So far Obama's effort to "compromise" with Republicans on averting the fiscal cliff with his "balanced approach (https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Obama+%22balanced+approach%22&oq=Obama+%22balanced+approach%22&gs_l=hp.12..0i30j0i8i30.2447.2447.0.4681.1.1.0.0.0 .0.184.184.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.aShCfc9NQHA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=98e3c25732cb68a3&bpcl=39314241&biw=1320&bih=669)" of spending cuts and tax hikes has resulted in a proposal "literally laughed at by Mitch McConnell) of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes in exchange for nothing Also included in his grand bargain, giving himself free reign to raise the debt ceiling at will.

According to his main man in the "negotiations" Timothy Geithner, he's offering tons of spending cuts - by not spending money we weren't going to spend anyway.

96QOlerycqs


WALLACE: Or they now say because you're not willing to cut spending enough.

GEITHNER: No, but that's not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –

WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?

GEITHNER: No, that's not true. We're — as you know, we're winding down two wars.

WALLACE: I understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It's a budget gimmick, sir.

GEITHNER: No, that's not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers' resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.

And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.

WALLACE: But it was money that wasn't going to be spent anyway, and –

GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.

WALLACE: I understand. But you're not saving — you're not ending the wars for budget purposes. You're ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren't going to be fought. You're not really saving money.

GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –

WALLACE: I mean, it's a budget gimmick, but it's money never intended to spend.

So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?

Speaker Bonehead should pass a bill extending the Bush era rates ,and if the Senate Dems don't move the bill ,or the President vetoes it;then they should use the President's argument against him... that he is going allow 98% of the people's tax rates to increase just to get a tax increase on 2% .

We are now hearing from both sides that they are willing to let the so called fiscal cliff happen . I get the feeling that they really don't think it would be as bad as advertised.

Hello Steve:


So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

Excon

Hello Steve:

Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

excon

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothing.

Time you learned to fly, watch the bump when you land

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothingHello again, Steve:

Well, it means as much as it can in the middle of negotiations.

Excon

Offer on the table, like it or NOT! Put your offer up its your turn. That's how you negotiate and just criticizing ain't going to cut it. Stop stalling.

Everybody agrees on middle class tax cuts, so pass that, and fight about anything you want later.

"So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending"

I think this depends as to whether you are talking about 'spending cuts' or 'savings'

Two different things

I would argue that Geithner is right in that they are making savings, but he has nothing to offer in terms spending cuts.


Tut

The Dems are ridiculous . They consider reductions in the rate of spending increases a spending cut. They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social Security .

Hello again, tom:


They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social SecurityPersonally, I don't believe the fix should be taken off the backs of the beneficiaries.

You believe in a flat tax, don't you? If we charged everybody a flat SS tax, SS would be solvent forever. Instead the rich only pay a very small percentage of their income toward SS, while the poor pay the FULL LOAD.. In fact, the richer they are, the smaller percentage they pay.. Look. Let's make everybody pay the SAME rate. Isn't that fair?

Excon

You forget ,it isn't a tax ,it's a premium. If you tell me that the rich would get proportionate return for their extra $$ then I'd say yeah ,eliminate the maximum. But the left see Social Security Insurance as just another welfare program. That has been the fraud of the plan from the start .
But the Repubics also want means testing... so that should calm your panic that the rich are getting away with something

You meant to say you don't have means testing on SS no wonder they want to tax the rich, no Tom, the rich get protected by aircrft carriers and diplomatic services, the poor have no use of those

Timothy Geithner: U.S. 'Absolutely' Should Get Rid Of Debt Ceiling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/timothy-geithner-debt-ceiling_n_2147748.html)

Went to the bank yesterday and argued that my spending shouldn't be constrained by limits they place on my credit .

Hello again, tom:

So, the problem we have is ENGLISH, and if you only understood it, you'd be a lefty... Of course your bank won't let you go OVER your SPENDING limit.

But, the debt ceiling isn't about BUYING stuff. It's about PAYING for the stuff we already bought... Now, if you asked your bank whether you should PAY for what you already bought, I'll bet they'd say YES...

excon

No ,what has already been spent is already in the debt .

This is to pay for more spending ;to fund the operations of the government.

Edit . I stand by my bank example. If I'm already extended with legal obligations ,I couldn't go to the bank and demand they extend my credit without conditions.

Hello again, tom:


This is to pay for more spending. Not for what is already owed.Uhhhh, no.

Excon

See my edit.. I removed that line while you were responding .

In ENGLISH, you don't need to raise the DEBT ceiling unless you're adding more DEBT.

Hello again, wingers:

So, then you DON'T understand what it is? I got it, but don't you think you SHOULD know a little something about it BEFORE you post?? Nahhh, maybe not.

excon

I can't put it any more plain English, ex. Now if Obama would speak to us in plain English instead of code words and political-speak Americans might get it, too. You probably believe Obama when he says he's offering a "balanced approach." Bwa ha ha!!

what Obama has probably realised is this fiscal cliff is rhetorical, that is it is just so much Bullshlt. The economy won't collapse, the job creaters won't spend their money now, so changing the equation isn't going to make a difference, and a little less spending, well you won't see an immediate effect from that either, so the world as we know it will go on, and those who should pay more in one form or another, will

Tell that to all those contractors sweating bullets about the military budget cuts looming after the first of the year.

Hello again,

Republicans believe that UNCERTAINTY is holding back the economy... But, they want to use the debt ceiling debate to "get stuff", and that's going to create some UNCERTAINTY. In fact, that's going to create a LOT of uncertainty.

The last time they did this, our vaunted credit rating was reduced costing us BILLIONS of $$'s. Why would they do that?

excon

Because the President has no intention to rein in spending . So all the tax increases he proposes will do no good .In fact they will be harmful because while he is increasing spending ,revenues will drop as happens every time there is a tax increase .
The President has no intention to do good faith negotiations .That was made clear with his proposal to add stimulus spending increases on the table

The President's 'my way or the higway' approach won't cut it . I don't care how big a margin of victory he had. That doesn't mean squat. It's about time that he seriously negotiate with the House leadership and act like a freakin President .instead of a community organizer with a bull horn .
You want certainty ? I'll give you certainty . The President's plan will extend the capital investment strike and we will go into a double dip recession if he doesn't change his path.

Hello again, tom:

So, cooperation and compromise are out the window, huh? Of course, you blame Obama, but the COUNTRY is blaming the Republicans. 2014 is going to be another landslide. But, I digress. It's clear that there's NO give in tax RATE increases.. But, it's going to happen ANYWAY whether you agree with them or not. That's a WIN for Obama. Once the tax hikes go into effect, all Obama has to do is LOWER them for the middle class. That'll be EASY.

So, it looks like another congress who says NO. We'll take care of that in two years.

excon

Hello again,

I'm a renter. I don't GET the HANDOUT that homeowners do. I'd be happy if they close that loophole. Of course, Steve doesn't think HIS deduction IS a loophole. But, to those who don't get them, EVERY deduction is a loophole.

Would you wingers give that up, or would you rather tax the super duper rich... It's a BIG chunk of change. When it comes to YOUR deductions, somehow, I think you'd rather the rich pay more.. Go ahead, tell me how magnanimous your are.

excon

Your problem, Ex, is the Republican party, hey, most of your politics is run by rich dudes, so they are going to say no to anything that affects them.

