Jody, Johntho,

- thrid.

Obama said he wants to create an alternative

Sorry President Obama, there is no possible alternative to the alternate universe(s) created the the GOP/TP party. I say let their collective universes collide, explode/implode and subsequently become enveloped into that vast black hole created solely by them.

Bravo? I think the B word you were looking for was bull.

We're a bunch of free-loadin' slackers!! We should all just learn to pull ourselves up by someone else's boot-straps like they did!!!

There was a time when building your retirement by extracting cash from someone elses was called Bank Robbery. Pretty sure it was illegal back then.

There was also a time when tax-exempt therapy animals didn't perform in the Olympic games.

The only thing the GOP is willing to do is reword the message explaining their crappy policies and have another go at it. They could care less about what the american voter wants, the only "people" they are interested in helping are non voting corporations who continually purchase their vote through lobbyists aided and abetted by the SCOTUS. Motor mouths like crash McCain, that inbred idiot from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham and that narcissist McConnell are only concerned with trying to stay in power and the only way to do that is to oppose the dems at every turn. Until those old and tired racists are long gone and the tea party is purged from the GOP will there be honest governance coming from them.

I went to a talk last week by our former Representative Tom Allen, who was in Congress during the Bush years. He said Republicans at the time insisted "the tax cuts will pay for themselves" even while the CBO found that the Bush tax cuts would grow the deficit. He said, his fellow Democrats would ask themselves "do these guys really believe this?' and the they came to the conclusion the Republicans were allowing ideology to overrule their common sense.

Looks like nothing has changed. Republicans can't see how their obstructionism is playing in Peoria. They deserve to lose elections until they cure their Tea Party madness.

ruk, wrong, I meant Bravo, cheers, hooray! Bull is the term to describe your post.

drano, the GOP didn't learn that voo-doo economics, trickle down, tax cuts nonsense failed miserably during the Reagan and Bush 41 years so they tried it again during the Bush 43 years--it collapsed the economy, near depression. Apparently, they are doomed to keep repeating the history of their failed policies because they refuse to accept they were WRONG.

Oh, where oh where has Obama gone

Oh, where oh where could he be

While our Embassy is under attack in Benghazi

Obama is nowhere to be seen.

Best not to be involved in that scene

then those deaths can not be blamed on me

So off to Las Vegas I will flee.

Let other be accountable not meeeee.

Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi

12:05 PM, FEB 7, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, "up to us."

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Panetta said that, save their 5 o'clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

@Jody

As long as those nitwits continue to believe that GOD controls everything and that science and facts are just Satan's hi-jinks they will never learn anything. The really SAD part is that just because they get elected by people too stupid to understand what their agenda really is, they expect the rest of us to blindly follow along and believe their BS.

Leadership starts at the top. No leadership Out of the White House.

And Republicans think us Democrats see Obama as the messiah? Apparently KingK thinks the President could have donned his Superman costume and flown in the save the ambassador, when Special Operations officers in the region couldn't.

No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack

Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton.

12:55 PM, FEB 7, 2013 • BY MICHAEL WARREN

Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts

Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, "In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?"

"We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton," Panetta responded.

"And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?" Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this. Watch the video below:

@ rukidding47

I hear BS Mountain, I mean FOX Noise, is looking for another idiot comedian to replace the two they just canned, GOP Hero's Dick "I'm batting 1000" Morris and Sarah Barracuda Palin. You should apply, you'd fit right in. Between your single digit IQ and their lack of any factual knowledge whatsoever it would be a perfect fit ensuring FOX Noise viewers remain the least informed of all TV viewers.

Where are Obama's spending cuts?

Where is Obama's budget? His is breaking the law with it's late submittal.

Leadership starts at the top. No leadership Out of the White House.

Why don't you try explaining that to McConnell and Boehner. There is no failure of leadership in the white house, there is a failure of intelligence and adherence to the electorates wishes on the part of the losers of the last election, the GOP. You Lost, get over it. Quit whining like little bit*ches and get on with life. If you don't like the way the election turned out.....move.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested "support" in Benghazi:

"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"

McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"

"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"

"So it's the State Department's fault?"

"I'm not blaming the State Department," Dempsey responded.

wasn't cutting loopholes that darn mitsters idea? Guess it made sense even though you on the left demonized him for it. BTW why isn't the President specific on exactly which loopholes he intends to close? What's good fo the goose......

Here we go again, Nobody will negotiate until the last minute. Meanwhile the country suffers.

quick Ozzie.....list the loopholes that Romney wanted to close.

Republicans need to act on closing most tax loop holes. You have a losing arguement and are starting to look like fools.

Yes News if only the adminstration of NO would allow reasonable debate to commence in the Senate on bills passed by the House. Oh well what do you expect from a community organizer? After all isn't that term by definition "to organize his community into one united front?"

Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

So, you're saying the Secretary of State refused to don her Wonder Woman costume and fly in to direct the the defense of the embassy?

drano, that's the whole freaking point goof! You on the left wanted to know immediately what exact loopholes would be closed by Mitt.....just couldn't wait to know, so why not now demand the same from this President?

Oh here we go again, the fact-denying ReThugLicans are going to try to push us over the edge again, because they think that's the way to save THEIR jobs, which are the only jobs they care about.

Paul Krugman and other good economists have proved factually (except to the We-Don't-Need-No-Stupid-Facts Party) that cuts, at this time, make the economy worse.

Rep. Keith Ellison has introduced a bill called "The Balancing Act" that is VERY good, and deserves support.

Mr. Boehner: where are the JOBS???

Forward! :-)

Hey Ozzie....last I heard Obama had no role whatsoever with how the senate or the house debates issues. Oh well, what do you expect from the village idiot other than a litany of ignorant comments and subterfuge. Do yourself a favor and get a clue....still waiting for that list of loopholes. Guess you're still spell checking your Google search string....

drano, that's the whole freaking point goof! You on the left wanted to know immediately what exact loopholes would be closed by Mitt.....just couldn't wait to know, so why not now demand the same from this President?

No Ozzie, the whole point is that Mittens would never articulate what loopholes he wanted to cut. The president has actually pointed to a few loopholes he would cut, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers, tax breaks for those owning corporate jets, limiting the amount of itemized deductions for millionaires and billionaires, etc.

drano your are a pathetic loser if you for one minute think that President Obama doesn't control the Democratic Senate like puppets on a string. There you go again tax the wealthy into oblivion why not every but else pitch in a little? As far as Oil companies go what ever but don't believe for one minute that your gas prices won't go up.

