost as big a dufus as big red)

Time for Mr. "Pocket Veto" Reid to get into the mix and smell the anger from Middle Class Americans.

Guess he has been in a "cloak" mode along with the Secretary of State.

One thing for sure, he will be the first with a photo op saying it is the Republicans fault for him not doing his job.

BTW: Senator "Pocket Veto" Reid, where is the National Budget for the past FOUR YEARS ?

Elizabeth-1372999

You might want to consider that 90% of this countries wealth is held by those over 55 year old. That means that unless you make SS and Medicare need based, you are not taxing all the rich. I don't agree with across the board cuts to those programs, but understanding demographics does make sense. So, if you claim that we must tax the rich as current liberal dogma states, then we must tax the retired rich to complete the job. Wouldn't you say? That means that the Republicans are right that entitlement programs need to be cut, and that Democrats are right that the rich need to be taxed. Sound a little like common ground? Ignorance is bliss to those that partake.

Dennis, you are also forgetting the Obamacare mandate's effect on small businesses! Combined with a higher tax rate this may force many small businesses into closure or bankruptcy! I am sure that Obama will find a way to protect his "trust fund babies" supporters who inherited their millions and support the liberal causes. Now their money is "good" and will not be subject to seizure through higher taxes! I see a money grab by the 1% on the left from the 1% on the right! The only problem with this is that the lefty 1% has never produced anything but bad odors!

Dan M,

The Obamacare tax is only on employers that have 50 or more employees and that tax is also deductable.

tonybeeerm

"The challenge that we've got right now is that the American people are a lot more sensible, a lot more thoughtful, and much more willing to compromise and give and sacrifice and act responsibly than their elected representatives are,"

You got that right. Boehner thinks happy hour is more important than getting a deal done.

Uh, yeah, following in the footsteps of Ted Kennedy and a host of liberal progressive 'followers'.

Hypocrisy anyone?

HE thinks they can get it done! GET IT DONE, Boehner isn't the only idiot in the room. He is accompanied by our glorious president(insert sarcasm here)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but, I am starting to think that TPTB want US to default. Aren't you sick of all the "it's their fault" BS. Their isn't anyone on the whole capital mall that is thinking about the people and how this affects all of us. I don't think their isn't one of us who are posting here that wouldn't be willing to pay more in taxes to fix this. But we can't tax our way out of this, spending has to be cut in ALL areas of government.

Their ought to be a law that if you have to raise taxes you need to have triple the cuts in budget. All the cuts that they talk about affects the middle and lower tax bracket people. No tightening of the belts in government at all.

I can think of numerous alphabet soup agencies that should be cut or eliminated. Not to mention corrupt foreign aid.

Hi John,

I doubt Elizabeth will get your point, though one can hope. I'm not sure I like the idea of yet more taxes to fund programs already defective, but if the compromise for cuts must be higher taxes then I think it should be done. I do think it would harm the economy, but these defective programs (Social Security the least, Medicare the most, Medicaid in the middle) are hurting--the latter two--or will hurt--the former--the economy far more over time.

The "rich" will find ways to avoid the higher tax rates anyhow. When the marginal rate reached as high as 90% the fact remained that no taxpayer paid such a high rate. They found ways to alter when they took compensation, and how it would be delivered, so as to minimize their tax bite. They also (but here leftists will likely see their heads explode of they try to comprehend this point) can lower the wages for those they employ, or off-shore their businesses to find lower tax environments, or even decrease quality or increase automation, all done to compensate for the higher taxes paid.

So if we must, let the left have higher taxes. But only in order to get actual cuts/reforms in entitlements. No promises of future efforts to study the programs and create a commission to come up with reforms for an as-yet unknown future president to consider. Medicare ALONE transfers as much or more than $100 bn a year in costs the government doesn't cover to private insureds who subsidize the provision of Medicare. It's time--way PAST time--to fix the problem. And if leftists refuse, then go over the cliff and let them experience reality at a closer distance.

@ModelTrainMan #1.36: Well, my friend, I took your advice. First, I stuck a $50.00 dollar bill into a "Salvation Army Kettle". Then, I soon saw this really good looking young lady looking around as if She might be confused. Went over to her, cleared my throat to get Her attention, and did. She kinda smiled at me, soooo, I hauled off, reached out and pulled Her into my arms and gave her a stout, warm hug. Gwaddamn, Model Train Man!, She didn't like It worth a damn! Commence swinging Her Purse at me and screaming, all the while calling me a pervert. Store security came and got me then. Sure glad they did. I believe She woulda hurt me if they hadn't. Store security detained me for about an hour. I explained over and over I was just temorarily overcome by the holiday spirit. They finally let me go with a warning that from now on, at least when I was in their store, I must, "KEEP MY HANDS TO MYSELF". Model Train Man, since you've already posted I'll add this for you; If you hug anyone, be sure they want your hug before you execute it, especially if It's a Woman, otherwise You might get "BEAT TO DEATH BY A PURSE"!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Not to get in between you and Dan but an interesting thing I read the other day. Anyone earns up to $90,000 a year who has to buy their own insurance can get a rebate from the Federal Government. Just a question. Where is the funding for that when the majority of Americans make less?

Congress gets to go home for christmas without getting their work done?? BS. If I was President Obama I would have this settled immediately. First invite Boner and The Cabbage patch senator to the whitehouse. When they show up have secret servicemen put bags over their heads, throw them on marine one and fly to the airport and get on A/F 1 and fly to the middle of Iraq. Once there get them off the plane in the middle of the desert, tell those sorry unamerican SOBs how it is. You are going to work with me and pass this as I propose it or you your wive's your children and grand children are going to be flown here and you will have to find your own way back! I am the MOST powerfull SOB you ever met and I will put your lavia, because you two are the biggest Bi---es on the planet!!!! They would have a good and balanced bill past in 1/2 hour after landing or the whole republican caucus would be disposed of in the trash bin they belong in!

John,

From what I understand the rebate/tax allowance comes from the ACA taxes and fines. It might go to $90K but it is targeted to families of 4 that have a household income less than $65K and the lower your income or larger your family is the larger the support.

This is not my area of expertise; I was a business man and business owner before I retired.

ModelTrainMan: That ain't all of it. I had to quit for a few minutes. I've got a hell of ah headache. Drinking Scotch to sooth my nerves though. Yeah, feeling some better now. Well, that young woman was truthful about the hugging affair. She didn't claim I tried to cop an inappropriate feel or nothing, She just didn't like my overall hugging style, and apparently, my action scared Her some, you know, cause She didn't know me. Did I tell you my wife was there with me? Not right there at the time of the hugging though. WHOA HELL! She was in another part of the store during that ordeal. But, like all wives, here She came, just as Security was taking me into their little room. Went right in with them and Me. Scuse me a minute........................................................ Ahhhh, goooooood Scotch! Well, She listened to what the young Lady said, um, You know, the Huggee, Model. Yeah, then she listened to what I said about It all. My wife was patting her feet, one foot at a time, wouldn't sit down atall all the way through It. Finally, She asked the head security officer if She could talk to Him out of our presence, and She agreed Model! She coulda told that security officer anything, and may have Model! Presently, after a reasonable time they came back into the room and asked the young lady, the Huggee to come in and join them, and She did! Before that, me and Her had been talking up a storm Model. If I had been single I'd ah tried to get something going with Her, but, i'm damn sure not single Model. Ummmmm........... goood scotch. Well, in a little while out they all three came, and thats when the security lady, umm, by the way Model, that security lady wasn't bad either, great legs, nice round butt, small waist, and pretty face, well anyhow, that's when the security lady told me about KEEPING MY HANDS TO MYSELF. My wife, and She's a really pretty Woman, Model Train Man, She took my right arm by my elbow and took my ass to the car. First thing She did after we were seated was; She took her BIG ASSED PURSE and hit me up side of my head Model! She's been really sully since we got home too. Well, just now I think I saw Her give me a sideways small grin. Scuse me..................................................... ummmmm, well Model, ain't your fault anyway. You know how my wife convinced that young lady and them security people not to put me in jail? Told 'em, and convinced 'em I was an idiot. She did Model! She's always claimed that though. Now that I think about it some, you know what Model?, I think She's likely right. Have yourself a merry Christmas and a happy New Year everyone, and a special greeting to the WONDERFUL FEISTY!

WAIT....didn't he want out of it a couple days ago?? Obama=loser joke.

"The challenge that we've got right now is that the American people are a lot more sensible, a lot more thoughtful, and much more willing to compromise and give and sacrifice and act responsibly than their elected representatives are," Obama said. "That's a problem."

I don't know about that. There's a lot of Kool Aid around here; it isn't limited to our elected officials.

@NewStar2012#1.90: Ain't a gwaddamn drop left Nova breath. Damn dumb tea baggers drunk it all and stole all the pitchers! Sorry sons-ah-bitches!

just one guy,

This is what our President actually said …

"I don't know how much of that just has to do with [the idea that] it is very hard for them to say yes to me," Obama said at a press conference to announce a new task force to prevent gun violence. "But, you know, at some point, you know, they've got to take me out of it and think about their voters and think about what's best for the country."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/19/16021119-obama-to-gop-take-me-out-of-it

Dennis

The rule of simplicity states that the more you have to explain something, the less likely it will work.

You might have all day to sit and figure out how it works because you beleive in it, but no one else has the desire to do so, nor do the majority believe in it.

Zat why no one will hire you DB?

Just kidding there DB. Hope you find work and have a good holiday, and A GREAT NEW YEAR! Regards

Pigotry

Raise taxes on those above $400,000 and raise taxes on stock dividents from 15% to 20%.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: 'I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.'"

Since you are not afraid of getting taxed more it is obvious that you are not in this tax group nor do you own any stocks. If Oliver Wendell Holmes said that about taxes then maybe we should let the Bush Tax breaks perish. Only then will we ALL feel the effects of the bloat spending. It could be called shared responsibility and Obama can call it our patriotic duty.

The fact is Obama has over played his hand and somebody must have total him that as president he's going to be held responsible for this tax increases as well as his health care taxes. Why is he suddenly worried about taxes when he has never worried about spending our money. Financially raping our grandchildren is not the answer either.

Maybe he looked at the election results and found out that nearly 59,000,000 did not vote for him. They did re-elect the house and gave it to the republicans. My logic is that the people said they liked you but they don't trust you. I wonder now how many in his party are ready to go over the financial cliff? If everybody on this site are correct the only ones not get hit with a tax increase are the 47%. Maybe they should be allowed to join the rest of us and maybe they well sudden understand the cost of the government. What do you think happens to the democratic voting base when they are all paying taxes.

It's almost Christmas cheer to read all the pathetic blathering and lies still being spread by the neo-con knuckle-heads here. Things are going to change, rest assured... and they will be pulled into a New Year, kicking and screaming, cussing and threatening but the best part is, President Obama will still be their president and, being the thinker and political shark he is... the tea-bagging crowd here will watch their elected representatives take the entire blame for any negative effect going over the fiscal cliff causes any of us. It's not like Obama had a secret agenda folks... we knew what his plan was, hell... he campaigned on it. The majority of us spoke when we re-elected him. But if it makes you pinhead republicans choke on your fruitcake... go ahead, rip it up. Call him names like the pre-adolescent idiots you are and never grew out of. Remember two things though... 1) Nothing stays the same but change and 2) Your comments here always draw the fewest votes up... does that tell you something? Nah, probably not.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL "This evening, President Obama demonstrated his impeccable leadership skills..."