Tom the government has contractors so it can lay them off without consequences, so no one said what they do is permanent, they will just have to find cushy jobs elsewhere, just like everyone else

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

I'd rather no deductions and a flat tax. In fact I claim a progressive tax violates my 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law. You're worried about screwing the 'super duper rich' (under Obama defined as a 2 income of $250,000) . Then why don't you put a tax on wealth so that blowhard Warren Buffet can pay his fair share ?

a tax on wealth, so you are in favour of a new tax, how would you administer such a thing? Tax net worth, what a nightmare, stocks would be valued at zero overnight, the value of property would drop and where do you get the valuations this is based on. No, it would have to be something more simple and less subject to manipulation, a tax on bank balances and bonds, but that is discriminatory since if I hold my wealth in gold? Silver? Jewels, art. The reason it has not been done is it isn't practical. You tax wealth and wealth will leave the country. You want to tax wealth, tax transactions

Buffet is not against paying his share, he is waiting for someone to change the rules which his own class won't do out of self interest, so you want the blowhards to pay their share ask the republicans to go first

Buffet is not against paying his share. BS .he intentionally takes a minimal salary and then complains he isn't taxed enough . I know how it works . Rich Dems set up the tax code so they can keep their wealth and to prevent any other aspirants to reach their level of wealth,

The rules allow anyone to defer income, when you own the company you don't need to take a salary but you do get income and it is taxable somewhere. You just need to get it together so there aren't different classes of income or taxpayer and then remove all the concessions and loopholes so you have a level playing ground. Do republicans believe in a level playing ground Tom or one rule for the rich and another for the suckers, er, taxpayers .

Your minimum tax was a step in the right direction obviously Buffet recognised and acknowledged that. Stop trying to get a free ride on the back of the suckers, er, taxpayers. Tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you?

I'm a flat tax type of guy .I don't know or care about the particular plans the Repubics come up with . They are part of the problem too.


tell you wha,t you want a flat rate tax, 30% sound fair to you? No that is an obscene level of taxation for any income.The real problem is that you and the left here think the government needs that type of confiscation .I say they could provide the constitutional necessary services for much less.

Well Tom what is fair, it has to be enough so the government not only covers its expenses it get out of debt. At the moment it needs to about double to achieve that in any meaningful way. The reality is you have spent your way into the poor house, too many wars, too much pandering to the rich, too much spent on aircraft carriers, etc. You need to take a Greek haircut

You need to take a Greek haircut fine with me. Start with budget cuts .

A Greek haircut consists of several measures; increased taxation, lower salaries for public servants and parliamentarians, less public servants, lower pensions, higher retirement age, and of course renegotiating the national debt bringing your credit rating to junk status.

You favour one measure like your republican buddies but reality is you need total reform

I'm all for tax reform .It won't happen before the new year. Speaker Bonehead met with the President yesterday. I'm sure in the end he'll cave. Better make sure he has Madame Mimi on board because he won't have the TP coalition. Not after his purge of them this week. Meanwhile Harry Reid and the do nothing Senate plays pocket pool another week.

Down you go, down to the depths and it is only a miserable 5% that is being argued about. Think what you could accomplish if you only agreed about something, you might even be able to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions for real

The US forests and land use has increased our sequestration through a carbon sink . We were well on our way to cleaner air long before Kyoto . Save it for China.
5% here 5% there . There are NEVER concessions from the Dems about spending unless it's about gutting the military. They have this phoney base line budgetting so they can make the absurd claim that a reduction in the rate of spending increase is a cut .
Baseline Reform - Citizens Against Government Waste (http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Baseline_Budgeting)

Screw them.. a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let them budge on spending and entitlement reform and then we can talk. OR even better... They want taxes at Clintoon levels... Let them brings spending back to Clintoon levels... that would be a good start .

But not to worry libs. I'm hearing one Republic after another surrender on this.. Rand Paul even floated the idea of voting 'present ' and letting Reid get his way in the Senate on a simple majority vote. Speaker Bonehead has at least shown some spine.

Hello again, tom:

There are SOME in your party who realize that they LOST the election.. Then there are SOME, you for instance, who don't. The ones who realize it, are trying to salvage the election of 2014, where the balance of the Tea Partiers are BOUND to be swept out of office IF they don't start GOVERNING.

I'm not sure sure which position I like better.

excon

The Repubics in Congress also won their elections.

Hello again, tom:

There are SOME in your party who realize that they LOST the election.. Then there are SOME, you for instance, who don't. The ones who realize it, are trying to salvage the election of 2014, where the balance of the Tea Partiers are BOUND to be swept out of office IF they don't start GOVERNING.

I'm not sure sure which position I like better.

Excon

And there are SOME who still lie to the American people with words like "balanced approach" then put all the blame on Republicans for refusing to compromise on their take it or leave it offer.

Some may even be willing to make American taxpayers think their taxes aren't going up even if they do by simply publishing the withholding tables to reflect whatever they want.


The White House has the power to temporarily protect taxpayers from middle-class tax hikes even as upper income rates rise if Congress does nothing and all of the Bush-era tax rates expire in January.

Experts and lawmakers alike agree that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the power to adjust how much is withheld from paychecks for tax purposes — for all taxpayers or just for some.

By doing so, Geithner could ensure paychecks reflect the White House position that wealthier taxpayers with annual income higher than $250,000 see their taxes rise. Geithner at the same time could leave withholding tables where they are for the middle class, ensuring those workers don’t see a higher cut from their paychecks.

“If we were to, say, go over the cliff and the rates go up, he could modify those withholding tables such that the average employee out there would not effectively see any more or less taken out of his paycheck,” said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

...

Experts believe Geithner could even go so far as to adjust withholding to reflect the White House’s preferred policy — higher rates on the nation’s top 2 percent of earners and lower rates on everyone else. In fact, Minarek said the president could even use withholding as leverage in negotiations with Republicans if it came to that, using the tables to argue he is protecting the paychecks of the middle class.

Oops, sorry you didn't withhold enough buddy. Really? This is an option being considered?

Hello again, Steve:

Relax... You get all caught in the noise. Bonehead and Obama are meeting today.. They'll come up with an agreement that includes compromise on BOTH sides. My guess is that tax rates will go up to 37% on the richest of the rich, and capital gains taxes will go up to at least 25%. I'm hoping about the last one...

And, yes, there'll be TRILLIONS in cuts. Obama MIGHT even raise the Medicare eligibility age... He AIN'T no liberal, and he DOESN'T need his base any more.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Relax... You get all caught in the noise. Bonehead and Obama are meeting today.. They'll come up with an agreement that includes compromise on BOTH sides. My guess is that tax rates will go up to 37% on the richest of the rich, and capital gains taxes will go up to at least 25%. I'm hoping about the last one...

And, yes, there'll be TRILLIONS in cuts. Obama MIGHT even raise the Medicare eligibility age... He AIN'T no liberal, and he DOESN'T need his base any more.

excon


I wasn't caught in any noise, I'm just dumbfounded that anyone believes Obama and his Orwellian words and that anyone might seriously even consider that last trick as an option. Are the American people so irrelevant that they would consider gambling with our finances? Never mind, this is Obama after all...

Hello again, Steve:


Are the American people so irrelevant that they would consider gambling with our finances? Never mind, this is Obama after all... This, from a guy who's party HELD the American people hostage to the debt ceiling last year, costing us BILLIONS...

And, you're about to DO IT AGAIN if you don't get your way! Man, oh man...

Excon

About being held hostage nonsense :
Bob Woodward: 'Gaps' in Obama's Leadership Contributed to Debt Deal Collapse - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-gaps-president-obamas-leadership-contributed-debt/story?id=17183930)

I got an idea.. let's raise revenue by eliminating the state and local tax deduction. (a collective howling of protest by the libs who over-tax at the state level begins now )

Yes eliminate all deductions a great start to reform

Brace yourself speechless. The locust are coming .
Californians Leave For Better Lives In Texas, Oregon And Arizona - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121112-636673-california-exodus-from-high-taxes-business-hostility.htm)

Brace yourself speechless. The locust are coming .
Californians Leave For Better Lives In Texas, Oregon And Arizona - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121112-636673-california-exodus-from-high-taxes-business-hostility.htm)

Hopefully one of them will open a California Pizza Kitchen here.

So taxing the rich in California is popular then, here's a Texas growth opportunity drop all state taxes

Texas already does well with lower taxes . You will notice that when people vote with their feet ;they move out of over taxed 'blue states' . But the problem is ;they take their politics with them.

so taxing the rich in California is popular then, here's a Texas growth opportunity drop all state taxes

We don't have a state income tax, though we could certainly rein in property taxes.