'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'

Here's to the political party that has convinced itself that success fixing the party lies within changing what one says, but not what one thinks and means.

You can roll a turd in glitter, but it's still a turd in the end.

Yeah Teapartydowngrade I see what you mean. It's just like the President changing what he says about Gay marriage. Oh wait, but no, that is called evolving right?

I don't have any reservations about aggressive spending cuts. But that will not come without a neat haircut on elite/corporate entitlements. It's time to right the ship.

* Don't like it. Move your companies and families to another country. You'll be hard pressed to find one that allows you to game the system like you have already here in the states. Or buy an island and start your own country where everybody pays 2% taxes and everyone is paid exorbitant bonuses because they were born with a silver spoon up their a$$. Should last a long time.... /sarc

President Obama is starting to get things done - his way. He's using leverage gained from mistakes made by the GOP and Tea Party over the past few years. Every time the GOP paints themselves into a corner, it's one more winning card in the White Houses hand.

President Obama said “I am prepared, eager and anxious to do a big deal, a big package that ends this governance by crisis,” he told the crowd.

Is that anything like the governing on gun control? lmao

ozzieyo1-7277359

Yeah Teapartydowngrade I see what you mean. It's just like the President changing what he says about Gay marriage. Oh wait, but no, that is called evolving right?

Are you trying to lecture us on how Obama is a flip flopper? Really?

You must have voted for Gary Johnson I presume.

The United States is a nation in decline. It ranked 10th in an annual survey of world's most prosperous countries in 2011. Last year, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave slipped to 12th. It was the first time in the six-year history of the Legatum Institute's Prosperity Index that that the U.S. has not placed in the top 10. In the London-based public policy organization's latest survey, the U.S. slipped in the areas of governance and personal freedom. And, perhaps most troubling, it declined in entrepreneurship and opportunity, "due to a decline in citizens' perception that working hard gets you ahead," according to the institute.

http://money.msn.com/investing/happiest-and-saddest-countries

There you have it folks. After four + years of an Obama presidency we are sinking fast. Note that the section I emphasized is a result of Democrat policies and, of course, Democrat ideals.

Amy B. Portland, ME

So, you're saying the Secretary of State refused to don her Wonder Woman costume and fly in to direct the the defense of the embassy?

No but perhaps she could hop in the old DeLorean and go back in time. Then she could perform her job duties as set out by Congress in 1789. One of those duties was: Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries.

@ Jodi

The economy was brought down by toxic mortgages! yu can thank Bill Clinton. BTW I have a distinct distaste for GWB, so to preempt your strike, you'll have to use something different.

What I dont understand is why Obama signed the fisical cliff bill that gave 61 billion in tax breaks to the very rich that he seems to want to add more taxes to. His actions of signing a bill that does the exact opposite of what hes saying is mindboggling.

Wait, wait, wait.....didn't the Dems and Obama agree to the sequester? Didn't the president want this as a piece of his recent legislation to extend government?

So he and the Dems were for it before they were against it? Where have I heard that before?

When will liberals admit the truth?

We as an electorate are very concerned about debt. Yet, we as an electorate are very ficke whan it comes to dealing with it. We dont want to cut spending and we dont what to raise revenues, and we refuse to elect anyone who says they will do either one. Yet we are concered about debt.

Romeny did not say what he would cut because he would have been pilloried for it. Lacks convistion. Obama is in the same boat. Lacks interest in adressing defict on his watch.

It appears the President thinks the revenue gambit will pay off again. He may be right, But he may find that he was wrong. It was not just righties who heard him imply - getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is our revenue enhancement. But everyone has to know, without cuts, no amount of revenue enhancement will make a dent.

So we've had a round of revenue, with no cuts. No one should expect that this Congress (or any for the past 30 years) will actually deliver with another round of revenue with a promise of undefined possible someday cuts. They just never materialize.

At least the sequester is solid - even if a blunt instrument.

Let it take effect now. Reverse componants later with offsetting revenue / cuts in other areas.

The folks worried about the economy now, but unconcerned about the last or next revenue round on the economy are being a bit disingenuous.

It gets easier & easier here to spot the Trolls . . . what a bunch of haters! Like many so-called "conservatives" these days, they don't want to conserve/preserve anything, let alone help this country move forward; they are not FOR anything - just tearing down & being hateful, while they claim to be the "true patriots."

Progressives: Please don't feed the Trolls! LOL

FORWARD! :-)

Get ready to DROP YOUR PANTS cause Barry is heading FORWARD.......

Instead of the President and Congress arguing about where or what to cut just cut all programs, agencies, etc., 15 to 20% across the board. BTW, if I remember right Speaker Boehner offered to raise revenue of around $800 billion with a revision of the tax codes by eliminating loop holes on the wealthy. Obama refused because he wanted tax increases on the so called rich. Obama got his tax increase of around $650 billion. Now the President wants what he was offered in the first place, and again he refuses to state where to cut spending.

Obama is a big CRYBABY that has no leadership nor a grasp of what is going on. Someone should explain to him that he CAN'T run again, so quit campaigning and get to work.

BTW, every time a Republican President agreed to tax increases (Reagan and Bush 1) the Democrats promised to cut spending. The spending cuts never happened, the liberal spend and tax Democrats can not be trusted unless they put up their cuts first.

Colorado-Man

There you have it folks. After four + years of an Obama presidency we are sinking fast. Note that the section I emphasized is a result of Democrat policies and, of course, Democrat ideals.

You Righties just don't get it.

We're now an economy that derives a scary proportion of its GDP from speculative banking practices. THAT'S NO REAL VALUE ADDED! Paper being pushed from this side of the desk to the other. Ka-Ching!

Big business has moved quickly to eradicate manufacturing in the states, and seems to rely upon this vision that a service based economy will somehow float the boat. Sorry Charlie.

Listen, Obama does not get a pass on his lackluster attempt to penalize those in the private banking industry who have eroded the system from within. He is weak, or compromised in that position. I couldn't quite say who in fact has the moxie and security blanket to actually take on these oligarchs at this point. But where is you contempt for those leaders who have come before him that have not only coddled this destructive version of commerce, but additionally opened the floodgates to outsourcing and wage stagnation here in the states in the name of tax cuts and never ending bottom line cost-cutting ideals?

