Actually, to me, the $350,000 to $450,000 area made more sense; given the cost of living in places like NYC, Chicago, or Los Angeles, it also made sense to Decomraic Senator Chuck Schumer, and he's a fairly liberal guy. It's called, "compromise". I don't really understand your point. Something tells me you would have complained regardless if the President got exactly what he or what you've claimed or implied you wanted.

I thought they had agreed on some changes to tax loopholes. THAT is really the most significant tax change, although I'm glad taxes on some of the wealthy were changed.

The wealthy are just going to find more ways to avert paying the higher taxes though...

K I Smart Simple

When is Congress and President going to solve the DEBT problem? Instead of passing America's DEBT to our children.

Economists say that the national priority must be to stimulate the economy and grow jobs. That has to be done before tackling the debt issue.

Think of it this way: when you're unemployed and have little or no income, you're not going to be focused on paying off your debts. You will be more concerned with increasing your income. When you have a job again and earn enough to pay the bills, then you can begin to pay off your debt. You're not going to be able to do much about your debt until you solve your income problem.

And -- he didn't get the BIG deal which would prevent us from revisiting this drama in 2 months. Honestly, the Congress WILL not go along with this deal.

Well, I have to point out that this deal does not solve the debt crisis, and has not yet passed the Republican-controlled House.

But, almost any deal is better than an uncontrolled tax-hike / sequestration solution, and it is unlikely that Senate leaders have not been in steady communications with leaders in the House.

Chances are it will pass, with a couple of tweaks, and psychologically, it is better for the nation to see our leaders actually reach a deal, as opposed to just retreating to their ideological pulpits and shout slogans.

I still say the right solution was the repeal of all of the Bush era tax cuts, and deep but realistic budget cuts in all areas of Federal spending. But that was never going to happen.

So, sincerely....

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

No one here seems to be aware of, well most refuse to admit rather, that the important thing for now was averting the fiscal cliff failure. It allows more negotiating to carve out stubborn resistance. It allows the country to continue to run while these incompetent idiosas play mental ping pong some more without creating burdens on the American People. It allows for a good size chunk in an increase to capital gains taxes which needed done severely. $400 million as a tax cut break point was higher than what was dreamed of in a $250mil cut off point, but hey its a start!

Most here would have been crying and whining in a mere 6 months if the total shut down of the fiscal cliff hit. We need cuts, and control on spending, but what we need more is reform to the existing programs, not merely cuts the suck money from teh poor and especially the hard working class that makes America.

(OUR) government has become a bunch of spendaholic can kickers. 1 trillion every year in overspending and no honest effort to abate it. (WE) are in very big trouble if (WE) dont wake up and make an honest effort to make change. America is going to have to go through a period of austerity!

brady,

Since you and I are paying the lowest taxes since the 60's and running a deficit, what better thing to do than to raise taxes. Especially for those who can pay! Rather than to have the republicans keep being suckled by the rich!

The Democrats didn't cave in. The President knew all along that the 250,000 threshold was not realistic, but when your negotiating it's easier to come down than it is to go up. but this measure still must go through the House. And this is where Cantor and the other Teapublicans will be screaming bloody murder today. Can't wait to hear about that.

AnIndividual,

The 8 votes against it weren't all republicans! 3 or 4 were Democrats! Yes! I couldn't believe it either!

Just a couple of observations;

1. There are those on the Vine that do not understand that one man's "caving in" is another man's compromising.

2. I do not understand how anyone could say Obama caved when the Senate (89-8) sent a message to the House Republicans that they are now right out on the end of the plank and that plank is about to be pulled out from under them. That they really should get back on board or start swimming for their political lives.

And all you people should consider this - Biden once again comes in and with some good old fashion horse trading get the job done. IMHO that team that is in the White House right now is on top of their game.

GOP understand this Obama is not going anywhere so you really need to learn how the game is really played or you will screw it for the Grand Old Phart's party for years to come.

Norm,

Actually this Democrat would love to see multi-billion dollar cuts in the military and defense so if the House wants to cut their own throats and reward me go ahead! Destroy the God Owful Party!

I have not read the bill in detail but the estate tax is fixed in it(you do need an estate tax but not with a crazy low 1 to 2 million cutoff and no inflation rider. You can't even get a small to mid sized business successful without borrowing and paying that much money off over its lifetime) and also the higher income tax bracket is fixed as they should pay more. BUT you could even double income on all taxes and I do not think it will curb the deficit spending with the interest on the debt and the daily Fed operations. The house might derail it if they insist on more cuts.

Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Richard Shelby; who do you represent?

Obstructionist Senators and representatives do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. Note to all three: we are trying to climb out of a recession, not enter a new one. Can you understand that we do not have the salaries and benefits you have voted for yourself - but we have the power to replace you.

Names will be taken at the House vote too.

I see a lot of bets that house Republicans will walk away but I don't believe that will be the case for two reasons.

1) When the payroll tax exemption was due to expire last time the Senate passed a bipartisan bill and sent it to the house. The tea loons refused to extend them and forced Bohner to make a futile stand.after a few days the media, the public and even non house Republicans were bringing intense pressure. The house folded.

2) Taxes officially have gone up much, much more than they will in this proposal. If the house is serious about tax cuts they will opt for the lesser.

Clwyd: I'd like to see massive cuts in the military budget, too, especially the hundreds of billions that are non-military items stuck in the defense bill, overseas bases, etc. Then we can move on to domestic cuts: farm bills, rationalizing medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. Finally, scrap the tax code to one or two pages- eliminate all deductions not called for by international treaty. Make it progressive, no problem, but everyone pays something.

I can't believe that if you took ten people off this thread they couldn't come up with a rational balanced budget in two weeks.

"More" cuts? Doesn't that statement imply there ARE cuts? Which there aren't?

Brady 2215: I think raising taxes would help, and the government is doing a good job of spending! You seem to take for granted this country takes care of their seniors, that we have safer food standards, police, fire fighters, educational opportunities, defense for the country and a lot more. The advances in the medical field, technology, transportation, etc.! Do you think these things grow on trees? Food stamps, safer airways the list goes on. Yes the government does do pretty good with our tax dollars. Stop saying things in a one line crack that makes the country look bad, at least give examples! Can we find ways to stop waste ? Yes, but the government still will need money to operate!

lad -- so your preference is a one-party system where those that disagree are sent to prison or executed?

congressional salary increases were stopped by this bill even though obama is the one that made it happen

Agreed: the Government does overspend

BUT

WHY
NOT
DEMAND

that each State Governor

CUT Federal programs.

THAT would be the reality check..... the Tea Party States would be the FIRST to protest......loudly.

Senators trolling the Congressional Halls were elected to protect THEIR TURF and cater to THEIR lobbyists.

That is where the money is spent.

let the fun continue .wonder how long it will take till the left reliazes they arnt to bright

1.36

Let me help the RIGHT with spelling and grammar:

let the fun continue .wonder how long it will take till the left reliazes they arnt to bright

Capitalize the first word.

r e a l i z e s

a r e n ' t

t o o

End with a period.

dale -- US Senator Coburn, Republican from OK, annually publishes a list of things upon which we may want to reconsider spending our limited ax dollars. Here are the highlights for 2012:

• Tax loopholes for the National Football League (NFL), National Hockey League (NHL) and Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) – professional sports leagues that generate billions of dollars annually in profits ($91 million in taxes)

• Moroccan pottery classes (part of a $27 million grant from U.S. Agency for International Development)

• Efforts to promote caviar consumption and production ($300,000)

• Robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel” (part of a $325,000 grant from the National Science Foundation)

• Promotion of specialty shampoo and other beauty products for cats and dogs ($505,000)

• Corporate welfare for the world’s largest snack food producer, PepsiCo Inc. ($1.3 million)

• Government-funded study on how golfers might benefit from using their imagination, envisioning the hole is bigger than it actually is ($350,000)

• “Prom Week,” a video game that allows taxpayers to relive prom night ($516,000)

• Oklahoma’s layover boondoggle, a scarcely used airport in Oklahoma receiving nearly half-a-million in taxpayer dollars only to transfer funds elsewhere in the state ($450,000)

• The 2012 Alabama Watermelon Queen tour paid for in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “to promote the consumption of Alabama’s watermelon through appearances of the Alabama Watermelon Queen at various events and locations” ($25,000)

Amazing.

What producers? Romney? He doesn't have a job or produced one in decades. You bought the "job creators" sales pitch. If the rich were the job creators where are all the jobs they could have created under Baby Bush when they enjoyed all those tax cuts for years....you know, the ones he put into place without a plan to pay for them?

The obstinate teenagers of the Senate Republican caucus has reluctantly moved their collective keisters and agreed that bringing down the economy of the United States of America on one motion isn't in their best interest. I find that a little surprising, but they managed it somehow. It isn't ideal, but at least it's a deal. Unfortunately like most teenagers they've agreed to do their homework today, but not every day, so we'll be in this place again. Like most obstinate teenagers they seem determined to find themselves permanently grounded by getting there a little at a time.

Now it's up to the feral children of the House Republican caucus, an altogether different matter. For starters we don't know if they'll take kindly to the Senate doing tax and budget work that traditionally belongs to the House, even though the feral children were out whooping it up on New Years Eve instead of doing the work of the people.

Also still to be determined is whether the feral children can see reality through their hangovers. Up until now they've felt that losing the Presidency by 62 electoral votes and a bigger popular margin than President GW Bush ever did, losing seats in the Senate, and losing not only seats but also the aggregate popular vote in their own chamber provides a mandate to impose the fiscal agenda of failed VP candidate and aspiring Lord of the Flies Paul Ryan.

It isn't pretty, it may not even be successful, but that's how it is when the Red states abandon honest Republicanism in favor of failed, regressive childishness enforced by bat-crazy loons.

RI Mom, the place to cut is defense. There is 30% of the budget right there. It is a welfare program that needs to be cut down. Funding to states is not what is causing this. Nor are the earned benefits programs.

We need revenue and we need a massive infrastructure bill to inject capital into our system.

Yes, this was a compromise and an obvious band-aid; but think how the House will screw it up. This still might go nowhere. I don't even understand who in the house will be voting. When does the old congress end and the new reps take their seats?

Happy New Year...

.

Now the ball is in Boehner's court...and the House RepubliCONs will have another shot to be a$$holes after rejecting Plan B(oner) last month.

Bottom line, while not the $250,000 threshold, which is rich by the way, and it doesn't matter what city you live in, he forced republicans to raise taxes on the very rich in spite of the pledge to Grover. This can only be considered a democratic win, and a republican loss, which it should be taking the defeat handed to republicans in the last election into consideration. Now onto some sensible cuts to the budget taken out of the over bloated military budget. Lets get Americans working again for peace not war.

ToniJ: Why do you hate the productive class? True job security and true life security are found through self-employment, risk taking, investment and growth, not by eating free government cheese. Reward producers, don't punish them.

Opa!

RaisedByWolves

1.43:

Every inch of red tape doubles the cost of a defense contract.

Lobbyists will continue to support those jobs in THEIR State.... and so will their Congressional representatives and Governors.... because that is the JOBS PROGRAM.

BTW: Visit Congress.... there are HUNDREDS of guards, police, security stationed ALL over....and in groups..... chatting, tweeting, rocking on their heels, ...and trying to keep awake.

Congress works in a very PROTECTED bubble.....no guns, phones, cameras or sharp objects or candy bars allowed ......if you are visiting the chambers.

But watch them in session.... they tweet & twitter endlessly.

Norm903 is correct...........The wealth do produce a lot of jobs for their maids, butler, chauffeurs, etc. They also produce a lot of jobs for for yacht builders, mansion designers and builders and the groundskeepers to keep those 6th homes looking nice..........They really can't afford more taxe to cut into all of that job production.

Why do you hate the productive class

By what measure are the Kings of Wall Street like Romney "the productive class"? They spin straw into gold by sucking the life out of enterprises that actually DO and BUILD things. The proportion of total corporate profits taken by the financial sector is near the record levels seen just before the 2007 collapse and 1929 crash. In fact there is a clear pattern of financial institutions having a larger share of total corporate profit just before recessions.

EVERY major religious tradition includes some prohibition of usury, but the "Christians" of the Conservative Movement have approved it as a smart business model.

billybob-6210632

brenda -- do you honestly believe that dc will ever make the cuts necessary to do anything about the debt? They had 18 months this time and could not get it done.

billbob, yes 18 months of dealing with Boehner and every time we get close to a deal, he backs off and comes up with a ridiculous plan B. The only one not serious was the guy telling everyone to get serious.

the president droned on and on about balance and what we get is $620B in tax increase -- maybe he should veto the bill to demonstrate his leadership skills and insist that cuts be included.

Not sure why Republicans have to confuse bills. What does a bill concerning tax increase have to do with a bill concerning spending cuts? You do not have to hold the country hostage with the tax increase just to push your agenda on spending cuts. Once President Obama gets the tax increase he wants on the wealthy, then he as he stated in his speech will start working on spending cuts. He even said to the Democrats that we will not be happy. This should tell you something shouldn't it?

never trust a politician that promises everything thing will be better tomorrow -- obama is currently the most skilled liar involved in this whole process.

Are you blind death and dumb? The only one who is even helping the middle class and lower class is President Obama. The House GOP is only interested in helping the filthy rich. Drink much juice? Must be one of those Rush cocktails they drink down in billybob town.

Kind of played out as expected.

Now the house can vote for a tax reduction, since by default, all taxes increased at midnight.

So, the President wins by raising taxes on the rich and keeping taxes the same on the middle class.

The Republicans will claim victory by lowering taxes for everybody, assuming they can pass it in the house, which I think is inevitable. This was political maneuvering by both parties timed for the turn of the new year so they can both claim they got what they wanted.

Now comes the deficit reduction battle in March, where both parties know they need to cut spending, but no one wants to propose specific cuts and look like the bad guy.

Happy New Year!

OBX: Would you please define "rich". "...The wealth do produce a lot of jobs for their maids, butler, chauffeurs, etc. They also produce a lot of jobs for for yacht builders, mansion designers and builders and the groundskeepers to keep those 6th homes looking nice.........."

How much do you think someone needs to earn to have those things? $250,000/yr? $500,000?

Enjoy the free gov't cheese; yummy! (Until it's all gone) Opa!

Norm903 is correct...........The wealth do produce a lot of jobs for their maids, butler, chauffeurs, etc. They also produce a lot of jobs for for yacht builders, mansion designers and builders and the groundskeepers to keep those 6th homes looking nice..........They really can't afford more taxe to cut into all of that job production.

