Of course, johny boy, if you would QUIT SPENDING all the time .... you would not have so many bills to pay !

Our country has a massive SPENDING PROBLEM ... revenues have not changed that much in the last 10 years.

Johntho " Pay your bills, then cut spending. It isn't Obama that has to do the cutting it is you since you hold the checkbook. Obama can only sign your budget into law."

In theory, you are right, but that never happens because every Budget passed by the Republican House gets ignored by the Democratic Senate, and the spenders just keep spending, and then Obama never 'cuts spending' - He spends the money and then says "Don't be irresponsible - pay our bills."

A prime example is the recent tax increases - Obama got huge tax increases, but didn't cut ANY spending - in fact, he proposed lots of NEW spending.

jim-1455434 "Our country has a massive SPENDING PROBLEM ... revenues have not changed that much in the last 10 years."

Correct - Revenues in 2008 were $2.524 Trillion, and projected Revenues for 2013 are $2.902 Trillion, an INCREASE of $378 Billion, or 15% per year.

But Spending in 2008 was $2.983 Trillion, and projected Spending for 2013 is $3.803 Trillion, an increase of $821 Billion per year, 28% higher.

If spending was just 10% higher in 2013 than in 2008, our Deficit problem would virtually disappear.

Don't confuse them with REALITY Mr. Wilson, they will launch an all-out vicious personal assault on you, your mother, your state, your religion, yadda yadda, yadda ...... as they "wet themselves" in ANGER ! Then they will call you a "HATER" ! LOL !!

As opposed to you attacking me. SO, my turn, you both have a an IQ capable of learning I am sure. It is not the president who has ran up the bills nor has he spend one cent that congress hasn't sent him. In that you are a hater, at best but a bigot for sure. He only approves, as far as the budgets sent to the senate they cut the wrong places. I for one think sequester is a good idea as it will spread the responsibility for spending cuts throughout the entire spectrum. The burden won't just be place on the middle class, seniors and poor as you stinking, slimy little conservative minds want to happen. Anger, that was the vote last November, want to see anger, you will in 2014 if the republicans don't learn to compromise.

jim, just a question, during Bill Clinton we were spending less, and we were bringing in more revenue because of a tax raise and a booming economy. Bush give tax cuts, but not only continued to spend but expanded government a lot. Why do you now and only now worry about spending. By the way, we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. Cutting spending alone will not lead to prosperity. Many economist say so but your talking heads disagree. You know, community college drop outs and such. Ok it was more then a question, it was also a shot. So what you deserve it and more.

Roy:

Numbers are not your strong point - so just stop.

Revenue increase from 2008-2013 is 3% per year - not 15%.

Spending increase from 2008-2013 is 5% per year - not 28%.

Your point is taken - spending is increasing faster than revenue, but the spending can be attributed to inflation and interest - not increased spending on new programs.

ROY WILSON-336103......you said:

Quote......In theory, you are right, but that never happens because every Budget passed by the Republican House gets ignored by the Democratic Senate, and the spenders just keep spending, and then Obama never 'cuts spending' - He spends the money and then says "Don't be irresponsible - pay our bills.".....EndQuote

The (republican controlled) HOR MUST PASS every SPENDING BILL which becomes law. So, your comment about republican budgets being "ignored by the Democratic Senate" is ignorance and/or a red herring.

You (republican) folks have been (at least) equally responsible for every spending bill passed since January of 2011. Now, you threaten to renege on OBLIGATIONS you created. Your threat to cause the United States to become a DEADBEAT nation is unwise, immoral, and fiscally irresponsible.

@johnnyboy #1.6, Under Clinton the U.S. was spending less BECAUSE the Gingrich-led House pushed hard for a balanced budget and came close to achieving it. The U.S. was NOT bringing in more revenue because of a tax increase, revenue was up because of a "booming economy" partly supported by the dot com bubble and/or the artificial housing bubble.

Your next statement is ASININE... "Why do you only now worry about spending ...." yadda, yadda ad nauseam. You have NO IDEA what I worry about now or in the past. I have always been a fiscal conservative.

Our country has already increased taxes through Obamacare by raising taxes on the over $200k/$250k levels of income by adding: .9% on "earned income", 3.8% on "investment income", and by eliminating medical deductions on ALL, despite their income levels. Now, the latest "fiscal cliff agreement" has raised them YET AGAIN on the wealthy .... now making the tax levels on the wealthy HIGHER than under BJ Willie Clinton !

It is way past time for Obama to keep to his campaign rhetoric and CUT EXPENSES ! Or is it asking too much for Obama to keep to his word ?

blearyeyed "Roy: Numbers are not your strong point - so just stop. Revenue increase from 2008-2013 is 3% per year - not 15%. Spending increase from 2008-2013 is 5% per year - not 28%."

Perhaps you need some sleep - try again in the morning;

Revenues increased from $2.524 Trillion to $2.902 Trillion (projected). That's a 15% increase in annual revenues.

Spending increased from $2.983 Trillion to $3.803 Trillion (projected). That's a 28% increase in annual spending.

It is always amusing for a left-wing extremist to tell the Republican Party who their candidate should be or should have been.

Obama has done almost nothing of value to move the economy forward in 4 years, while racking up another $5.8 trillion in debt. By the time he leaves office, Obama will have doubled the national debt of ALL his predecessors combined !

Jim, just how is President Obama spending so much money without the consent of Congress (including Republicans) all by himself? Did he spend money on wars and refuse to fund them with more revenues? Non-partisan economists have said that "Obamacare" actually saves money in the long run. Cherry picking "facts" to suit one's agenda usually backfires.

I do agree that no one but the Republcan party and apparently the extremists that currently control it decide who will represent them. How'd that work out for you last November? Pretty good did it? Let's see....You won the presidency by a large margin....oops that was the other side. I know you gained seats in Congress....oops that was the other side too.

I seem to recall former Vice President Dick Cheney offering the opinion that deificits don't matter as their Administration spent like drunken sailors on the whore that was the military-industrial complex that another Republican president warned about. President Eisenhower, who above anyone else, knew what was going to happen if we gave such support to the military-industrial complex and Bush Administration proved Ike was right.

Democrats are accused of, rightfully so at times, of tax and spend. The Republicans, on t he other hand, seem to prefer borrow and spend. Personally I don't like either method but taxing those directly benefitting from the spending seems to be better than enjoying benefits of something now and putting on the credit card for someone else to pay later. That is what we did with Bush's two little wars. Instead of selling war bonds to pay for the war the US borrowed from COMMUNIST China and now must pay them back with interest. I would prefer that interest go to Americans who would spend it here rather than to COMMUNIST China who may not have our best interests in mind.

Spending cuts alone will not solve the problem. By the way, according to economists Obama has spent less than any President in decades. Increasing revenue alone will nto solve our economic woes but a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases are necessary. Notice I say revenue increases and not necessarily taxes. There are other sourses of revenue available.

Sensible cutting such as overseas military bases, jets the Airforce doesn't want and tanks the Army can't use will help. Waste in government departments is also something to be considered.

Congress, not the President controls the purse strings and so it is Congress who must solve the problem. The President can offer suggestions but in the end it is Congress who decides.