Or are you part of the sheep that still believe that a tsunami of jobs are soon to wash up (or trickle down - however you view it) from the years of tax cuts put in place by predecessors to BO? DECADES of tax cuts in fact.

You do not need to have a Political Science MB to realize who is shielding the Corporate Machine I am referring to above. Romney was one of them, which is why he made such a lockstep mouthpiece for them. Problem was, he did not know how to effectively disguise his intentions. He was a gaffe dispenser at a nickel a pop. Epic loser imo.

We need a leader who can stand up to big business and the subsidized crony-capitalist society where only those who are connected enjoy the opportunities that comprised the original idea of the American Dream.

"I am prepared, eager and anxious to do a big Progressive deal, a big Progressive package that ends this governance by MY crisis," he told the crowd.

There, that fixed Mr. Obama's statement.

Mr. Obama's Progressive agenda:

1. Tax
2. Spend
3. Redistribute
4. More Progressive Cabinet member's regulations (since "regulating" will cover my agenda)

Yep, Class Warfare is alive and well in Mr. Obama's second term.

BTW: Continue taxing the "rich" will drive the "rich" overseas along with their businesses. Just ask Cali and NY about their "rich" folks who have joined the Exodus to other States.

The Progressives just don't get it since they all march to the beat of their Progressive drums and will not listen to other folks. Bipartisan-ism has been stricken from their dictionaries.

Like many so-called "conservatives" these days, they don't want to conserve/preserve anything, let alone help this country move forward; they are not FOR anything - just tearing down & being hateful, while they claim to be the "true patriots."

KC_NC you're a numbskull! Conservatives are about conserving and preserving their freedoms by limiting the size of government and that is exactly why you government tit sucking liberals hate them.

Jody in Iowa - in your first post you bring up tax loopholes. I agree, get rid of them - I followed this closely.

Late last year the Republicans offered closing loopholes during the "cliff negotiations" - they did not want a rate hike. Pres Obama and the Senate Dems insited on a rate hike. So the Dems and Reps settled on a rate hike leaving the loopholes in place - the Dems wanted that. Obama signed it with fanfare.

I would have preferred closing the loopholes and making the tax code simple.

Problem is that we would have a bunch of unemployed tax lawyers, so the lawyers were against it. The Bankers were against closing loopholes because they said it would send real estate further into decline (by eliminating mortgage interest write off). I am a small business - simple is better - we need a simple tax code.

Your point is a good one, but your blame fixing is a little off.

Congrats on being first

ozziey, i thought conservatives were about beating women, blacks, kids, hispanics, dogs, transgenders... At least thats what the liberals on FR parrot from their NON talking point news networks.

KingK - Panetta must be mistaken. obummer told the media that he left instructions on how to handle the Benghazi debacle.

I have never seen such an egotistical b@$t@rd in my life as obama. He gets up on stage in front of his fellow democrats and brags about how he can win a fight with the republicans. I wonder how he will like the taste of feathers with the crow that he will have to eat when the repubs let the sequestration start.

LOL with Jody, congradulations are in order. And another thumbs up for your spelling. The third thumbs up would go for the post itself. I have been busy this afternoon and almost missed the whole thing.

ldo, Republican fascist agenda

1) Borrow

2) Spend

3) Obstruct

4) Redistribute

Yep, class warfare is real, started by Ronald Reagan it shifted money from those that needed it most to those that need it least and republican fascist are proud of it, and now the middle class is nearly gone, poverty has risen and the fascist republicans touch themselves inappropriately. The republican fascist just don't get it.

obummer told the media that he left instructions on how to handle the Benghazi debacle.

yeah, it was paint by number too

"Obama decried Republicans, who, he said, recognize “that the sequester is a bad idea, but what they've suggested is that the only way to replace it now is for us to cut Social Security, cut Medicare and not close a single loophole..."

Republicans are so outta here come the next mid terms elections.

All you republicans turds are sure pissed that your policies were soundly REJECTED by the voters but you need to get used to it. I have a feeling you're going to be outraged when you lose the house in 2014. sooner or later you'll realize that all you've become are tools used by those trying to maintain the sweet deal their lobby money bought them at the expense of everyone else.

Why doesn't Obama and the Democratic Party make a case to the American people to end the waste and fraud our out-of-control govt has no handle on? Hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

drano.

I would like to point out to you that the Republicans still control the House. There are 30 Republican governors and 33 Republican state legislative bodies. If Obama the lawless makes it to 2016 without being impeached I'll be surprised.

. If Obama the lawless makes it to 2016 without being impeached I'll be surprised.

OBAMA THE LAWLESS LOL... That has a nice ring to it. Drano has consumed drano methinks.

So Drano, Obama was elected and by the majority funny how one thinks 51% (and only a third of the voting populace voted) is considered a landslide by the left. Bush thought he had a mandate too and that was funny. Although both Obama and Bush were elected by definition of mandate, only cro magnons believe it was because the vast majority of the nation wanted it... You bought stupid hook line and sinker...

Jodi in Iowa

Your statement is absolutely pathetic and is disgraceful toward the Republican Party. You have the views of the typical American in thinking that Obama can do no wrong.

The Republicans continue their efforts in challenging this out of control administration on spending and ensuring that Social Security and Medicare are there when you and your children and grandchildren become eligible.

Obama isn't worried about the future with his spending and unwillingness to even discuss the entitlement programs

Wake up and realize that we cannot continue on the road we're on and demand changes that will ensure future generations the life in America that you have enjoyed.

Unike GOP, the President continues to be focused on job creation, strengthening the middle class & our economy. Plus Education, energy - continuing to be less dependent on foreign oil.

oh really, please tell me how hundreds of thousands of lost defense industry jobs equals job creation? I guess having a half negro in white house justifies anything, go white guilt go. He's a no talent divisive a$$clown, you should be embarrassed for licking his taint.

It's amazing to me that this whole sequester thing was the Empty Suit's idea to start with. The libs seem to forget that little fact...........You reap what you sow.......Impeachment has such a nice ring to it......

President continues to be focused on job creation, strengthening the middle class & our economy. Plus Education, energy - continuing to be less dependent on foreign oil.

That must be why unemployment is still high and stagnant, the middle class lost the payroll tax cut while corporations had their tax havens extended, our kids our getting dumber and dumber, and he's shutting down coal plants and gas prices are almost 4 bucks a gallon again. This doesn't include health insurance premiums going up and the cost of food going up AGAIN here soon due to new labeling. Your president could give a @!$%# about the middle class.