Conservatives tell us ad nauseum that there aren't enough rich to support the government...why do we think there are enough to support the entire economy?

It's the MIDDLE CLASS who were the engines of the American economy throughout our most prosperous years, right up until Conservative economic policies created a slow starvation of the average American's income. Our economy is weak because 30 years of funnelling income to the very top has caused massive stagnation of wages for the vast majority of workers with precious little actually "trickling down" as Republicans promised with every tax cut.

Enjoy the free gov't cheese; yummy! (Until it's all gone) Opa!

So now we're some sort of aristocratic society where we all need to depend on the largesse of the Lord of the Manor for our bread and sustenance? A place where, should the guy who owns our village decides to be cheap we all lose our jobs?

Does this REALLY sound like America to you? I say let the rich all run off to Galt's Gulch if they really think they're that important. The free market that Conservatives supposedly revere says others will step into those gaps and fill the need.

Norm.........agree with you that $500K/yr may not be rich but it is one heck of a lot "richer" than someone making $25/hr and getting taxed at 25-28% on the "earned income".

People making middle class wages and their tax rates need to be compared to the tax shelters and lower capital gains rates enjoyed by those who can afford to invest in offshore accounts, tax free municipal funds, get writeofs for mutliple home and business expenses (cars, properties, etc. etc.) and have the opportunity to have financial advisers to find other tax shelters.

Rich may be a relative term but the tax loopholes available to some are quite a bit different than the few available to most of the working and middle class

Belfast Lad......darn right we're taking names and we'll remember Rubio next election. As far as I'm concerned, 2014 starts the push to make Republican Tea Partiers a minority here in Fl and elsewhere.

Happy New Year to you and yours.

Norm, your an idiot. Rich is easily defined. It is those that don't live week to week, paycheck to paycheck. It is those that are against raising taxes on those that can afford it the most. Rich is defined as people who have managed to get good people working for them making oodles of money for them. Thats rich.

True job security and true life security are found through self-employment, risk taking, investment and growth,

Wow - While babysitting, lawn mowing, and running a lemonade stand are worthwhile, productive jobs, I just don't see how they translate into life security. That is a lot of babies to sit, lawns to mow, and lemonade to sell in order to fund retirement, medical care, support a family and a home.

H.R. 8 As Amended (January 1, 2013, 01:39 AM) Permanently extend the 2012 income tax rates at $400,000 single filing, $450,000 joint filing and below ($620 billion in new revenue over 10 years), keep the estate tax threshold at $5 million and extend unemployment benefits for one year.

Amended to include an extension of the child tax credit and the college tuition credit for five years, individual and business tax extenders for two years, and the Medicare "doc fix" for one year. The Alternative Minimum Tax will be permanently fixed. The agreement also extends the farm bill for one year and prevents a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.

Senate Vote: 89 – 8 + 3 not voting
Voting NO:
Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (R-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Paul (R-KY)
Rubio (R-FL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Not Voting:
DeMint (R-SC)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

@Belfast Lad and GBM -- Why are you taking Rubio's and the other two names mentioned? What did they do in this process?

RI Mom, I wonder if they learned how to do nothing on the job from the work crews I see in Georgia. There is always one big guy who is doing absolutely nothing; three guys around him who are talking seriously about? (the game last night, the upcoming beers?) Then there is one guy working. So, we are paying 5 salaries for one person-hour of work.

As to aerospace, I worked in that industry for around 15 years before I switched to law. I know how much work is done - just enough to meet a very easy deadline. And make it look like you need more time so that the contract is extended. It was the same at McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, Hughes, Systems Development - they all did that to the DoD contracts.

I am not running for office, so import me in to do the spending cuts and give me carte blanche! I can nail millions off the budget by eliminating automatic raises to these jerks, making them pay for their retirement and medical like the populace has to do,lowering their congressional budgets for office upkeep, do line itemization of foreign countries to stop giving aid to and to reinstate tarrifs and such to products not made in the u.s.a. With that i could trim billions off the budget, and prepare to hit the debt hard. We are supposed to have really world class economist in this country, why do they not put their foot and mouth forward on this. Why do we as Americans keep giving our money away overseas to make politicians there richer? It sure does not go to the poor masses. Why should we arm these countries to only have them turn around and shoot us? Why should we allow manufacturing to move to foreign countries for cheaper labor therefore companies that stay here cannot compete? Before our politicians gave the country away we had an equalizer. Other countries still have that equalizer when it comes to american products. Why do so many people want to become politicians to go to washington? Because it's the gravy train. One term election, you get wined, dined and bedded and then paid. Not only that if u lose the next election you are retired for life and the american public pays for it. I am old but I'm ready to fight and revolt. How about u?

Amazing how greedy the GOP is. Tax entitlements for 12 years now all the self serving bitching. I am an Independent but in 2014 I am voting these idiots OUT

Dennis,

When it's time for reelection, I hope the voters remember those 11 Senators that voted in favor of sending us over the cliff and vote those bums out of office.

@Dennis -- I understand why the ND coach received the Coach of the Year designation, but I believe Urban Meyer deserved the award. Taking a team with no hope of a national championship and bowl appearance to an undefeated season was phenomenal.

@Jersey Michael -- Good bipartisan statement. You'll notice the non-patriots on here that only want to hold Republicans accountable for their votes and excuse the Democrats. Truly ignorant partisans and examples of low information voters.

Congress did absolutely nothing except give themselves three months...what a joke and Biden parades around like a pompous ___...

Maybe they should have been doing this work post election (God forbin they doing anything during an election).

KayBeeToys,

Your post is interesting, the only thing is when you are not paying off your debt, do you borrow money,and increase your debt, to buy a flat screen TV and other assorted things, or do you stop spending money you dont have and work toward increasing your income, before you spend your money on things you can live without.

America as a whole, anybody REMEMBER America, in general.

This "fiscal deal" being talked of, agreed upon by the SENATE and POTUS, is NOT GOOD FOR THE LONG TERM FISCAL HEALTH OF AMERICA.

The BILL once again simply kicks the fiscal responsibility down the road again, with too little unspecified in SPENDING CUTS.

One can only hope the HOUSE votes NO!

More to come shortly for America, as the FEDERAL DEBT CEILING REMAINS TO BE ADDRESSED by the buffoons that call themselves our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Congress is a scam, operated by a bunch of bought and paid for crooks.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

There was no cliff, there is no cliff. this is just the republicans sticking the monkey-wrench in the gears of progress as they always do. They simply don't think that America is worth paying for. I think they just hate us for our freedom, period.

MtMike,

This "fiscal deal" being talked of, agreed upon by the SENATE and POTUS, is NOT GOOD FOR THE LONG TERM FISCAL HEALTH OF AMERICA

It's better than a recession.

$620 billion in tax hikes and $15 billion in cuts should be reversed
to $620 billion in cuts and $15 billion in hikes. The vote was 89 – 8 so only 8 Senators should
be considered for reelection.

What's the bottom line? Did they reduce the deficit?

Jersey,

It was only 8 that voted Nay.

Three didn’t vote. Kirk is on medical leave, DeMint resigned and I think Lautenberg is ill.

Thanks Ben - agree

Great info Dennis, thank you. One small note however; you have Senator Harkin from IA marked (R) when he is a (D). He also gave one of the best speeches of the last couple of days, noting that middle class is NOT $250,000, it's 30, 50, or $70,000. His reason for voting "Nay" was that it gave up too much ground to the Republicans.

From an email but I believe it sums it up pretty well:

This puts things into a better perspective as to the present
economic situation..

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $ 2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $ 21,700
* Money the family spent: $ 38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $ 16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $ 38.50

Got It ?????

OK now,

Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say, You come home from work and find

there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood....

and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or remove the sh!t?

Congratulations Republican Party - you are the ONLY party capable of standing up for principles and then deciding your principles don't matter. I am done. I am finished. I have been a registered Republican since I turned 18 in 1980. I have voted in every presidential and every mid-term election since 1980 AS a registered Republican.

But that is finished now. I have already submitted the paperwork to change my registration to the Constitution Party. Do they have a chance of winning a presidential election? Hell no. But neither can the Republican Party because when you stand for nothing that is exactly what you get. No to new taxes but then raise taxes. No to illegal immigration but then agree to amnesty. No to bigger government but expand government at every opportunity. Demand for spending cuts but then approve this "compromise" where there are $41 in increased taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

Sorry, the Republican Party is going the way of the Whig Party and is finished. The Republican Party is done. You see you have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything - and the Republican Party doesn't stand for anything anymore.

So if Republicans are going to vote for higher taxes then they no longer get my vote. I might as well vote for a Democrat if I want higher taxes (but THAT ain't going to happen). But the Republican Party is now done and I have changed my affiliation to the Constitution Party. I urge other Republicans to do the same thing because the Republican Party can no longer succeed since they have no platform and can't stand behind their own supposed beliefs.

Consider the Constitution Party because a change in Party and a change in standing up for what the PEOPLE want is the ONLY way we can save this country from the demise caused by the Democrat Party.

50K is "middle class"? Ever been to a Northeastern state where even a small house has an 8-10K property/school tax bill? caused by stunning high spending on welfare, public union excesses (retire in one's 40s??) and an endless amount of social engineering.

Maybe in the deepest part of Kansas is 50K "middle class", but not on the coasts.

Ben, the federal budget ISN'T your household budget and it's always been a faulty analogy. Yes, we need to get deficit spending under control, but the Paradox of Thrift is that if government reduces that much spending while the economy is still soft it makes the problem WORSE instead of better, exactly the lesson Spain and Greece are learning now.

Here's a better analogy; You're going into debt at the rate of $16,500/year. Do you go to your boss and ask to have your wages reduced? That's what Republicans would do.

RaisedByWolves

1.61

YUP!

Don't you wish you could put the Congress on a battered school bus and make them work , W O R K at a Defense job for a month .....

OR

Slap a blue uniform on them and make them sit on a chair outside a Congressional Chamber for a week?

Or

commute (by driving themselves, or taking the subway) to a job that starts at 8AM....then get home, fix dinner, and run the household...only to do it again, and again ..... for 50K a year.

Let's see how many of those JOBS they create..... and how they feel about Defense Contacts.

There is just nothing like a non-solution to get everyone excited. We hear all these talks of cutting a trillion here, four trillion there, and in the end our debt will exceed 20 trillion when Obama leaves office. Wow, way to tighten the belt. How did our government manage to function? It is simply amazing what a bunch of clowns can sell to minions of idiots. This country is certainly not being saved for future generations, it is being transformed. But transformed into what? Only time will tell.

@ProBusiness -- House hasn't voted yet so there is still hope. The Senate vote might have been strategic. BTW how did you file the paperwork on a holiday?

@JohnB -- I disagree with your analogy. I believe both budgets should be handled in the same fashion. If it was done in the movie Dave, it can be done in real life :-). Happy New Year

Everybody talks about 'Compromise', but it seems that every politician's idea of compromise is "It's my way or the highway'.

We have a 2 part problem - Spending has 'skyrocketed', and tax revenues have 'tanked'. The Debt Commission recommended that Federal spending be set at about 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Tax Revenues be set at about 19% as well, which would create a balanced budget at some time in the future.

In 2011, Spending was 23.9% of GDP, which amounted to $735 Billion of excess spending.

In 2011, Tax Revenues were 15.3% of GDP, which amounted to $558 Billion in fewer taxes.

If we're going to get to a healthy financial condition, we need to have both Spending cuts AND Tax Increases. I would suggest a target of getting to Spending and Revenue Parity at 19% of GDP over 10 years – Call it a 19/10 Plan - described below.

Obama's 2013 Budget Projections calls for a GDP of $25.488 Trillion in 10 years (2022), so the Spending would be limited to gradually increase from $3.55 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 3.3% per year.

Revenues from Taxes would also be targeted to gradually increase from $2.47 Trillion in 2012 to $4.893 Trillion in 2022 – an average increase of 7.1% per year. In 10 years, we would have a 'Balanced Budget', and the National Debt would be capped at about $22 Trillion in 2022.

Since the Democrats accuse the Republicans of 'protecting the rich' from tax increases, and the Republicans accuse the Democrats of 'spending us into oblivion', I would suggest that the Republicans be required to structure a plan to raise taxes, and the Democrats be required to structure a plan to cut spending. Then the Republicans would have to make the tough decisions on tax increases, and the Democrats would have to make the tough decisions on spending 'cuts' (actually, modest increases).

Comments are welcomed.

Johntho

1.57

You are the idiot! I am offended and that takes quite a bit to do. I don't live week to week or paycheck to paycheck...I do that on $55k per year pre-tax. I have 3 kids and my own house (not entirely paid for yet).

According to you I must be rich. How did I do this? Guess how, by living within my means. I don't buy a new car every 3 years to keep up with the neighbors. I didn't buy more house than I needed or could afford. I don't rush out and buy things I don't need or simply want.

There are many people out there who have the things I have on even less money.

So if rich is so easily defined as those of us who work damn hard for the things we have...how do you define poor? I am well aware that there are a lot of poor people who are that way through no fault of their own...hopefully they get the hand up that they need. I am also equally aware that there are quite a few people who are poor for lack of ambition or drive to NOT be poor...needless to say handouts are more their style.

So Johntho, How about you shut your trap.

You bought the "job creators" sales pitch. If the rich were the job creators where are all the jobs they could have created under Baby Bush when they enjoyed all those tax cuts for years...

You've got that right. The true "job creators" are the members of the middle class, through their purchasing. If the middle class can't afford to buy, billionaires won't "create" new jobs, even if their tax rates were zero. Jobs aren't created because the 2% has spare cash sitting around. Jobs are created because there's a demand for their products or services.

Republicans--the good and decent party--had to get it done since the deviants--Democrats--couldn't get it done once again. Thankfully we have the republican party to keep this country going in the right direction.

Ben,

How do you compare the National Debt to an individual's debt when most people purchase a house for say $200,000 with 10% down and their net worth is only about $30,000 putting them in debt at over 4 times their net worth ?

Our government isn't that far in debt.

The United States narrowly avoided going over the fiscal cliff early on New Year’s Day after a last-minute bipartisan agreement cleared the way for a middle-of-the-night vote in the Senate.

The interim deal would raise income taxes on single earners with annual incomes above $400,000 and married couples with incomes above $450,000. It also blocks spending cuts for two months, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevents a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevents a spike in milk prices.

