E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSKey staffers huddle behind closed doors against the backdrop of a snowy capital as they attempt to hammer a last-minute deal to avoid going over the so-called fiscal cliff. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.
Updated 6:30 p.m. ET -- President Barack Obama tasked the United States Senate with trying to resolve the “fiscal cliff” in the waning hours before the New Year following a meeting between congressional leaders and the president.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will lead the last-minute effort to avert the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1 unless Congress acts.
And Obama said he is “optimistic” they can reach an accord before midnight on New Year’s Eve, the point at which the government would hit the fiscal cliff.
Absent that, the president said he had asked Reid to instead advance a bare-boned proposal that would extend the 2001 Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000.
Related -- Cliff Notes: Five things to watch at today's White House meeting
“I still want to get this done,” Obama said after his discussions with congressional leaders. He said “the hour for immediate action is here. It is now."
The president will appear exclusively on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he's expected to further outline steps toward reaching a final deal.
The White House talks -- at which Obama presented no new offer to Republicans in Congress -- yielded “no concrete proposal,” Reid told reporters at the Capitol following the meeting.
President Barack Obama meets with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press Sunday morning. Gregory explains that for the president, this has become a matter of principle.
But in the waning hours before the end-of-year deadline, senators are now scrambling to produce a bipartisan package, at the request of Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that can muster enough support in the House.
Reid, McConnell, Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spent the meeting “discussing potential options and components for a plan that could pass both chambers of Congress,” according to a Boehner aide.
But the most significant development appeared to be the emerging consensus that any final agreement would have to emerge from the Senate. That deal would necessarily require a “bipartisan approach,” according to the office of McConnell, the Republican leader in the upper chamber.
Among the major sticking points, senior Democratic aides told NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, involve the income threshold at which tax rates would be allowed to rise and the level at which estates are taxed.
Boehner’s failed effort last week to push through a fallback plan with only Republican votes laid bare the internal GOP divisions after conservatives balked at supporting a plan from the speaker to allow tax rates to rise on income over $1 million.
The unsuccessful effort suggested that Boehner would need to lean upon Pelosi for Democratic votes if a deal -- which has eluded Obama and Congress for the better part of the last two years -- is to pass.
A Senate-led agreement, though, faces no surefire guarantee of passage in the House.
“The speaker told the president that if the Senate amends the House-passed legislation and sends back a plan, the House will consider it -- either by accepting or amending,” Boehner’s aide emailed reporters.
One of the biggest sticking points in the fiscal cliff negotiations has been which income level ought to be required to pay additional taxes. On Friday, Democratic and Republican leaders met for an hour at the White House. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
The protracted stalemate between Obama-led Democrats and congressional Republicans had prompted Friday's last-ditch meeting at the White House. It lasted just over an hour, and included Vice President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Sources familiar with the meeting said that Obama made no new offer to Republicans, urging them to hold an up-or-down vote on a Democratic proposal to preserve existing tax rates for income under $250,000 and extend unemployment benefits (among other unresolved issues).
It’s that very proposal which Obama said he would ask Reid to advance should he and McConnell fail to strike a deal.
“I believe such a proposal could pass both houses with bipartisan majorities, as long as those leaders actually allow it to come to a vote,” he said.
Republicans had previously rejected such a proposal, but could feel pressure to relent to administration pressure in order to forestall across-the-board tax hikes in just a few days. The source familiar with the meeting told NBC's Peter Alexander and Kristen Welker that Obama asked Republicans what they would be willing to support, if not that proposal.
Amid negotiations toward a final deal, the House was set to return to Washington on Sunday at Boehner’s request, and remain at work through Jan. 2 -- the final day before the 112th Congress concludes and the next batch of lawmakers are sworn into office.
In the meanwhile, Obama voiced frustration toward the repeated pattern in Congress these past few years of lurching from crisis to crisis before reaching a last-minute deal to stave off catastrophe.
“The American people are watching what we do here. Obviously, their patience is already thin. This is deja vu all over again,” Obama said. “America wonders why, for some reason, in this town you can’t get stuff done in an organized timetable ... The American people are not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy.”