As a middle class working family, we're not feeling a damn bit of good from obama.

BUT, it's good to know that while my wife is giving up her android to save money, obama is going to be giving smart phones to the poor at the cost of the tax payers. The obama phone is turning out to be a reality after all.

Sequester is just another Washington accounting gimmick, and look at how liberals dive in with Obama to perpetuate the scam. Sequester amounts to a 1 trillion reduction in planned future spending increases over the next 10 years. Averaging to a 100 billion per year while the country is running trillion plus annual deficits. Over the next 10 years the federal government is projected to spend about 44 trillion dollars, and with sequester that number drops to 43 trillion. Wow, how will the government survive? When the unwritten rule in Washington is that if you don't spend your entire budget you won't get a raise next year, there is certain to be waste. This is nothing but a scam, and Obama is displaying his total lack of leadership promoting it. Obama should embrace sequester, and much more, if he were in fact even remotely concerned with the debt or deficits he is amassing.

Chickbinder,

There was a time when people built their own retirement by working for a company with for 30 years and earning a defined benefit pension. Well, we showed them! No more unions for you! So, now we look to the government. I am fortunate. I made a lot of money late in my career but I still think what life would be like living just on social security and some notion of an anemic 401K plan. If you want government out of entitlement programs, bring back the unions and protect employee bargaining. Over the past 30 years employee productivity has increased by 80% but wages have gone up by only 18%, The difference went to share holders who paid less taxes than at any time prior in our history. Imagine how many people would be able to build their own retirements if they could have negotiated for a large piece of the productivity pie.

Rick, the issue is not absolute debt but debt as a % of income. As long as that become lower relative to GDP, we are just fine. I have more debt than ever, but as a % of my income it is very low and the payment are very manageable even if interest rates double! Plus I have some nice property that I would not ordinarily have.

This is really sickening reading these posts. How can anyone want their taxes raised! Because that is what happened last time and that is what will happen again. If you feel like you do not contribute enough to the Government feel free to donate more but do not drag the rest of us with you. I pay 43% in taxes Federal,State,County etc. This is time away from my family working, my labor,my waking up and going wether I want to or not and my property that is being stolen by the Government.

B707....

Sorry, debt as a % of GDP is just another way of burying ones head in the sand. Basically, when the FED starts raising interest rates, then what? Just means less money spent on what the government wants, or in your example for what you want to buy.

Regardless, isn't our debt to GDP at or just over 100%? Doesn't leave much for any new expenditures now does it? Especially with our historically low interest rates.

The Republicans bankrupted our country and then crashed our economy. And after seeing their own screw-ups, Republicans said "Hey! Let’s go after entitlements, etc and extract all the costs from Democrats and poor people! That way, everybody else can pay for our F-Ups! It's genius I tell's ya - it's genius"!! And so, that's how the Republican/Tea Party/Right Wing process operates to this day...

Rove vs. The TeaParty

Let the blood bath begin. Not sure who to root for.

American,

we need updated infrastructure, investment and R&D. We can stand pat, but in a world that is moving forward, when you stand still, you are actually falling behind. If it's ok with you, it's ok with me. I am a retired boomer who has all the big financial challenges--career, house, kids in school--all behind me. But, I can tell you this having been in business for many years, when you don't invest, you can't keep up. If you think we can't afford it, then get used to being second class.

As a moderate Independent I agree with Karl Rove that the Tea Movement is destroying his be-love party, the problem with the GOP is that its members have failed to notice that the majority of the country is socially Liberal. Dump the religious right and they might have a chance for a come back ??? The country has changed but the dynamics of the Republican party have not. The party has moved to far to the right because of the Tealiban. It just seems that all the good old boys club cares about is Israel, 1% mega rich, Wars, Witch hunts, Lying, NRA, Stealing Elections, Sabotaging, Black mail, The American people see this party as very irresponsible and they failed our Nation !!!

We are witnessing the destruction of Capitalism. We have become a country of makers and takers, and the Takers are now the majority. They don't care about raising taxes, they don't pay any.

So instead of $1.2 in spending cuts over 10 years ($120 Billion per year, which is only about 10% of the Deficit last year), Obama wants to cut nothing and get another tax increase instead.

Why are we nor surprised?

We need BOTH spending cuts and tax increases, but this time we need to have EVERYBODY 'share in the pain'.

I say "Let the sequester go into effect" - since both sides don't like it, it must be a 'middle of the road compromise". And what could be wrong with cutting spending, even if it is only a 3% cut, after that 18% increase in Obama's first year in office.

B707320C "Rick, the issue is not absolute debt but debt as a % of income. As long as that become lower relative to GDP, we are just fine."

The problem is that it's NOT going down.

Under Clinton, the Debt Ratio (Debt as a % of GDP) averaged 64.2%.

Under Bush, the Debt Ratio averaged 62.6% (yes, it was lower than Clinton).

The Debt Ratio for 2012 was 104.8% under Obama, and in his 2013 Budget, he projects it to be even higher in 2016.

When the Debt Ratio got to about 120% in Greece, nobody would lend them any more money, and my projections indicate we could be at that level by the end of Obama's current term in 2016.

Here's an interesting, little known FACT;

We are no longer financing our Deficits with money from investors (both foreign and domestic) - virtually the entire Deficit is currently being financed by the Federal Reserve effectively 'printing new money'.

China has 'cashed in' about $200 Billion of their loans to us over the last year because they know that we are using the 'printing press' to finance our Deficits, something that every responsible economist will tell you is 'HIGHLY INFLATIONARY'.

In short - We are no longer actually borrowing the money to finance our Deficits - We are merely printing it. Yes, it is happening RIGHT NOW.

That's what Germany did in the 1920s, when the Mark went from 4.2 Marks per Dollar to 4.2 Trillion Marks per dollar in less than a year. And in Zimbabwe (Africa) in 2008, they printed so much money that the inflation rate got to billions of % per month (and people stopped using the worthless printed money).

Here's a link;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/federal-reserve-begins-ma_b_677483.html

I see no need to go further than to look at the example of what Jesse Jackson Jr.'s last 17 years have provided to the City of Chicago in terms of curtailing youth on youth violence (18-25 year olds now in jail ), illiteracy, lack of high school diplomas, or inadequacy of literacy for full time employment, city financial health and the ability to pay pensions and benefits to retirees, overall public employee corruption, and rates of decay of both infrastructure and residential housing. There are other indicators as well. Some solutions include increased and more diligent auditing of federal monies applied to municipalities, and auditing to determine what all ready has been paid for and doesn't have to be paid for again. Also what percentage of federal monies is being deferred to lack of sales tax and property tax losses in the municipalities.