Pheww! Looks like general “bite me” Biden has managed to steer the troops away from the “fiscal cliff”! Too bad it looks like we’re now merely heading for a sea of “fiscal quicksand”. I guess we now know why president Obama likes to “lead from behind”.

Oh well, I guess there are those who prefer to avoid sudden stops even if it requires slowly drowning. March on Obama lemmings!

No spending cuts!!!!! President kicks the can down the road again!!!!

No one is stupid enough to believe this crapola.

Does this President really ever have a serious plan?

Heck he even signed in a Government pay raise (some are rejecting) thru his and his only EXECUTIVE ORDER.

50K is "middle class"?

Yes, it is. In 2006 (latest year I could locate on short notice) the middle 3 quintiles were $41,100-$93,600 which by the most used definition constitutes the middle class. I can't help that Conservatives want us to think of people making several hundred thousand per year as middle class, they aren't. Yes, there are regional variations, but not on a magnitude that makes $25,000/yr middle class. Those folks are in the top 2% and therefore rich.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wage%20quintiles%202010&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcbofiles%2Fftpdocs%2F103xx%2Fdoc10327%2Fhr2454-income_ranges.xls&ei=zgTjUJruHcSXrAH7jICICQ&usg=AFQjCNEjB3YLsrRnyqvQhiu7XLuYzuGnmA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.aWM

@Dennis -- I call that a stupid purchase on behalf of the buyer and a more stupid loan on behalf of the lender. That was one of the main reasons this country got into a financial mess.

I have read each comment and I do not understand any here who think that raising taxes is good in any manner?

Brady2215 - Since the above sentence does not ask a question, but merely expresses your puzzlement, why the question mark?

Seriously, even if every statement you make or could make is accurate regarding the wasteful nature of federal, state and municipal spending, these programs are not going disappear today, or tomorrow. The Tea Party Republican's methods for dealing with quandary, to just pull the financial plug and allow the entire engine to grind to a halt, is the rational equivalent of lighting your house on fire to drive out the bugs. In other words, their cure is worse than the disease.

Moreover, I do not agree that all social programs, or all military spending is wasteful. Like it or not, we no longer live in a society of small farms and small businesses , where one's financial fate is largely in one's own hands, and where an extended family it present and able to lend a hand during a crisis.

Today, the vast majority of Americans are dependent on some large corporation or the government for employment, either directly, or indirectly. When the steel plant closes [and moves to China], or the engineering department gets outsourced, people are often at a loss to recover.

Government safety nets have become more necessary. That includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and extended unemployment benefits.

So, yeah. I would like it if we could return to the bucolic and idealized world of a century ago. But it is not about to happen, even if the Tea Party eventually achieves their goals of radically down-sizing government.

BTW: The highest marginal income tax today is a little more than third of what it was in 1960, when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. Were those hard times?

This is a good compromise moving forward. You can tell from the comments here. Both sides are pissed off.

We need more of this kind of compromise.

More revenues, and careful cuts. Not tax and spend and not more "starve the beast" policies.

Roy, for once we're close to the same page. Revenue is a few percentage points too low and spending is a few percentage points too high. I'm more in agreement with Warren Buffett, who argues that revenue around 18.5% and spending around 22.4% has been proven to provide enough economic growth to decrease the debt as a percentage of GDP over time. When times are flush we can probably do a little better and pay it down. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?_r=0

Further on my 19/10 Proposal in Post #1.82 above.

The average Revenues as a % of GDP over the last 20 years (before Obama) were 18.24%.

The average Spending as a % of GDP over the last 20 years (before Obama) were 20.14%

These figures are close to the 'ideal' for Federal Revenues and Spending of 19% recommended by the Debt Commission.

Ben,

What was bad was the 0% down.

By far and away most people have a net worth of less than 1/4 of their home loan.

Lot of government bashing here, well deserved sometimes but not always. I understand that the vast majority want smaller government but we must keep in mind that government has a purpose and a government job is still a job. Cut government spending so the job creators can create more jobs is a refrain heard again and again but there is no guarantee that a cut government job will resurface in the private sector. Some will now shout "THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT" but I counter that the private sector is focused on profitability to the exclusion of all else these days. Our government must maintain control of standards when it comes to things that cost the private sector money. Things like workplace safety, environmental issues, discriminatory practices, collusion, and on and on...stop wasteful spending? Yes, but that shouldn't mean dropping our standards so they approximate those that exist in other countries that simply don't have ANY AT ALL! We need to find a way to push other nations to adopt our standards, raise them for all areas of the world, rather than work to tear them down here.

One poster discounted the cost of two unfunded wars as part of our financial picture and suggested that the cost of programs for the poor and elderly are a bigger part of the issue, I can agree that social programs are likely to be a constant while wars are temporary, (sort of) but those two unfunded wars cost at least a trillion dollars, and there are other costs we aren't even counting such as the nearly never ending costs associated with rebuilding and trying to maintain the supposedly favorable gains we got.

We remain perched on the edge of the fiscal cliff. Even if the house votes to pass the deal that was cut at the last minute, there remain a great many other challenges that, if ignored, will create all manner of havoc and cause lasting damage to the nation. I have very little confidence the dysfunctional fools running the country will be able to do anything more than continue to flounder while the country picks up speed on it's way becoming a shadow of the great nation it once was.

John B.......so great to see you here posting such good work, hope you can do more so this year.

Happy New Year to you and your family.

Last night, without any legislative language, the Senate Republicans and Democrats voted to raise taxes. They did not just vote to raise income taxes. They voted to raise the payroll tax on all Americans.

This will hurt small businesses.

Ironically, this plan generates less revenue than even John Boehner's Plan B option. But both options, as I have long maintained, were only about breaking the will of the GOP and getting the GOP to violate its tax pledge.

Well, today the White House is telling Fox New's Ed Henry that this was the game all along. According to Ed Henry, the White House staff is saying that getting the GOP to break their tax pledge is, "One of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple of decades." The plan cuts $1.00 in spending for every $41.00 in tax increases. Contrary to what Senator Pat Toomey is claiming today, everyone's taxes will also go up - the 99% and the 1%.

John B, Des Moines, IA "Roy, for once we're close to the same page. Revenue is a few percentage points too low and spending is a few percentage points too high. I'm more in agreement with Warren Buffett, who argues that revenue around 18.5% and spending around 22.4%"

Unfortunately, that would result in a continued rise in the National Debt that would be unsustainable, and a huge burden on our children and grandchildren.

One is NOT ENTITLED TO THE JOB OF THEIR CHOOSING, just because they live in the US.

One is NOT ENTITLED TO THE TOYS AMERICA OFFERS just because they live in the US.

GREED AND IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION is what drives America today.

This country is UPSIDE DOWN FOR LOTS OF REASONS, including 30 years of GREED AND the demand for IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION.

KICKING THE FISCAL CAN DOWN THE ROAD (once again), as Congress and the POTUS are NOW doing, IS NOT A ANSWER.

Nor is printing money and attempting to let the "AIR OUT OF THE FALSELY INFLATED ECONOMY SLOWLY", as is now being done, a answer.

The clock is ticking AGAINST THE US. We in the US are NOT TOO BIG TOO FAIL. Kicking the Fiscal Responsibility Can down the road once again, as is now being done once again with this "bill, is NOT A ANSWER.

There is no cure for STUPID, nor GREED nor the demand for IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

Thanks GBM, and Happy New Year to you and yours!

The 'Deal' still has to pass the House, so it will take both Democrats and Republicans cooperating.

Debora-389330" The plan cuts $1.00 in spending for every $41.00 in tax increases."

That's Obama's idea of 'balance'.

I disagree, Roy. In the post WWII period we continued to accumulate debt in simple dollars, but in inflation adjusted dollars the debt remained virtually unchanges. http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_over_time.html

Most importantly, however, if you look at federal debt as a percent of GDP it shrank dramatically during that period. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

It was the growing economy that gave us the opportunity to pay off our debt entirely, an opportunity that was squandered by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

I believe that is the whole point Roy. The Spending cut is so small it doesn't count

the republicans refused to be bullied by the administration, they held their ground, that is how democratic government works. now comes the tough part ,SPENDING REDUCTIONS.

We think this is great, when in fact it is not. This does nothing but kick the can, AGAIN, down the road. We are in this mess because we are spending too much, much more than our taxes are bringing in. The dems. said just pass it and we will look at cut's later. That sounds VERY familiar...just pass it, then we will find out what's in it later. HA...later NEVER comes with the dems. nor our govt. Fiscal Cliff II, here we come, with the democratic party leading the way. Can't wait.

Ben: I changed my party affiliation by printing out a pdf and sending it in and that I have done. That's not to say I won't vote for another Republican (like Marco Rubio in my home state of FL IF he continues to stand up for principles) but will no longer support the party.

Correct the House hasn't voted yet but the Senate Republicans have already played their cards. If it passed the Senate but just barely and the vast majority of Republicans stood their ground I would have reacted differently. Only 5, that's right FIVE Republicans voted against this catastrophe.

And strategy? Republicans are the ONLY ones I know of who can play chess against themselves and LOSE!! Pathetic. No strategy. No principles. I am done with them. What the House does doesn't matter anymore. I still might VOTE for a Republican but no longer an a registered Republican. Because they have no backbone. Have to principles. Have no honor.

I think the Democrats have created so much damage these last four years that our country cannot survive. I don't think this country can continue in its current path and will ultimately lead to a revolution and/or secession. But one thing I DO admire about the Democrat Party is they at least STAND for something. They stand for collapse of this nation but at least they STAND for something and, as a group, have a desired goal and strategy to get there.

And they have done that well because the Republicans couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag. We keep being told we have to nominate "moderates" because the country can't elect a strong willed Republican - and have convinced the naive to nominate people like John McCain and Mitt Romney. So how has THAT worked out for you Republicans? Not very well.

Meanwhile the Democrats nominate the most left-winged and socialist candidate in the history of the country and win. How? By having a platform. By having a goal. By having principles. WRONG principles but at least they HAVE principles!! But not hard to beat the Republican Party because they don't HAVE principles. That is like the Lakers playing a nearby high school basketball team. Not hard to beat when you are so strongly outplayed and outmaneuvered.

So I am done with the Republican Party. Finished. Done. I would rather support a political party like the Constitution Party that has principles. I would rather lose WITH principles then continue losing with a Republican Party that does NOT have principles.

I am still in shock about all of the libs who constantly bleat out (like rabid sheep) that anyone who makes more than $250,000 in a year is "rich"! I think that if you asked someone in NYC if $250,000 a year makes someone rich, they would laugh histerically! When a basic condo can cost $1,000,000 or more, $250,000/year is middle class!

Then you have all of the small business owners throughout the country. These people have sacrificed their money, time and sweat to build businesses which employ the majority of Americans. Maybe they worked at a fast food restaurant for years, moved up into management, then they took a chance with the money they had saved over the years to purchase their own store. Over the next years they worked long hours at their business and created a success. They may have purchased a few more stores, risking their own assets to try to create more income for themselves, their family, and their workers! Now, you want to take everything from these "rich bastards" and give it to the "limp, lame, and lazy" in this country!

You talk about the "rich" who have their maids, butlers, and personal chefs as those whom you want to take from. The only problem is that the majority of these individuals have inherited their treasure from previous generations who actually created this money. The other problem is that the majority of these people are smart enough to vote and support the Dems who now control this country. Do you really think that these Democrat politicians are going to "expropriate" the assets of their main financial supporters? If you do, I have some nice swampland in Florida, or a shiny bridge in Brooklyn, for you to purchase!

The battle in this country is not between the 1%ers who have too much and need to have their assets taken for the betterment of this country. It is the new transfer of money and power from those who create (the 1%ers on the conservative side) and the 1%ers on the left, who believe that they are the best and brightest and deserve to not only keep their money, but, to get the money and power from the hard-working producers in this country! Just remember that in the USSR, a socialist paradise (at least from the mouths of our liberal intelligensia), there was an even more dramatic shift of money and power into the 1%ers on the left side. I know this from study and the words of my in-laws, former high-level Soviet officials.

OO-

Current estimates for all illegals in the USA is 11.5 million not 13 million.

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

John B, Des Moines, IA "I'm more in agreement with Warren Buffett, who argues that revenue around 18.5% and spending around 22.4% has been proven to provide enough economic growth to decrease the debt as a percentage of GDP over time."

Sorry, but I ran the numbers on that, and it would call for a 20% compounded rate of increase in spending, and only a 3% annual increase in tax revenues., with a National Debt increase to well over $30 Trillion in 10 years if we got to Buffett's 'recommendation' in 2022. That's much higher Debt than even Obama projected in his 2013 Budget projections.

The Debt Ratio in 2022 would be in excess of 120%, which is where Greece was when lenders stopped lending to them, and they now have extreme austerity, riots, and an Unemployment Rate of more than 30%.

The Debt Ratio (National Debt as a % of GDP) averaged about 64% under Clinton and about 63% under Bush (yes, it was lower). For 2012, it is estimated at 107% of GDP.

When will SPENDING and the DEBT be really addressed by the POTUS and DEMS?

The House Republicans are less likely to vote for tax increases...because the rich donors will come up with alternative candidates in 2014 primaries to destroy the supporters of tax increase in their chances of re-election in November 2014. In many safe districts, the most important fight is now the primary fight.

It takes courage to vote for the deal.

If the House RepubliCONs don't support the deal and US gets into the cliff, a recession will certainly cause the revolt of voters who will kick out some of these RepubliCONs in the general elections.

It's tough.

Smoke and mirrors, and drama, drama, drama. No substance, just smoke and mirrors. And they were done just in time for the orgy and fireworks!

john b -- do you believe the debt will ever go down? even a billion dollars? or will it just rise as it has every year since 1958?

the interest on the debt is staggering. all of the money we are borrowing, even at historically low rates still adds up to hundreds of billions a year. that cannot possibly be good, can it?

John B, Des Moines, IA

In my 'haste', I had a bad formula in my analysis of the 'Buffett' recommendation. The average Revenues would increase by about 6.7% per year, and Spending would increase by about 5.2% per year.