Leave a Comment:
I also find it very interesting that the states who benefit the most from the "welfare state" are those that vote overwhelmingly republican.
Red states overwhemingly get more money from the feds than they pay to the feds.
The Federal Government is scheduled to spend $3.803 Trillion in 2013. .46 cents of every dollar spent, is currently borrowed. Raising the taxes on those earning $250,000 and more will pay for only 8.5 days, out of 365, of government spending. This does little to nothing towards paying down our $16.3 Trillion debt, or balancing our budget. Should the country cut expenses or just add another 5-7 Trillion to the staggering debt we already have? Should people perfectly able, both mentally and physically, live off the hard work and sweat of others for extended periods of time? Should just about 50% of all workers pay Federal Income taxes after filing and the rest pay nothing towards the nation’s fiscal health? Between Federal, State and local taxes what is a “fair” amount to tax a worker? By in large, those on relief, feel they deserve more relief, while those paying the bills are tired of losing 30-60% of their income while 50% of workers and 10’s and 10’s of millions contribute nothing and just take. Supporting those who cannot fend for themselves is fine; the others are destroying the country. Be they individuals or companies, grow up and leave the hard working, moderately successful and and those doing even better, alone.
So you want solutions? Look at how much you have in revenue, subtract 5% to pay down debt, then spend no more than what you have left. Yes, that will mean downsizing government employees, the military, duplicity of assignments amongst various Departments. Departments may need to close as well. If you can't afford it Sherlock, you should not authorize the spending. Develop a balanced budget and stick to it. Will it be painful now, yes. Can the country keep kicking the can down the road expecting different results, obviously not.
How much of that is to pay off the unfunded debt created by GW for two wars, two tax cuts at a time of war, and unfunded Medicare Part d?
Did you cry back then, or did you ignore it because GW kept the wars off budget??
Off-Budget Spending (data from the White House Office of Management and Budget):
$2.141 trillion – total for 8 Clinton years
$3.198 trillion – total for 8 Bush2 years
$2.414 trillion – total for 4 Obama years (2012 budget estimate)
$2.920 trillion – Obama OMB 4 year estimate 2013-2016
In spite of what so many preach, it is Obama who is the king of off-budget spending, by far.
Dahly "The Federal Government is scheduled to spend $3.803 Trillion in 2013."
That's not what the CBO estimates.
Peter, what is "Off-Budget Spending"?
Profound: MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
Let 's look at what we have learned from this election:
Twenty-one of 22 incumbent senators were re-elected, and 353 of 373 incumbent members of the House were re-elected.
The American people have re-elected 94 percent of the incumbents who were running for re-election to an institution that has an approval rating of about 9 percent.
This indicates, as an electorate, we are a nation of idiots. We're now stuck with the useless, dysfunctional government that we deserve....
3rd time you have posted that same thing....your cut-and-paste key is stuck?
We have one guy who is a halfway conservative meeting with 5-9 ultra liberals. Can anyone guess how the results will turn out?
Will Turtleman McConnell submit another bill and then Filibuster his own bill again?
That was the sign of insanity, if you ask me!
Ya know those people who make over $250k already receive a tax break that most of us do not by way of the payroll tax. I pay FICA taxes on every penny I earn while they only pay on the first $110k. Let's raise the cap.
Excellent point drinker. The rich would also have the same tax break extended to them for their first $250K in earnings under Obama's plan.
Compromise will get us nowhere except further in debt. It's a joke.
Your understanding of the root cause of the problem....is a joke...
Blamo the Clown honks his bike horn and rides away
What ever happens.It won't be in our favor.You can bank on that.
Getting the ideologues on the far right or the far left is like asking the Taliban or Al Queda to reconsider their positions and compromise...
A recent report from the Bureau of Economic analysis on the history of “Federal, State and Local Government Receipts & Expenditures” as a percent of GDP since 1929 shows how rapidly government spending has grown in recent decades. In the 1950s & 1060s total government spending grew slowly from 23% to 26% of GDP. By the 1970 we were averaging around 30% of GDP. From the 1980s until 2008 we averaged out with total government spending at 32-33% of GDP. Over the last 4 years, however, total government spending spiked to 36-37% of GDP.