By asking Congress to 'kick the can down the road' - again.

I guess your idea of 'leadership' is different than mine. The best thing would be to do NOTHING. Then we would have much needed cuts in spending (sequester), as well as 'shared sacrifice' (tax increases on everyone).

The short term pain would be far less than the long term pain of continued reckless Deficits.

Ok lets kick the can down the road again. When is anyone in Washington going to do their job?

We need someone who can lead and quit whining to end this mess that they have got is into.

Too bad that will not happen for at least 4 more years.

DB Akron "The rule of simplicity states that the more you have to explain something, the less likely it will work."

There's another 'rule of simplicity' - "If you want to increase something, subsidize it, and if you want to discourage something, tax it"

So what are we subsidizing - Welfare. The total number of people on welfare has increased from about 30 million to 47 million in 4 years.

And what are we taxing - Businesses and jobs.

The average number of people working in 2008 was 136,794,000.

The average number of people working in 2012 is 133,169,000, a LOSS of 3,625,000 jobs in 4 years.

Source - Official government Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Remember Romney said during the election that the republicans wanted to put african-Americans "back in chains". Since they lost and didn't get to do this, they are doing their best to put all Americans in the chains of higher taxes.

If only Obama would finally show some leadership skills, we would have a deal done by now.

Instead he moves the goal posts, incites taxpayers vs congress and plays the blame game. If only he had not moves the goal posts, if only he did not alienate congress, if only he showed some leadership....in other words, if only he was not Barack Obama, we would have had this done all ready.

Mac F, That was some crazy and funny stuff, gotta love it!!!! Merry Christmas and good glass of scotch does sound good!!!

Robert1717

Remember Romney said during the election that the republicans wanted to put african-Americans "back in chains". Since they lost and didn't get to do this, they are doing their best to put all Americans in the chains of higher taxes.

Actually that wonderful phrase was coined by our VPOTUS.

Obama like most of the Democrats is a stealth Republican.

When he says he wants to "get this done" he means enact an austerity budget by collaborating with the Republicans to cut programs that keep millions of average working americans out of poverty like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

An austerity budget will push the country into recession just like they have done in Europe for the last 5-6 years and just like in Europe they then use the even bigger deficits caused by recession as an excuse to cut even more from pensions, healthcare etc.

He's trying to fool his base by proposing a tiny rise in the tax rate for the richest americans but it is nothing compared to the trillions he has proposed cutting from programs that support the middle class and poor (and even that tiny rise in taxes for the rich will be reversed when they come back next year and do "comprehensive tax reform" in which the rich and corporate taxes will be lowered)

We didn't get out of the Great Depression by cutting federal spending. We got out by spending more than we ever had before. First on the New Deal and then on top of that WWII.

Both parties know that but they are still committed to cutting federal spending anyway.

They aren't trying to improve the economy, It's class warfare stupid!

@ModelTrainMan: Thanks for being my straight Man. May you and yours enjoy a wonderful Holiday season and a healthy and happy New Year. Best regards

PS: Can't beat good Scotch.

If there were any adults in Congress or in the White House they would know that there is no break, no vacation, no egg nog, no cookies, no trip to the islands or the ski slopes, no distraction of any kind until after the work they were elected to do is done first, and a mutual compromise is negotiated. But there are no adults to be found anywhere among them. Negotiation does not mean that any of the above electees gets to take a my-way-or-the-highway approach, but that all make meaningful concessions. Particularly when there is such a leadership, character and talent void in all the above named quarters that no one so far has come up with a proposal that in and of itself can stand on its own and make things better for the American people. Americans fawning over worthless officials in either party makes about as much sense as fawning over royalty or elected counterparts across the pond. Isn't it time that the faux celebrities call it a day and we get some people in there who really want to reform and restore America to solvency? Why do Americans not just tolerate, but cheer, the rubbish coming out of WDC? It boggles the mind.

I find it odd how people want to blame the President for everything that's going on with the so called "fiscal cliff" when it not his responsibility to create policy but Congress. Yes we know the President has been talking about this for a while now and nothing has been done but seriously how can you get anything accomplished when the "Republicans" won't even consider what's being put on the table.

I still don't understand the analogy of those that voice their opinions that the President wants us to go off the "cliff" just so he can have more money to spend when he's been advocating tax breaks for the middle class and increases for those in the top 2%. Not only that but he has also increased his spending cuts from $800 billion to $1.2 Trillion to match dollar for dollar revenue as per the Republicans request so where is this additional "spending" coming from??? The only clear ones that want more money are the Republicans so they can increase military funding (which the military has stated they don't need any additional funding) for their so called "pet projects". YES there are some Democrats that are partly to blame as well but you don't hear them pushing as hard as the other side, media spin or bias perhaps..........that could be a reason but after viewing several media stations I doubt that's the case as there's no evidence of it. Nevertheless, it is still a possibility.

What I really find puzzling and I'm still looking from someone on the right to successfully argue this point, why is it the closer Obama and Boehner got to a deal, the further Boehner ran away from it. He even ask Obama to be practical and give a lil and he did bumping up his standard $250k to $400k along with some cuts to some of Democrats entitlements they love and Boehner still can't move his caucus. So again I ask how is the Obama's problem? He moved(and sold) his plan on the "Grand Bargain" to his caucus but Boehner couldn't, NOW he has compromised AGAIN and AGAIN Boehner couldn't move his own caucus. Matter of fact he couldn't move his own caucus on his own "Plan B" agenda, so again how is this Obama's problem? Can someone on the right successfully argue this point?

I have been saying for the longest (and Browenstein I agree with analogy regarding tax increases to a certain point) that if the two (Obama and Boehner) can be responsible adults and hammer out a good deal for the country, then we should let all the tax cuts expire AND freeze federal spending at current levels. This way whatever revenue is leftover SHOULD GO directly to reducing the debt. It will hurt temporarily but eventually like everything else the effects will pass and everyone will forget taxes even went up over time.

Until that happens, Boehner needs to put is "big boy" pants on, go to his party get them in line and if he can't, step aside and let someone with REAL LEADERSHIP qualities get the job done.

I dont think anyone understands that President Obama wants to raise taxes on dividends from 15% to 30% for poor and wealthy. Just google it.

1) on the ROTH IRA suggestion ---duh!!!! but you can only put so much into those each year and as of 2013 there are many changes on ROTH. Dividends have nothing to do with ROTH

2) I may be working poor but even I will pay 30% on dividends under the new tax code. It is NOT income based on dividends. It is just plain old across the board taxing. That is why it is not fair!!!!!!

3) When I buy into a company that pays dividends . I am getting this money by scraping together a little bit of money that was left over after I have already paid my federal, local and state taxes. This money was already taxed and now I want to put it to work for me. I don't mind paying 15% if I make any profit but 30%----that is not a large profit at all. I will find a better way to invest my little savings. I have been investing overseas and doing much better.

4) High yield stocks fuel the economy---sorry that is history. Everyone should try to save a little --even $100 and start investing.

5) My goal is to go from being poor to being rich. THAT IS NOT A SIN! I think if we all work hard, save and invest we can do it ----if we have a fair tax code. Of course wealthy people should pay a little more and get rid of loop holes. However, we can't tax them so heavily they take their business and money outside the U.S. Look at what France has done.

Robert1717

Remember Romney said during the election that the republicans wanted to put african-Americans "back in chains". Since they lost and didn't get to do this, they are doing their best to put all Americans in the chains of higher taxes.

Actually, it was Joe Biden who said that...not Romney.

ffs, at least keep your partisan rhetoric straight.....

Ahhh, here it is. The call to "kick the can down the road".

And liberals claiming Obama is leading...pffffft. Should have been leading a year ago. But, no no...wait until after the election so that people won't find out what I'm going to do to them until it's too late. Reid himself wanted this debate in the lame duck session to avoid taking responsibility when the public could do something about it.

Enjoy your tax increases you jealous of the rich people. Taxes are patriotic when liberals call for someone else to pay them.

It's going to come down to the fact that ANYBODY who has any type of income whatsoever is going to have their taxes raised sooner or later.The reason being is that NONE of these politicians in DC can stop spending money faster than they can get it.It is VERY easy to spend money that they did not earn themselves.The reason this whole cliff thing is such a big SSSHH BANG!! is because it involves spending cuts for the politicians.When was the last time anyone here heard of a politician cutting back on THEIR personal expenses that are funded by the government.Say what you want people but this is a basic truth that involves both parties.

This is nothing but lip service as both sides know that taxes have to go way up in order to continue paying for the out of controll spending. Unfortunantly for us though the problem is still far from over as the more money the Gov. takes in the more the Gov. wants to spend!. The Gov. might get a clue when we hit the 99% tax range.

Uncompromising and believing that there should never be an increase in taxes has led us to this fiscal cliff thanks to the "God Owful Party." I pray nightly for their demise!

Get Real, Most people have not said your words of"Pay their fair share!' Instead, they, like me, say their fair rate! I paid 20% in taxes last year and my millionaire neighbor gloats over his 14%. Greed does that to you and you support that mentality!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

This evening, President Obama demonstrated his impeccable leadership skills...

hahahahahah

Give me a break SmBusOwnerinNY Obama moved the goalpost during the Summer of 2011 and the great debt debate. That is a well documented fact whether liberals can face up to it or not. All negotiations with Obama have been a moving target, which is why no one in the Republican party believes him when he says give me this and I will cut spending later. Obama simply cannot be trusted. The current debate is over results Obama wants, plain and simple, or his demands wouldn't keep changing with the wind. It would be one thing if Obama's demands solved something, but they don't. Only liberals buy into the fact that raising 86 billion a year in new tax revenue can wipe out Obama's trillion plus annual deficits. It is pathetic, a joke, and going off the cliff does more to help this country then any proposal Obama has ever put forth.

I feel sick when read such hate harboring posts from feisty redhead and others from both parties.

Your nasty comments just sink this country deeper and deeper into social muck.

I didn't vote for Obama in this last election - but I pray for him and this congress to succeed - to bring this country back to greatness. It's going to be a very long trip no matter who leads.

Some of the comments made here -

too bad your parents did not take advantage of abortions, the world would be better off.

It's a shame the best part of YOU, ran down your mothers leg...

What remains of you is what we are stuck with...

Shave your head and shout RaHma Rahma.

These comments wouldn't be proper coming from 10 years olds much less people who are supposed to be grown up.

My wish for this Christmas is Americans stop trying to insult one another. Stop being condescending, mean spirited to one another. Maybe our government is just mirroring us.... and refuses to get along and elevate the country.

Robert 1717

Romney said during the election that the republicans wanted to put african-Americans "back in chains".

NO it was Joe Biden who said that to a group of African Americans. Worse yet, Biden was skewered for a week by Republicans for saying that.

Do you believe that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my porch" too? That line was actually from a SNL skit.