The National Debt would still likely double to about $30 Trillion in 10 years under Buffett's plan, which would still be devastating to the future of our children and grandchildren. For example, the average Interest Rate over the previous 30 years before Obama was 4.97% per year. At $30 Trillion, the Interest alone on the Debt could increase to almost $1,500 Billion per year vs only about $200 Billion per year under both Clinton and Bush. That's a HUGE burden of an extra $1,300 Billion PER YEAR - just for Interest expense - $13 Trillion over 10 years - that would be a disaster.

pig -- you seem to consistently assert that the rich donors only donate to republicans. if this were true then should the republicans not win every election?

though i would consider many of the democrat donors to be rich -- buffett -- as an example.

btw -- did you read where the vulture capitalist buffett after buying some newspapers shut one down and fired all of the staff? not very nice was it?

Eric,

I have to agree with you. I think some good work was accomplished here (I haven't seen them work this hard in years). Hopefully the pressure is on to get House approval. I hope the President and Congress understand the importance in holding the line on the debt ceiling and actually turn a corner on legitimate debt reduction for the benefit of future generations. They kicked the can down the road on the spending side last night. I guess we'll see what happens.

Johntho, You wrote, "Norm, your an idiot. Rich is easily defined. It is those that don't live week to week, paycheck to paycheck. It is those that are against raising taxes on those that can afford it the most. Rich is defined as people who have managed to get good people working for them making oodles of money for them. Thats rich."

First, it's "...you're an idiot..." not "...your and idiot..." Between your spelling and your economic philosophy, not to mention your hatred of the productive class, your post says it all. Thanks for being the poster child (pun intended) for ignorance. Unfortunately you are not alone. Oh well, Opa!

And the partisan bull s**t continues unabated. Here and in D.C. When we all of you take of you red and blue blinders and see these people for what they are? Liars, thieves, con men, and scoundrels. They couldn't care less about the impact any of this has on We the People, they seek to minimize the impact it has on them. Obamacare was supported to be answer to all our health care concerns. Really?, Then why did both sides of the aisle "opt out" in favor of their all inclusive health care WE pay for? Why do both sides of the aisle actively engage in insider trading?, something the Prez called for an end to in his last state of the union address. Did any of you ideologues even notice? Or were you to busy cheering or booing to listen to what was being said?

Even IF this dog gets through the house, In May we will right back in the same leaky boat arguing over the same issues, the same rhetoric, the same lies and half truths. Mean while the debt ceiling will be raised, the debt continue to climb, and our great-great grand children will be born into debt. NOw that's really going to accomplish a lot. At what point does the economic reality of "You can't spend or borrow your way out of debt" kick in for you partisan hypocrites? You have four flavors of crooks in D.C., Democrat, republican, Independent, and Tea party. Now when you form an acronym you get D.I.R.T. ALL dirty, ALL the time. They have only one thing in common, If they're mouth is moving, They ARE lying to you. What the left fails to acknowledge is that there are as many Democrats in the top 5% income levels as republicans. If you TRULY want to see where these criminals loyalties lie, check their portfolios. A great many made money on both side of the housing fiasco. They make money of defense contracts,( they are on the boards of directors), they made money on the bail out, insurance, oil, they are major share holders, (see again insider trading practices).

Yes Virginia, there are devils, and most live in D.C. Okay, believe what you want. Some are so brainwashed you couldn't change their minds with a transplant. Just wait, you'll see eventually, by then of course, it will probably be too late.

It appears to me that regardless what they did people would be unhappy. I am not saying the politicians are doing a good job. I am saying it is a no win situation for them. I suppose that is the nature of politics. "you can never please all of the people all of the time"- Abraham Lincoln

OO-BAMA LicenseToBore "Only 8% of the world is Latino, yet they are 18% of the US population. That means 30,000,000 Latinos must leave the US in order to be fair to the rest of the world.....immigration wise."

The 'Latinos' and 'Native Americans' once made up 100% of what is now the United States - Does that mean that about 300,000,000 Non-Latino/Native Americans should leave the US in order to be fair to the rest of the world.....immigration wise?

Get real. lol

Sighbar;

One observation, a government job is over head, i.e. they are funded directly from our pockets. Government efficiency is about 20% in terms of actual work done to money applied to the task. NO private sector business could survive with such dismal productivity numbers. It could be said that private sector jobs rely on our money, and they do, It's called consumer spending but you get something for your money. A product or service of some kind. And much higher productivity numbers than with government.

Look at the number of government jobs from say, 1950 to present. They have grown by more the 600%. Government has not and never will be the driving force behind jobs, unless of course, we accept a Soviet style central government. "A government large enough to give you all that you need, is a government large enough to take all that you have". Ben Franklin.

The National Debt would still likely double to about $30 Trillion in 10 years under Buffett's plan, which would still be devastating to the future of our children and grandchildren

Have you made any calculation to account for economic expansion and inflation? You're overlooking the most important factors in Buffett's case and in the history of the debt between WWII and the Reagan Administration. Even while the debt itself increased it remained constant on an inflation-adjusted basis and DECREASED BY A FACTOR OF 4 as a proportion of GDP.

The approach taken by both parties between WWII and 1980 is proven to work. The approach taken since then, begun by Reagan, accelerated by GW Bush is a proven failure and must be discarded.

QXZsmith, 1.83 You are offended, oh snap. What you need is a bitch slap back into reality. $55,000 isn't rich, but anytime you don't think you are well off you need to volunteer at a homeless shelter or take some food out to your local tent city. Maybe take a Veteran out for breakfast and pay for it, and listen. The problem with you is you are so busy slapping yourself on the back for being frugal that you forget you are human. Not all folks are in financial trouble because of bad decisions. But to err is human to forgive divine. There are people that work just as hard as you do, working just as many hours that are making a lot less then 55 big a year and you want to whine about them. You are a car accident or an illness away from joining them. So QX, maybe it is you that needs to shut your trap. You certainly don't have a very good grip on reality.

As someone who will end up paying more taxes I can tell you that I do not have a problem with that. I will do just like any other taxpayer and look for more exemptions & tax havens and I will predict that less than half the expected increase will not materialize. Now if the increase was going to be used for debt reduction that would be another story. We have a SPENDING problem not a revenue problem.

And all of this talk about Romney is nonsense, lets talk about a real tax dodger Warren Buffett.

What a bunch of Bull @!$%#, don't do their job all year, then try make it look like a bunch of hero'smy leaving it to the last moment, then agreeing on something that is not going to change a thing in the long run. The present people in there on both sides have to be dumped and a new start made, as the parasites roots have taken over and the nation is no longer of any consequence to them.

Nicodemus1946 "One observation, a government job is over head, i.e. they are funded directly from our pockets. Government efficiency is about 20% in terms of actual work done to money applied to the task. NO private sector business could survive with such dismal productivity numbers."

That's true, but your 20% productivity figure may be off. I have heard of studies that indicate that government employee productivity is about 50% of that of the private sector - But it still adds up to a LOT of money, especially when public employees get about 4 times as much in Pension Benefits as the average private sector employee - The productivity of a retired Public employee is 0%.

If it had went over the fiscal cliff as full of @!$%# as those people are it would have just splattered. As for tax loop holes yeah the rich will find a way to beat it. Just like the health care plan. They will find a way around it. One trucking company here found their way. They took the large trucking company and broke it down into four smaller ones. Not enough employees in each one to have to provide health care insurance. They pass smoke screen laws but always leave them a way out. They're never gonna do anything to hurt those kind of people. Like the phony credit card reform laws stopping high interest rates. By the time the law took effect almost a year later they had plenty of time to raise the rates to thirty percent. They are just gonna hurt the middle class and poor. Hell the rich people own them anyway. As for the fiscal cliff that was all bluff,posture,blow and show.

First off norm, your still an idiot, but thanks for the English lesson. While it will go unheeded, who cares. You understood obviously, you knew what I meant. You answered. I don't hate the productive class, I am the productive class. I made millions for others in my career and managed myself a comfortable living and retirement. That is just fine with me. You on the other hand are the scab. The festering sore on America. You stink of conservatism which by the way the meaning has changed from one of fiscal responsibility to one of greed and I got mine screw you. Now run along but thank you for playing. Hopefully it will be to a place far, far away from America where we take care of ours.

How come the President says "Millionaires and Billionaires", but then goes after "Hundred Thousandaires".

John B, Des Moines, IA "Have you made any calculation to account for economic expansion and inflation? You're overlooking the most important factors in Buffett's case and in the history of the debt between WWII and the Reagan Administration. Even while the debt itself increased it remained constant on an inflation-adjusted basis and DECREASED BY A FACTOR OF 4 as a proportion of GDP."

Yes, I accounted for the same economic expansion that Obama has projected. As for the 'Debt Ratio' during WW2, that was a temporary 'blip' to fund the war and only lasted for about 3 years, so using that as a 'base' is unwarranted.

As for the Debt Ratio under Reagan, it averaged only 42.84% of GDP, only about 40% of the current Debt Ratio under Obama.

Debt Ratios automatically adjust for Inflation, since the RATIO is the same whether you use nominal dollars or 'inflation adjusted' dollars. The huge Deficits over the last 4 years has resulted in a DRAMATIC increase in the Debt Ratio, from an average under Clinton of 64%, and Bush of 63%, to a current level of 107% - That's true in both Nominal AND Inflation Adjusted dollars.

Whoops!!! I thought this was "the monkey rides dog at half time story"

Senate decide to kick the can down the road . Most Senators agree with the deal ,but they know about the kind of lousy job they are performing. One more time the Senate is avoiding to bring solution to our increase of the indebtedness and the devaluation of the currency caused by the FEDs printing more dollars than our economy can endorse , this is not an easy task but something must be done. Democrats need to take act and take responsibility for Obamas reckless spending. March is the last opportunity for Congress to do something about it, it will be when Obama request more, more, more money and leave his huge debt for next generations to pay. That will be the most disastrous Obama legacy even worst than Bush.

tunanut "How come the President says "Millionaires and Billionaires", but then goes after "Hundred Thousandaires"?"

Great question. lol

oskar-1391552 "Senate decide to kick the can down the road . Most Senators agree with the deal"

Of course they do - They're mostly Democrats, and they LOVE a plan that has all tax increases and NO spending cuts.

Gotta go now - better things to do today. Bye

We have all witnessed a "Festivus Miracle" and the blame game and drama continues! Divided we stand, united we fall...........mission accomplished after 4 more years. Congrats to the winners! Whomever they may be.

Well, let me first state that I wasn't really for this particular deal; I agreed with Howard Dean that we should just use the fiscal cliff to reduce the deficit, since it is the only practical way to do so. Once we do that, we can easily turn back to keeping the economy going even with this austerity. At the very least, we should have gotten the threshold cut-off to $250,000 and settled the debt-ceiling matter.

But, since compromise is in the air, I will accept this deal. Hell, it gets a lot of things done, and the best part is that it is only revenues; few if any spending cuts are included. This will be a massive political victory for the Democrats if the House passes it un-amended, as they have finally forced a majority of Republicans (at least in the Senate) to vote for tax rate increases with few if any concessions. However, this political victory will easily be overshadowed if Republicans play the same @!$%# that they did in 2011 with the oncoming debt ceiling issue. Don't these Republicans know that going off the fiscal cliff is small potatoes compared to playing with the nation's ability to pay bills?? You don't threaten to stop paying your bills in order to reduce your borrowing; and FYI the debt ceiling is used to borrow money for things WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT. It's like a credit card; you borrow money to pay for what you spend, not for what you expect to spend. Apparently these bastards are really willing to threaten the nation's full faith and credit (not to mention the economy and our fragile recovery) just to "reduce government" and satisfy their astroturf Tea Party supporters and wealthy backers.

Ah well, just another day in Washington! Happy New Year, and bring it on, 2013!!!

Does anyone else feel like we are watching reruns of The Kardashians?

I have watched the show but the promos are enough to make me want anti-acids and anti-diarrhea medication.

I hope the electorate remembers all of this drama come November. And I also, cannot wait until Congress takes us to the cliff again! We the people of the United States of America, need to start doing our own home work. How in the devil do these people, who call themselves Congress, get elected. It has to be the hype. No one wants to do research and look up the FACTS! Yes, I am guilty, too! I am from the Bickeye state and have to take responsibility for Bawling Boehner. Unfortunately, every state has their blemishes. Sounds like we need to remove the pimples from our butts.

And then is another matter. The Koch brothers! Rupert Murdock! George Sarros, Rush Limbaugh, And all the rest of the "Self indulgent " aristocrats! If I had a choice of dining with any of the above or a real working family, guess which I would choose?

If Americans really want to see fairness and our country going in the direction, our forefathers meant it to be, we all need to be less bedazzled by the glitter and more engaged in truths.

They could just, y'know, stop borrowing so much from the Federal Reserve. As well as stop spending so much. Maybe print legal US Currency instead of these Federal Reserve notes that have no value and are illegal in the first place?

Constitution states that only the US Government may mint and print US currency, but since 1913 we've been letting the Federal Reserve print our money. The Federal Reserve is a private business, not a government entity. Though... technically, if they're loaning money to our banks and our government, that would make them a government entity over our government... just saying. You want to look up FACTS, there they are.

Okicize Wicasa Yata Pi

As for tax loop holes yeah the rich will find a way to beat it. ........... They're never gonna do anything to hurt those kind of people

Because that is not the American way, be rich is not a sin, no loop holes is fine , but if you get rich because you succeed , like many entrepreneurs do in America, one of the few unique countries, where you don't need to have blue blood in order to succeed, good for you, that is what made this country great. Take your hate to Cuba they will love you.

What I find amazing is that once Sen Reid was out of the picture and biden was doing the negotiationg, there was a deal in hours. Seems to me that it wasn't the GOP being the obstruction here but Sen Reid....

Are you seriously going to try to tell us that Mr "Nothing gets done on my watch" Reid is not the problem?

JohnB...

Warren Buffett, who argues that revenue around 18.5% and spending around 22.4% has been proven to provide enough economic growth to decrease the debt as a percentage of GDP over time

No matter how you try comparing this to GDP, the math never adds up. As long as spending to GDP remains higher than revenue to GDP the debt will always grow. You know, the %'s still means that regardless of what GDP growth is realized, spendingas you are promoting still outstrips revenue.

With regards to the argument of the 98% being the drivers of the economy you fail to understand the following simplified economic realities...

1. Seizing and or liquidating the assets of the top 400 wealthiest U.S. individuals will likely gain only about $2 trillion to the US treasuringwhile these 400 and their families now qualified for government handouts. Hmmm, based on WH estimates of where obama expects our national debt to be by the time he leaves office in 2016 this is only a 10% reduction assuming obama doesn't want to spend it elsewhere.