Hello clete:


so taxing the rich in California is popular then,Nahhh... The reason California is broke is because of proposition 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29). That effectively ended their ability to finance their operations, and they've been going broke ever since...

At one time, their university's were the best in the nation, and FREE to any California resident... Not any more.

Excon

So that's why people are leaving the state?. not that they are taxed to death ;and now Guv Moonbeam has an absolute majority in the legislature to work with to raise taxes even more ?
California is the canary in the coal mine for the dream Obama has for the country . Every program that the Adm embraces... cap and trade, massive taxes on the rich, high-speed rail ,is either in place or on the drawing boards.

San Bernadino is so bad off the city attorney told residents to lock and load (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/city-attorney-tells-san-bernardino-residents-to-lock-their-doors-load-their-guns-because-of-police-downsizing/) and be ready to protect yourself.

It is well known the greenies will destroy you, we are hearing the howls here as green programs are wound back in the face of fiscal reality, but if your taxation is uniform you don't get the migration problem for reason of taxation

Hello again,

Over, we go... Weeeeeehooooooiiiiiii...

Boehner failed to herd his caucus. I'm sure it's Obama's fault..

excon

I heard some of the dems were against it as well, what good is leaders talking if you can't keep the troops in line.

I think it will be an interesting ride, so much for brinkmanship

Good for the Republic caucus . Bonehead dusts off a Pelosi proposal and thinks his ducks will fall in line . Isn't happening .

Lots of things ain't happening Tom, but you have to loose the idea it will be right in the morning, I think your bonehead just dropped off a cliff and he just might have taken everyone with him, maybe the mayans were right and this is TEOTWAWKI and look who you have to thank for it

Who as in one person ? Do you think that even if Bonehead got his legislation out of the House that the do-nothing Senate would've voted for it also ? Where is the President's proposal. Bonehead voted on this plan because the President stonewalled during the negotiations. The Dems want us to go over the cliff so they can blame the Repubics .

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, yeah, yeah... He said, she said...

We're going over the cliff, and it's the Republicans who are going to get the blame whether they did this or not.. I think this will spell the END of the Tea Party, and a landslide for the Democrats in 2014.

excon

Unlike the Mayans ;I cannot predict the future.

Hello again, tom:

Got nothing to say about the debacle unfolding in your party, huh? I wouldn't either.

Snicker, snicker...

excon

Let the party disintegrate. They have been useless statists for the most part.Bonehead did this to himself trying to purge TP from committee chairs .

[QUOTE=tomder55;3351388]let the party disintegrate. QUOTE]

We'll remember you said that

All Bonehead had to do was get his majority to pass an extension of the tax rates or a version of the Simpson -Bowles recommendations , and pass it on to the Senate. Then when the Senate or the President torpedoed the legislation ,how would they then say that it was the Repubics that were responsilbe for the so called fiscal cliff ?

It was the President that torpedoed the negotiations with Bonehead . Then the sucker fell into the President's trap ,and tried to pass legislation he knew his caucus could not go along with .

The Dems purged their party of centrists and moderates.. Why should the base of the Republican party continue to fall in line with Repubics who think their role is caretakers of the nanny state. They can't out Dem the Dems .So why try ?

Well Tom they may be a little inexperienced with compromise and consensus but it seems some Republicans see the necessity of raising taxes on the rich, the question is always to define who is rich. By world standards anyone with income above subsistence level is rich, by your standards the number is a little higher. In my own nation they set the bar at about $150,000, but then it costs less to live in the US.

I can understand why you are having such difficulty, and the real bonehead was Bush who made temporary adjustments, kicking the ball down the road, so Republicans are in a bind of their own making. The real problem is leadership, do you have a leader?

and the real bonehead was Bush who made temporary adjustments, He wouldn't have gotten permanent tax cuts passed... that was some of that compromising you say he didn't do.

I didn't say he didn't do It, but a decade or more on, in a different world, the idea of compromise doesn't come easy, and of course, it doesn't come easy to both sides of the argument. You see when you do things with a sunset clause, the sunset is supposed to come into effect, otherwise you make a permanent arrangement. Living in the society I do, I find it difficult to understand why all this is so painfull for you guys. Our taxation changes are initiated as part of the budget, there may be some tweeking at the edges, but everyone knows the budget must be passed or they are out of a job. We don't have the situation where things can grind on and on. Now I know it is a long time since anyone raised taxes here except by slight of hand, but things are so much easier, there is certainty. I guess what I am saying is this, the decision is made in caucus, rebellion gets you kicked out of the party, and the decision either gets implemented with the goodwill of your opposition or it doesn't. Once it is passed, unless it is a draconian measure, it is not going to get vetoed. No one would think of vetoing a law because it doesn't tax enough

We're negotiating... Bonehead will propose plans D E and the President will counter with plans F U .

your white house secretary keeps saying the President hasn't reached the bottom line, that's no way to negotiate, your problem is you have media interferring in the process, having to be told every little detail and to avoid this the negotiating position is compromised with platitudes. BO has gone from $250,000 to $400,000 bonehead has gone from nothing to $1,000,000, I would think $500,000 and let the cuts to military spending go ahead, a few less soldiers, a few less aircraft carriers, a few less wars, as far as the social side of the equation be gentle, you aren't out of the GFC yet despite some good looking statistics lately, and you know what, it wasn't Republician policies that brought that about.

your white house secretary keeps saying the President hasn't reached the bottom line, that's no way to negotiate, your problem is you have media interferring in the process, having to be told every little detail and to avoid this the negotiating position is compromised with platitudes. BO has gone from $250,000 to $400,000 bonehead has gone from nothing to $1,000,000, I would think $500,000 and let the cuts to military spending go ahead, a few less soldiers, a few less aircraft carriers, a few less wars, as far as the social side of the equation be gentle, you arn't out of the GFC yet dispite some good looking statistics lately, and you know what, it wasn't Republician policies that brought that about.

Typical pablum... the President reminds me of Wimpy from the Popeye cartoon. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
http://www.getloans.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wimpygovernment.jpg
The Dems are very good at that canard . Instant tax increases in exchange for future budget cuts that never happen. Well not this time ! He wants Clintoon era taxation then we should have Clintoon era budgets . If he wants a bottom line... let's start with spending levels of 2008 .The year he began running roughshod over the country .

But Tom your whole economy is based in that theory, pay later, problem is the time to pay up has arrived. Look I agree with you, reality has to get into the mix, have Clinton taxes and expenditure, he balanced the budget.

As an aside and perhaps an insight from a different place. I was looking at our own budgetary position, you know, the one they said they can't return to surplus, it seems revenues have expanded at least 20% while they have been in office, and of, course so has expenditure. I expect the position could be similar over there if someone really took a close look at it. I'd be happy with expenditure five yeas ago, I'm sure you would too. Too much silght of hand in government, defer a little here, spend a little early here, change the inflation rate

If you go back to the Clinton economy, we still have two wars and a financial melt down (RIP OFF), to be dealt with. Obama didn't start at the same place that your guy did. He had major clean up, pest control and fumagating to do. To make it worse, conservatives have made a mess of the whole process so going over the cliff and restarting the whole debate is the way to go.

Maybe you guys will have a better chance of assimilating the Tea Party into your national Republican party when government returns to a semblance of effective, and efficient governance. Bet the founders and the population would be grateful.

I proposed as an alternative spending levels that Obama "inherited " .

He had major clean up, pest control and fumagating to do Yes ,that's why Jeff Immelt is so prominent in his government . Rumors are that he will become the next Commerce Sec. That way he can complete his sell out of the US economy to the Chinese.
He is after all a huge fan of their communist economy .
Jeff Immelt: China's Communist Government "Works" | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/11/jeff_immelt_chinas_communist_government_works.html )

I don't know Tom, as that rumor may just be a rumor. I hope so.