Palin was asked in an interview if she could see Russia from Alaska. Palin replied "You know, there is actually an Island in Alaska that is so close to Russia that on a clear day, you can actually see the Russian Shore."

well the two party system brought to by corporate america...is in the corporately controled media again...while the numbskulls point fingers on which one's worst...the voters are pitiful...to fall for this crap election after election...neither party is doing anything that doesn't suit corporate's wishes...clinton bush then obama...clinton gave us NAFTA...bush gave us the patriot act and unnessary prolonged wars...obama just spending money and breaking the country...

Not that anyone is interested in the bottom line, but the bottom line is that there are no proposals on the table that really deal with our fiscal crisis.

For the libs, like redhead, there is only one issue here. That issue is to make sure the "rich" pay higher taxes. They want to punish the rich, as they see it. That is obviously the most important thing to them. They don't mind paying higher taxes themselves. They've all said that. Sure, they'll whine like little babies and blame the repubs when their taxes go up. That's what they do whenever they don't get their way. That's the attitude of the majority of voters today and their leaders. No wonder why the country is in such a mess. The sad thing is that raising taxes on the rich is the ONLY thing that matters to them right now. Let's face it, we are $6 trillion more in debt than when Obama took office. Obama got pretty much everything he wanted. Unemployment is around 8%. Real unemployment is around 16%. The only jobs that have been created to get the figures down to as low as they are, are the burger flipper jobs, the jobs that libs criticized when a repub was in the WH. So, the total failure of Obama to actually accomplish anything doesn't matter to libs. Again, it's the only thing that matters is the perception of punishing the rich. When a country is managed by a bunch of 2 year olds, everyone suffers.

I Thank God that President Obama is the leader of the free world. To have him in charge is a true blessing.

witchrunner,

Actually the deal on the table is $2 Trillion in spending cuts and $800 Billion in new revenue.

That is a ratio of 2.5 to 1.

Bush gave us the largest tax cuts (not 1 but 2) in history, turning a budget surplus into a deficit while he puts us at war (not 1 but 2) with zero plans to pay for them (just put them on our credit card).

It is time to go over the cliff. Let the tax cuts expire and heavily cut defense spending and social programs. Coupled with the new Obamacare taxes this is going to be a cold slap in the face of the everybody but in particular the middle class but it must be done. Regardless of whatever laws are put n place the rich will continue to be rich because that is what they are good at......making money. Sorry for those of you that want to be rich but do not have the capability or desire to get there, but that is the reality.

Kicking the can down the road is no longer an option. Obama and Reid have run out the clock on that one. Election have consequences and those 40 house members that would not vote for a tax hike for anybody probably have it right. They won their respective elections based on the committments they ran on. Essentially they are saying now is the time to fix the problem. Let's get it fixed. This is what we voted for and I am optimistic that we have some leadership in the House of Reps that is not going to let us weasle out of fixing this problem. Hopefully our POTUS and that joke Reid come around to this way of thinking and stop being the selfish ones in the room.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

This evening, President Obama demonstrated his impeccable leadership skills

NO it shows he is still greedy and pandering for votes.

If 2 million people can't get off their asses and get a job after 99+ weeks on the gov't tit , too bad, so sad.

expire the 2% payroll tax break too.

Federal income taxes - 50% increase of the Bush taxes cuts ON EVERYONE then in 2 years the other 50%. This give the economy time to absorb the blow.

Spending cuts are needed badly freeze current levels and reduce military levels by 5% and reduce entitlement programs the same 5%. NOT decrease the increases but true CUTS.

We need 523 Billion in revenue not 83 billion like Obama wants.

Go off the cliff but do it over the next 2 years by phasing it in slowly. TRUE LEADERSHIP

Dennis - I don't believe you are right on the "deal being 2 Trillion in cuts and 800 billion in new revenue." The President's last offer was 1.4 Trillion in new revenue (down from 1.6 trillion), the 1.4 Trillion in new revenue includes increases in estate taxes, and capital gains taxes, which is never mentioned.

Blame Bush all you want and spin all you want, it doesn't change the facts that we continue to have a spending problem. There is little talk from either party about reduction in spending.

BTW, you and the others on the left keep saying Bush gave us the largest tax cuts in history, but you fail to mention that Democrats also voted for those tax cuts and for both wars. But since those of you that keep blaming Bush for the tax cuts, remember Obama extended those cuts for two years instead of keeping his promise to veto them.

Since the left keeps complaining about the Bush tax cuts, why are they fighting so hard to keep them, except for the so called "wealthy"? Let's let all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire, as intended at the insistence of the Democrats, and let's start over next year with a new Congress. BTW, the Democrats in the House and Senate have indicated they would not go along with the President on changing anything pertaining to Social Security and Medicare.

BTW, I see the President is o.k. with kicking the can down the road again by agreeing to a short fix, as long as the Bush tax cuts are extended for those below $200/250K for a short period.

This dumbass in the WH has had four years to come up with a national budget and he still has NOT! Now the stupid bastard waits until the last second to deal with the "fical cliff". This inept fool has no clue and is about as poor a leader as you could find. But, that's a community organizer for ya.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Bush gave us the largest tax cuts (not 1 but 2) in history, turning a budget surplus into a deficit while he puts us at war (not 1 but 2) with zero plans to pay for them (just put them on our credit card).

Here's a bit of actual fact about Clinton's budget "surplus"...

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

Clinton's "balanced budget" is an urban legend. Clinton's presidency actually increased the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars to 5.6 trillion dollars. Clinton's "balanced budget" is nothing more than an accounting sleight of hand trick. I could explain it to you but I don't think you'd believe it even if you understood it.

The legacy of Clinton's "balanced budget" and "budget surplus" is quantifiable proof that if you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it.

Feisty, do you sell what you are smoking?

Obama, lives in a world of his own, full of ideas of what the world is suppose to be like, not, how the world really is.

America LACKS leadership and direction, guess where the buck stops.

The country is SPLIT and Obama ABSOLUTELY will not absorb the fact of government waste, entitlements = SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM.

Raising TAXES on the "wealthy" is worth about a week's worth of new "revenue" at current governments current spending rates and fails to address the true isuue,

GOVERNMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH!

Get a clue! Government has to CUT SPENDING!

Mike,

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. 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.

Sarge,

After your last statement [Obama does not want to be President, he wants to be King or Supreme ruler and feel he should get everything he wants.] I no longer care to debate anything with someone that is so narrow minded.

ALL presidents believe that Congress gets in the way of their ideas and plans.

J R,

So then why is it that Newt and most republican give all the credit to the House Republicans for the surplus … was it the Republicans that actually took the SS funds ?

"leadership skills"? You must be joking. Your president's leadership skills are laughable.

Dennis - Sorry you feel that way, and that is your right. The only people that are narrow minded are those on the left that believe Obama should get everything he wants, not once can I remember you disagreeing with Obama. Further, if you can't debate what I type, it means that you can't refute what I typed. As I said above you posters on the left like to blame Bush for all of our woes while praising Clinton, who gave us one of the biggest tax increases in history, without any Republican votes. So let's go back to the tax rates of 2000 since I have never heard the left complain about taxes under Clinton.

BTW, you might want to look up the word temporary, which is what the Bush tax cuts were suppose to be, thanks to the Democrats. The extension was signed by President Obama, so he is responsible for tax cuts being returned to 2000 rates, it appears the Democrats.

Hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

America is leaderless!

Obama is absolutely clueless living in a world that does not exist!

You REAP what you SOW America!

Mike,

You wonder why we get Presidents with poorer skills than you like …

We offer the job of being the CIC and CEO of America for$400K a year which is between 5% and 10% of most CEO pay's and then expect him/her to put up with all the political and media BS with no real thanks.

Give me a break .. you libtards are too blinded by republican hatred to even realize you elected a moron for president

Yes, let's all work together and stop verbally slapping each other across the face in these disrespectful postings. Starting with the very first insult post and carrying all the way through these hurtful remarks. Namecalling, belittling, self-righteous behavior, none of which is of any substance save to promote what you think is wrong with the other guy. You are the other guy. How does it feel? Happy Holidays and as the President himself says, God Bless America. Our behavior sure doesn't.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I DON'T AGREE ON MUCH OF WHAT YOU POST . . . BUT I do agree we need to get this done. I am a member of the GOP and agree this bull has to stop. In fact, I agree we NEED to raise taxes on the top 10% not just 2% of the wealthy. Its time they paid back what this great country has allowed them to do.

One last thing . . . I disagree with Obama's politics . . . ie socialistic government . . . but I don't think he is a bad or evil man . . . my wife gets pissed off because i like Bill Clinton too.

J R,

So then why is it that Newt and most republican give all the credit to the House Republicans for the surplus … was it the Republicans that actually took the SS funds

First of all, Newt NEVER said that the republicans deserve all the credit...that's a lie. He pointed out during the election that it was both Clinton AND Republicans that worked out a compromise on the budget that was something that the President would sign into law. So, while the republicans can put forth a budget...regardless of its content...it is meaningless with the President's approval. And, as the "last resort", the President gets to be accountable to the American people for the budget...not Congress. (There is a way for Congress to pass a budget without Presidential approval but it takes a ridiculous collective effort by both Houses and both parties...which ain't gonna happen)

Second, the budget is considered the President's problem...even though the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to originate it, it is the President that has the ultimate "Yay" or "Nay" vote.

When you have to lie to make a point, your point is weak....it's a telltale sign.

One last thing . . . I disagree with Obama's politics . . . ie socialistic government . . . but I don't think he is a bad or evil man . . . my wife gets pissed off because i like Bill Clinton too.

Your wife is obviously smarter than you. The reason our economy imploded was Bill Clinton's economic theory finally came to fruition. De-regulating banks, sub-prime mortgages, NAFTA, offshoring jobs, China getting "MFN" trading status and removing all tariffs on Chinese imports...ALL CLINTON. George Bush Jr gets blamed for it because he didn't put out the economic fire that Clinton started because people are generally pretty damn stupid and don't remember much. People whine about "the Bush tax cuts" but Clinton had his own drastic tax cuts. Hell, Clinton even campaigned on "lowering the middle class taxes" and then after getting elected he took the money from his tax scheme to "pay down the deficit"...which he didn't do either as Clinton's presidency actually INCREASED the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars.

They don't call him Slick Willy for nothing. He's the epitome of a slimy politician and a Democrat demi-god. lol. Democrats today absolutely deny that all the economic crisis that obliterated our economy was ALL Clinton's doing...they're absolute morons.

We offer the job of being the CIC and CEO of America for$400K a year which is between 5% and 10% of most CEO pay's and then expect him/her to put up with all the political and media BS with no real thanks.

meh...every contemporary President has gone on to become RIDICULOUSLY wealthy after leaving office because of the fact that he was President so why don't you put that tiny fiddle away now and answer why if it's such a thankless job, then why do people compaign for it for years and spend billions of dollars to get it?

J R,

Budgets are resolutions NOT laws and do NOT need the President to approve or sign.

Elizabeth-1372999

Both the millionaires in the Democratic Party and the billionaires in the Republican Party have held the average Americans hostage too long

Thanks for making me laugh so hard that you almost had me choking.