2. At this point in economic time, the 98% paying a reduced tax rate is no longer stimulative and when one looks at what the 98% receive in gov bennies we really aren't paying our fair share for what we receive. Northern european countries understand this and they have demonstrated that with their willingness to pay a higher tax rate. Of course france is going in the opposite direction with many of their wealthiest seeking alternative residences just as many in the U.S. relocate to other states.

3. Recently on bloombergTV an interviewee made the observation that the wealthy were unlikely to spend a higher % of their earned income so that therefore their spending could not be viewed as an economic stimulative. Regardless, this individual (whom I am sure is well off and a company CEO/owner) has forgotten that when comparing %'s he is ignoring that the wealthy are likely to spend considerably more in absolute dollars to maintain their lifestyle compared to the 98%. IE for many of the 98% a trip to Mcdonalds, pizza ranch etc would be considered a treat... for the 2% it is likely just a way to have variety. JFK/sorenson had it right, we should all have skin in the game.

4. The only way to reduce our national debt and grow our economic security is to not keep on having deficits. We can't control nature, we can't determine and avoid recessions beyond a very minute fiscal or monetary policy and military conflicts are also very hard to control. However, we can control what we spend and allocate for programs beyond war, natural disasters and recessions. The best thing about sequestration is that it didn't differentiate which programs got cut, just as long as they were across the board.

5. Perhaps really the best way to descride buffetts observation as you have presented it is in realizing that he is comparing a one rate to another rate and then saying that the absolute number regarding debt to GDP is not correct, you still have a growing debt.

Posted by:

clwyd-2621393

Since you and I are paying the lowest taxes since the 60's and running a deficit, what better thing to do than to raise taxes.

Actually, we have been paying the lowest Federal income tax rate since 1916, just half of what it was in 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, and back when Ike and Harry Truman were in office, our top Federal income tax rate was 92% too. Our current capital gains tax rate is even less than half of what it was too. (15% versus 35%)

One economic and tax theory says that higher income and capital gains taxes encourage productive investment at home trying to mitigate those high tax rates, whereas low tax rates encourage disinvestment at home and investment overseas. And the absolute fact is that since our top Federal tax rates have fallen so heavily also coincides with an immense exodus of American manufacturing to the lowest bidder worldwide too.

If just half of the American manufacturing jobs lost to offshoring since 2001 were still here our unemployment rate would be under 4% and our economy would be on-fire. Let's see: Clinton signed NAFTA under the threat of a veto override, GW signed 30 different free-trade bills just during his eight years in office, and President Obama has also signed a single smaller free trade bill too, as a trade-off with Republicans in order to get something that the Democrats wanted passed too.

Four times since 2009 the Democrats have tried to pass legislation penalizing American companies trying to offshore our jobs, as well as to encourage US manufacturers operating offshore to return their production home again, and all four times minority Senate Republicans have filibustered each opportunity to stand-up for income security for the American people. Now this new tax law may at least help encourage more investment at home and less investment overseas, but I still say that our top tax rate should be much higher in order to force wealthy Americans to invest at home.

Even though I am very liberal I could actually see a local cost of living index being applied to high cost urban areas, as $450K of annual income in rural Kansas buys more there than would $1 million of income in NYC, Boston, or San Francisco. But since when were continuing dairy price supports to wealthy farmers a bargaining chip as a part of any fiscal cliff deal? Why should anyone in the US get to pay half of what I pay for dairy products, and why should US taxpayers foot the bill?

We also must cut defense spending back from wartime levels too, as for every dollar spent on defense, we have to take away $2.25 to $3.00 from civilian economic benefit. A cut of $100 billion from defense is only 9%, and yet would yield a minimum civilian economic benefit of $225 billion, thereby creating 2.25 new jobs for every job lost. A cut of 9% in defense spending certainly will not greatly impact our security, as the US outspends the next 12 largest armies in the world.

Just so that we are completely clear, as our top Federal income and capital gains tax rates are at their lowest levels since 1916, and where are the jobs that tax-cut proponents have promised? Pretty simple, they are in Mexico and China, where average pay in coastal urban China is up 400% just in the last 10 years. How much is your pay up in the last 10 years?

Simple fact: Higher tax rates encourage productive investment at home which creates jobs at home. Low tax rates encourage wealthy Americans to move jobs overseas.

It is a decent deal and one that may just help US get our country off to a better start than nothing!

If Boehner's refuses to accept it then his actions show that he a poor leader and has failed at his job of which the people elected him into. IF Boehner fails to accept this deal then he has spoken for only the 1-2% of the wealthy and such shows he out of touch with the reality of this country and our needs.

And sadly his Boner will go limp forevermore, as he doesn't have the guts to do what is right for all the people. He neglects that We the People make this nation, not the money or kickbacks received!

The only thing worse then these people complaining for the next four years, is when another dem wins and they complain for another 8 after that lol.

Roy Wilson

What would the numbers be if the Republicans got their way? Did you even bother to run those numbers? You're always busting on President Obama and the Democrats but have you ever and I mean ever run the numbers on the Republican plans? How about with Ryan's plan? Run those numbers and get back to us. My big question is, can you be honest about the results? I have my doubts but I'm willing to give you the opportunity to do something in an honest and ethical manner.

Well, this looks like a reasonable 'Bandaid' on the revenue side. I would have liked to see a little closer look at income generated by Bonuses and Stock options which I think should deserve a little higher tax rate. Still, the $400K cutoff is a bit more realistic than the $250K that was the starting point.

Unfortunately, this whole revenue thing is just a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done to reduce spending. I was less than thrilled to see the long term employment benefits extended for another year! At what point do we finally draw a line in the sand and say find a job or else? I know the economy is still weak, but there are jobs and opportunities out there if you are serious about finding them. You may have to relocate or take a big pay cut, but sometimes it comes down to the old saying of "it is what it is".

We have got to start cutting expenses if we are ever going to solve this problem. One of the easiest things to do would be to freeze all Federal spending at current levels for 5 years with the exception of Social Security, VA and Medicare. All of these Federal bureaus have built in increases every year and if we simply take them away, they will be forced to streamline their operations just to live within their means. Bring in outside private sector efficiency analysts to look at each agency's budget and operating model and then actually implement their recommendations.

Virtually all Federal agencies have areas that could be streamlined by procedural changes or restructuring. Some areas might require some legislative tweaks to overcome some inefficiencies that were created by poorly written laws, but I would be very surprised if we couldn't realize a 5-10% reduction in most Federal department budgets if someone from the outside could actually come up with a good working business plan. The private sector does this all the time in order to remain competitive and profitable. While the Federal Government doesn't have any competition to worry about, the profitable aspect is what would equate to the efficient use of our tax dollars.

blah blah blah go to sleep children, let adults handle this. you know the ones that paid for you and your yuppie lifestyle without actually expecting y'all to work. BTW the Tea Party is alive and well and will be coming for y'all in 2014. BTW Bonehead if he agrees to the Seanate Bill then he will lose his speakership in the new congress. No deal Obama..Not enough go back to the drawing board and come up with a minimum of 20% reduction in social programs.....

Clank...clank...clank....

That's the sound of the can being kicked down the road.

Congrats Senate....Epic fail.

I really wish they would kill this funding idea of "Use it or Lose it." I think all it does is encourage wasteful spending. There has got to be a better way of doing business. Rewarding agencies for saving money would be a start. Reasonable increases determined by true need, not ridiculous wish list crap. The problem is, this is a culture that has been in place for decades that encourages wasteful spending. That is a hard culture to crack. There would be a ton of resistance to it.

The whole bunch of these azz holes need to jump off the cliff, in fact; better yet, let us push them off!

Blow the economy up! Blow it up!

Republicans want it blown up.

Democrats want it blown up.

The public needs to pay the price for tolerating one party voters. Everybody needs to lose 5% of their take home pay over this. THE PUBLIC WANTS TO LOSE MONEY SO DO IT!

And after the pain hits home, maybe people will be smart enough to toss the one party voters into the ocean, where they can forced to swim to another country of their choice. They don't understand the United States anyway, so shove them off!

@JohnQ

Hate to tell you this but the tea party is headed for obscurity, especially if they try to stop this and then turn around and try to stop the increase raising the debt ceiling, knowing full well that their idiot followers have zero idea what the debt ceiling actually is. They will play on your willful ignorance.

They pull this crap and the whole country will see the madness that's the tea party and will remember full well their treachery come 2014. So John, tell your buddies to start acting like Americans not back woods idiots.

John Q,

Boehner will allow the amended House Resolution (H.R. 8) to be voted on, it will pass and he will be elected ‘Speaker’ by the 113^th House on Thursday.

Debora-389330

Last night, without any legislative language, the Senate Republicans and Democrats voted to raise taxes. They did not just vote to raise income taxes. They voted to raise the payroll tax on all Americans.

This will hurt small businesses.

Ironically, this plan generates less revenue than even John Boehner's Plan B option.

It is ironic. Isn't it?

By the way , I recognize your avatar, is in Germany , River Rhine , close to Boppard.

Some great comments by Roy Wilson above (I think 1.82).

Just a reminder for those who are pessimisitic - we do not need to exactly balance the budget, all we need to do is increase the economy faster than the debt. Our country did great from 1945 to 1980 without ever balancing the budget. The national debt fell from 117% of GDP to 36% of GDP, even though the dollar value of debt increased continuously. If we got to 19% of GDP revenue and 21% of GDP spending, yes, debt is going up. But if GDP grows faster than 2%, debt is going down as %GDP, which is the only measure that matters.

So while the GOP has slow the deficit reduction by their insistence on limiting tax rates, it is not a fatal flaw in the deal. We already reduced the deficit by $300b/year over the last three years, this will accelerate deficit reduction in the future. We are on a good path.

But I do think it is hilarious that the main focus of the conservative base is "we must reduce the debt" while the main result of conservative politicians is "slow down deficit reduction if it hurts our financial backers." When will the conservative base figure this out?

Hi Kaybeetoys,

I had thought that Intelligent and Independent had produced the dumbest of posts until I saw yours. His was that he was glad tax rates on the wealthy were changed, but that the wealthy will find a way to avoid the increases in taxes anyhow. You just can't make this stuff up.

But then you got into it. You make one valid point: Growth is necessary. But you would go about it as every liberal loves to go about this, by raising taxes on the FUTURE by borrowing money today to make your life better that people in the future will have to repay. Mr. Obama, reckless a president as he is, said in 2008 something remarkably forgotten by leftists, himself included. When deficits were a small fraction of what they are today he said they were IMMORAL. And then people like you elected him. And now deficits four and five times higher aren't just moral, they are necessary.

We can have growth, but all growth from money stolen from our grandkids is illusory.

Old Timer--if there is an economist or economic theory that views high tax rates as productive for an economy I'd like to know his name or the name of that theory. When marginal rates were 90% or more no one paid them. Marginal rates on the next dollar of income do matter when there are no deductions, credits, or accounting adjustments with which to mitigate that tax. But 60 years ago, and you could look this up if you wanted, people paid then about 18% in taxes to the feds, just as they did until very recently. So while marginal rates do have an effect within a "clean" (or cleaner) tax code, they are relatively useless to determine behavior when they are mitigatable to the 18% level.

All of which, though I have no doubt it escapes you anyhow, doesn't imply we should have more government incentives through the tax code to alter behavior. I don't think the government should ever incentivize your economic behavior since in every case it results in market distortions which always, and I do not speak hyperbolically, result in lower GDP growth than possible.

I would prefer the House refuse this deal, that we all go over this stupidly named "cliff", and that people who have spent more than a decade claiming that the Bush tax cuts only helped the wealthy suddenly discover their lie, and also discover that government isn't free, and more government isn't good. Perhaps we might get wiser voters. The posts by many leftists above notwithstanding.

ANNNND after a promising start Roy is back to misusing numbers as usual.

John B, Des Moines, IA "Have you made any calculation to account for economic expansion and inflation? You're overlooking the most important factors in Buffett's case and in the history of the debt between WWII and the Reagan Administration. Even while the debt itself increased it remained constant on an inflation-adjusted basis and DECREASED BY A FACTOR OF 4 as a proportion of GDP."

We'll walk by this for a moment, I have something special in mind.

Yes, I accounted for the same economic expansion that Obama has projected. As for the 'Debt Ratio' during WW2, that was a temporary 'blip' to fund the war and only lasted for about 3 years, so using that as a 'base' is unwarranted.

Spending related to supporting those in need and stimulating the economy out of the Great Recession is also a blip, so it's ENTIRELY warranted. As for "accounting for it" you have not, as you stated a raw debt number and made no reference to how that will play as a proportion of GDP.

As for the Debt Ratio under Reagan, it averaged only 42.84% of GDP, only about 40% of the current Debt Ratio under Obama.

Roy's usual game, using numbers to give a false impression of the situation. It's no different than your oft-repeated nonsense about the "average unemployment rate" during the GW Bush Administration. During the Reagan Adminstration the debt ratio increased from about 30% to more like 65%, a more than doubling of the debt ratio. The average means nothing, the part that's meaningful is that Reagan dramatically changed the trajectory of US debt for the worse. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Debt Ratios automatically adjust for Inflation, since the RATIO is the same whether you use nominal dollars or 'inflation adjusted' dollars. The huge Deficits over the last 4 years has resulted in a DRAMATIC increase in the Debt Ratio, from an average under Clinton of 64%, and Bush of 63%, to a current level of 107% - That's true in both Nominal AND Inflation Adjusted dollars.

Not at all true, which is where my original comment repeated at the top comes into play. The number of dollars owed increased, inflation zeroed out the increase in constant dollars, and the debt ratio plunged. Your entire assertion is false.

Also great common sense comments by oldtimer above.

In fact, let's get real. Anyone, with common sense, would see - hey, your taxes are historically low. Hey, you were fiscally responsible from 1945 to 1980, and from 1990 to 2000. Hey, you lowered the national debt as %GDP in those periods, even though you were spending a lot (fighting Viet Nam war, landing a person on the moon, fighting the cold war, the Great Society, etc.). Why don't you just do what you did when the country didn't have a debt problem?

Use common sense - raise taxes, limit spending (not cut it, because that is economically suppressive, and it is not necessary for reducing debt). Raise taxes, limit spending, and wait for the Great American Economy to grow out of these hard times. We've done it before, let's follow the same road map.

We have got to start cutting expenses if we are ever going to solve this problem.