Jeffrey Immelt sours on Obama—Charles Gasparino - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP)

Its an old story but hardly one that gives me faith that this guy would be a treasury secretary

Well Tom you have uncovered another plot, devilishly cleaver those Chinese but why would they want to buy a bankrupt country now when they will get it for a fire sale later

They just want our business ;and Immelt was very accommodating sending GE jobs to China .

Trust me Tal . Immelt is the lead candidate .

Immelt for secretary of commerce | Prestowitz (http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/14/immelt_for_secretary_of_commerce)

Spending cuts and taxes hikes are exactly what is needed to start fixint the economy and getting out of debt, so why is the fiscal cliff such a terrible thing? It's so sad to see the U.S. being so stupid and reckless, even Greece is getting their act together and had their credit rating increased recently. How come no one is talking about cuts to welfare? There are too many deadbeats not contributing to society and getting free money and it would save billions if they cut them off. Go to YouTube and type in Obama voters and you'll see the kind of scum that are sponging off hard working taxpayers, even liberals would be aghast.

Word is that Bonehead met with the President and offered $800 billion in new revenues.

Here is how the conversation is being reported :
•Boehner to Obama: "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?'
•Obama to Boehner: "You get nothing. I get that for free."
Obama's “small deal” could lead to bigger tax increases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/22/obamas-small-deal-could-lead-to-bigger-tax-increases/)

The problem with going over the cliff is that it will push us into a recession again.The President has no problem with that because he has it set up that he can blame the Repubics for the economic fall out. .

Around and around and around we go, pity they just can't cut to the chase

Hello again,

Looks like Bohener, and the Tea Party are going to RUIN our economy. I wonder how badly they'll be punished..

excon

Bonehead is going to be punished when he is voted out of leadership in January by his caucus. The President plays him like a fiddle and he weepingly goes along with it and tries to punish the members of his caucus that stands by their principles .

Standing on principle or fear of being primaried? The house should have voted on a plan and cutting out half the house for a plan of the other half isn't governance. Strict adherence to principle takes all the felixibility out of what we need as a nation to adapt to changing conditions and locks us into policy that nolonger works or applies.

The Hassert rule doesn't work in divided government.

Fear of being primaried will be the fear of any Republic who votes for tax increases without a guarantee of budget cuts. You saw the so called negotiations by the President. Don't talk to me about a lack of leadership when he told Bonehead that the he was unwilling to compromise .

But the most important insight into the White House's strategic thinking comes when Boehner says to the president, ”I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?” Obama's response is cold and telling. ”You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/22/obamas-small-deal-could-lead-to-bigger-tax-increases/

We all know that repubs will be better at agreeing to tax cuts after the cliff than increases on taxes before the cliff. But how the rest of the deal goes..?

The deal is everyone gets a little less, it's the path to recovery

If we confiscated ALL the money from everyone making $100,000 or more ,we still could not fund 1 year worth of Obama deficits .

Republicans want the spending to end yet want to keep spending on weapons and tanks and airplanes with two engines, while letting job creators manipulate the system for profit without people.

Capitalism for the few while creating no value for the many. Supply side economics with NO demand creates a lot of low wage jobs with no futures. Perfect for a climate of cheap labor, and bustling return for investments in an evergrowing climate of privatation, and wealth extraction, by shrinking opportunity.

Supply side economics makes no sense in a consumer driven economy. NONE whatsoever.

Hello again,

I wondered WHY Obama would say, "I get that for free". If it really WAS like Republicans portray it, then SHAME on Obama...

But, of course, it WASN'T like that at all. Right wingers just flat out LIED. I don't know WHY they think lying is a good tactic.. It really isn't. In fact, it COULD be said that Romney LOST because of his lies. People DON'T like to be lied to.

Oh, yeah.. The Republicans weren't entitled to ANYTHING from the trillion in tax hikes, because they already WON their concessions WHEN that particular trillion was negotiated LAST summer.

You DON'T get two bites at the apple. It doesn't help your cause when you think you should.

excon

Tal ,the military is the only part of the budget that has seen any significant trimming in the last 4 years. Using Ex's logic... you already took a bite from that apple .

The politicians have already damaged the holiday sales with their stupid shenanigans, holiday sales were expected to rise 4%, instead they rose 0.7%. If they had reached a deal long before Christmas which they should have done, people would have bought much more and it would have helped the economy, who knows how much damage this will do to the already fragile economy. Even if they make a last minute deal, I don't think it will be enough to satisfy the markets and bond ratings agencies. You can't underestimate the stupidity of American politicians.

Has anyone noticed how ridiculous John Boehner looks with that stupid Jersey Shore tan? Who does he think he is, the Situation? It must be frustrating for Obama to try and reason with someone who doensn't even have enough common sense to not look like an idiot.

if we confiscated ALL the money from everyone making $100,000 or more ,we still could not fund 1 year worth of Obama deficits .

I'm not sure what that says Tom, something about living beyond your means, it wasn't just BO who has been deficit funding

No shiite captain obvious ! Guess I have to say it again. I did not defend Bush's expansions of the Federal Government It has to end and end now . We cannot fund a government at this size AND have a healthy economy . The libs are always saying 'it's for the children'. But what kind of future are they leaving ? Every kid is broke before they are born.

Hello tom:

You make it sound like Obama isn't willing to make cuts. He's TRYING to make a deal, but we have a divided government. Boehner can't make a deal because the Tea Party WON'T let him. He HIMSELF said, plan B didn't have the votes, and he wasn't talking about DEMOCRATS..

The Republicans/Tea Party ARE responsible for throwing us over the cliff, and they'll be punished for it... I've said many times on these pages, your party LOVES to shoot itself in the foot... THIS time, they're dropping a BOMB on their foot.

excon

no shiite captain obvious ! Guess I have to say it again. I did not defend Bush's expansions of the Federal Government It has to end and end now . We cannot fund a government at this size AND have a healthy economy . The libs are always saying 'it's for the children'. but what kind of future are they leaving ? Every kid is broke before they are born.

Tom you are right, your whole economy needs serious adjustment particularly the debt level but as you point out your wealthy don't even have enough wealth to deal with it. It seems the whole county has leveraged itself into the poor house, so much for letting bankers have a free hand. The base for your healthy economy left and went to China chasing cheap labour, I expect you priced yourselves out of the labour market and created the environment for a growing national debt. There is nothing else for it but to bring your industries back and devalue your currency so you can sell your product

Hello tom:

You make it sound like Obama isn't willing to make cuts. He's TRYING to make a deal,
I'll believe that when I here some of those cut proposals. But I quoted from the Washington Compost ,and they are saying that the President offered nothing..

Clete the currency is already devalued. What we really need is a stable currency policy ,and budget cuts that would eventually bring them back to manageable debt levels. That won't happen over night .But it won't start with the current leadership in either the WH or Congress.

Whipping the slaves more so master makes more money is NOT the solution even if that's what capitalist want.

Clete the currency is already devalued. What we really need is a stable currency policy ,and budget cuts that would eventually bring them back to manageable debt levels. That won't happen over night .But it won't start with the current leadership in either the WH or Congress.

Tom you are speaking of a dream world, your currency needs to devalue at least 50% to have any real effect and that would start a trade war, so probably won't happen, you need to stop printing money with the QE nonsense and return interest rates to reasonable levels so investment can flow again, why would anyone invest in a place where interest rates are zero, the soveriegn risk is too high.

Capitalism in the US has failed because of corporate and individual greed and that must be dealt with, You can't afford these high flyer CEO's who produce nothing, anyone can slash and burn and take a bonus, that's greed.

You have to get your politicians snouts out of the trough and that means getting rid of these lobbiests who are fueling greed. You need fundamental change and I'm sorry but I can't see it happening

Hello:

You know, the economy is NOT really controllable by man. It's kind of like an atomic pile. If you put too many rods in, not enough power comes out. If you take too many rods out, it blows up.

Our leaders are playing with it HOPPING that they don't take too many rods out. But, they don't have ANY idea how many is TOO many...