If you think that there are so few billionaires in the Democratic Party that they don't even rate a mention, the you are one clueless person.

Consider some of the top financial entities in the world that are owned/staked/run by Democrats and you will be astonished that the "big bad, evil GOP corporations" are actually run by a whole bunch of Democrats a lot part of the time. I suppose Apple, Google, Facebook and a litany of other top earners are all part of the evil GOP empire...?

Again...thanks for the laughs.

J R,

Budgets are resolutions NOT laws and doNOT need the President to approve or sign.

Wrong. Try again.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations. ~ Wiki

I chose to use Wiki here, even though I generally do not support using Wiki as a resource, because it succinctly explains the process at a cursory level.

I'd recommend you actually acquaint yourself with how the budget process of the United States is SUPPOSED to work...then you might have a greater appreciation of how derelict the President and Democrats in Congress have been in not getting one passed into law since Obama's inaugural budget, which was nothing more than a raping of the Treasury as if it were now the libtard goody bag.

J R,

Everything you said is about appropriation (spending) bills … not budgets

In the United States Congress, a budget resolution is part of the United States budget process. It is in the form of a concurrent resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law. It sets out the congressional budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_resolution

"We offer the job of being the CIC and CEO of America for$400K a year which is between 5% and 10% of most CEO pay's and then expect him/her to put up with all the political and media BS with no real thanks."

No one is forced to run for President and their pay is very good considering all the perks and extras they get.

You can't get anything done in Hawaii !!!

Wait a minute.....you said you can't get anything done in the Oval Officer either !!!!

Time to submit your RESIGNATION.

I would like to see a wall in Washington, with the Republicans names on it that took the United States over the Cliff while the world watched. The wall would be for all generations to see what skum bags cared more about the wealthy than they did the other 98%.

Dump the Republicans in 2014 going forward.

So many fool comments here. Whether you are on theleft, right or down the middle, you must acknowledge that this is wrong from the President. He promised to cut the deficit in half. Saying , he knew how to do it with his methods. You can not give a blank check to someone who fails in 4 years and then wants to repeat the same ... YES, same process. Remember the debt ceiling mess. It caused us to go to $15+ trillion. He wants to remove Congress control on that, and we had short term fix after short term fix that ONLY raised the deficit.

I would prefer to go over the cliff than to deal because if he gets his higher taxes on the rich it will only fix 6 days if the deficit. That comes from the Independent Budget Office calculations. Not the left or right. I do not like the approach of either party but the lesser evil is actually from the right. We need to go back to the 1990's when Congress forced the reform on the welfare state. And there ws a Democrat in the White House but Republican Congress. At least some things got done somewhat right.

Going the way the President wants will GUARANTEE we have a $20 trillion deficit by his 3rd year in his 2nd term.

He is a broken record trying to feed us the same crap that got us to almost $16 trillion. Stop blaming past presidents and work sincerely on reducing the deficit and STOP printing more money. Do you really believe a country can just print more money to get out of trouble? That is the dumbest thing I have heard in decades. And YES I know it as fact ... I am a Finance professor for the past 7 years and even my students know this can not be maintained without going over an international cliff.

Stay firm right side, the only hope we got and absolutely NO WAY do a short term fix. You know damn well it will lead to more deficits and no cuts. Time to take our mdicine and go overthe cliff. Better than going the way of 2nd world Europe. Wake up America. Stp your politics and do the right thing by taking your medicine now to preserve what resources we have remaining. this presidency is like a gambler thinking they can put more money into the slots and expect it to spew out riches.

Just a helpful hint if the Democrats get theirway on short term, and only a tax on the rich ... any fool with the slightest finance background or knowing someone with the brains can switch gears on their income stream to avoid taxation. there are countless tax free programs and investment opportunities which will reduce the taxable income stream. And even if the income is maintained it only helps for 6 days. Please wake up. We are heading in the wrong direction with the left ideas.

Dennis: I don't know where you got that from. Plus, it just isn't true. Last I knew, those kind of figures are thrown around as being over a 10 year period. That means that spending is going to be cut $200 billion a year and additional revenues are going to be $80 billion a year. Add those together and that means that the deficit is going to increase by over a trillion dollars a year still. That's not addressing the problem. Add to that the fact that the dems have never reduced spending. They promised Reagan they would and they didn't. Obama promised to and he hasn't. Heck he hasn't even proposed 1 budget that would spend less than the previous year. So, why would anyone believe that he would do it now, when he is not running for re-election? Snake oil under any other name is still snake oil. Right now the debate between Boehner and Obama doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's all chump change and would do absolutely nothing to solve our budget problems or improve the economy.

Thanks to that ingenious invention called "base-line budgeting" they can increase spending by 8% a year and say that there is no increase called for in the budget. That means a 7% increase is called a reduction in spending. Only in lala land and the world of pols does that make any sense. That's why they are spending as much as they are now. The $800 billion spend on TARP and the $800 billion spend on stimulus have been added to the baseline, thus we have $1.6 trillion more in annual spending than we did just 5 years ago and no one has has screamed about the increase in the federal budget by 60%. But, since TARP and Stimulus are basically done with, that just allowed the pols to spend on other pet "buy the vote" projects. And all this is to the detriment of the taxpayers and the country. It's also why Ron Paul said he could cut a $1 trillion from the budget easily. If nothing else was touched, then spending would have been $1 trillion less than it is now, easily. But, such is the way of Washington and their sales pitch to dumb Americans.

witchrunner,

Baseline budgeting is used by the CBO for future year projections ONLY.

Additionally spending is NOT controlled by any Congressional budget. It is controlled by the spending (appropriation) bills that Congress passes.

Also FY2013 budget deficit is projected to be less than $1 Trillion, closer to $900 Billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(Budgeting)

"We will do nothing." (Harry Reid 12/21/12)

J R,

Everything you said is about appropriation (spending) bills … not budgets

In the United States Congress, a budget resolution is part of the United States budget process. It is in the form of a concurrent resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law. It sets out the congressional budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_resolution

I see you still don't understand how "The United States Budget" is created. Budget resolutions are created in both the House and Senate in response to a proposed budget from the Presidentl. These budget resolutions go to a joint appropriations committee comprised of members of both the House and Senate where a reconciled budget resolution is produced. It is THIS budget resolution that gets presented to the President for his approval or veto. If the President approves it, it becomes law...if not, it remains a resolution.

It's not overly complicated...I'm not quite sure why you don't get it. It might be due to the fact that Congress hasn't actually passed a budget since 2008 and have relied on stop-gap appropriation measures/resolutions to keep the federal government operating. These are NOT budgets but appropriations bills. They are not the same. The federal government does not have a legal budget and has not had one since the Obama passed his first one right after being elected.

but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law

Read the link @ 1.148 and learn ........

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law

Read the link @ 1.148 and learn ........

How about we do this instead...

The President, in accordance with to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years. However, the CBO also computes a current-policy baseline, which makes assumptions about, for instance, votes on tax cut sunset provisions. The current CBO 10 year budget baseline projection grows from $3.7 trillion in 2011 to $5.7 trillion in 2021.

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations. ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

I really think that you are just stupid now. The process is not a mystery. The U.S. federal law requires a yearly budget for the United States. Obama is the only contemporary President that has defied the legal requirement for a yearly budget and relied on Congressional appropriation bills to keep the government running. Appropriation bills are NOT a legal budget under the law...what Obama and the Democrats have done is create a new set of rules once coming into office in letting them keep using recurring appropriation bills to fund the government instead of honoring the federal law's requirement to have a LEGAL budget every year. What is happening is illegal..Congressional procedural rules do not trump federal law if there is a conflict: but, hey...who really cares about the law any more anyway. Federal law requires a yearly legal budget signed by the President, not recurring appropriation bills. Appropriation bills were intended to ADMINSTER the budget, not replace it. What Obama and the Democrats have been doing is spending money without a budget.

"The Constitution grants the "power of the purse" to Congress,¹ but does not establish any specific procedure for the consideration of budgetary legislation. Instead, a number of laws and congressional rules contribute to the federal budget process, with two statutes in particular forming the basic framework.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, established the statutory basis for an executive budget process by requiring the President to submit to Congress annually a proposed budget for the federal government. It also created the Bureau of the Budget (reorganized as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1970) to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities, and the General Accounting Office (GAO, renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004) to assist Congress as the principal auditing agency of the federal government.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297) established the statutory basis for a congressional budget process, and provided for the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget as a mechanism for facilitating congressional budgetary decision making. It also established the House and Senate Budget Committees, and created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide budgetary information to Congress independent of the executive branch."

~ http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/

Dennis: I think you need to learn the difference between fact and fiction. You seem to give some stock to wiki noting that the projected deficit for 2013 will be around $900 billion. Who projected that and how could they have done anything other than take a wild-eyed guess? There's no budget. No one even knows what tax revenues will look like or even what tax rates will be. No one knows what spending will be or even have a basis for forming an educated opinion.

The problem with libs is that they never have any criteria by which they are willing to be judged. Supposedly, Obama set forth the criteria when he pushed for the stimulus bill. By any all criteria (at least if anything he said was to mean anything) he failed miserably. You cite a projected deficit of a little over $900 billion. Yet, even if Obama gets absolutely everything that he pushed for, like he did with stimulus, the deficit could be $1.5 trillion and you still would call Obama's policies a failure.

Back to the underlying argument of Obama: He would rather have the middle class pay higher taxes so long as the rich are paying higher taxes, rather than have everyone pay at the current rate. And, all the libs agree with that sentiment. And every one of you will whine and complain that it is the fault of the repubs even though the repubs in the House have already voted to keep the middle class taxes the same. And, if the deficit is over $1 trillion, then you will also blame the repubs. If Obama is prevented by the repubs from spending as much as he wants, it will still be the repubs fault that the deficit went up as high as it did even if it would have been higher had more money been spent. It's all so predictable.

When stimulus passed, Obama said it was needed to keep unemployment below 8%. Repubs knew that was a bunch of BS and that unemployment was going UP! Obama said that unemployment would drop to 5.7% by re-election time because of his stimulus plan. Repubs said BS! Heck, the only way they could come up with a figure below 8% on the last month before the election was to arbitrarily say that tons of people are no longer in the workforce. More BS. But, those who are low information people got out in force and voted for Obama.

witchrunner,

Budgets are always forecast, best guesses and projections for the next year for the government very similar to what corporations. No one can know the real numbers until the financial year is over.
We are already in FY3013 since Oct 01, 2012. The Presidents submitted FY2013 budget from last winter

FY2013 ($ Billions)
Budget = $3803 {Proposed}
Income = $2902 {Estimated}
Deficit = $901

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

Why do Democrats love Big Government?

Another attempt to rewrite history. Like somehow we are supposed to believe that Republicans don't. During 8 years of the Bush administration, government grew 87%! 200,000 people in Homeland Security, 3X increase in the Defense budget - DoD became the largest single employer in the US economy. Druing George W. Bush's first term, a time when Republicans held the WH and both houses of the legislature, private employment shrank by 2.5 million and public employment grew by 2.5 million.