And what problem would "this problem" be, exactly? We don't have a debt problem. We have a jobs problem. Obama has reduced the deficit over the last four years by starting to fix the jobs problem. Fix the jobs problem and the debt problem will go away.

On the other hand, fix the debt "problem" and the shock will cause to the economy will reduce growth, which means a reduction of taxes paid, which will make the debt problem worse again.

Take your pick. Do you want a country that works, or not?

But then you got into it. You make one valid point: Growth is necessary. But you would go about it as every liberal loves to go about this, by raising taxes on the FUTURE by borrowing money today to make your life better that people in the future will have to repay.

And they will be easily able to afford it because we will leave them a functioning country and a booming economy. Or, we can massively cut spending today, stunt growth, contract the economy and leave them absolutely nothing at all.

No matter how you try comparing this to GDP, the math never adds up. As long as spending to GDP remains higher than revenue to GDP the debt will always grow. You know, the %'s still means that regardless of what GDP growth is realized, spendingas you are promoting still outstrips revenue

Then why did it work in the decades prior to Reagan? That approach, pursued on a bipartisan basis from Truman through Carter reduced the debt to a proportion low enough that it would have easily been paid off until Reagan blew it up with Voodoo economics. You can't argue with the numbers, they're real.

I think the Democrats have created so much damage these last four years that our country cannot survive. I don't think this country can continue in its current path and will ultimately lead to a revolution and/or secession. But one thing I DO admire about the Democrat Party is they at least STAND for something. They stand for collapse of this nation but at least they STAND for something and, as a group, have a desired goal and strategy to get there.

I would guess that this is about the most wrong-headed post today. The Democratic party won because the country realized that it was Obama's policies that were making the economy better and that Republicans were the ones who had continually tried to make things worse for us. That is why Republicans were, by and large, voted out of office whereas not a single Democratic office-holder lost office.

People aren't stupid. They voted their self-interest. And you aren't smarter than everyone, much as you like to believe otherwise.

Just a reminder for those who are pessimisitic - we do not need to exactly balance the budget, all we need to do is increase the economy faster than the debt. Our country did great from 1945 to 1980 without ever balancing the budget. The national debt fell from 117% of GDP to 36% of GDP, even though the dollar value of debt increased continuously. If we got to 19% of GDP revenue and 21% of GDP spending, yes, debt is going up. But if GDP grows faster than 2%, debt is going down as %GDP, which is the only measure that matters.

Exactly the point I was trying to make noncoms, and you stated it well. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

LOLOLOLOL, does any of this really surprise anyone? If it does, then you're still dreaming. I mean come on, did anyone think they would try and cut what they do the best, spending? And to top it ALL off, they vote themselves a pay raise on top of it, before they pass this through the House, as though they did anything at all worth while jusitfying a raise for them. They are bleeding this country dry, and the people are dumb enough to let them get away with it. Yep, the vote came about six months late, the trash that is still in office got to do what they wanted before leaving, giving the people the shaft and the finger first before parting. Two party system? That noise you always hear in Washington, is a just the circus calliope playing in the back ground, and yes, you're still doing what you do best as voters, you're still feeding the animals there.

Obama has reduced the deficit over the last four years..

Are you f**king kidding,Byron Raum? Please publish your source for this this preposterous statement!

As for this weak, silly "compromise", if it contains no spending reductions, I sincerely hope the House defeats it.

CONGRATULATIONS MITCH MCCONNELL AND REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!

As Barrack Hussein, Hairy "Papa Smurf" Reed and the limp-wristed Liberals/Progressives wake up from their drunken stupor they find the Republicans did COMPROMISE!

We have all been saved from the fiscal cliff that Barrack Hussein and the useful idiots on the Left so wanted to happen. The demise of America that he so wants has been delayed and the people have seen his intentions exposed.

Real Americans understand it took until the 11th hour to get the Democrats to FINALLY do something to help get our great Republic out of the economic quagmire Liberals/Progressives have created for the past century. It's time the Keynesian driven social and economic justice for the collective was exposed for the farce it really is.

It was embarrassing for us to watch the adolescent tactics the Liberals/Progressives resorted to in order to try and save their dysfunctional ideology that real Americans have seen through. This is the extremes the Libbies will go to in order to collapse the greatest economy in history for the sake of their statist principles.

Hairy "Pappa Smurf" Reed, in typical "PARTY OF NO" fashion even resorted to the childish antic of not answering Mitch McConnells phone calls.

HOW IMMATURE!

The Republicans have been the most flexible in all these negotiations and the American people will finally realize what a complete failure our Statist-in-Chief, Barrack Hussein, really is. His little dog-and-pony show yesterday with his typical fabricated audience at his press conference was seen for what it's truly worth. He must be seething that a “bipartisan” effort has destroyed any chance he had of ruining our nation with his anti-American stance. For now.

Barrack Hussein is nothing more than symbolism over substance.

Once again, our Incompetent-in-Chief was leading from behind. This is his usual method as he obviously has no ability at governance. The poor little Libbies have finally realized how impotent his economic and domestic policies are. Combine this with the abject failure his foreign policy has been and the world is realizing how poor his leadership really is.

Taxes were raised by $620 billion and spending was cut by only $15 billion. This is a 41:1 ratio. The true fiscal cliff has not been averted, it’s just been pushed down the road. My companies are still going to remain in a hiring freeze for another 18-24 months. Certainty has definitely not been re-established. Barrack Hussein has even doubled down by announcing he will demand MORE tax increases on any spending cuts. Industries see what his motives are, and they’re not to help America.

Once again, no one, let me repeat, NO ONE in the Senate has read this mess that has been thrown together. We can only hope that the House does the common sense thing and actually reads it and makes sure it’s not loaded with surprises like the Health Care Redistribution of Wealth Hoax turned out to be.

So, this deal creates a whopping $60 billion a year in increased revenues, IF no one changes their investment or productivity habits. This will cover 6 days of current spending. This only leaves 359 days to worry about. But Liberals/Progressives never worry about the future when they can just waste more of Americas money. The $1.2 trillion in spending cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 have been repealed and the mountain of spending will just continue. More money will be wasted on over-extended unemployment benefits, and various “$timulu$” (read special interest) tax breaks will continue which many industries have used to increase productivity rather than create jobs.

Hopefully the Republicans will limit the back-slapping to the next few days and then get serious about saving our once envied economy from the anti-American grip of Barrack Hussein.

First we have to DEMAND that the Democrats pass a BUDGET RESOLUTION by April 15th! This nonsense that these incompetents can run the biggest economy in history by continuing resolutions is imbecilic. Propose legislation through the open legislative process our Founder’s and Framer’s intended. Pass appropriations bills, WITHOUT the inherent special interest earmarks, in the light of day. Reconcile all this by Oct. 1^st, the beginning of the new fiscal year. Anything less than these few procedures cheats the American people of what they have every right to expect from the political class.

The New Year should bring new hope that We The People have in our great Republic. Americans have suffered long enough under the dysfunctional Barrack Hussein regime. It’s time to take our nation back from this statist whose sole purpose is to drag us down to a third-world status.

Happy New Year America!

Spider -

Please publish your source for this this preposterous statement!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

You're welcome.

Oh, and hey look at that -- In the 2009 fiscal year (President Bush's last) the deficit was higher than in any budget year attributable to President Obama!

Only in DC...... to avoid the cliff.... Congress has proposed $620 billion in new taxes, $15 billion cuts......and a PAY RAISE for all of themselves for doing such a good job.

Time to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.... FIRE THEM ALL

SECEDE from DC..................

i think a nice cure for all this "over spending" and this nasty deficit can be taken care in part by red lining all those Tea Party districts--no more social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance for these folks since they believe these are unnecessary and evil components of the nasty US Gov. wonder how long it will take them to scream "uncle"

also reduce the annual salary to $1 and absolutely no medical, pension or other perks for all members of congress. they aren't worth much more.

I wanted to see the cliff happen to get our debt paid off. Logic would dictate that if you are borrowing 43 cents on the dollar and pay off the debt, that 43 cents can go towards many things we need like infrastructure and education. And by many of the posts on here, education should be a priority. Oh well.

The huge problem I see is that when times are good, the debt never gets paid down as it should. Congress just sees more of our money coming in and develops ways to spend it. That is the pattern that needs to stop.

Steve,

(1/1/2013) - In the fiscal cliff deal the Senate added a last-minute addition to the bill that would prevent a $900 pay raise for members of Congress from taking effect in March.

John B, Des Moines, IA

yep the last year was higher and was a democratic congress in charge thanks for pointing that out .

Hi noncoms and JohnB.,

I think your analysis is incredibly flawed. You can't look to the post-WW2 era without looking at everything the led up to it and followed it. If you want THAT tax code back (I don't but it has nothing to do with tax rates) then you should want that world economy back, and those social services programs back, that regulatory environment back, and so on. But you don't. You simply think that every important outcome from that era flowed from tax policy.

So, a serious question to you. Do you honestly think that had the USA not been the only major economy left untouched after WW2 that our economic growth rates post-1945 would have been as positive? And a follow up given the presumption of an intellectually honest answer from either, or both, of you: Is it possible that the industrial employment decline in the USA (relative to GDP), which began long before Mr. Reagan became president, was at least in part caused by the industrial rebuilding of those countries who had been largely destroyed in WW2?

In other words, is it at all possible to you that a changing economy reflected changing international competition levels, that firms might've set up shop overseas to better compete, and that tax rates relative to income or GDP growth had nothing to do with it? Tax rates DO have a significant impact when they are compared across borders as to where firms might expand or shift production, but within the USA the tax rate at the federal level is virtually meaningless to those firms without outside competitors, in terms of their domestic operations. But, in any case, tax rates on the wealthy tend to have little impact on where a firm domiciles itself.

While this "deal" is a beginning, the only thing it shows is that the politicians still only care about saving their own asses. The compromise on the income level was a good point but the rest of the bill kicks the can another 2 months down the road. The additional 620 billion over ten years isn't even a band aid and even though every little bit can help it really is a joke without matching spending cuts. 620 billion breaks down to about 62 billion a year which is less money than the interest being paid on the national debt! We are still facing deficit spending of over 1 trillion/year. The 62 billion in gained revenues only pays for the additional 30 billion to extend unemployment benefits and the 31 billion necessary to keep the 27% cuts in doctors payments from happening. If those cuts happened, you would have seen a collapse of low income health care in this country as more doctors would have started refusing medicare patients without some other form of insurance or financial responsibility. The unemployment extension was necessary to keep the number of impoverished people from sky rocketing and joining the already surging numbers of welfare and disability recipients. So really all this deal does is kick the can down the road for another 60 days. It does save 98% from large tax increases for this year, but it doesn't make the prospects for next year any better.

Hey rocky,

It's a mistake to agree with leftists on this FY09 deficit argument, even if ultimately you disagree by noting that Democrats held Congress in Bush's last two years as president. It is true that the FY09 deficit was very high, and it's also true that Bush has some culpability for it, but the claim he is responsible for the total amount is totally false.

TARP is a major component of the FY09 deficit, and if you are going to blame Bush for that deficit then you also have to credit him for those TARP repayments made. Net effect? About a $500 billion dollar reduction in the FY09 deficit you can clearly attribute to Mr. Bush.

Another major component to the FY09 deficit was the stimulus package Mr. Obama sought, and got from Congress. The total $838 billion spent didn't all come in FY09, but several hundred billion of it did, and so we should also reduce the FY09 deficit we attribute to Mr. Bush by another $350 to $450 billion. I'll go with the lower amount.

This reduces the $1.5 trillion FY09 deficit that Mr. Bush can be blamed for by at least $850 billion. Still large, but $650 billion is FAR lower than each deficit Mr. Obama has presided over, and more importantly, PLANS to preside over for the remainder of his pathetic presidency. Leftists want to confuse the issue by blaming Bush for things Mr. Obama did, and by not crediting Bush for things he did.

I despised TARP, just for the record. But a fair accounting of the money reveals leftists are lying about FY09 as a benchmark by which to judge Mr. Obama. So any agreement with them will only embolden them to lie more, regardless of your accurate claim that Democrats were in control of Congress for the last two years of Mr. Bush's term. A fair claim is that Mr. Obama is responsible for several trillion in additional debt, and that he continues to spend at a level of more than $450 billion, per year, than Mr. Bush's WORST deficit year. And all of this while Mr. Obama claims we are in an economic recovery.

It's all a lie, a lie built upon stealing trillions from future Americans in order to give current Americans free stuff.

when times are good, the debt never gets paid down as it should.

Oh really - then how (gasp) how could these graphs possibly show a decrease in debt.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

ProBusiness,

Good thing you are leaving the republican party. It needs to weed out more of the nut jobs that are killing them.

Oh yes and lets get the taxes raised for sure, because we have a revenue problem.

Dennis, yes, they may have put that addition in, but, the point is, that they even tried to grab a raise as though they all deserve it. I have never seen a more conniving, back stabbing and self righteous and pompous bunch of thieves as those in office today. And it seems as though we keep getting more of them as time goes by.

NO BALANCED BUDGET + NO DEFICIT REDUCTION = NO PAY FOR POLITICIANS

First of all, my income is taxed when I earn it. I am taxed again on every item I purchase. I should not be taxed yet again at an even higher rate after I die, when I leave my already bought and paid for belongings to my survivors. This is ROBBERY and the CROOKS in Washington should be dealt with as CROOKS.

Both REP and DEM Parties in Washington are filled with SELF-SERVING POLITICAL CROOKS. There is only one way out of this financial disaster that they have created and Estate Taxes are not the answer.

1) Eliminate lifetime pay and benefits for PART-TIME POLITICIANS - Taxpayers aren't afforded this luxury and neither should the Crooks in Washington.

2) Flat 10% income Tax on EVERY taxpayer and 20% income Tax on ALL Corporations, with NO DEDUCTIONS and NO EXEMPTIONS - Government is supposed to work Fairly and Evenly for ALL citizens. Having a varying tax rate is not Fair nor Equal. If a citizen earns $1.00, they pay a dime. If a Citizen earns $1,000,000.00 they pay $100K.

3) Limit Welfare handouts - Any ABLE-BODIED citizen should be limited to 6 months of "financial assistance" unless enrolled in some sort of TEMPORARY Job Retraining or CCC program.