With this example, you then magnify similar population bases of economically depressed municipalities such as Detroit, Oakland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Philadelphia, etc... then you apply those figures to the representatives in Congress which hail from those districts, ( who've had plenty of years as well to make corrective measures but didn't ), and then maybe some can understand how public corruption influences the ability to correct the public budget process. I'm not one to favor throwing money at public decay, especially when 15 years of money throwing has been proven not to work.

lydiajohnsonlydia12 "I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions"

Please stop advertizing this SCAM.

That site tricks people into bidding without realizing that they lose their bid amount even though they don't win the bid. If you made 3 bids for $50, then $100, then $150, and then stopped bidding, you lose $300 and get nothing.

ROY WILSON in his post above:

B707320C "Rick, the issue is not absolute debt but debt as a % of income. As long as that become lower relative to GDP, we are just fine."

The problem is that it's NOT going down.

Under Clinton, the Debt Ratio (Debt as a % of GDP) averaged 64.2%.

Under Bush, the Debt Ratio averaged 62.6% (yes, it was lower than Clinton).

The Debt Ratio for 2012 was 104.8% under Obama, and in his 2013 Budget, he projects it to be even higher in 2016.

When the Debt Ratio got to about 120% in Greece, nobody would lend them any more money, and my projections indicate we could be at that level by the end of Obama's current term in 2016.

There is no simple link between high deficit to GDP ratios and a bad economy (and people not wanting to loan you money).

Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 240%, more than twice ours and they are not having a problem with their currency or bonds. ****And Japan's unemployment rate is 4.1%, half ours****

On the other hand Europe has been doing what Roy suggests (drastically cutting government spending) for the last 5-6 years and their economies have gone down the tubes. The U.K. is about to enter a TRIPLE DIP recession and even Germany's economy is slowing. Greece, Spain and Portugal have DEPRESSION LIKE unemployment (In Spain it's 25%). The average unemployment in the Eurozone is 12%.

When people tell you we need to cut the deficit they usually are really interested in slashing or destroying Social Security, Medicare, etc.

It usually is not a way to make the economy better. Especially not when the economy is weak.

We didn't get out of the Great Depression by cutting spending. We got out by spending more that we ever had before. First on New Deal programs then on WWII, when the government essentially took over the economy (It's called a Command Economy) and spent without regard for the deficit.

As a consequence in 1946 we had a higher debt to GDP ration than now (150%). And, though not a WWII levels, we kept spending on: The Cold War, the National Highway Act, Medicare, etc.

But their children didn't pay for it (I'm one of them). The economy was booming in the 1950's and '60's, there were plenty of jobs and wages and standards of living rose for most americans (Not just the rich as it is now).

Inflation is was not a problem during the 1950's and 60's either. BTW, some inflation is not a bad thing (higher than they target now). Not as bad as conservatives and deficit hawks make out anyway.

ArchStanton

You have to be kidding.

If we had a Debt Ratio of 240% (like Japan), our Debt would be $36 Trillion, and at the average interest rate of almost 5% over the previous 30 years before Obama, the interest alone would be $1.8 Trillion per year.

Since Federal Revenues are only about $2.7 Trillion, that means that interest expense alone would be about 67% of all federal revenues, crowding out the vast majority of spending on everything else (Defense, Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

Our current interest expense is about 9% of all revenues. Can you imagine what would have to be cut if interest expense took 67% of all federal revenues?

With inflation (and high interest rates) looming in the near future, just the debt we currently have will devastate our economy and lead to much higher unemployment.

ArchStanton "Inflation is was not a problem during the 1950's and 60's either. BTW, some inflation is not a bad thing"

Because the money supply was controlled (the increase in the money supply should approximate increased productivity to maintain stable prices), but in the 1970s, the money supply increased by about 8.5% per year, and the resulting inflation was 8% per year (prices doubling every 9 years). In the 1980s thru 2008, the money supply increased by an average of about 3.5% per year, and inflation averaged 3.25% per year.

Since 2009, the money supply has increased by about 12% per year, and with the typical 2 to 4 year lag between an increased money supply and its inflationary impact, we should expect high inflation in the very near future.

Of course, when it happens, politicians will blame 'greedy businesses, greedy foreigners, etc.' and ignore the real cause - increased money supply by the Federal Reserve (QE1, QE2, QE3).

Milton Friedman (perhaps the most influential economist of the last 50 years) won his Nobel Prize in Economics for his work proving the absolute relationship between money supply and inflation. For more information, you might consider the following links;

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_and_Inflation.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/federal-reserve-begins-ma_b_677483.html

Arch, the economy GREW its way past the debt with the manufacturing revolution we had then, after WW2.

We also had one of our 2 great oil booms in the economy then with "spindletop" in Texas that provided a great boon to the economy starting in the 30's.

You said it, Amy. During the first two years after President Obama took office, I was so angry and disgusted at the GOP Senate obstruction and filibuster tyranny; then Boehner took over the House and the entire Congress became dysfunctional. From 2011 through 2012, it was one GOP-inflicted crisis after another, not one of those crises was necessary. The GOP is a bunch of useless--in their own words--lazy, no good bums and moochers living off the "gubmint".

I think the GOP game plan is to plunder the government for themselves and their wealthy backers when they have control and when they don't, stall/delay/obstruct until they weasel back into control.

hmm, this congress has been in session less than a month & you are calling it the worst ever. If I use that has a standard, then just after reading your 1 post, you are the biggest ass ever!

@Steeler Fan

I think you are absolutely right. Look how fast W emptied the treasury....1. to benefit the wealthy while everyone else got 300.00 and told to go buy a big screen...2. huge dollars in increased defense spending on an unprovoked war in IRAQ that siphoned off resources from the main goal of eradicating Al Qaeda turning a 6 month campaign into a 10 year campaign, huge unfunded pharma program, and the list goes on. The biggest threat to this country are the terrorists claiming to be Republicans....