Why do Republicans love Big Government?

J R,

Once again everything in your copy and paste is about the budget process as it applies to appropriations.
Please Google "Budget Resolution"

Budget resolution:
The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget then draft a budget resolution. Following the traditional calendar, both committees finalize their draft resolution by early April and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

** A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution that binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President's signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

"I think we can still get a deal done, there is plenty of time left. Think about if over Christmas...and get back to me." Famous words from your President Barack "I'll blame republicans is no deal is made" Obama...as he jets to his vacation in Hawaii.

Glad to see he is taking these talks seriously. Will we see him courtside at a Bulls game during the next round of negotiations?

Way to "phone in" your second term BO.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

One last time...just because it's Christmas and I'm feeling generous.

The "binding" reconcilation resolution to which you refer is only binding TO CONGRESS. It is this "binding" resolution which is the product of compromise of both the House and Senate budget proposals that is submitted to the President for his approval or veto. If he approves it, it then LEGALLY becomes the budget of the United States...if he vetos it, it remains the reconciliation resolution and is sent back to Congress to see if they can get the votes to over-ride the Presidential veto.

Since Obama's inaguration, there has been only one budget for the United States passed into law. One. Period. The "Budget of the United States" has a legal definition as well as a legal mean to get put into place....there hasn't been a annual budget enacted since the spring of 2009.

I don't know...maybe you just don't have the IQ to get this. Not everyone does. I'd say about 52% of the voting population of the United States doesn't get it.

I'm starting to believe that the idea you are positing for what constitutes "the budget" for the United States is akin to how the term "neo-con" was misused so much and so often in the media and by politicans that it has come to be understood to refer to the extreme right wing. The problem is that the term was created to refer to moderate liberals who left the party to become centists or moderate conservatives. The term "neo-con" was coined to distinguish politicians who had shifted their alignment from being liberal to being anything but a liberal for decades...until the ignorant and uneducated unwashed masses of Demcratic sheeple thought it would be an epithet akin to "neo-nazi", thus conjuring an association between conservatives and nazis. I guess my point here is that a ubituitous ignorance gives rise to "new" definitions for words and terms TO THE IGNORANT...but not to those who know better. Referring to "the budget" of the United States as a bunch of appropriations measures and not what is legally "the budget of the United States" is the same kind of ignorance.

After scanning over the comments it reinforced my belief that we have an idiot as President elected by a bunch of know-nothing idiot cultists with absolutely no clue as to the machinations of our govt. This statement sums up fairly well how uninformed and feeble minded those leftists who gather on this site are:

Uncompromising and believing that there should never be an increase in taxes has led us to this fiscal cliff thanks to the "God Owful Party."

No one denies that there is waste and fraud in the money spent amounting to hundreds of billions a year. Our problem is not revenue, it's due diligence.But the fool-in-chief insists we can't cut spending "right now". His policies have crashed and burned but he's too stupid smart to admit it.

Obama and his cult keeps repeating over and over "tax the rich". Like brain dead zombies they repeat it as if this will solve the fiscal problem. It will make not one bit of difference. What it will do is affect jobs. So why does Obama continue to spew this line of idiocy? Simple answer. To divide the people and give the malcontents someone they can blame for their lack of success and to provide cover for the worst President in our nation's history.

Obama doesn't want a deal, he doesn't want to compromise. If he did then he would have taken Boehner's deal because he knows that the amount of money which will be raisedwith the policies that he is proposing will be miniscule. He could have taken the deal and claimed victory and political points. He and his party seek collapse and Boehner seeks to hold onto his job.

I'm predicting nothing will be done and everyone's taxes will go up and Obama will blame Bush the Republicans.

Sorry Ms. Feisty, I respect your love for President Obama, but he made me so MAD when he came on TV. Why you ask? Because he interrupted the ONLY television show I watch, to say absolutely nothing he hasn't already said. GRRRR he couldn't have waited 15 more minutes?

I know that sounds wah wah but I turn on my TV for one hour a day for this particular show (it's called the Dr.'s) This show has literaly saved my life (I was watching one day and some of the "warning signs" they were talking about made me call my doctor)

Okay I'm done whining now lol Y'all have a very Merry Chistmas, (or whatever you celebrate or don't) and a safe and healthy New Year!

J R,

To state its decisions or declare its opinions, Congress uses three different types of resolutions.

Concurrent resolutions:
When both houses express the opinion of Congress on some issue, set the date of adjournment, or deal with some other internal matter affecting both houses, they adopt a concurrent resolution. For instance, in 1992 Congress by concurrent resolution declared that the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, proposed 202 years earlier to regulate increases in congressional salaries, had finally been ratified by three-quarters of the states and had become part of the Constitution. Presidents do not sign concurrent resolutions. Concurrent resolutions are numbered, with the prefix H. Con. Res. when introduced in the House and S. Con. Res. when introduced in the Senate.

The two internal types of resolutions, concurrent and simple, also need only the approval of both houses, and do not become law. Only a joint resolution can become law.
http://www.answers.com/topic/resolutions-congressional

A resolution is a statement of position. It carries no legal authority, has no force of law, and is simply a letter stating their opinion on a particular subject.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090316225357AAraDjP

J R,

To state its decisions or declare its opinions, Congress uses three different types of resolutions.

Concurrent resolutions:
When both houses express the opinion of Congress on some issue, set the date of adjournment, or deal with some other internal matter affecting both houses, they adopt a concurrent resolution. For instance, in 1992 Congress by concurrent resolution declared that the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, proposed 202 years earlier to regulate increases in congressional salaries, had finally been ratified by three-quarters of the states and had become part of the Constitution. Presidents do not sign concurrent resolutions. Concurrent resolutions are numbered, with the prefix H. Con. Res. when introduced in the House and S. Con. Res. when introduced in the Senate.

The two internal types of resolutions, concurrent and simple, also need only the approval of both houses, and do not become law. Only a joint resolution can become law.
http://www.answers.com/topic/resolutions-congressional

A resolution is a statement of position. It carries no legal authority, has no force of law, and is simply a letter stating their opinion on a particular subject.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=

Dude...seriously. I posted how the budget becomes law FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OWN WEBSITE. ffs...YOU'RE WRONG.

dayum!

J R,

No, you posted how a bill becomes law.

Resolutions: Only a joint resolution can become law and even in your posting it says the budget is a continuing resolution.

Nowhere in your copy paste does it ever say that a budget becomes law.

ntinuing resolution.

Kallie "When I buy into a company that pays dividends . I am getting this money by scraping together a little bit of money that was left over after I have already paid my federal, local and state taxes. This money was already taxed"

Actually, not only has the money that you invested already been taxed at the Federal, State and often Local level, but the Dividends that you are paid by a corporation have also already been taxes at the Federal, State and Local level as much as 45% before the remainder is paid to you, and then you have to pay taxes on that same income a second time as personal income.

How 'fair' is it for your share of corporate income (as part owner of a corporation) to be taxed at perhaps 45%, and then taxed again an additional 30% when you get your share of the remaining corporate profits as dividends? That's REAL double taxation.

For those who live with government 'handouts' (welfare) and will likely never have any money to 'invest', I'm sure they would like to 'tax the successful' at 100% of their income, since it might mean more 'welfare' for them, but they have no idea how a free market economy works, and cannot 'connect the dots' about how a healthy business climate generates jobs and economic growth, which is the foundation of everything worthwhile that we enjoy.

Not that anyone is interested in the bottom line, but the bottom line is that there are no proposals on the table that really deal with our fiscal crisis.

Well, witchrunner, you start off on a promising note, making the correct observance that none of the proposals on the table actually deal with the totality of the issue.

Then you go off on a rant about "libs", which makes a lot of broad brush observances about much of the voting public, and most of the Democrats in Washington, but makes no mention of the unrealistic proposals of Boehner and company, nor of how it was Bush, in the early years of his administration, which first took our nation off the path of fiscal probity with his "temporary tax cuts", which have now become sacrosanct, and his unfunded war in Iraq.

What is needed, though nobody wants to admit it, is to repeal all of the Bush era tax cuts, and to make serious but sensible cuts to the budgets of certain sacred cows, which must include both public programs and the military.

We had higher taxes in the 1990s and it did not stunt this nation's growth. We cannot afford to maintain the current tax rates, and we cannot afford all of the sanctified budget items in our national budget.

Clinton's "balanced budget" is an urban legend. Clinton's presidency actually increased the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars to 5.6 trillion dollars. Clinton's "balanced budget" is nothing more than an accounting sleight of hand trick. I could explain it to you but I don't think you'd believe it even if you understood it.

J.R. Browenstein - you are factually correct. Although the federal budget showed a modest surplus during the last 2 years of the Clinton presidency, this was accomplished by borrowing from the Social Security funds, the financial equivalent of raiding your child's piggy bank in order to meet your monthly bills. To the outside world, you are not incurring any new debts. But, in fact, your household has become slightly poorer.

But, just because people overstate it, this does not mean the dramatic decrease in the annual federal budget deficit was not a great accomplishment. To have a budget deficit of 16.5 billion dollars is certainly far better than the far larger deficits over which Bush presided.

Boehner shows us your proposal (with specifics) which you guarantee would gather a majority of votes in the House. (Otherwise get back to work NOW -- you have only had a month to do this.)

Boehner comes out with his own plan "B"oehner, and once again shows that the Speaker of the house cannot speak for his house so why do republicans try to blame that on Obama. Boehner says only God knows how this can be solved and McConnel says only the president can solve this for them. Funny how republicans want it both ways they wish to portray the president as ineffective and irreverent but simultaneously look to him as their their messiah and now the only godlike person that can save them from themselves. They can't seem to decide if they need Obama to be their devil or their saviour, now can they.

The republicans will take the political heat on the "fiscal cliff" the politics and polls are in the presidents favor in every way possible. The electorate has weighed in on how they feel about republicans unyielding stance on their "core values", they have weighed in on how they feel about signed pledges to a single man that for republicans take precedent over the will of the electorate. The will of the majority of the nation is against republicans on their social agenda, on their mixing religion with politics, with their stance on gun control, with their stance on taxing the rich, with their stance on cutting the old, sick, and poor to continue to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest of the population, with their stance on women's personal rights. The republicans are on the wrong side of every major issue, they stubbornly continue to try and swim against the political tide, and they are drowning themselves politically. Since these are the bunch that openly stated and employed a Waterloo strategy against the newly and duly elected president of the USA and hence the people of the USA it could not happen to a nicer bunch, they deserve all the trouble they bring upon themselves.

Republicans can blame the president all they want but he is not there because he determines or controls the will of the electorate or the results of polls on issues that concern the electorate. He is their because the electorate has determined he better represents their views on these issues, that is a political fact republicans just can't seem to understand.

J R,

No, you posted how a bill becomes law.

Resolutions: Only a joint resolution can become law and even in your posting it says the budget is a continuing resolution.

Nowhere in your copy paste does it ever say that a budget becomes law.

OMFG, are you kidding me? I gotta hand it to you...you are a very subtle troll, I'll give you that.