I fear we're in for a LOOOONG dark period. The crazy thing is, it's an entirely SELF INFLICTED wound. Yes, it's the TEA PARTY who's bringing us down...

excon

Hello:

You know, the economy is NOT really controllable by man. It's kinda like an atomic pile. If you put too many rods in, not enough power comes out. If you take too many rods out, it blows up.

Our leaders are playing with it HOPPING that they don't take too many rods out. But, they don't have ANY idea how many is TOO many...

I fear we're in for a LOOOONG dark period. The crazy thing is, it's an entirely SELF INFLICTED wound. Yes, it's the TEA PARTY who's bringing us down...

excon

So it's the Tea Party that spent us into this hole?

Hello again, Steve:


So it's the Tea Party that spent us into this hole?I don't know. You missed it again... I'm NOT talking about WHO brought us here, or I'd have mentioned George W. Bush's TWO wars that we DIDN'T pay for. Where was the Tea Party THEN??

But, my answer refers to those who are PREVENTING us from SOLVING it.

Look. I KNOW it's YOU I'm talking about. I don't expect you to think of yourself as the one who DESTROYED our economy. If I did it, I wouldn't think so either.

Excon

Well no I don't have to think about it at all, I didn't destroy the economy. I just wonder if all you people who think we did run your finances like the federal government does. If you do, how's that workin' for you?

When faced with the task of building consensus ;Bill Clintoon locked himself in a room with Newt and together they hashed out a plan. The President's version of that is to tell Bonehead 'take it or leave it' ;make a statement to the press that it's the Repubic's fault ;and then go fly away to his next golf outing .

Hello again, tom:

If I were about to destroy the economy, I'd BLAME the other guy too..

The FACT is, Boehner and the pres were VERY close to a GRAND bargain a week or so ago. The bargain, of course, DID include income tax increases, but Boehner couldn't get it through his caucus RE: Tea Party. It was THEN that he came out with the impossible Plan B to salvage SOMETHING, and even THAT couldn't get through the Tea Party...

Again, if I was about to DESTROY the economy, I'd blame EVERYBODY else but me. But, we all KNOW who's doing it. Really. We're NOT stupid.

excon

The FACT is, Boehner and the pres were VERY close to a GRAND bargain a week or so ago. the bargain you talk about was that Plan B that Bonehead put out on his own without the President. That was the plan defeated when the TP properly perceived that Bonehead caved. But make no mistake... it was not a bargain that the President had anything to do with.

By the way ;the President loves the fact that we are going over the cliff . From his perspective ;what's not to like ? He gets his tax hikes ;he gets his military cuts ;and everything else?? He has the press to blame the Repubics and the TP .

The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget for going on 4 years. The president wants unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling and has been pointed out numerous times, his only compromise on his "balanced approach" is "my way or the highway." Don't put this all on the Tea Party which wants to keep taxes low and stop unsustainable spending levels, we're NOT stupid.

Hello again, tom:


the President loves the fact that we are going over the cliff .This, from the guy who thinks Fast and Furious was a conspiracy to get OUR guy killed, so Obama could round up the guns. Since THAT didn't work, you probably think he sent the killer to Connecticut. But, I digress.

Going over the cliff CAN produce advantages, if the PR is handled right. You're doing your best to paint it YOUR way.

But, I suggest that Obama is at LEAST as smart as I am, and like ME, he KNOWS that tinkering with disaster, might just bring the disaster on.

You guys think tinkering with disaster is a GOOD way to get what you want. But, you might get the disaster instead.

Again, you're not fooling ANYBODY..

Excon

Going over the cliff CAN produce advantages

...

Again, you're not fooling ANYBODY..

excon

Interesting things to say from the guy who just blamed the TP for destroying the economy.

Bonehead wanted leverage and support to negotiate with. He didn't get it. Over the cliff we go.

Thanks Tea Party, and the rest of you wingers who want to stop government spending and make banks and corporations the new god, and govern America with manipulated capitalism.

You have been saying NO for 4 years and your way or NO way, and its interesting how you react to someone who says it back to you.Thats either hypocrisy, or ideology. For sure its not working, and never did. Never will. Everybody knows that but YOU guys.

The only question left is what will you wingers do after we go over the cliff, and the real fun begins?

Hello again,

I left off the word political advantages.. Somebody is going to be left standing.. Whomever the winner IS, will have reaped those political advantages... But, the country will be destroyed..

There was a time when I, like tom, THOUGHT that going over the cliff COULD reap certain advantages for my team... But, now I see the risk as being TOO BIG. I don't think it's CONTROLLABLE. I really LIKE my comparison to a nuclear pile.

I believe the President, like ME, doesn't want to risk it, either - EVEN though there might be political advantages... He LOVES his country too much... You guy's, on the other hand, look like you want to CRASH it. You REALLY do.

excon

Bonehead wanted leverage and support to negotiate with. He didn't get it. Over the cliff we go.

Thanks Tea Party, and the rest of you wingers who want to stop government spending and make banks and corporations the new god, and govern America with manipulated capitalism.

You have been saying NO for 4 years and your way or NO way, and its interesting how you react to someone who says it back to you.Thats either hypocracy, or ideology. For sure its not working, and never did. Never will. Everybody knows that but YOU guys.

The only question left is what will you wingers do after we go over the cliff, and the real fun begins?

Dude, you know Republicans tried to work with Obama early on and his response was "I won." A while later he then proceeded to ram Obamacare through. And you wonder why Republicans don't cave to him?

You also know he appointed a bipartisan commission then rejected them out of hand. You know he hasn't gotten a single vote on any of his budgets. And the only reason Harry Reid might put Obama's "balance approach" up for a vote is to watch it go down in flames and blame Republicans.

I can't take you any more seriously than I can the most unserious president in our history.

Armey's Attempted Armed Coup of the Tea Party (http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/15230--armeys-attempted-armed-coup-of-the-tea-party)

The republican civil war, tea party vs the rest of the party, AND the world.

You call the last 4 years working with Obama? That's a joke right?

Sure does put a lie to all the Dem demogogery over the so called 'Bush tax cuts.' Funny thing is that how critical it is to them that they remain (except for the screwing the rich of course ) .Guess the President was blowing a whole lot of smoke when he waxed poetic about the Clintoon rates .

[QUOTE=talaniman;3354555You call the last 4 years working with Obama? Thats a joke right?[/QUOTE]

Um, that's not at all what I said. I said "tried" but you CAN'T work with someone that refuses to budge.

Hello again, Steve:


Dude, you know Republicans tried to work with Obama early on and his response was "I won."I'm SURE you believe that, like you believe the Fast & Furious conspiracy. But, it's just not so.

What's SO, is Mitch McConnell's pledge that Obama BE a one term president... And, he did his BEST to make it that way. Didn't work... They NEVER tried to work with him. That's NEVER - NEVER - NEVER.

Look. You can think of yourselves as the good guys, and you do. But, WE think of ourselves as the good guys too, and guess what?? The COUNTRY agrees with US - NOT you. Did that stop the intransigence?? It did NOT.

Here's where we are... You HATE lefties, and lefties aren't fond of you. Where's that going to get us? Over the cliff and in deep sh1t, that's where it's going to get us!

Excon

You know he hasn't gotten a single vote on any of his budgets.
McConnell called Reid's bluff and asked that the President's plan come up for a vote . Reid still hasn't taken the President's budget off the dusty shelves of the do nothing Senate.

The senate has voted for a fiscal cliff plan, but it's the house who must start legislation and send it to the senate. That's the law, so its up to your boy bonehead to submit something, either counter offer, or some legislation. Plain and simple.

He better get with Nancy and count the votes of the ones with reasonable common sense because I doubt the tea party will go along with letting the rich peoples taxes go up. Financial disaster or NOT.

Rebooting the financial system is NOT something I trust to right wingers who want to destroy the government, and replace it with a rich guy and his corporate buddies. That is what the last election was about wasn't it?

Don't be mad because YOU guys picked the wrong 47%.