Total government revenue was at about 24-26% of GDP in the 1950s and 1960s. It climbed to 28-29% of GDP for the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s up until 2008 it averaged about 30% of GDP. During the deep ecession it dropped to 27% of GDP but is now climbing back to around 28-29% of GDP.
Even as government revenue gets back to the norm over the past 20 years of about 30% of GDP, there is no indication that total government spending (federal, state & local) will drop from where it is today, 36-37% of GDP. We have a spending problem, pure and simple.
Hmmm...increasing revenue would be an indication of a recovering economy and less unemployment. That, in turn, would make a portion of federal spending unnecessary.
While a 5% tax increase on incomes above $250K/year, will hardly create sufficient added revenue to resolve the fiscal problems of the country, cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits for the retired, just as the baby boomer generation enters that demographic, without some token sacrifice by the wealthy is absurd.
Boehner "offered" a tax increase thresehold of $1.0 million (i.e. raise the taxes to Clinton era rates on incomes ABOVE $1.0 million) and could not get his own Caucus to approve it.
Peter17,
Gross Domestic Product has nothing to do with Gov't spending. It's the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced in a country within a given priod of time. It is the collective efforts of an International market.....not US Gov't spending within it's appropriated budget. Now.....if any Country wants to purchase products from another country....it may dictate the costs at that moment within the market. Otherwise....you're full of it.
Do you obamanites think jobs are just going boom, with small businesses have to deal with the higher taxes, obamacare's new taxes, health insurances sky rocketing, and extra the EPA expenses. Plus what the states are going to add for extra expenses. These extra expenses are going to add to the cost of doing business and cost jobs. After you are laid off and prices going up are you going to wonder what happened. Think about it you can't spend more money than you take in. I haven't hired a person in the last 4 years.
Where are the "jobs, jobs, jobs" promised by the tea stains in 2010?
They substituted outlawing abortion, voter suppression and union busting for jobs, jobs, jobs immediately upon getting elected.
Lighten up Francis! Any good business owner will bake in overhead costs. At least Dems are trying to stimulate business. And just by the way do businesses grow in this country? Via the middle class whom buy your product/services and produce your products. You haven't hired anyone because you are a timid employer just trying to hold onto your profits (I hope for your sake they are dwindling). Maybe if you'd invested your profits back into your business with the economy coming back, you might be even richer. Then go buy that Porsche or Caddy. You bloodsucking, cry-baby. That's the problem with you repukes. Cry,Cry,Cry. That's all you do. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody cares. 10 million microscopic violins playing for you right now.
Check out the corporate profit margins over the past few years. Hmmmm maybe the answer is to make it more profitable to re-invest in America and create jobs and a vibrant economy than it is to bank the money for dividends to their investors and tax shelters. They are short sighted in their approach rather than looking at the long dollar or the good of the country. They will not hesitate to invest and create if their is money to be made, and there is. The corporations and buisnesses and consumers will adjust to what ever playing field is out there be it 3.8% increase in tax or none. The key is to give them knowlege of what field they're playing on. Stop dickering and get this done.
If the Bush tax cuts were so instrumental in the creation of jobs then why didn't these same cuts stem the hemorrhaging of jobs in 2008.?
A couple of factors at work here: First increased revenues are only one factor. The Bush tax cuts increased the revenues from $1.8 Trillion in 2003 to $2.5 Trillion in 2006, BUT the 108 and 109 Congresses increased spending over that same period by $1.43 Trillion ( more than TWICE the revenue increase)
Secondly a Bill passed by the Carter Administration CRA, interestingly enough Carter seemed to understand that it was flawed and did little with it! Johnson comes along, with his " Great Society" idiocy and begins to put it into play. In addition to that, in an attempt to hide the actual costs, he took SS from it's Trust Fund Status and put it directly into the General Fund!