On the off chance that you are not a troll and you really have no clue how our national budget becomes law, I'd only say that you should go back and read my post @ 1.141 which explains how the U.S. budget becomes LAW and then read my post @ 1.147 where the quoted text specifically says that if the President signs the reconciliation budget resolution of both Houses that it becomes law.

If you're not a troll and just this unbelievably stupid, I can see why Obama was re-elected.

But, just because people overstate it, this does not mean the dramatic decrease in the annual federal budget deficit was not a great accomplishment. To have a budget deficit of 16.5 billion dollars is certainly far better than the far larger deficits over which Bush presided

I would love to have a conversation with you about the cause/effect relationship that Clinton had on the economy, foreign policy and domestic policy and how it actually affected the Bush Presidency. However, unless you are an objectve and fact oriented person and not given to following partisan spin I think it would be pointless.

Suffice it to say that Clinton provoked OBL into focusing his attacks on the U.S. and our interests abroad. It was Clinton's decisions that set the wheels in motion for 9/11 and then ensuing "wars" that resulted. 9/11 was an attack inspired by Clinton's provocation and enabled by Clinton's blinding our intelligence in the M.E. with his budget cuts. 9/11 was years in the planning and execution...just because it happened on Bush's watch does not mean that it was Bush's "fault". I can honestly say that I can't reasonably conclude that any single person is more responsible for America's involvement in dealing with OBL, al-quaeda and 9/11 and all that followed than Bill Clinton. He poked a stick into a hornet's nest and left someone else to deal with the consequences.

J R,

You have a congressional terminology problem

From your #1.147:

Appropriations (=Spending) committees, starting with allocations (=programs/departments) in the budget resolution (=not law, not a bill)

Once appropriations committees pass their bills (= not budget resolution, if passed may become law)

Once a conference bill (=not budget resolution, if passed may become law) has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President

You know, actually, all of this talk of a missing budget is bullcrap! Yeah Dubya had a budget - because he had a majority in both houses for 6 out of 8 years AND they were perfectly willing to ignore the budget and pass "emergency spending measures" to exceed that budget every year. Not only did they run a deficit every year, but they overspent on "emergency" measures that far exceeded the deficits they claimed.

Case in point:

In 2002 the budget deficit was $158B. BUT the national debt increased $400B that year! Why?

In 2003 the budget deficit was $378B. BUT the national debt increased $500B that year! Why?

In 2004 the budget deficit was $413B. BUT the national debt increased $600B that year! Why?

In 2005 the budget deficit was $318B. BUT the national debt increased $600B that year! Why?

In 2006 the budget deficit was $248B. But the national debt increased by $1T that year! Why?

When you understand this, you will understand what a crock of crap the Republicans are handing out about "fiscal responsibility"!

EEngineer

You know, actually, all of this talk of a missing budget is bullcrap! Yeah Dubya had a budget - because he had a majority in both houses for 6 out of 8 years AND they were perfectly willing to ignore the budget and pass "emergency spending measures" to exceed that budget every year. Not only did they run a deficit every year, but they overspent on "emergency" measures that far exceeded the deficits they claimed.

Case in point:

In 2002 the budget deficit was $158B. BUT the national debt increased $400B that year! Why?

In 2003 the budget deficit was $378B. BUT the national debt increased $500B that year! Why?

In 2004 the budget deficit was $413B. BUT the national debt increased $600B that year! Why?

In 2005 the budget deficit was $318B. BUT the national debt increased $600B that year! Why?

In 2006 the budget deficit was $248B. But the national debt increased by $1T that year! Why?

When you understand this, you will understand what a crock of crap the Republicans are handing out about "fiscal responsibility"!

Yet another person who does not understand what the budget of the United States is.

The fiscal budget of the United States is the legal projection of expenditures. It is an estimation of expected expenses and the allocation of funds from the Treasury to pay those expenses. It is not possible to budget for every unanticipated expense. This is why when expenses arise that are unplanned for or exceed their projected costs, appropriation bills are drafted by Congress to pay those expenses.

Yes...it causes the budget to overrun if there are no costs savings in other areas to offset the new appropriations. The problem with our government is that if you are allocated funds to cover your expenses and you don't spend all the money, they cut your allocation next year. So, there is HUGE incentive to spend everything and more and no real incentive to be fiscally responsible and save money where you can. As long as the government implements a "spend it all or you get less next year" mentality, we will NEVER see a reduction in deficits.

A Web of Convenient Fictions

Democrats, Social Security and the Fiscal Cliff

by ROB URIE

With democrats ecstatic that political dysfunction has postponed their cutting the social insurance programs that Americans have paid for and count on for a few weeks, discussion of the intricacies of ‘chained CPI’ (Consumer Price Index) versus other measures of inflation used to adjust Social Security can now apparently wait for the New Year. Still, this probably isn’t a bad time to ask: why? Why cut Social Security? The program is currently solvent, is expected to remain solvent for decades to come, and projected shortfalls in the future could be better addressed by raising the incomes of the people who pay into the program, not by cutting payments to those who depend on them. What is to be gained by ‘solving’ a problem that isn’t?

If cutting Social Security isn’t necessary, why then is it being proposed? Barack Obama provided copious evidence in prior proposals, television interviews and speeches that doing so is his intent. Congressional democrats and labor leaders quickly acceded to his proposal to do so, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi going so far as to actively lie that proposed cuts will ‘strengthen’ the program. And given the cuts will eventually put tens of millions of Americans into dire poverty from a program they paid into for all of their working lives, what rationale could possibly justify doing so?

The reason I ask is a coalition of democrats, labor, liberals and progressives just re-elected Mr. Obama and democrats in Congress to what—cut Social Security? Mr. Obama created the ‘fiscal cliff’ to first push his stacked (in favor of cutting social insurance programs) ‘deficit commission’ to develop a plan to cut government spending and second, to force the issue to be revisited immediately after the election if no plan was agreed to...

...Ultimately the entire ‘debate’ is nonsense—the U.S. doesn’t fund spending directly from taxes. As the Federal Reserve is in the process of demonstrating with its QE (Quantitative Easing) programs, it can buy an unlimited quantity of government debt with money it ‘creates’ –the ‘debt limit’ is an arbitrary misdirection. This isn’t to argue that there is no relationship between economic production and money creation, but it is to point out that the ‘Federal budget’ is a convenient fiction. So, given his repeated analogy of the Federal budget to a family budget, is Mr. Obama ignorant of government finances or does he understand them and is purposely using the misleading analogy to further unstated goals?

The ‘Fix the Debt’ committee of politicians, corporate executives and connected financiers claiming to be concerned about the Federal deficit isn’t discussing eliminating the ‘carried interest’ deduction that benefits billionaire hedge fund managers, raising effective corporate tax rates that are currently the lowest in modern history, materially cutting end-of-empire levels of military spending and raising personal income tax rates on the titans of finance who would be begging for change in the street were it not for Federal government largesse in the (ongoing) bank bailouts. But they are deeply concerned about the Federal deficit, as are Mr. Obama and congressional democrats.

But again, why? The web of convenient fictions currently in play amongst both democrats and republicans in Washington—corporate tax cuts promote economic growth and job creation, government spending ‘crowds out’ more productive private sector spending, ‘excessive’ government debt will cause a financial market rebellion (bond vigilantes) and handing social insurance programs to private market profiteers is beneficial to the insured, are all demonstrably nonsense with only a cursory look at ‘the evidence.’...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/21/democrats-social-security-and-the-fiscal-cliff/

http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2012-12-10/20:43:38

http://www.dropshots.com/OldCrow2#date/2012-12-23/10:18:35

Yet another person who does not understand what the budget of the United States is.

The fiscal budget of the United States is the legal projection of expenditures. It is an estimation of expected expenses and the allocation of funds from the Treasury to pay those expenses. It is not possible to budget for every unanticipated expense. This is why when expenses arise that are unplanned for or exceed their projected costs, appropriation bills are drafted by Congress to pay those expenses.

Wrong! I do understand the budget. The problem is that George W. Bush and Republicans understood it also and circumvented the entire budget process with supplemental spending bills.

From a GAO report posted on Mar 18, 2008 (find it here):

While this bypassing of budgetary controls is troubling in any context, the recent increase in supplemental spending makes these problems acute. Compared to the previous ten-year window (FY 1987-FY 1996), supplemental spending has increased five-fold. GAO indicates the $48.6 billion in emergency funding approved in 1991 for the first Gulf War is an outlier in the flat-line pattern of 1981 to 2001, in which supplemental spending averaged less than $20 billion annually. Since 2001, however, supplemental spending has been on a rapid ascent, leveling out at well over $100 billion annually after peaking in 2005 at $160 billion.

So, in short, George H.W. Bush first used this technique to keep the First Gulf War spending "off the books" and, thus, kept his budget deficit numbers lower. George W. Bush took a page from his dad's palybook and funded two entire wars "off the books" to make his budget deficit numbers look much lower than they were.

But he didn't stop there - oh, no, this quickly became the favorite Republican tool to fund anything!

The GAO report also notes other troubling trends in supplemental spending — relaxed standards as to what constitutes an emergency and combining emergency with non-emergency funding on individual supplemental spending bills. The emergency supplemental bills examined for the report contained $12.7 billion in spending provisions designated as "emergency" that appeared to be unrelated to the situation that originally prompted the need for the bill.

• $4 billion for farm bailouts, which comes on top of the $25 billion that will be spent this year on farm subsidies, even as farm income reaches near-record highs;
• $700 million to re-route a rail line several miles away, reportedly to help private developers build casinos nearby its present location;
• $1.1 billion for private fisheries;
• $2.3 billion to prepare for the avian flu, on top of the $3.8 billion that was appropriated in December 2005;
• $594 million for highway projects unrelated to the Gulf Coast-some as far away as Hawaii;
• $20 million for AmeriCorps

Conservatives here always tout Dubya's low budget deficit numbers as an example of "fiscal reponsibility". In reality, they only reflect nefarious bookkeeping methods to hide his excessive spending and croney capitalism give-aways!

So, in short, George H.W. Bush first used this technique to keep the First Gulf War spending "off the books" and, thus, kept his budget deficit numbers lower. George W. Bush took a page from his dad's palybook and funded two entire wars "off the books" to make his budget deficit numbers look much lower than they were.

But he didn't stop there - oh, no, this quickly became the favorite Republican tool to fund anything!

The idea that Bush "kept the wars off the books" is absurd at best...it's partisan hack nonsense spread by Democrat sheeple.

The funding for the wars was not a foreseeable cost. There is no way to actually budget for a war in totality in advance. The spending measures were AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, including the Democratically controlled Congress of 2006-2008....who were perfectly capable of writing their own budget which included projected costs and expenses for the wars and presenting it to Bush for his signing into law. Even Obama voted for the appropriation measures. Everything in the appropriation measures was public record. There was nothing 'off the books" and hidden from the citizenry.

You do realize that Obama and the Democrats have used "emergency spending measures" to fund not just "two wars" BUT THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for the last 3 years without a legal budget, don't you?

Conservatives here always tout Dubya's low budget deficit numbers as an example of "fiscal reponsibility". In reality, they only reflect nefarious bookkeeping methods to hide his excessive spending and croney capitalism give-aways

It was "nefarious bookkeeping" that give rise to the urban legend of Clinton's so-called "balanced budget".