I don't hate anyone. I'm not too find of liberal hypocrisy though.

The senate has voted for a fiscal cliff plan, but it's the house who must start legislation and send it to the senate. That's the law, so its up to your boy bonehead to submit something, either counter offer, or some legislation. Plain and simple
BS .The Repubics have passed a budget every year and that is where it died when the Senate refused to take it up . Reid is excrement that needs to be flushed.

BS .The Repubics have passed a budget every year and that is where it died when the Senate refused to take it up . Reid is excrement that needs to be flushed.

Indeed, the Senate refuses to take up House bills (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rebeccaberg/house-republicans-want-senate-democrats-to-move-fi).


House Republican leaders Wednesday reiterated their demands that the Senate take up fiscal cliff legislation as they remain no closer to finding the votes within their conference to pass a bill of their own.

After a 2 p.m. conference call with his leadership team, Speaker John Boehner’s office released a joint statement with other Republican leaders in which House Republicans once again sought to lay the blame for a lack of action on the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"The House has acted on two bills which collectively would avert the entire fiscal cliff if enacted," the statement read. "Those bills await action by the Senate. If the Senate will not approve and send them to the president to be signed into law in their current form, they must be amended and returned to the House."

"Once this has occurred, the House will then consider whether to accept the bills as amended, or to send them back to the Senate with additional amendments," the statement continued. "The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass, but the Senate first must act."

Hello again,

It's like we're describing TWO different worlds.

When I was a kid and learned HISTORY, I was BLOWN away to find out that there was DIFFERENT version of history. But, I said to my young self, how can that be? What HAPPENED, HAPPENED, didn't it??

Now, I SEE how that can be. I don't UNDERSTAND it, and never did, but I see there IS, indeed, an alternate view of the universe.

Do you have special glasses? Or do you REALLY put tin foil on your heads?

excon

House republican blaming everyone but themselves why they can not do their job. Leave it to the right to spin it as the senates fault for rejecting ideological BS!!

That's THEIR job, and they did it.

What part of history are you missing here?

Fact: the House has passed two bills on the fiscal cliff.

Fact: the Senate has not acted on them.

Fact: the Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years.

Fact: Obama's last two budgets went down 196-0.

Prove me wrong.

What part of history are you missing here?

Fact: the House has passed two bills on the fiscal cliff.

Nobody but you guys want to keep the bush tax cuts for the rich while cutting benefits for old and poor people. Thats a fact and thats what the election was about.YOU guys ignore the last election results.

Fact: the Senate has not acted on them.

Because they were BS and goes against the will of the people.

Fact: the Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years.

Not the formal one but they have been paying the bills and have a structure in place for spending. Lack of knowledge about the government process is biting you guys in the butt. The budget numbers are on line and so is the process for operating without a budget.

Fact: Obama's last two budgets went down 196-0.

A procedural tactic built into the congressional rules and a straw man talking point for wingers without a clue.

Prove me wrong.

Don't have to as you haven't understood the nuances of governance from the beginning nor the illogic of your position

YOU guys ignore the last election results.

Yes I recall how willing the Dems were to work with President Bush's agenda in 2005.


Fact: Obama's last two budgets went down 196-0.

A procedural tactic built into the congressional rules and a straw man talking point for wingers without a clue.
What strategy was the purpose for that Senate Dem "procedural tactic" ? I'll tell you since you won't admit it . It was a ploy Reid crafted to make sure no one held the Senate Dems accountable for a vote they took.

Bottom line is that the only way that a plan will be passed is if the Repubics completely surrender to the will of the President . But you guys call that 'compromise' .

Don't have to as you haven't understood the nuances of governance from the beginning nor the illogic of your position

And back to insulting my intelligence.

Quite frankly, you have no idea what my position is. I don't believe I've stated one and quite often tend not to any more because you libs will assign me a position no matter what I say.

Naw you don't get to back right wing people and policies and then distance yourself from them when called. I am not insulting your intelligence at all but do question your political logic. That shouldn't surprise you when you describe my logic as straw arguments.

Nor you ignoring the results of the last election where you lost a few local seats and we won a few national ones. Consensus and compromise won, and doing nothing LOST.

If you guys weren't so scared of being eaten by your own in the next election, we would have a grand deal and a logical path back from the 12 years YOU guys have wasted hollering about what ever you can pronounce, and screwing things up and blaming others.

No I have no faith that the TParty or the rest of the right wing minority can govern fairly, or effectively. Obviously more of my fellow Americans agree with me, than with YOU!

One doesn't have to distance themselves from positions they never took.

It's pretty sad that Republicans are letting a guy named after a Sesame Street puppet treat them like his puppet, how ironic.

How is it that a party that is not in power can put together and pass a budget, seems somewhat strange to me

The Constitution says that all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7 ).The President is supposed to present a budget that the House acts on . The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, requires the President to submit to Congress annually a proposed budget for the federal government.

After the House passed a budget (which they have done every year that the Repubics have been the majority ) then the Senate is supposed to vote on it .(The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provided for the annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget as a mechanism for facilitating congressional budgetary decision making. )
There is where the system has broken down . Reid has not allowed the passed budget to come up for a vote in the Senate. If he did ,then the next step would be a conference committee between the two houses to hash out a bill together.. That compromise bill would then be sent to the President to sign .

I suppose what I am really asking Tom is how can your government continue to function if no budget has been passed?

We too have a system where money bills originate in the House of Representatives and where there is a minority in the Senate differences of opinion are thrashed out, but we also have a system where the government cannot spend money which has not been appropriated. In 1975 supply was refused and the government was forced to an election.

As an example our budget has expanded 20% in the past four years, this would not have been possible under your system

They pass these phony continuous spending resolutions and constantly deal with working around the debt limit that their inaction on the budget creates .

So in fact a budget has been passed, it is just an older version and what is not agreed to are recent changes the Republican Party would force on the government

Hello again, tom:


they pass these phony continuous spending resolutionsThey? THEY?? Who is "they"? Pursuant to your post above, I assume "they" are House Republicans. Or, they're the SENATE which doesn't do squat WITHOUT Republican support...

Excon

Hello again, tom:

They? THEY??? Who is "they"?? Pursuant to your post above, I assume "they" are House Republicans. Or, they're the SENATE which doesn't do squat WITHOUT Republican support...

excon

Reid and his Democrat majority don't even bother to try and do their job.

Hello again, tom:

They? THEY??? Who is "they"?? Pursuant to your post above, I assume "they" are House Republicans. Or, they're the SENATE which doesn't do squat WITHOUT Republican support...

excon

Let me help you out.. "They " would be the House ,the Senate ,and the President... all of whom are charged by the Constitution to make and sign laws regarding the budget.

So in fact a budget has been passed, it is just an older version and what is not agreed to are recent changes the Republican Party would force on the government

No ,not quite . Yes they are working on an older budget . No ;the President and the House do their job . It's the do nothing Senate that skirts responsibility .

Hello again, Steve:


Reid and his Democrat majority don't even bother to try and do their job. We've talked about this lots of times... I don't know WHY you don't hear me. I think we're talking PAST each other... That's what they're doing in DC, so why should WE be different??

You use the word "majority" as though it means that they RUN the show - that they can pass ANYTHING they want. But, of course, that's not true. The Republicans can filibuster, and they DO. In fact, they've filibustered MORE than ANY opposition party EVER has. Don't you think THAT'S worth mentioning??

Now, you talk about their "job", but I'm not sure what you mean.. Oh, I've heard you guys complain that the senate hasn't passed a budget in years... Now, I don't know a lot about how Washington works, but I think tom mentioned something about budgetary stuff being the work of the House. Plus, if passing a budget in the Senate were necessary before they spent money, then as a right winger, I think you'd APPLAUD that fact... That would be obstructionism the Tea Party would LOVE.

But, they ARE spending money.. Apparently, what the Senate does about budgeting isn't integral to the operation of the government.. Given the above, it appears that a Senate budget is nothing more than advisory. And, if THAT'S so, who cares whether they write one or not?