The house of cards continued to be built untill it reached it's critical mass in 2008 and the collapse was on!
If the republican party continues down the road it is on there is a real possibility it will go the way of the dinosaur. All but the lowest of IQ'S are realizing that the people want the country to go forward not just the rich!
In the current Congress and the next Congress about to take office in a few days, the Republicans have more seats in the House of Representatives than they have had since 1947-48. That means that Democrats hold fewer seats than they have in the House in 65 years. It seems that your analysis is not correct, voters want Republicans in charge of "The People's House".
It also turns out that Romney won the middle class voters ($50,000-$100,000 income) 52% to 46%. It was the high income and low income groups that gave Obama his narrow victory.
Peter17 I guess you completely overlooked or just hoped no one would remember all the gerry-mandering the various State Legislators have done over the last five to eight years. Get your head out of your a--. At least the State Legislators could read the writing on the wall. Repukes are diminishing at an alarming rate. Repukes gotta try stuff like voter suppression, gerry-mandering just to keep their heads above water. Hopefully, when we go over the cliff, voters will remember the pain and suffering. It will fall on repukes in future elections. Say goodnight Petey.
They lost 10 seats in November....how can they have MORE than they had?
Romney won nothing....He lost 332-206 in the ONLY place that matters...the Electoral College. 332-206 is NOT a narrow victory....he is only the 3rd President to win BOTH terms by landslides...
In terms of the total vote for ALL House elections, in November 2012, Democrats outpolled Republicans by 400,000 votes. I believe Democrats picked up roughly a half dozen seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate. Obama's margin of victory was larger than the combined margins of the popular vote for GW in 2000 and 2004.
The Republican Party, as a national party, will be gone in 3 to 4 more elections...probably replaced by Libertarians.
You are regrettably correct frankjoe40! It was predicted over 225 years ago, should we unwisely allow our Republic to degenerate into a Democracy. That happenned on March 4, 1913, we've showed a surprizing resilience to have survived for 100 years after the event!
" A Democracy cannot exist as a permenant form of government. It can only exist untill the voters discover they can vote themselves Largesse from the Public Treasury! From that moment on the majority will always vote for the Candidates promising the most benifits from the Public Treasury, with the results that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a Dictatorship!" Alexander Fraser Tytler 1787
" The American Republic will endure, untill the Politicians realize that they can bribe the People with their own money!" Alexis de Tocqueville 1787
" Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide" John Adams 1787
Oh my god the world's going to end we're on a fiscal cliff,and you people actually believe this RUBBISH?Unbelievable!
First of all there is no fiscal cliff and there never was one.Don't any of you gullible citizens get it?It's all a show,like a Barnum and Bailey Circus, and Obummer,and Boner there are the world's two biggest show men,and as for the rest of IDIOTS AND CRIMINALS running this corrupt government,they aren't any different.They ALL love High Drama!
Again I'll repeat,don't any of you people get it? These Corrupt Criminal Politicians have got to keep you little gullible peons on the edge of your seats.They Love it,they Love watching you squirm,while they love welding and rubbing their CORRUPT POWER,in your little faces. This makes them ALL feel powerful,both republicans and democrats.Both sides are as evil and corrupt as it gets.You people fall for everything they throw at you,like it was Gospel!Meanwhile behind the scenes,these Corrupt Gangsters are being Controlled,and manipulated, by their puppet masters,the Globalist Corporations,and the World Bankers.They all love POWER,and they all love welding this power through these Corrupt little puppet Politicians of theirs.All owned and operated by them.
Get a Clue,you're all as gullible,as it gets.I'll tell you the outcome of this so called PHONY FISCAL CLIFF. Now listen up!Last minute these Clowns,on both sides are going to come out with a Phony Solution.They'll come out looking like the Saviors and the Heroes,and rescue all the gullible peons from the edge of their conjured up,invented,phony,fiscal cliff!
Just Watch Peons! Anyone with a BRAIN can see through all this HYPE,DRAMA and CRAP!This is as predictable as it gets.
Approximately 2 million Americans will stop receiving unemployment support immediately. Tell that to them.