4) Re-implementation of the CCC - Any ABLE-BODIED citizen receiving "financial assistance" and not enrolled in some sort of TEPORARY Job Retraining program, should be made to perform a civil service (ie. picking up trash, filling pot holes, replanting forests, etc) in exchange for their "assistance"

5) Foriegn Aid should be limited to only a portion of our financial surplus - Washington should in NO WAY, be giving away money that they do NOT have.

6) 25% tax on ALL items made outside of the USA, regardless of Corporate Origin - This helps level the playing field for American Companies that cannot compete with Foreign Companies that are being forced to follow the same environmental restrictions that American Companies do. This will help bring jobs back to the USA, which will increase the tax base and force Idiot Americans that purchase foreign made products to support the American people they put out of work.

7) NO Welfare or SS payments to ANY NON-CITIZEN of the USA - No further explanation needed.

8) NO pay for ineffective or absent politicians - If Politicians cannot balance the budget, reduce the deficit and/or skip votes in the House or Senate, they forfeit their Pay.

Our Government as it stands is both ineffective and BANKRUPT. It cannot be allowed to continue in this manner. We as tax payers should either DEMAND our Government make EFFECTIVE RESTRUCTURING CHANGES or DEMAND it be DISSOLVED.

Only,

They didn't try to give themselves a pay raise. What they blocked was an executive order signed by President Obama that gave a 0.5% pay increase for all federal employees effective in March 2013.

On Thursday (12-27-2012), Obama issued an executive order that would lift the freeze and implement a 0.5% across-the-board increase starting the first pay period after March 27, 2013.

President Obama and Congress agreed last fall to maintain the freeze that began in January 2011 through the end of the current continuing resolution. Obama recommended a 0.5% pay increase next year for feds when Congress passes a budget. It remains unclear when or if that will happen.

If you make $16 an hour and you have not had a pay raise in the last 2 years and now if you wait just another 3 months you might get pay raise of 8¢ per hour or for a 40 hour work week you will get an additional $3.20 weekly. If you make $70,000 a year it will be an increase of only $350.00 per year after having no pay increase for over 2 years.

Rhetoric much there Job1?

Hey Only in America,

I don't want to dissuade you from thinking that all politicians are crap, but...They didn't try to get a pay raise for themselves. Their pay levels are determined by an independent group and go into effect unless they refuse to accept the pay increase, which they did.

Rich-281385

I think your analysis is incredibly flawed. You can't look to the post-WW2 era without looking at everything the led up to it and followed it. If you want THAT tax code back (I don't but it has nothing to do with tax rates) then you should want that world economy back, and those social services programs back, that regulatory environment back, and so on. But you don't. You simply think that every important outcome from that era flowed from tax policy.

Excellent post Rich.

It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded the Liberals/Progressives really are. They only see the economy through tax-centric eyes. They never take into account all the other variables that affect commerce. It’s also amusing to hear their adolescent chatter about how the Republicans want to bring the nation back to the Middle-Ages when all they do is dream that we could go back to the “good ole” days of high taxes as the only reason for those era’s successes.

This is obviously just a result of their indoctrination that success is to be demonized and that social and economic justice will create the Shangri-La they so crave. I keep telling them that the post WW II era will more than likely never be repeated. Nor will the Clinton era prosperity. They were both the results of reasonable peace time economic expansion of industries that other nations couldn’t mimic. Clintons is the best example of this as Reagans courage to end the Cold War and G.H.W. Bushs to end the Middle East crisis in Iraq allowed Clinton to rape the DOD and benefit from the “irrational exuberance” of the dot-com bubble. Not to mention the cost of oil staying under $20 a barrel.

As much as Liberals/Progressives cherish their illogical protectionist mentality they refuse to accept the inevitable global economy that we must compete in. The fact is in 1960 there were only 3 billion people on the planet. In the following 50 years we have added 4 billion more people. Every single one of these people, and their subsequent governments, has a right, and an obligation, to create commerce for themselves. We can look at the other 6.7 billion people in the world as competition, I prefer to look at them as consumers.

Now all we need is a real leader who understands how to compete in the 21^st century global economy to create true wealth and prosperity for all Americans.

It certainly will never happen under this regime.

I hope this piece of crap doesn't get voted on or passed. But if it does, for all those business people it is going to hurt - make sure you know which of your employees that supported Obama were - and let them be the ones you layoff! They wanted him - let them suck it up!!

For all the libs, progressives and democrats out there that think hurting the job creators is the smart thing to do - hope you enjoy being in the ranks of the unemployed. You really aren't so stupid and ignorant to think that the ones with the money, supplying you with a job, are going to take the tax burden out of their pocket, do you?! You'd be the first I'd lay off. And you all are pretty easy to spot.

@ USA - Ultimately Slipping Away:

Excellent!!! I agree with every one of your points. And every American should.

I would also add that every able bodied American citizen serves its country with a mandatory 2 year stint in the military. Maybe then the nambie-pambies that mommies and daddies are turning out now would appreciate their country, freedom and liberties more! I'm sick and tired of the masses of narcassisstic, idiot twenty-somethings coming out of college thinking they are entitled in life and that they are owed. It's a shame that those in the last 200 plus years fought to gain us our freedoms for some of these "can't wipe their a s s" brats.

clwyd-2621393 Comment collapsed by the community

My new years resolution! Stamp out anything and everything republican! In other words rid America of republican SCUM! They exist to be suckled by the rich!

__________________________________________________________________________

Your family must be so proud of you sounding like Hitler. Shameful to want to do away with so many just because they are Republican. After them who do you go after--the elderly, disabled and then maybe you can continue on and start eliminating fetuses that you don't "THINK" will be good enough.. WOW we really need more people like you running this world (since I know the good old USA won't cover enough power for someone like you)...

It's official...the Party of No are Terrorists.

@ Never Stop Asking Questions:

WRONG! Just Americans that feel you need to pay your way - not get a free ride on someone else! If I have to balance my budget, then I'll be damned if I don't expect my government to do the same thing!!

Time to thin the herd of the useless!!!

Hapless American,

You are way too funny. Backed the WRONG horse again! You lost. Turn off Faux News and get over yourself.

Your guy lost, move on LOSER!

Was there ever any doubt that this would happen?

Repubs have been waiting for this day all along; for an entire year in fact.

"Amended" bill? By the time the House is done with this thing it will have morphed into something you won't even recognize.

You can see the snark and the smirk in this a**hole's face. Pubbies think this is hilarious.

spending cuts was kicked down the road, without in place cuts, it appears this bill will not get past the house; if it comes to a vote and fails, when the market opens tomorrow, the fed reserve will have to intervene to prevent a blood bath, the house has dug it's heels in, it is going to get very interesting; Obama last card to play is to threaten to stop all social security and medicare payments, legal or not.

In other words, is it at all possible to you that a changing economy reflected changing international competition levels, that firms might've set up shop overseas to better compete, and that tax rates relative to income or GDP growth had nothing to do with it?

Your fallacious attempt at an argument by scenario to the contrary isn't it an amazing coincidence that all these factors which you've stated occurred over a process of decades didn't actually hit the budget until just when Reagan and his Republican Congress rewrote the tax codes?

I knew it! That lying Bonehead said, "Take it to the Senate and get a compromise and I will take to the House on an Up or Down vote. Now that lying bas9@$d is saying there has to be changes. All republicans are scum of the very rich! America awake and rise up against these right wing nut cases who only have their own selfish interests at stake!

Consider the Constitution Party because a change in Party and a change in standing up for what the PEOPLE want is the ONLY way we can save this country from the demise caused by the Democrat Party.

Or consider libertarian.

Job1 Says:

Oh yes and lets get the taxes raised for sure, because we have a revenue problem.

2007:

Tax Revenue: $2.4 Trillion

Federal Government Spending: $2.7 Trillion

2012 (Projected):

Tax Revenue: $2.4 Trillion

Federal Government Spending: $3.5 Trillion

So we have the same tax revenue that we did only 5 years ago but in 5 years Government spending increased nearly 30%. And Job1 says we have a Revenue problem. A quote like that from Job1 certainly doesn't show any credibility or ability to know the facts does it?

As of 3:20 PM New Year's Day

As House Republicans try to figure out what their next move will be Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told the National Review's Robert Costa that there are "real divisions" between Boehner and Cantor, and that Cantor was vociferous in his opposition, with the upcoming leadership elections hanging over the meeting. He said that conservatives were heartened to see Cantor take on Boehner in front of the entire conference.

A vote that had been scheduled on the bill immediately to follow a conference-wide meeting was postponed indefinitely.

It appears that House Republicans will amend the bill adding spending cuts and sent it back to the Senate as an in-your-face to Mitch McConnell, who they blame for putting the house in this terrible position.

Republicans want to wreck the economy? Big surprise.

Never Stop Asking Questions

So sad you never stop and listen to the ANSWERS>>>>

We knew the Tea Party caucus would oppose any deal that didn't give them %110 of their demands, but even in the House, with a much larger TP presence than the Senate, they are not neeeded. What is needed is a coalition of a majority of both parties, meaning enough rational Republicans who aren't afraid of attacks from extremists on the far right. Boehner will not proceed if it means losing more than half the Republicans, because then it looks bad politically for the party to submit to a Democratic bill, essentially ceding leadership of the House on this issue.

Once again, the "no government" wing is holding the "small government" wing of the Republican party hostage, and by extension the entire country.

What's the penalty for trying to sabotage the American economy? I think it's time for the republicans standing in the way in congress to be arrested and charged. Maybe they will find wisdom while talking to their new roommate, Bubba. Let the Supreme court figure out the details while they cool their heels.

It's time for another Lincoln moment in government.

Probusiness: with GDP less than what it was in 2007 (although improving) is it any wonder that spending would have to increase, just to make up for the increased population, increased number of retirees receiving SS and Medicare AND, oh yeah, there was a little recession that the country is still recovering from, caused by the Republicans (Graham-Leach-Bliley and President Bush.)

Not to mention, 5 more years of George Bush's wars and unfunded Medicare Part D (can't raise taxes!!!)

Yes, it is a revenue problem. You have an increased need for government spending brought about by two wars, a new Medicare mandate and a major financial meltdown of the economy so you need to raise taxes to pay for it.

However, it looks like the TeaNuts are controlling the House and intend to destroy the economy, they don't want President Obama to win a Second Term.

Guess what you Republicans, he already won.

Taxes are going up. And if you don't get your stuff together, the country will blame you for the recession and the unemployment increase.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I am sick and tired of this nonsense. There is no excuse for "cutting a deal, 15 minutes past the deadline". These incompetents have had YEARS to work this out. Why all the invented drama of the fiscal cliff?

As far as I am concerned, EVERY member of Congress should return 85% of their salary for the last 4 years because they have done NOTHING. If the rest of us accomplished as much in our jobs as Congress does, we'd be fired in 6 weeks. Until Congress actually decides to work and accomplish something, I think 'We, the People' should refuse to pay them. Clearly they have forgotten who they work for.

I also believe the next lobbyist that pays off a member of Congress should go to jail for 25 yrs. That would put an end to that garbage, as well.

Leave it to Cantor and the baggers to screw everything up. As far as I am concerned Cantor & the baggers are to be blamed for this whole mess, and I sure hope all of you voted for them can finally see the light, not holding my breath since most of you watch Faux, and you only believe what you want to, instead of researching for the truth.

Hello folks, the fiscal cliff is a fabricated deadline to agitate the peasants to distract them and get them to accept austerity while their lords bailout the real culprits of this dilemma, the banksters.

They continue to allow the banksters to gamble in the 1.4 quadrillion illusory derivatives casino. They print 40 billion a month to prop up the banksters for as far as the eye can see. They allow the banksters to manipulate the 800 trillion Libor Rate with no penalties, not one bankster has gone to jail over this overt theft to the global citizenry.

HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a financial settlement of $1.9 billion which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank, a drop in the bucket compared to the hidden profits they made laundering the money over the years.

The New York Times put it this way:

“Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.”

And the banksters get away with it over and over and over again and who pays for their criminal acts? That's right, us smucks, they even brag about it. You know the 1% adage, privatize profits and socialize losses. And yet they have the sheeple fighting over which type of austerity they "need" to endure to bail these criminals out again! Apparently the tens of trillions they have squandered at our expense isn't enough. Now the peasants will have one austerity measure after another imposed on them and the sheeple will willfully fight over which one will be imposed on them based on party affiliation dogma.

I am seriously wondering why the people lack so little courage to say no, ain’t going to do this anymore. Where is defiance? Where is just one tiny spark of self-worth from somebody that screams NO! We should not have to suffer any cuts to anything. We should not have to pay higher taxes let alone any taxes, we should not just watch our military budget explode for more evil to be created while millions of people are starving, our infrastructure is collapsing, and our schools are in ruins. The banksters are doing all of this in plain sight, rubbing our noses in it yet there is no outrage or blow back! Just sheeple like silence. It is a total disgrace. We can’t expect the same people who make waves and fight back to keep doing it. Everybody must do their part in fighting for our freedom and change. The old warriors are tired of the battle they have been waging forever, it is time for fresh blood, time for the younger folks to step in.

Folks, if we don't stand up to these criminals now then when? Their use of problem - reaction - solution to manipulate the masses should be an obvious ploy by now.

RedDevPS

The debt never gets reduced. The charts you site are as a percentage of GDP. That does not mean that the debt has gone down. Yes, after WWII it was paid down, but not in the last 50 years. Even during Clinton when some like to believe that there was a surplus, the overall debt was still there, It was simply a balanced budget. How much was added to the debt since 2000 when our economy was screaming toward an eventual fall?

If, Congress from 2000-2008 had actually been paying down our debt we could have dumped trillions into the economy and still been at the same level we are at now. But no, let's give tax breaks to the masses to keep them quiet about going into wars when taking away those tax breaks in the future will be impossible. That is what saving for a rainy day means.

Ever notice what a weasle Cantor looks like ?

Tan Man won't hold a vote on the Senate bill. He'd lose a vote because the 20% of the GOP would join the Democrats and pass the bill, AS IS.

Being unable to control your own party, compromising with the Black Man in the White House and passing laws with a minority of the majority would cost Boehner his ability to be Speaker (put the knife away Cantor.)

There will be nothing done until the House holds the vote for Speaker and Boehner keeps his post. Until then, he won't do anything that could upset the Tea Party fleas he needs to win speaker.

Cantor, Boehner and McConnell, the world would be and America would be better off without you liars! Off with their heads!

Trust Verify,

I agree! Get these criminals behind bars where they belong! Cantor, Bonehead Boehner and McConnell!