Republicans had an opportunity, when the won the House majority in 2010, to work with the President, in bringing our economy back from recession. Instead, they went to work with a vengence trying to muddy the President. This was their sole objective: to hurt Obama, not to help the country! They even risked the country's credit rating and plunging us back into recession, to score political points. What's crazy is, they don't seem to notice their approval ratings going down, down, down. I say, there is no amount of gerrymandering that can save these incompetent clowns in 2014.

drano--let's not forget the Medicare Part D drug program, which benefitted big pharma.

Amy---I agree--this bunch is giving the last group a run for its money as worst Congress ever, if only because they don't seemed to have learned any lessons from the last one.

The conservatives in the House are the thing standing between your dumb asses and tax slavery... if 2010 hadn't gotten Nancy Pelosi's idiots out of control, we'd have Cap and Tax crushing consumers and paying off Obama green energy cronies, we'd have all coal burning power plants closed and electricity twice as expensive, we'd have armed soldiers going door to door taking our guns, we'd have full blown govt controlled medicine, we'd have 20,000,000 more people out of work, we'd have $8/gal gasoline, we'd have forced unionization in all manufacturing, we'd have 30,000,000 illegals given amnesty and Welfare, we'd have death panels ruling that seniors don't get health care but those illegals do, we'd have tripled food costs, we'd have $30 Trillion in debt by now and a thrice lowered credit rating, and Oblunder would be recruiting his homeland brownshirts in prep for the takeover.... If Obama had a son , he would look just like Edi Amin....

It used to be, paying your taxes was a sign you were living up to your adult responsibilities. Republicans have turned it into something only losers have to do. Oddly enough, this is exactly how it started in Greece: with rampant tax evasion. You better believe the Germans pay their taxes.

help the idiot-n-chief do what. Democraps have added over 5 trillion to the national debit in just 4 years. the idiot-n-chief got 878 billion in stimulus money for those shoval ready jobs, yet unemployment is no lower today than when he took office. The idiot-n-chief gave 500 million in tax payer money to a "green company" that went bankrupt 6 months later! The idiot-n-chief passed a health care bill his own speaker of the house at the time had to say: "We have to pass this bill, so we can learn what's in it"! Well, he promised that if you like your doctor or current health care plan you can keep it; he promised that health care cost would not go up fro anyone making lasss than 250K a year. So far all lies. Health care cost have risen across the board; companies are dropping insurance plans across the board. His own CBO reported that a family of 5 living on a income of 125K a year will have to pay 20K a year for just the bare bones plan under obmam health care. Have you got 20K lying around.

He orders the killings of Amercian without charges, with a trail & without the ability to view their accuser: all violations of the US Constitution.

So, sorry if I think he's a idiot, but then again it takes a idiot to elect a idiot!

As "fedup" and "dave" prove, I have to give Republicans credit for one thing - a total and complete understanding of just how dumb their base is. Pandering to them trashed their hopes in 2012 and now they know that they can completely change their story and their base will be too stupid to even notice - or even remember what was said yesterday.

Republicans have learned that they do not have to put forth any effort. As long as there are stupid, ignorant, lying, hypocritical bigots in the world, they will always have a base.

Amy couldn't have summarized the dems any better. They will support their fellow party members DESPITE their lack of qualifications.

Notice how Amy describes compromise as being Republicans giving Democrats what they want. Otherwise they are being obstructionists. Amy believes Democrats are always right, and Republicans are always wrong. In fact Amy can flip a coin and have it always come up heads, which amounts to the same logic that her beloved Democratic Party is always right. Amy should look up the definition of the word compromise, and send it along to all her liberal lemmings, the Democrats in the Senate, and of course Obama. It is just impossible to take liberals seriously, when they profess to being never wrong. They have a standard for Republicans, but no standard for Democrats. How special.

Jody--I think the Republicans were convinced that the President would lose re-election and so they'd control the Oval Office and would force a different deal. They must have been reading their own polls, not the reality-based ones.

Both sides agreed to that deal in lieu of Simpson-Bowles. The idea was that the Sequester would be so painful to both sides that it would force them into a better compromise. Right now it looks like the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner.

when i'm hiking in the mountains, i generally try to avoid backing any creature into a corner. ----- the consequences tend to be unpleasant. -------------- and frankly, it's starting to look like there might not be a better compromise.

Republicans voted for them! They voted against a grand bargain, opted for the Super Committee to iron out a better grand bargain....because the GOP couldn't bring themselves to raise taxes on the rich. The whole idea of the automatic sequester cuts was to make it so distasteful to republicans regarding defense cuts, and distasteful to democrats on general fund spending, that during the Super Committee effort, common sense would prevail. But that was in 2011 when republicans still believed they could obstruct enough to defeat President Obama and win back the Senate....and poof, problem solves. It wasn't democrats who didn't compromise, it was republicans who simply refused to compromise or even engage.

ronpal, it's going to be ugly, more cliff-hanging drama, but I really don't think the GOP will allow all those defense cuts to happen. They were badly burned in the debt ceiling debacle, the near-government shutdowns and then just last month, the fiscal-cliff fiasco. I think Boehner will make a lot of noise but, he'll drag enough sensible GOPers to the table and work with democrats to prevent it.

Very true. John Boehner in a nationally televised interview refused several times to even say the word 'compromise'.

the republicans voted for them, but that bill also passed the senate, so apparently a few democrats also voted for it, and obama signed it ------- so, let's see...... who all is involved in this deal ??? ---- sounds like more than just the republicans. ---------------------------- i'd be more impressed if i was hearing any talk about cuts, but all i'm hearing so far is ways to increase revenue, via taxes. ----------- those of us who are unaffiliated voters are starting to get fed up with BOTH parties.

Lying Liberals have, over and over, promised spending cuts at some later date, for big whopping increases now.... which of course they never honor (because they have no honor)... no wonder conservatives don't believe a single thing you thieving bast***ds say....

Case in point... Oblunder's "balanced approach" lies... which only mean more borrowing, taxing, and spending.... the integrity challenged president....

ronpal, my omission; however, I didn't say the democrats didn't vote for it. The repubs in the Senate didn't filibuster it either or it wouldn't have passed. It had to pass the House which was GOP controlled, or it wouldn't have happened either. My point is that republicans voted for it (including Paul Ryan who campaigned as if he didn't) because they, during the 2012 campaigns, whined and carried on about defense cuts and how it was President Obama's fault--yet they voted YEA.

and my point is, is that i hold the democrats EQUALLY responsible, and so do many of my independent friends.