Tell me where I'm wrong. Gimme a civics lesson. Or, are you just going to continue with your right wing talking points?

Excon

Had you read my post you would've had that civil lesson. Yes spending bill have to initiate in the Senate . But the Senate has to also pass a budget for it to go to the President's desk ;who then has to sign it to become the law.
Now ask yourself WHY would the Senate Repubics filibuster a budget passed by the Republic House ? No that isn't what's happened and you know it . Reid shelves the budgets passed by the House so his chamber doesn't need to take ownership of them. Then he symbolically votes on a version that he knows both the Senate Dems and Repubics will reject. He has made a mockery of the process and turned it into a farce..

Hello again, tom:


He has made a mockery of the process and turned it into a farce.. Then replace him with somebody who's more reasonable, like Sharron Angle. Oh, that's right.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

We've talked about this lots of times... I dunno WHY you don't hear me. I think we're talking PAST each other... That's what they're doing in DC, so why should WE be different???

You use the word "majority" as though it means that they RUN the show - that they can pass ANYTHING they want. But, of course, that's not true. The Republicans can filibuster, and they DO. In fact, they've filibustered MORE than ANY opposition party EVER has. Don't you think THAT'S worth mentioning???

Now, you talk about their "job", but I'm not sure what you mean.. Oh, I've heard you guys complain that the senate hasn't passed a budget in years... Now, I don't know a lot about how Washington works, but I think tom mentioned something about budgetary stuff being the work of the House. Plus, if passing a budget in the Senate were necessary before they spent money, then as a right winger, I think you'd APPLAUD that fact... That would be obstructionism the Tea Party would LOVE.

But, they ARE spending money.. Apparently, what the Senate does about budgeting isn't integral to the operation of the government.. Given the above, it appears that a Senate budget is nothing more than advisory. And, if THAT'S so, who cares whether they write one or not??

Tell me where I'm wrong. Gimme a civics lesson. Or, are you just gonna continue with your right wing talking points??

excon

You're not listening. The Senate is REQUIRED BY LAW to pass a budget and has not done so for over 3 years. I know you understand what REQUIRED BY LAW means. Whether Republicans can filibuster or not is irrelevant, Reid is making a mockery of the Senate and ignoring his lawful responsibility.

The Repubics would obviously need a majority to make a change .That won't happen while the beltway boys run the party . But the Dems should realize that even Schmuck Schumer would be a better Majority leader for their party ,and for the country .

Hello again, Steve:


REQUIRED BY LAW Show me. I'm easy.

Excon

You have screwed up your own party, now you want to screw up our party? Come on guys, you righties take care of your own problems which are many before you go looking for other stuff to fix. While you are at it, don't forget 12 years of YOUR bright ideas and stupid actions have us here at this cliff because you refuse what's reasonable and think you can make people forget by blaming others for not doing it YOUR way, and refusing to do it MY way.

LOL, you think just because you send a BS piece of paper to Harry, its supposed to become law? What part of the hell with the Tea Party is it you don't get?

Continuing Resolution Introduced to Keep Government Running, Provide Much-Needed Disaster Funding | Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives (http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=260104)


The CR is a must-pass bill that is necessary to prevent a government shutdown and continue federal operations until all Appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2012 is enacted. Currently, the House Appropriations Committee has moved on 11 of the 12 annual Appropriations bills – with six bills having cleared the House. The CR introduced today continues government operations at a rate of $1.043 trillion – the total amount agreed to by the Congress and the White House in the recent debt-ceiling legislation – and runs until November 18.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers stressed the importance of the bill and urged quick passage by Congress:

“While the House has made remarkable progress on funding bills for the next fiscal year, additional time is needed to complete this essential work. A Continuing Resolution will allow time for Congress to pass annual Appropriations legislation, while maintaining vital government programs and services in the short term.

So we see there are YOUR facts, and there are THE facts. You seem to be stuck on yours. Being stuck for 12 years is an awful long time. That's MY facts.

"No money may be drawn from the treasury but in Cosequence of appropriation by Law"

The US Constitution article 1, section 9, clause 7

Hello tal:

If I understand this right, passing a "budget", or NOT, in the Senate has NOTHING to do with actual government operations...

Then why do right wingers keep repeating it? Did Frank Luntz tell 'em to?

excon

What do you expect from guys who think trickle down economics is the only way to run an economy? If it stops tricking down, then give the guys in charge of the trickle more of the economy. Ain't that crazy??

It was Luntz's idea to call greedy rich guys job creators, when the true job creators are consumers creating DEMAND. That's TRUE capitalism, not this legal stealing the right is talking about. YOU Ex, should know better than listen to the right wing spin. They hate being governed because they want to govern YOU.

They believe the stuff they make up, and call US crazy when WE don't believe it. They screw up and blame US. If they can't accurately count votes, what make you think they can count money? Are you crazy or something?

LOL, you think just because you send a BS piece of paper to Harry, its supposed to become law?

I don't recall anyone saying that so that's just another canard like your "do-nothing Republicans" spiel. The House did their job, Harry Reid's Senate has not, ain't no more complicated than that.

Hello tal:

If I understand this right, passing a "budget", or NOT, in the Senate has NOTHING to do with actual government operations...

So you're against "do-nothing Republicans" but for do-nothing Democrats.

Hello... The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 supported by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Senate to pass a budget . That is just fact. The Senate must move a budget out of the Budget Committee by April 1 of every year and must adopt a budget resolution on the floor by April 15.

The Senate majority can bring a budget to the floor anytime it wishes and pass it with just 51 votes. It cannot be filibustered. how quickly they forget how Obamacare got passed as a budgetary bill..

The house has done a LOUSY job since the Tea party came to town. You are just mad because Harry ain't going along with the house lunacy.

The house has done a LOUSY job since the Tea party came to town. You are just mad because Harry ain't going along with the house lunacy.

Nope, just fed up with this Orwellian world you and the lamestream media are foisting on us.

hello ..... The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 supported by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Senate to pass a budget . That is just fact. The Senate must move a budget out of the Budget Committee by April 1 of every year and must adopt a budget resolution on the floor by April 15.

The Senate majority can bring a budget to the floor anytime it wishes and pass it with just 51 votes. It cannot be filibustered. how quickly they forget how Obamacare got passed as a budgetary bill..

That law has been modified and changed over the years for many reasons

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (1974) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com (http://www.enotes.com/congressional-budget-impoundment-control-act-1974-reference/congressional-budget-impoundment-control-act-1974)

Don't know why this is so hard to understand. Even the Dems in the Senate know their legal obligation. They skate around the issue by claiming that the Budget Control Act is an adequate substitute for a real budget because it "deems" spending caps.

They understand, they just won't admit it.

Well what do you expect the dems to do when you guys act so crazy? The OMB thinks your ideas are crazy too! They have said so. Why don't you guys admit our ideas are workig despite the noise and obstructions from the right?

You guys have CREATED one crisis after another.

You guys have CREATED one crisis after another.

Still insisting on living in 1984, eh?

Still working in that spirit of compromise.

If it makes you happy ,I don't blame the President . He should've stayed in Hawaii . He did his job .He proposed a budget. The House passed a budget . The deadlock is the fault of the do nothing Senate.

Why don't you admit how fond you are of the Bush tax cuts ?

My fondness isn't the problem, it's the rich guys fondness for MO" MONEY on top of what they have that breaks the capitalist business model and chokes circulation of a dollar. These are having global consequences that even rich guys are starting to feel.

Don't worry,wall street will holler soon, louder than you guys do and about a different issue than you are hollering about.

PS, nobody liked the budget you guys proposed, and that's why Romney lost. Like I said you guys say NO, but you can't stand when NO is said to you, like in the last election. If Obama can't have a mandate and he won ,then what logic gives you one? Stop patting yourselves on the back, those were the lousiest budget bills from the house in HISTORY.No amount of spin changes that.