You actually believe that? Look for the Rain Bow it's right over the bridge.
In other words It ain't going to happen! Another line of high drama to keep you on the edge of your seat!
Wait give it time! You don't have to take my word for it.
Maybe we can get Grover to move to Belize.
...or convince the dimwits to ignore Grover. Unfortunately, the vast majority of republicans in office today have sworn loyalty to Grover via "the pledge".
He really belongs in Gitmo, just like the other terrorists.
There seems to be more disinformation from the leftys out there. Norquist has given several recent interviews, the last one I heard yesterday on CNBC, where he repeated that he is OK with not extending all the current tax rates and letting some of them increase at year-end. He said that would not be voting for an "increase" since they were scheduled to rise if no action were taken.
Are you surprised???
Belize just responded to Tyler's post:
No, No, No, Oh HELL NO! We do not want him
Norquist may be wrong, but he isn't stupid. He knows how to bend with the prevailing winds.
John can teach hem how to get a tan there.
You people that don't understand what it takes to run a business and hire people. You should take the time and talk to a good accountant. What these accountants are telling small business now a days is not a pretty picture. There are businesses here in Washington state that are going to cut their crews by 25% on count of obama and democrat policies. Hope you aren't one them getting laid off. We live in a not so business friendly Democrat state..
Someone on this post said we put our faith in obama and voted him in. Not me. You are getting what you voted for. Lots of pain in the country and pocketbook. You own it - you voted this administration in. You had a chance to get this country turned around with Mitt. Sure, Mitt is not perfect, but he has business sense and cares about this country. You are reaping what you sowed.
When did the GOP get so clueless that they still fail to understand they LOST in Nov, and the vast majority of voters agree with Obama's plan?
Did you miss something??? Republicans won a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives. It is Obama who won a tight election in terms of the popular vote. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Obama has no Constitutional authority over Congress, he only leads the Administrative Branch. If Obama wanted to write legislation he should have stayed in the Senate. As President he only gets to implement what Congress passes and he signs.
We all lost in November. Those of us that voted for Mitt know we lost. We just don't understand why those who voted for this administration don't realize they lost as well. I've accepted it. I just want those that voted this administration in to own what they did. And this administration needs to take responsibility (which it never has or probably never will) for its decisions. We still have the freedom to voice our opinions in this country - right? Also, obama did not win by a landside. It was enough to get him elected. By the way, I do not consider myself a republican. The RNC is just as bad as the DNC. I will never (again - didn't last time) give them money. I will only give the candidate money directly.
Yes we did vote this president and administration in. And guess what. We will vote in another dem president and adm in about 3 yrs 11 mnths. How ya like them apples loser.
Peter17...
The Rerpublicans LOST seats in both the House and Senate! And the fit will hit the shan in 2014!
From the esteemed GOP annals of Bull Shiit
Dubyas almost dead daddy "read my lips, no new taxes"
Dubya "Mission Accomplished"
Boehner "Only God Knows"
Get ready -- they want you to focused on this so:
They can say they did the best the could and sticking to you is not as bad as it could have been.
Not notice the executive order to give raises to Federal employees when we are broke just proving the point that OBAMA is clueless as well as those that voted for him a 2nd term
Zero financial acumen. And people bought into this, simply because of their hatred towards the right.
Scary times...
Maybe we have too many federal employees. I can concede that. However, giving raises only helps to stimulate the economy. Anyone - public or private will most likely spend that extra monies. Maybe cull the herd of fed employees but don't try to cry about the POTUS when repukes run the house and they worked a whole 85 days this year. Pot callin the Kettle black.
Here is how it works Steve. Goverment employees income comes 100% out of the Public Treasury, they pay a much smaller amount back in the form of taxes, EGRO a net LOSE to the Public Treasury!
The private sector incomes come'O'% from the Public Treasury and the also pay a small amount into it through taxes, EGRO a net GAIN to the Public Treasury!
To claim that increasing wages for public employees is a positive to our economy, is to say that if I take money out of my left hand pocket, losing most of it in the process, and transfere it to my right hand pocket, I'm somehow Richer for it!