There is none so blind as those that will not see – Matthew Henry

.

J R - You are wrong about Obama not submitting a budget:

• Fiscal Year 2010 - Barack H. Obama. Thursday, February 26, 2009
• Fiscal Year 2011 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 1, 2010
• Fiscal Year 2012 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 14, 2011
• Fiscal Year 2013 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 13, 2012

They're all right there at the Government Printing Office website.

So, who is worse - someone who doesn't fully understand the process? Or someone who flat out lies about the facts? By all means - blame the guy for what he has and has not done; but don't lie or go making @!$%# up - it makes the rest of us look bad.

JR - You are wrong about Obama not submitting a budget:

• Fiscal Year 2010 - Barack H. Obama. Thursday, February 26, 2009
• Fiscal Year 2011 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 1, 2010
• Fiscal Year 2012 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 14, 2011
• Fiscal Year 2013 - Barack H. Obama. Monday, February 13, 2012

They're all right there at the Government Printing Office website.

So, who is worse - someone who doesn't fully understand the process? Or someone who flat out lies about the facts? By all means - blame the guy for what he has and has not done; but don't lie or go making @!$%# up - it makes the rest of us look bad.

Jesus F'g Christ...do NONE of you retards understand the budget process? Obama has submitted his PROPOSED budgets...which are NOTHING in terms of a legal budget. It is the first step in the budget process. Obama submits a proposed budget to Congress...Congress takes in under advisement and creates their own budget which is sent back to him for him to sign into law or veto....it's a pretty goddamn simple concept.

It's no wonder Obama was re-elected.

JR - you're right - it's so @!$%#ing simple! So why is it that you insist that it is the fault of Obama and the Dem's that a budget has not been passed? Obama submitted the budget proposal - at which point it was out of his hands until the final budget agreed upon by the House and Senate came back to him. So there goes his culpability in this "illegal" mess right out the window. As for the part played by the liberal members of Congress in a budget not being passed - I have no doubt they were involved. They were just as guilty of involvement as were the conservatives.

So can you provide any links to House and Senate votes showing that the fault lies strictly with the liberals? Or is all this just BS rhetoric?

I have no problem with placing blame where blame belongs - nor accepting responsibility when part of that blame falls on me.

BTW - I have been a Republican since the days of president Ford.

Perhaps the best alternative would be to allow all of the tax increases and spending cuts to take place.

Then, for each tax cut or spending increase, the people proposing it would have to justify a spending increase or a tax cut.

Maybe a little temporary pain (including a small recession) would be good if it gets on on a path to financial stability.

J R,

See topic "The Budget Cycle" paragraph #3 in the link near the bottom:

Although it also does not have the force of law, the budget resolution is a central part of the budget process in Congress. As a concurrent resolution, it represents an agreement between the House and Senate that establishes budget priorities, and defines the parameters for all subsequent budgetary actions. The spending, revenue, and public debt legislation necessary to implement decisions agreed to in the budget resolution are subsequently enacted separately.

http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/

Once again Congressional resolutions are not law, can never become law, are not approved or signed by the POTUS.

JR - you're right - it's so @!$%#ing simple! So why is it that you insist that it is the fault of Obama and the Dem's that a budget has not been passed? Obama submitted the budget proposal - at which point it was out of his hands until the final budget agreed upon by the House and Senate came back to him. So there goes his culpability in this "illegal" mess right out the window. As for the part played by the liberal members of Congress in a budget not being passed - I have no doubt they were involved. They were just as guilty of involvement as were the conservatives.

Obama has clearly and publicly said that he, as President, is the head of the Democratic Party. Since the Democrats control two of the three branches of government, that makes him culpable for the failing of his party to bring a budget into law.

Obama can't even get his own party to approve his proposed budgets. It's not like the GOP is holding up a budget that is Obama's budget that passed the Senate. The Senate democrats have rejected Obama's proposed budgets with budgets of their own that Obama will not sign. Putting the blame on the GOP is kinda like blaming Tim Tebow for the Jets losing.

Tea Movement are cheering that we go over the cliff and dismiss economists warnings that this could trigger a depression, but the Tea activists say they want this President to fail at all cost, this mad rightwing group is going to destroy this nation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama=FUBR

JR - bull@!$%#.

From the Fisty Redhead: This evening, President Obama demonstrated his impeccable leadership skills...

Can anyone recognize delusional in that statement... What a joke.

Time is running out.

It is high time Mr. Obama mustered back in the Oval Office to show some LEADERSHIP.

Nah, fairy tale.

Talk about having Grinches.........Merry Chrsitmas and Happy New Year, America. This COAL is for you !!! ....compliments of the Progressives.

BTW: The EPA is saying nothing about the hundreds of coal trains heading to the Pacific Northwest for loading onto ships with an ultimate destination of ...... you guessed it..... CHINA.

Rick-525236

JR - bull@!$%#.

What part do you think is bull@!$%#...the part where Obama says he's the leader of the Democratic Party as President, the part where Senate Democrats have rejected Obama's last 3 proposed budgets or the part where Obama has rejected the Senate Democrats proposed budgets...? Cause that @!$%#'s all true.

Maybe you think the part where the Democrats control 2/3 of the government is bull@!$%#...? Sorry...that's true too.

I think what's bull@!$%# is that Democrats are pathologically unable to admit their failures...and ALWAYS blame someone else for why they can't just get it done

What's bull@!$%# is the part where it's all the Democrats fault and us poor hapless Republicans are so misunderstood - blamed for things that we had no part in. I'm still waiting for those links on vote tallies.

I think what's bull@!$%# is that Democrats are pathologically unable to admit their failures...and ALWAYS blame someone else for why they can't just get it done

I agree with you whole heartedly. And I would feel exactly the same way if you replace "Democrats" with "Republicans" in that sentence. Happily, I know that there remain a few sane individuals out there on both sides of the isle.

Tell me, what was the last failure that the Republicans accepted responsibility for?

J R,

[the part where Obama says he's the leader of the Democratic Party as President] President Obama has never said that … it is the press and pundits that say it.

[the part where Senate Democrats have rejected Obama's last 3 proposed budgets] Actually that was 2 budgets not 3 and what was voted on was a mockup of his submitted budget with numbers only and no explanation and submitted for a vote by the Republicans. More time wasting stunts by Republicans.

[the part where Obama has rejected the Senate Democrats proposed budgets] ... Proof Please !

[Maybe you think the part where the Democrats control 2/3 of the government is bull@!$%#...? Sorry...that's true too.] Yes that is a fact but in the Senate with the filibuster it becomes a minority rule. And the Republicans set a new record for using the filibuster by invoking it almost 3 times more than any other Congressional session in history.

How about some links to your claims ??????

J R,

How about Boehner not able to get the votes to pass his own bill … sooo embarrassing

How about McConnell having to filibuster his own bill … even more embarrassing

Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official Obama White House government source to verify;

Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.

Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.

Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.

Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year. This included all of the cost of the wars.

Obama (2009-2012) = $5.333 Trillion (Proj) over his first 4 years, or $1,333 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.

Obama projects another $5 Trillion of Deficits in the next 4 years, or more than $10 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will have as a 'millstone' around their necks for their entire lives. Running up huge debts is a great way to 'pander for votes', but somebody will have to pay it back (our children) - with interest. Below is the official government link - See Table 1.3. When Interest Rates return to normal (Average is 4.97% over previous 30 years before Obama), the Interest alone on Obama's projected $20.369 Trillion National Debt in 2016 will increase to over $1,000 Billion per year, vs an average of only $199 Billion per year under Bush. Where is that extra $800 Billion per year ($8 Trillion over 10 years) going to come from??????

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

PS – Let's also look at the 'JOBS' picture under Obama;

The total average number of people employed in 2008 (Bush's last year, including losses at the end of 2008) = 136,790,000.

The total average number of people employed in 2012 = 133,169,000 – that's a LOSS under Obama of 3,625,000 net jobs.

Here's the Link to official Bureau of Labor Statistics site on employment to verify - Compare average jobs for 2012 vs 2008;

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Want some budget savings? Cut defense....

We spend about $711 billion on defense, or about five times as much as the next largest spender which is China. In fact, we spend as much as the next 14 highest spenders put together. The only countries that spend more per capita are oil-rich middle-eastern countries like Oman and Saudi Arabia. It's become obscene and does little for the American economy except enrich defense contractors, lobbyists, and their congressional supporters.

Robert1717 "Remember Romney said during the election that the republicans wanted to put african-Americans "back in chains". "

That was Obama's Vice President Joe Biden, not Romney that made that statement. Here's a link;

http://freebeacon.com/biden-on-romney-theyre-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

This is what passes for 'leadership' today? Let's hope Obama stays healthy.

How about Boehner not able to get the votes to pass his own bill … sooo embarrassing

It's "embarrasshing" to you if you are a moron. Boehner was trying to actually compromise on raising taxes on the wealthy...that he couldn't get "his people" to support his compromise when they would rather do ANYTHING than raise taxes is not a "failure of leadership" on his part. He was trying to lead his party to compromise...they balked.

What is "embarrassing" is that Obama can't even get his own party to support ANY of his budget proposals after his inaugural one.

So, is the President coming back early from his Christmas vacation, or will he be "leading" from Hawaii?

So what's this now about more unemployment?? Give 1 take 2. Not my idea of compromise.

Merry Christmas all.

in the beginning of the year congress was borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent, now we are borrowing 46 cents on every dollar spent.

Congress and this president have a spending & borrowing problem.

Merry Chistmas to everyone.

sharriannie,

If the republican Congress had not given 'little shrub' a no-limit credit card, Obama would not have to spend so much to repair all the damage done by their spendthrift ways. The only time republicans are concerned about out of control spending is when someone else is in charge of spending......And that's the whole truth !!

Merry Christmas to you too !!

lyn, He won't even be celebrating Christmas. What a misguided fool you are.

Ellis,

For the last two years of his term, his Congress was 100% Democrats and to that you can add the first two years of the Presidents term. Please remember the Democrats have been in charge of 2/3rds of the government for the last 6 years yet everything is still Bush's fault.

Yeah, Obama really cares about the "little guy" and their problems! That is why, in the last year, our citizens have paid over $1.4 BILLION to support our First Family! They have personal, full-time projectionists to put in their DVD's in the White House! It costs over $100,000 each time Michelle goes out to the organic grocery store (with the extra Secret Service needed)! Obama has done more than twice the amount of golfing then GW did during his entire presidency (and I seem to have heard screams from the press every time Mr. Bush went on the links, but, not a word when Obama does!)! How many vacations do the Obama's need every year? I go once per year and I have to scrimp and save to do it.

The liberals are raping the citizens of this country and not even giving us a kiss, first! They have crony capitalism with their "Green Energy" companies like Solyndra and Abound Solar! They spend 30 times more on these companies than the so-called "corporate welfare" to oil companies. This "corporate welfare" fall mainly in the form of accelerated depreciation on new oil field equipment. The increased demand for this expensive equipment is met by our American industry, creating thousands of jobs nationwide! When was the last time you heard of mass layoffs or bankruptcies from the American oil and gas industry!?