FedUp, quit repeating a lie. President Obama offered $4 trillion in spending cuts to the GOP along with increasing revenues--something like $4 in cuts to $1 in increased revenues. The GOP walked away from that grand bargain in 2011 and opted for the sequester we now face. President offered similar plans several times and each time, it wasn't enough for the GOP. They turned it down, they voted NO. We are in one more GOP-inflicted crisis not because President Obama didn't offer them huge spending cuts but because they can't bring themselves to vote for one penny of tax increase on multi-millionaires and billionaires, or close the tax loopholes that give Exxon Mobil and the others $4 billion in corporate welfare every single year.

again, tax loopholes is a tax reform issue, and should be a separate piece of legislation, not one included with the budget.

ronpal, well, then you're not looking at the whole picture, just one small corner of it. Democrats compromised repeatedly in the various deals offered, and they compromised in the Super Committee; republicans refused to do so. It is unacceptable for one-side to be asked to give away the store while the other robs the bank. That's what the GOP was trying to do, get everything their way or no way. That is fact backed up by the record, it is not liberal-bias thinking.

Well, why shouldn't agreeing to address the tax loopholes not be part of this? The entire tax code overhaul should be part of the agreement but done separately. The budget would then require less drastic cuts IF there was agreement to close those loopholes.

ok, i'm willing to listen.... after all, that is what being an independent voter is all about ------ what spending cuts, specifically, have democrats offered ???

kool aid flowing free again...

ronpal - Do you honestly think the lamestream media is going to highlight the fact that obama is the one that signed into law an agreement between both parties and both arms of congress? He signed it into law and now wants to kick the can down the road with the "promise" of a future talk to iron things out. We have seen where obama stands on his promises.

A man's honour is his word. We all know where obama stands.

Jody in Iowa

Take a "break," please. We get the message. You support Obama on any and all issues and the Republicans are the reason for the "mess" we're in.

Have a great evening and get some sleep....

@Jody

President Obama didn't offer them huge spending cuts but because they can't bring themselves to vote for one penny of tax increase on multi-millionaires and billionaires, or close the tax loopholes that give Exxon Mobil and the others $4 billion in corporate welfare every single year.

You do realize that when obama let the payroll tax cut expire (good), he also extended the tax breaks for large corps such as GE, Citigroup and others so that they don't have to pay taxes?

Don't EVEN exclude your party from being in bed with the corporations. It's all one big orgy, and your politicians are right in the middle of it.

The federal government now allows more than $1.1 trillion a year in this and other tax expenditures. Each of those incentives — which include hundreds of exemptions, exclusions, deferrals and preferential rates — either adds to the budget deficit or shifts the cost of government to other taxpayers.

Wrong, the only tax issue that was touched was the high-end income tax rate, capital gains and so-called death tax. President Obama is talking about closing the tax loopholes that benefit highly profitable companies, and the rich. Don't forget, Mitt Romney supported closing the tax loopholes, campaigned on it.

Mitt suggested loophole closure as an alternative to raising tax rates... not in addition to... like Osquander does.... guess your memory challenged Liberal brain can't handle facts...

Jody, you have a mind like a steel trap! You never forget anything, and you are always right there with the correct rebuttal. You go, girl!

closing tax loopholes should be a part of overall tax reform, which should be a separate piece of legislation, not part of the budget.

Romney supported closing loopholes, yes. Obama supports both, as do we. Do you have a problem with closing loopholes that only the top 2% benefit from? You have no problem with major corporations paying little to no income taxes at the end of the year, some even getting a refund? Really? I don't. They have ridden on the gravy train long enough and the fun times are over.

i have no problem at all with tax reform ----- personally, i've been begging my state rep about that for years. ----- but as i said, it should be a separate piece of legislation.

AG, thanks, I try.

ronpal, the actual overhaul should be done separately but it is important that agreeing to close those loopholes and overhaul the code should definitely be included in this agreement; otherwise, that overhaul won't be done. It's like your home budget, if you don't know how much money you'll earn next month, then how do you budget what you can spend for groceries, maybe a movie. The same applies to government, they need an idea of the revenue before a sensible budget can be implemented. In order to pass a sensible budget based on income and expenditures, government needs an estimate of how much income there will be. This would also reduce the amount of cuts needed which would mean less harm to the economy.

tax reform is like health care reform ---- it is too complex of an issue to be tacked on to the budget. ------------- and frankly, do you really want these yahoos to do comprehensive tax reform in this limited time span ??? ------- if they try it, we'll end up with a total disaster, with some piece of legislation that needs constant adjustment.

Fed UP, then do you like giving $4 billion a year in corporate welfare to Exxon Mobil, Shell and the others when each earns between $20 and 40 billion a year? Do you think it is just fine that a big corporation gets a tax break for its company jet, while the mom & pop pizza place around the corner pays a higher tax rate?

ronpal, one more time; they're not tacking on the overhaul to the budget, they are merely wanting an agreement to do the overhaul later. You're arguing apples and oranges.

Problem is that Romney supported closing "loopholes" like the deduction for mortgage interest (why would he care since he owns all of his homes outright) and opposed closing loopholes like deductions for the oil & gas industry and hedge fund carried interest.

later like when ??? ---- ten years from now ??? how does that solve anything ??? ---- and i'm still waiting for someone to provide me with specific examples of spending cuts that democrats have offered. -------- i've been bugging my state reps about tax reform for more than 2 decades ....... promises made by politicians are meaningless.

ronpal, Google it, there's plenty of information on it. What specific cuts has the GOP offered? Oh, that's right, they didn't offer any. BTW, they simply set a timeline for tax code overhaul to be completed by say Dec 1.

well... i'm at work now, so i'll have to look into that later. ------- i haven't heard any specifics from the republicans either ---- it would appear that both parties are weak on this issue. ----- as for dec 1st, considering how long we've been waiting for tax reform, i guess that will have to do. --------------- but i gotta say, i've been around a lot of years, and have learned to take political promises with a grain of salt.

what i find intriguing however, is that you had no specific spending cut to mention, but rather, referred me to google, which makes me very suspicious that there is a specific spending cut mentioned by the democrats.

only dummies think tax loopholes is specific enough that both sides agree on what loopholes...

@AlaskaGirl,

Do you have a problem with closing loopholes that only the top 2% benefit from? You have no problem with major corporations paying little to no income taxes at the end of the year, some even getting a refund?

Your president is the one that extended those tax breaks for the corporations while letting the payroll tax cut expire. And no, I'm not ok with that, but you obviously are since you support him.