Well said Ted!
You can't spend, cut or tax your way to a solution. There is a place for all three and a precise manipulation of the timing of all three to rebuild the economy and our wise and pragmatic President and top economists understand this. The deficit did not occur instantly nor will the lessening of it. The key is to get the economy healthy using all three solutions judiciously. The "fix" and the healing will follow naturally. Europe tried the austerity to little avail. To ambitious a fix. I'm willing to give the Presidents way a try. We are doing better than many nations under his leadership despiate the obstruction of the archaic and failing obstructionist teaparty and neo-cons.
Thoughtful post.
Even Romney didn't promise a quick fix, with his first "balanced budget" projected for late in a second Romney term or afterwards. And, he didn't promise to do away with annual deficits or even to reduce them. He promised not to EXCEED the current deficits, running currently at approximately $1.0 trillion/fiscal year.
Economically, the results projected for either the Romney Plan or the Obama Plan were not significantly different in terms of the overall national debt or annual deficits.
The major difference was that whereas Obama prosed using deficit spending to rebuild a domestic infrastructure, which includes health care and education, Romney offered the traditional Republican course of tax cuts and additional defense spending of between $1.0 trillion and $2.0 trillion, over ten years.
Republicans love to vote for increases in defense spending, which does produce some government spending stimulus. Then, when the economy improves, they credit the tax cuts instead. When there was room to increase the national debt, giving tax payers more in return for additional borrowing worked. But, we've about run that course. Time to rebuild a sustainable economy for effective competition in the long term global economy.
Obama's economic plan offers a slim chance of long-term recovery. Romney's offered no chance and ran the risk of restarting the global arms races of the Cold War, which suited his neo-conservative foreign policy advisers just fine.
Let me get this straight. You actually believe that the way to solve our economoc problem is to Tax the job creaters? Oh I know it's only about 3% that will be effected, right? However that 3% are responsible for over 40% of all hiring in the private sector! In any case the revenues from these"VERY IMPORTANT" taxes will run the Government for about 8 days!
You must also then believe that an increase of over 4000 regulations, almost all of which increase the inflationary pressures on the Economy, are a sound policy decision. Where would these ideas come from? I remember now; " The way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the Millstones of Taxation and Inflation" Vladimir Llyich Ulyanov (Lenin)! How well did that work out for the average Russian?
Stone6
Ever bothered yourself with the reading of the Constitution? If you were to do so you would find in Article 1, Section 8, (the enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Government) exactly 'O' Clauses mandating any response to either Health Care, or Education! What you would find would be 8 of the 19 Clauses that relate to our National Defense!
Education and Health Care are a part of our Constitution, they fall under the Tenth Amendment , and are therefore a responsibility of the individule States to handle as the voters see best!
Politics is an evolving proposition. If it weren't, we'd probably still be part of the British Empire...and there would still be an Empire to be part of. To one man, treason is another man's patriotism.
Without the growth of the Federal Government, our evolution into a global power was, as they say today, "problematic." Sometimes the private sector led the way and government followed. Sometimes vice versa, with government making the expansion of the economy possible.
"Owners" - be they small business people or hedge fund managers - do not create jobs without qualification or need. That "need" is to fullfill a customer(s) demand(s). Domestically, it comes down to the lesson of Henery Ford: Pay your employees enough to allow them to buy your products. We started downhill when we decided that loose credit was an adequate substitute to wage increases.
Tax increases and regulatory costs are essentially "pass throughs," because they impact all within a competitive economic grouping more or less equally, and hence may be "passed through" to customers equally, without fear of the loss of market share. [And, if you can avoid "passing through" such added costs, you will be rewarded by greater market share, by holding prices down.]
If demand were not the driving factor today, we would be seeing these "pass through costs" in increased prices and inflation...which we are not...unless you want to challenge the way we determine "inflation."
ted, there is nothing in the Constitution that provides any authority for an Air Force, either. There is something about providing for the General Welfare, however.