Probusiness,

At this point the only thing I can say is shut the you know what up! Misguided right wind nut who would sickle on a rich republican for anything to hep the greed of the business community!

Since Nov. good jobs keep going away at a rate of 2.5 million a year, with many dropping out the back, not to mention (OK, I'll mention it) the 145,000 a month job gains doesn't even match the 200,000 new young people each month coming in. I'll also mention the million or so illegals added to job search lines via executive order in 2012.

3000 new regulations each month also is driving the economic growth possibilities backwards.

If evil truly exists on Earth, this man, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor must certainly be the face of that evil.

Placing protection of the 1% of the most extremely wealthy Americans - that same 1% who already hold 36% of all of our nations’ combined wealth - from having to pay one penny more in tax burden on their earnings above the first $400,000 per year- instead ensuring that entire burden will fall upon the other 99% of us who are already carrying a disproportionately heavy share.

And Cantor's reward for his shockingly bold avarice will likely be his being voted the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives next week. This is like a Shakespearean tragedy; the ambitious Crown Prince repeatedly knifing the King in the back, in order to gain the throne for himself. Pure, self-interested evil.

How sad for our country that men such as these are put in positions of
power. But we elect these rascals, so we get the government we deserve.

Compromise is good, and the president has cojones. It's not 250K, and it's not 1M. Saying he has no cojones because he didn't stick with 250K would make him no better than Cantor and the rest of the Tea Party. Our president is WAY better than that! He listened to and learned from this past election. The far right did not. I say let them continue to be obstructionists. It will send a message to voters in 2014 that we didn't cleanse enough of them out of the government. It seems like the majority of the country would like to find middleground somewhere, even if it isn't 100% suited to each individual. Working through your differences allows you to move forward. Not working through your differences will trap you in the present, which quickly becomes the past.

1. Kick the non-compromising idiots and morons like Cantor (and other TeaBags) OUT!!
2. Until then we can expect further CHAOS!!!

OO-BAMA LicenseToBore wrote:

OO-BAMA LicenseToBore "Only 8% of the world is Latino, yet they are 18% of the US population. That means 30,000,000 Latinos must leave the US in order to be fair to the rest of the world.....immigration wise."

The 'Latinos' and 'Native Americans' once made up 100% of what is now the United States - Does that mean that about 300,000,000 Non-Latino/Native Americans should leave the US in order to be fair to the rest of the world.....immigration wise?

"American History 101.......The people who built America were called "SETTLERS", the people who showed up after America was established were called "IMMIGRANTS".

The 'Latinos' and 'Native Americans' once made up 100% of what is now the United States -

Did you even attend an American History class?

"Latinos" are not a race, they are a geopolitical invention.

The United States was never part of "Latin America". Spain, then Mexico claimed land that actually belong to American Indians.

Mexicans killed American Indians that raided "their land".

And finally, Mexican soldiers MURDERED American immigrants in Texas 1836 that they invited to settle there just a few decades prior to those murders."

Wow, your post is EASILY the most ignorant bunch of hogwash I have read in the past year. And you accuse OTHERS of not attending US History class?

Native American settled ALL of North America, Central America and South America, and Native Americans were the "owners" of ALL of the land. Whoever came after were ALL "immigrants". the rest of US History is the individual perspective and interpretation of the individual, based on their own biases. And YOUR biases are profound, and very clear (also sometimes more accurately labeled "bigotry.")

I don't question that you may have attended class, but clearly you were sound asleep at your student desk, because what you profess to know is complete, unadulterated, fabricated bull pucky!

Nice try, though.

Hairy "Pappa Smurf" Reed refuses to answer the phone when McConnell calls.

DEMOCRATS ARE THE REAL PARTY OF NO!

Democrats need to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY on frivolous CRAP! STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is the compromise? Republicans cave and Democrats continue to cram it down our throats!

Vote ALL these MF'ers OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Spense: what are you talking about. Didn't you keep up with the news. Reed, McConnell and VP Biden got together, struck a deal, wrote a bill, voted on it, sent it to the House. Took both sides.

Now we will see Eric Cantor and the TeaPublicans kill the deal so they can destroy the United States and allow their Fascist corporate overlords to takeover as a dictatorship with little Eric as the weasel in charge.

FedupwithFed: yaah! WTF are they doing, allowing people to breath clean air, drink clean water, eat food, have medical care. Don't they know the Republican plan for the poor, "DIE, NOW!!!"

The answer to the debt problem is simple: PRINT MONEY!

(and NO your children won't pay for it, they'll pay for NOT doing it)

We have done that all through out our history when we were in these kinds of situations and contrary to today's economic orthodoxy, the sky did not fall down on us, quite the contrary.

Instead we are borrowing from China and financial sharks who we have to pay interest to and who use the debt to dictate and rule our elected officials (many of whom have no problem being "ruled" as long as they get in office).

We have printed money (actually these days it consists of the federal reserve creating it with computer key strokes) many times, even Republican Administrations.

That's how we have wars and bail out banks. The only thing they won't use it for is any thing that helps middle class or poor people.

People act like being in debt is a new thing but the U.S. has been in deficit for over a hundred years of it's existence with no ill effects (not from the debt itself).

Politicians lie to people by trying to tell them that national budgets are the same as family budgets.

They aren't because a families debts are not demarcated in their own currency.

For the U.S. it is.

We didn't get out of the Great Depression by cutting federal spending. We got out by spending more than we ever had!

First on New Deal programs and then on WWII when the government completely took over the private economy and we spent without regard for the deficit.

That's why in 1946 we had the biggest debt to GDP ratio we have ever had. But we never even considered cutting Social Security or other government programs and our spending remained high because of the Cold War (Partially invented for that very reason) and things like the National Highway Act.

Did their children pay for it (me, for instance)?

NO!

Right after that we had two solid decades of economic boom. The so called Golden Age of American capitalism, The 1950's and 1960's.

(And taxes were high all during that period on corporations and the most rich americans).

Tell your congressional representatives to stop Austerity and borrowing and PRINT MONEY!

Hold that line! Hold that line!

No one in Washington, which certainly includes Obama cares one bit about our national debt. As long as they can take care of themselves, their families, and get out of town before the country collapses financially why should they care? They are all set for life, after all that is the number one reason they wanted to go to Washington in the first place. There is no one in Washington that doesn't already know that this country is already past the point of no return, it is not if but when will the nation be unable to meet its financial obligations. Only a fool believes what they hear out of Washington, and it will be those loyal minions that get hurt the worst. The fiscal cliff offers the best hope for this country, once averted nothing anywhere near what is needed will happen.

I received this text message from my friend that's majoring in Law, in Eau Clair, Wisconsin:

"If the government was a corporation, the GOP Tea Party have proven they would run it by stopping sales, ending incoming revenues, withering away its workforce, and cutting the business so that it wouldn't grow -- preventing it from meeting the needs of all of its customers. Stockholders would surely respond in their company's annual meeting by voting these guys out of management."

yeah dirp.....Solyndra was such well spent money. Hell, Old Harry can move in with his coked up monkeys or maybe exotic ants in AFRICA!!!!!!!!!!!....and those new windows on a CLOSED up Mt St Helens visitor center...oh, and lets not forget a million dollar sign telling us about stimulus funds at work!

Shall I go on????????????

Maybe people should get a job and BUY insurance instead of feeding off the government and wasting MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS on junk food, iphones, tatoos, gold teeth and god knows what else!!!

Oh thats right, they cant FIND a job because Obama DESTROYED the economy!

Being the moderate that I am, I really do have a question for Pigotry and Brenda and the other people on this thread that just can't quit name calling...

How does it benefit me, the middle class, for my taxes to go up when I don't make, combined with my husband, more than $105K per year? I live frugally and save but I have to pay into things that I am not entitled to use. It is ok to take my money for social security and give it to persons that NEVER put into it. It is ok to take my money and use it for health benefits for the less fortunate who don't pay taxes or very little but get food stamps, government assistance, health care, and many services for free that I have to pay a lot for every month on top of my taxes...I am not entitled to these services but the ones who are do not contribute for them. I am paying more taxes to support a pay raise for government workers (the Mayor and City Council of ATL just voted themselves a raise like Congress when they are part-time workers and now making twice what I do while turning the city into a cesspool).

I should be entitled to the very services I pay for if you are demanding I pay for them. If people who do not have a lot cannot work harder to have more, then there is an issue. NO ONE should be receiving unemployment benefits if they are capable of working 2 part-time jobs. Really sucks to do that- I know, I had to do that.

But, why are you screaming for more money from me when I support you already?

ArchStanton

The answer to the debt problem is simple: PRINT MONEY!

yeah, lets just DEVALUE the dollar even more! Pretty soon, it wont be worth the paper its printed on!

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

Now THAT'S intelligent!

Hi JohnB.,

I specifically mentioned employment in the industrial (manufacturing) sector and how it began to decline many years prior to Mr. Reagan being elected (relative to GDP) as a refutation of your infantile claim that everything wrong began on January 20, 1980. And you specifically didn't read it, and then didn't answer either of my questions. To say I am shocked would be a lie. To say it's what I would expect from a leftist--a diatribe of complaints not rooted in fact--would be the truth. In a way I want to thank you for affirming, once again, why I think it is so important at this time in our history for conservatives to refuse to compromise with liberals unless it produces a smaller government with greater fidelity to the Constitution.

I only wish that Republicans in Congress were more concerned with Constitutional fidelity than with re-election. You see, I don't blame politicians, either left or right, for the mess we are in. I blame you, and people like you, who are not only ignorant of history, but are also ignorant of the reasons for limited government, let alone any of the major concepts of economics. And because a majority of Americans, virtually all on the left but to include many on the right, think that to borrow trillions from our future to fund our consumption today makes sense relative to the three ideas mentioned above (history, limited government, economics) there is no way to salvage our future without imposing some reality today. Which is why I favor the "cliff".

It puts the lie to liberal claims that Bush's tax cuts did nothing for the middle class, it brings back a fraction of the morality Mr. Obama claimed in 2008 he wanted to restore, and it just might refocus so many foolish Americans, such as yourself, who think prosperity can come from higher taxation, more regulation, and more government. And if so, then I might have to eat the words of my first paragraph. But, again, I think you won't surprise me.

Sorry, I meant 1981. I read your post again before I wrote the above and you mentioned 1980, and I repeated the mistake. My bad.

FedupwithFed

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

Now THAT'S intelligent!

The price tag is 4 Trillions adding to the deficit for the next 10 years. Money that the youngest , the ones that did not vote for the dumb azzes of our Government , executive and legislative who are caving to bring sanity to the spending problem. This is just like an addiction, until the government do not accept they have an addiction for spending , they won't do anything. Like we did in 2010 , we must fight in 2014 and kick them out again until they learn the lesson and start bringing sanity to our fiscal mess.

If only we could plan on just $4 trillion in added debt over the next ten years. That would be at least a $4 trillion improvement on the best predictions available. No, we are moving apace towards Greecedom, with leftists in America in power and blindly driving towards every conceivable euphemism you can imagine--brick wall, cliff, fog of stupidity, etc.

Liberals and big government Republicans have no desire to actually grow our economy which would allow people to go back to work. It's all about getting elected, and then re-elected, by stealing money from people not yet even born so that we can pay for free stuff for voters today. This is everything our founders warned us about, but because most Americans are educated in our public schools few people are even aware that this was predicted to happen, let alone have a clue about the final chapter.

I have an idea....Why don't we spend even MORE money than the average $320,000 per class per year to produce this level of stupidity! That could work!

John B Iowa

Here's a better analogy; You're going into debt at the rate of $16,500/year. Do you go to your boss and ask to have your wages reduced? That's what Republicans would do.

That is the most stupid analogy imaginable. If you were going into debt by $16,500/year you would stop borrowing and rip up the credit card. You get a second job and if you are married you get your spouse a job too. You go to bare minimums like no cable TV, no cell phone, brown bag you lunch, you sell the second car, you sell anything that is not absolutely necessary to survive, no steaks and a lot of pasta. That is what responsible people do.

If your personal debt level reach $146,000 you would have no chance to ever pay off the debt. If we lose the bond rating that we currently enjoy on the debt our debt level could easily explode. We are printing money today with QE1, QE2 and QE3 which has maintained the artificially low interest rate. A lowering again of the bond rating will have a major effect on the interest that we pay in the future. A loss of confidence in the deflated dollar is another factor that you haven't touched on.

I specifically mentioned employment in the industrial (manufacturing) sector and how it began to decline many years prior to Mr. Reagan being elected (relative to GDP) as a refutation of your infantile claim that everything wrong began on January 20, 1980.

Yes, everyone knows manufacturing employment peaked many years prior...and yet debt as a proportion of GDP continued to decline until EXACTLY the point at which the "Reagan Revolution" changed our fiscal trajectory for the worse. As I've already pointed out, you're bringing in a blizzard of things that are speculative at best in the hopes of clouding what's clear from the data I presented.

That is the most stupid analogy imaginable.

Is it? Reagan campaigned on a promise to fix the scary concept that we were $1T in debt...then proceeded to MORE THAN DOUBLE debt during his presidency. GW Bush also ran a campaign that sought to scare people with our level of debt...then built in a structural revenue deficiency that has skyrocketed that very thing.

All of that was done with TAX CUTS...exactly the same thing as going to your boss and asking to have your wage cut because you're having trouble making ends meet. It isn't the most stupid analogy imaginable, it's the most stupid POLICY imaginable...and Republicans remain wedded to the idiotic and soundly disproved notion that trickle down works.

Dennis Price "Roy Wilson What would the numbers be if the Republicans got their way? Did you even bother to run those numbers?"

That's like asking 'What would the numbers be if YOU got your way?". Since you didn't define what the 'Republican way' is, that is too vague to 'score'. Give me specifics on their proposed spending and taxes, and I would be happy to 'run those numbers'.

OO-BAMA LicenseToBore "ROY WILSON-336103 ""Latinos" are not a race, they are a geopolitical invention."

You were the one that used the term 'Latinos', so I merely commented on your Post. Since Latinos have been here a lot longer than people from other parts of the World, your contention that '30,000,000 Latinos must leave the US in order to be fair to the rest of the world.....immigration wise.' is just plain silly - it's like saying "Since China has about 20% of the people in the World, then they should make up 20% of the population in America - immigration wise". Like I said, your comment is nonsensical.

Have a nice day.