They're down to two-finger clinging!

And they are stepping on their own fingers.

You clowns are so far left that the California coastline seems like the center of the country to you ! LOL !!

Bombzz, another right-wing lie. It was the GOP that "kicked the can down the road" for 3 months, in fact, there's a First Read headline article on it. You might check the archives and get your facts straight.

Wow, that's a dussy.

any plan that does not include spending cuts doesn't sound like a very good plan to me, and i also am old.

ron --I believe there are cuts, just don't know where or how much.

that's the problem ---- nobody seems able to give any details about these supposed cuts in spending.

ron -- On either side.

true

old man, I wish they would have adopted the Bowles-Simpson plan. Neither side liked and that is probably why it would have been good for the country.

Funny, I'd call the President who left behind a financial crisis, a huge federal debt and two ongoing wars the incompetent one, and the President who pulled us out of the crisis, killed our biggest enemy, and set us on the path to recovery, the better one.

But, then, my priorities may be different from yours. I'm not all about protecting the 1%.

It's not stupidity... he's got his Alinsky-ites and the whoring press working to undermine the values and economy of the country... everything he does is to deliberately take us closer to being a third world dictatorship...

Harry.....you are 100% right...Obama would last about ten seconds in the private sector. The Democrats can longer blame Bush for the last four years of deficit spending and adding another $6 trillion dollars to the national debt.

I get such a laugh out of those who start yelling impeachment or treason. Why don't you guys actually look those words up, do the research and find out exactly what it takes to indict any president with either. Please. You and others like you only sound moronic when you go off about it, as this president has done nothing to warrant either.

No grounds yet for impeachment but he is getting closer and we are still in the first year of his second term. We remain hopeful.

Alaska Girl, you might also want to look it up. Obama's illegal "recess appointments" were deemed unconstitutional and hence those appointments had to be vacated. They were null and void. The last I heard the Labor Relations Board decided they would continue to operate until the appeal is heard. Failure to carry out the decision of the appeals court is an impeachable offense.

@ Amy

Your right. Bush did leave behind financial crisis, brought to you by Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton. Bill really loved the 1%. He made them billions on toxic mortgages, and became the 1% as well

The only thing on your list that is a significant part of federal spending is defense (20%). The rest are small, for example foreign aid is less than 1%.

America's military has absorbed $487 billion in defense cuts already, with $500 billion yet to come with sequestration. how much more do you want to cut?

Willard your right that some of those amounts look small.... However when all are combined they amount to a decent amount..... You can not tell me that the TSA is chump change.....

chris rhodes

Perhaps you forgot that the entitlements are paid for by payroll taxes.

Tea party...put your bill on the table...show some balls...what you want to cut

its time to play black jack again huh

The sequester deal included $1 trillion in spending cuts that already happened.. The Republicans seem to have forgotten that.

yep...they don't even remember Bush was President

J Willard...nice try.....the $1 trillion you are talking about is money that they were not going to spend anyway.

President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) - Appearing on NBCs “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Barack Obama said that he cut spending by more than $1 trillion in 2011. However, the White House Office of Management and Budget says that federal spending increased by $147 billion from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011.

President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) - Appearing on NBCs “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Barack Obama said that he cut spending by more than $1 trillion in 2011. However, the White House Office of Management and Budget says that federal spending increased by $147 billion from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011.

When will people quit blaming Bush for the nations woes. The biggest issue with government isn't that One side is right and the other wrong it is that neither side is willing to compromise. The left will never allow medicare and social security to be made solvent even when the changes don't take effect for 20 years and don't affect current retirees. This is the leading cause of our debt. The right will never allow tax raises which could bring in more revenue. This could be used to change programs like welfare which are broke. Lets as a country find the hard fixes which allow us to give people a hand up instead of a hand out.

@chrischambee #18.6, Have a cup of coffee and WAKE UP !!!

Taxes have already been raised on the wealthy through Obamacare and on EVERYONE through elimination of medical deductions. It is part of Obamacare and ... "You'll have to pass ...oops, READ the bill to see what's in it " !!!

Taxes were raised AGAIN through the "Fiscal Cliff Deal" on the wealthiest Americans AGAIN !!

As it stands right now, taxes on the wealthy are HIGHER than under Bill Clinton.

The blame game is getting quite old libbie. Obama has yet to have a budget and he has run up the national debt HIGHER and FASTER than any U.S. President in History. At his current rate of ongoing fiscal stupidity, Obama could DOUBLE the existing national debt of ALL his predecessors ..... COMBINED !!!!!!!!!!!!!

have you seen wall street???..now look at the government..tax breaks help alright..just wall street fat cats like you

@elvis...it seems all the best jobs aren't on Wall Street anymore......all the best jobs are in government.

You don't know wall street from sesame street...get a clue.

chris...the only thing you know...is probably sniffing your finger...when you pull it out your azz

why not...you fat cats created the recession.not me

to take from me and my children in the future

@elvis...I'm a small businessman.....I employ you and your children.

I do not work for you dumb azz

Hopeisgone: If anyone is clueless it is those like yourself you have been taken in by and totally emotional over the conservative propaganda, aimed to create the support to feed the insatiable "more" (never enough) appetite of the few while always costing the majority. The Republicans have become totally owned and controlled by "the money", their strong supporters and masters, and over the last thirteen years they have come to self-servingly and irresponsibly totally cater to them. While cutting spending and the deficit are worthy and desired objectives it is pure deception to consider them to be what caused our problems; in every case what caused our problems is permissive politicians and policies, disguised as "conservative", with excessive deregulation, lax enforcement and no oversight that encouraged run-away greed, gross dishonesty and total self-indulgence by the few, who always walked away with substantial gains, and resulting in crises in savings-and-loans, banks, dot.coms, the mortgage, investment and financial industries, including corporate corruption, like Enron, and costly industrywide failures, necessitating government intervention and taxpayers expense. Now the Republicans waste time, ignore responsibilities and concentrate on further placating "the money", for their continued support as they play politics and focus only on their political ambitions. Closing loopholes and unreasonable deductions and considerations for the very wealthy and large corporations while protecting social security and medicare is reasonable and responsible yet the Republicans stubbornly fight it just to give "the money" more; the people, the majority, better wise up and firmly and strongly reject the current Republicans and their propaganda aimed to con and manipulate. After all, it really is just common sense when you can get the biases, prejudices, emotions, loyalties and such all put aside, so they can't be used to dupe and sway people.