Hold on a minute. Did we get into this mess thru falling revenues, or overspending? Oh-- it was spending?
Federal revenues have been between ~$2 trillion & ~$2.5 trillion since 2000, but the federal debt has gone from ~$6 trillion in 2000 to ~$10 trillion in 2008, when Obama was elected, to $16.3 trillion today. That's a ~$4 trillion increase in 8 years under Bush, & an increase of more than $6 trillion in just 4 years under Obama. These numbers are readily available on Wikipedia, as well as many other InterNet sites. (Side-issue-- since the increase under Obama has been 3 times as fast as it was under Bush, why does Bush catch all the flak & why does Obama get a free pass?)
The point-- since we got into this mess thru overspending, only thru spending cuts will we ever get out. Revenues are so low that increasing them is pointless. So why are Obama & the Congress wrangling over revenues, when the only way to ever resolve the budget is thru serious, drastic, long-term spending cuts?
It's because Democrats can spend and tax, not do what's good for thee country.
Cuts alone? I say again. Behold the EU and austerity (cuts). Stimulus spending pulled us back from the brink as did bank bailouts and oh yes, GM to name a few.
...And on the way to the federal debt since 2000 a few little things happened like two unwise wars worth a few trillion and housing bubble and a world economic disaster led by the US, a few modest natural disasters, a drought, to name a few.
... AND I say again, we are still in much better shape and position than much of the world. We'll continue to be under a wise presidents leadership. No, nothing drastic is needed. Judicious, reasonable, slow and steady is the way to proceed. You can increase the timetable as the economy mends.
The biggest mistake Obama made was to put all of the 'off budget' expenditures during the Bush Administration for Iraq and Afghanistan 'on budget' which resulted in a more accurate picture of our deficit - and then he gets blamed for increasing the deficit. No good turn goes unpunished.
noladude, and Republicans spend and cut taxes. Can you think of any other country in history that went to war in two different countries and cut taxes simultaneously? Neither can I.
Why not the House? Can it be that his cronies rule in the Senate and do his bidding, not what's good for the country?
It's time "We the people" start handing out Pink Slips to every elected person that has an office in DC. Number three in line you have the helm as of 01 Jan 2013.
You'll have to wait until the next election in November 2014.
Steve the dem-----see you don't have a clue of what going to happen. I bought over $200.00.00 in new equipment that took 10 employees job. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Now if you are still wondering where the jobs went I just told you.
The folly is that 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators each know in their hearts that they have the perfect solution to every problem which must end in stalemate.
In our representative democracy representing over 300,000,000 opinions, there are no perfect solutions which is why politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect.
I'd suggest that Party Politics is verging on overwhelming our representative democracy and that a major tool in this process is gerrymandering by State Legislatures to achieve "safe seats" for one Party or the other, depending on the balance of power at the State level.
When candidates, from both Parties, were faced with more balanced constituencies, their "art of compromise" was a necessary factor in their election. A "safe seat," created by concentrating the opposition into a few districts, while maintaining a majority in many districts, means that campaigning is largely "preaching to the choir." Consequently, loyalty to the top-down Party line becomes more important than evolving policies with a broader appeal to the majority of moderates in the middle...i.e. the art of compromise.
This "centralization" of Party Politics has lead us to a top-down political process and was a major reason (among others) for the popularity of the Tea Party and general dissatisfaction with American Politics.
While I disagree with much of the Tea Party agenda and believe the movement to have been largely co-opted by special interests, much of Boehner's present problems are due to this "populist rebellion" and may be positive over the long haul, in weakening the power of Party Politics.
OK, OK...coming up with an effective substitute is another story. But, in my opinion, gerrymandering and the lack of effective controls over campaign financing are the two greatest threats to our country today.
No argument regarding gerrymandering, Ted. We have evolved from providing for the general welfare to winning and losing politically. Which, by the way, was a major concern of the drafters of the Constitution and why no mention is made of political allegiances or political blocs.
"Stone6." Not Ted. Agreed. Madison's greatest fear was of "factions" - i.e. political parties.