I just love this vine. The most amazing thing is how Feasting Redead baits everyone, "smack" right out of the box every time. ROTFLMAO LOSER

Obama over played his hand and everybody folded their hands and went home. Oh well, what does he do when the House tells him that they will see him in January. Wonder how much he gets to spend when everybody gets hit with his taxes.

When I witnessed the President reiterate the same old fiscal cliff speech of the last 4 weeks this afternoon, I wondered what on earth does he think he's doing, and realized he is deluded. Why try the same thing over and over a hundred times when it doesn't work? There will be 234 Republican votes in the House of Representatives starting next year, a substantial majority of 33 votes. If the President is to succeed he must reach out to this majority. Remember they are Republicans, not Democrats. No other choice.

Boehner tried to spin into the middle, the President chose to cut that effort off at the knees and succeeded to kill even the vote, and now the President is back to 234 votes against, everything is now back off of the table, a much worse predicament than what existed yesterday.

Democrats can banty about over polls they find but the November 7, 2012 poll is the only one that counts. Are the Democrats bent on failure? Is it there plan to fail, then blame somebody other than themselves?

Dems are looking at a minimum of 25 more months of this. With control of two thirds of government can't Dems achieve any solution?

Scott: Strange logic. Because republicans have a majority in the house democrats have to accept their demands? I don't think so with democrats having the senate and the presidency. That's the time you accept compromise if you're serious about avoiding the cliff. Obama has offered a compromise of extending the Bush cuts from 250K to 400K and increasing the amounts cut from programs by 50%. Republicans counter offering to extend cuts to millionaires and paying for it by doubling cuts to social programs isn't any compromise at all. They even refused Boehners compromise at 1 million. Since Obama gets most of what he wants if we go over the cliff with an increase on the rich at 39.5% and expiration of the Bush cuts for all it's up to republicans to deal. Democrats can always enter a new bill after January 1st offering new cuts to those below 250K and republicans wouldn't dare block it.

$400,000.00 still most small business........ With Obama wanting to raise my taxes on that amount I will not be able to hire summer help which helps college people etc. I will not be able to take on trainees since that is VERY expense to do.

Now if I could just figure out how Buffet etc hide their money from taxes... OH YES many of them are getting BIG dividends this year to avoid next years taxes. Too bad small business can't do that.... 12 million this year versus only 8 million next year.. hhhmmm they so back Obama's higher taxes (just not on themselves it would seem)

Yep.! $16 TRILLION in debt. What does our leader do.? He takes the entourage on a Tax payer funded Hawaiian (money is no object) Christmas vacation.

I'm aware that the past presidents have broke off for a little Christmas 20 day vacation. But they were not $16 trillion in the hole. No matter what is said in the campaign speeches that we should not vote for the same old politics that brought us to the position that we're in now. Funny how all politicians stay the same.!!

Does Owebama even have any family in Hawaii??

Melekalikimaka baby.!

*yawn*

Again the grinches are spreading their vacation bull@!$%#! It would really help any credibility you yahoo's might have if you ever had the FACTS straight!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.

FactCheck.org was writing about the anonymous chain emails about Obama’s travel costs and noted in July that the stories about Obama’s travel expenses are, “part of continuing pattern of false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady,” and that Obama used Air Force One less in his first two years in office than George W. Bush did.

Run along and find some right wing chat room to spread your propaganda, your lies don't fly around here!

That is why, in the last year, our citizens have paid over $1.4 BILLION to support our First Family! They have personal, full-time projectionists to put in their DVD's in the White House! It costs over $100,000 each time Michelle goes out to the organic grocery store (with the extra Secret Service needed)!

Not sure which is more pathetic...

Your willful ignorance or the 10 idiots who voted for your LIES!

lol^

Jay-1891719 hey Jay, if you get her to ignore you, you wont even be able to see her crap...in fact you wont even be able to open the threads she starts...its a beautiful thing...all i see is her name with no ability to open the thread..makes me HAPPY

@jay

fiesty...who....shes on ignore.

mcpaddywack,

How mature of you! You are the A that you are referring to!

Tell us Red, how much will it cost the tax payers for Hussein's 20 day Hawaiian vacation this year.??

Does Hussein have family in Hawaii.??

If you can't dazzle us with brilliance, please baffle us with the same thing Hussein uses on us.

Bush Vacations

Bush-43 was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

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

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

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

Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport. George W. Bush spent 69 days in Crawford during his first year in office. In contrast, Obama spent all, or part of, 26 days of his first year in office on vacation. That is 1/3 of his presidency on vacation.
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-bush-vacation.html

lol^

Jay-1891719 hey Jay, if you get her to ignore you, you wont even be able to see her crap...in fact you wont even be able to open the threads she starts...its a beautiful thing...all i see is her name with no ability to open the thread..makes me HAPPY

Cool.... I can think of 2 loudmouth liberal dumbass gals that I can ignore right now. I guess neither of them have a life so they are alway first to comment on a story and they never contribute to a lively debate all they do is babble nonesense. It's pathetic really, but at least now I wont have to look at it.

does anybody really believe the POTUS is ever on vacation? Seriously?

Truth,

I do not but as long as others want to complain about much our current President is on vacation or how much they cost I will show them who set the “Gold Standard.” Just as I compare Ike’s average of playing 2 rounds of golf every week to this President’s 2 rounds a month.

Wow, just wow. Self-deportation comes to mind again. Our country works best with Rule of Reason, not simple-minded talking points from idiots like Limbaugh.

Rule of Reason?! Did you drink too many eggnog cause that must be the most craziest talk ever heard. In America, ignorance and secularism rules. Atheist president obama doesn't work with reason just doing it because he love himself more then our country.

The GOP IS THE PROBLEM... Ok ask yourself "whats worse". Only the top 2% getting a tax hike or EVERYONE getting a tax hike.... Its soooo SAD the GOP in spite of disagreement does NOT have the common sense & common decency to see this. I thought GOP was made up of smart NOT stupid individuals!!! The GOP's behavior & attitude is VERY APPAULING!!!! Yet they run off home for the holidays with there rich families and leave the rest of us hanging... AGAIN appauling!!!

Deportations under Obama (all records): FY2010 = 392K; FY2011 = 397K; FY2012 = 410K for a total of 1.2 million in the last 3 years.

"With their votes, the American people have determined that governing is a shared responsibility between both parties."

With their votes, America agreed with the Obama campaign promise of his plan that includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases, while bringing annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years.

Source: The tax link at the following Obama-Biden Campaign website -

When will this proposal be made so we can possibly avoid going over the cliff?

The GOP is not the problem - they passed in August to extend the tax cuts but the senate won't take up their bill because it was a continuation of all the tax cuts. If the Democrats where serious about extending the tax cuts before the end of the year they would vote on what the house passed and be done with it. Then we would see if the President was serious about not raising taxes on the middle class. The house also passed another bill to fix the automatic cuts the first of the year but again the senate won't vote on it. They're all talk and no action.

Mr. Obama "Fiscal Cliff" solution:

• Tax + Spend + Redistribute and a lot more REGULATIONS.

No budging on his part. He is the PROBLEM.

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

FLYeisty is the Chicago Grinch (wait a minute....Wench).

Still on that Obama/Media Matters/MoveOn campaign payroll huh ? Just in time for CHRISTmas.

"We will do nothing." (Harry Reid, 12/21/12)

To get 34 votes out of the Republican side of the House, the President will need to do something. What he has tried so far has not worked. I don't think he will gain a single Republican vote trying to push concepts that have not worked.

Democrats might as well plan on waiting until the next midterm election and hope toretake a House majority as keep trying the same old thing. If Democrats only gain 7 seats every two years it will be 10 years before they get a House majority again.

Guess Barry figures he can think better in Hawaii....... thought he lived in Chicago? When we go "home for Christmas"..... we go "home".......

Barry spends a MILLION DOLLARS on a VACATION............ real homey..........

Yes, let's consider the House of Representatives. People have spoken there and they want balanceto the politics. But, President wants his rules because he was elected ... the House represents over 400 US districts that say Republican majority. But Obama hasn't even thrown a bone. His tax increases are followed with more spending. Not cuts.

Let's just jump off the cliff and it will FORCE our politicians to properly manage a budget (which Obama has never proposed in 4 years now) for all the wasteful departments with cuts to be determined Department by Department. THey say over the cliff because they would have NO control on what departments will be cut, it is across the board and it is best we cut across the board to reduce this deficit $10 trillion. Afterall, Obama was the one who said he would cut the deficit in half. Now to keep that promise he has to cut the deficit 2/3rds. And the fool left still think their way is going to work. Fools, just fools.

The GOP IS THE PROBLEM... Ok ask yourself "whats worse". Only the top 2% getting a tax hike or EVERYONE getting a tax hike.... Its soooo SAD the GOP in spite of disagreement does NOT have the common sense & common decency to see this. I thought GOP was made up of smart NOT stupid individuals!!! The GOP's behavior & attitude is VERY APPAULING!!!! Yet they run off home for the holidays with there rich families and leave the rest of us hanging... AGAIN appauling!!!

I'm having a hard time why expecting everyone to pony up is so "appauling". (It's "appalling, just an FYI)

We live under the idea that our laws should be applied equally to all persons (14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause) so why is it "appalling" that taxation be applied equally to all persons?

Salary of retired US Presidents..............$450,000 for life

Salary of House/Senate members.........$174,000 for life

Salary of Speaker of the House.............$223,500 for life

Salary of Majority/Minority leaders.........$194,400 for life

Average salary of a solder deployed in Afghanistan. $38,000

Average income for seniors on Social Security. $12,000

Where do you think the budget cuts should start.!

Guy,

There is a 5 year vesting period for the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), which means a 1 term Representative would not get vested, but a Senator would.

A single-term Senator could take retirement at age 62. The amount is the average annual salary for the 3 top-earning years multiplied by years served (6) multiplied by 1.7%.

Right now, a Senator makes $174,000 a year. If we assume that amount for the top 3 earning years, and we assume that the Senator served a single term, then we come up with a pension amount of $17,748.00 per year.

For a 2 term (12 years) Senator the pension would be $35,496.

1. It's amazing to see how much republicans hate America.

2. It's funny (and, at the same time, sad) to see that DB AKron and Roy Wilson are still bitter and angry about all their false statements regarding "the fact" that the Magic Underwear Mormon Cultist woudl be elected President. The rest of us knew it was a NO GO from the start...but these guys held on to their fairy tales and false polling data, and kept demanding that the Magic Underwear Cult Member was going to win. And they were wrong, as always. They were wrong then -- and they are still wrong, today, in all their rantings on this board.

You should have listened to that famous movie line, guys! "It doesn't pay to go through life fat, dumb and stupid, son!"

Yes, let's consider the House of Representatives. People have spoken there and they want balanceto the politics. But, President wants his rules because he was elected ... the House represents over 400 US districts that say Republican majority.

You do realize that all 435 seats in the HR are up for re-election in 2014, don't you? If Republuicans keep up their obstructionism, that may change radically in 2014!