At least they did something as opposed to NOTHING. For over 3 years - NOTHING.

If that's what you want to call your right wing antics. Go ahead.

Hello again:


The deadlock is the fault of the do nothing Senate.That may or may NOT be true... But, the public thinks it's the Republicans fault. And, it's going to cost 'em.

I don't know why this is such a surprise. The polls reveal it. Oh, that's right. Polls that say ANYTHING negative about Republicans are NOT to be believed.

Excon

Hello again:

That may or may NOT be true... But, the public thinks it's the Republicans fault. And, it's gonna cost 'em.

I dunno why this is such a surprise. The polls reveal it. Oh, that's right. Polls that say ANYTHING negative about Republicans are NOT to be believed.

excon

Of course the polls reveal it, there is no adversarial media any longer, but for Fox they're Democrat lapdogs.

Hello again, Steve:

So, the ONLY one who's telling the truth is FOX News, huh?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha... Bwa he he he heeeeee.. Bwa ho hoho ho ho ho...

excon

Fox must offer balanced reporting both sides complain about them

Hello again, clete:

I don't know... It looks like Steve thinks they're a paragon of virtue.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, the ONLY one who's telling the truth is FOX News, huh?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha... Bwa he he he heeeeee.. Bwa ho hoho ho ho ho........

excon

Not at all what I said. Which part of the lamestream media beyond Jake Tapper has actually held Obama and the Dems accountable?

Hello again, Steve:


Which part of the lamestream media beyond Jake Tapper has actually held Obama and the Dems accountable?Glenn Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-liberty) does. He appears on "lamestream media" regularly. Others do too. Maybe if you turned the dial OFF Fox News once in a while, you'd KNOW that.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Glenn Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-liberty) does. He appears on "lamestream media" regularly. Others do too. Maybe if you turned the dial OFF Fox News once in a while, you'd KNOW that.

excon

So you had to go to a British paper to find someone, eh?

Of course you know the vast majority of the sources I cite are anyone but Fox so you can dispense with the straw man.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... You asked about lamestream media, and I showed one amongst many. I read him regularly. He's American and used to write for Salon. Maybe they're paying him more money. I don't know and I don't care.. He WRITES from the same office CRITICIZING the president and the Democrats. Kind of like I do.. You've heard of the interweb, haven't you?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... You asked about lamestream media, and I showed one amongst many. I read him regularly. He's American and used to write for Salon. Maybe they're paying him more money. I dunno and I don't care.. He WRITES from the same office CRITICIZING the president and the Democrats. Kinda like I do.. You've heard of the interweb, haven't you?

excon

And how many average Americans get their news via The Guardian and not ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, HNN, NY Times, etc. I think he and Fox are way outnumbered.

The whole idea of a lamestream media is a straw man argument that the right pushes to decry those they disagree with. Its an excuse not to believe there are other sides of the story. I think conservatives are greatly outnumbered and the farther right the less the numbers.

The whole idea of a lamestream media is a straw man argument that the right pushes to decry those they disagree with. Its an excuse not to believe there are other sides of the story. I think conservatives are greatly outnumbered and the farther right the less the numbers.

Speaking of staw men...

I look at facts and they are on my side.

I think I'm falling

Is there anything that Obama can do without congress if they can't reach a deal? There should be some provision for the president to act alone in an emergency when congress is being totally unreasonable.

Yeah dictators have such power

Surely he has the power to sack the congress

I guess Obama isn't the dictator the right says he is. Why am I not surprised they are wrong again?

He is only a dictator because they couldn't stop him doing something they didn't want him to do, guess what? It is about to happen again, proving that Congress is only as strong as it's weakest link

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Emperor Zero pulls an EO out of his hat. Then the hypocrites on the left that abhor such Executive power grabs will applaud his bold action .

surely he has the power to sack the congress

No, Congress has the power to sack him.

CNN said today that congress is getting a big pay raise when regular people could have their taxes go up, lose unemployment benefits and have their tax refunds delayed, this makes me sick. They said Obama has emergency powers to extend benefits and delay tax hikes, so the markets aren't too worried yet, at least for now.

Hello again, earl:

He does, and you can see from toms response, how the Republicans are going to hate it if he does. I don't know WHY they hate the unemployed so. Oh, yeah... They're part of the 47%.

excon

The raise was courtesy of yet another executive order from the guy who in 2007 thought we'd "paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power." I have no comment on unemployment benefits, you've already made up an opinion for me.

He rescinded his other executive order to freeze pay, and hiring.

He rescinded his other executive order to freeze pay, and hiring.

What part of executive order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/27/executive-order-adjustments-certain-rates-pay) do you not get?

What part of congress has options to recind an executive order do you not get?

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order)


The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

Is it the presidents fault congress has no pratical way of delivering a supermajority vote?

In other words, you're OK with this imperial presidency.

By the way, what do you get for $359,796,008,919.49?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
In other words, you're OK with this imperial presidency.

Not really but better than the last, it's the do nothing congress I have a real problem with, but I have no control over who the righties elect.




By the way, what do you get for $359,796,008,919.49?

I may regret this but... WHAT?

Not really but better than the last, its the do nothing congress I have a real problem with, but I have no control over who the righties elect.





I may regret this but................................WHAT?

Nothing. That's what it will take to service the federal debt this coming year.

Well speech someone gets that money, it might be individual investors, it might be banks, it might even be China, everyone gets a little

Looks like a deal has been reached, but taxes will only go up on people earning more than 450k a year instead of the 250k that democrats wanted. Republicans still managed to protect the super rich. Notice how the markets soared earlier in the day long before the deal was reached, I wonder if there was some insider trading going on.

$450,000 is super rich ? The Repubics caved . The budget cut issue has had the can kicked down the road for 2 months . Now there is no reason for the Dems to negotiate on that issue since the Repubics already surrendered their only leverage. In 2 months time we will reach a new "fiscal cliff" with the combination of sequestration ;and a debt ceiling happening at the same time .And the Dems will be able to dust off their playbook and blame the Repubics for the imminent plunge.

Good job McConnell ! You got out maneuvered by Joe Biden!! Lolololol!!


Edit ; the CBO says the new deal raises taxes by $620 billion and somehow has some budget cuts to the tune of $15 billion baseline spending . That's a 41:1 ratio .Good job McConnell !

Edit ;the 8 no votes are 3 Dems (Bennett, Cardin, Harkin); 5 Republicans (Grassley, Lee, Paul, Rubio, Shelby). The rest of the Repubics are sell outs.

Edit... still waiting on the Dems to praise the "Bush tax cuts " .Since they fought so hard to preserve them for most of the people ,they should at least acknowledge that they were big fans of the cuts all along.

It's OK Tom the people who benefit most are paying more tax, very progressive and they will get to the budget cuts, but in the meantime there will be some pain on both sides of the camp, even though they got something done they have still driven off the cliff.

You can't expect these fellows with half a brain you elect over there to think of more than one thing at a time, all this brain exercise is too much for them after all you can train monkeys to say no

and they will get to the budget cuts,

No they won't ;not even close. They calculate with baseline budgeting which means that even when they claim cuts in spending ;it is actually an increase .

In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue.
Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion

That means that around 19.7 percent of the budget is eaten up by debt interest. The US is not yet bankrupt, But we are getting there. It would be like earning 50k a year before taxes and paying some 15k in credit card interest alone.

Mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion.Mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

Suppose the government spending was frozen to 2012 levels, we are still spending about 108 percent of the current budget based on mandatory spending alone. That's a deficit of 8 percent.
For Fiscal Year 2012 that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.
That's a deficit of close to 12 percent. Unsustainable.
That's BEFORE the discretionary spending is considered .

They could cut the entire Federal Government's discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

And that's just the way things are now! SS and other entitlements are predicted to expand at twice the rate of inflation.

The young people are screwed . We are going to get crushed by either entitlements or debt. Or both.

Hello tom:

Assuming you're correct, it's another reason WHY we should pass Medicare for all, and SAVE the trillions of $$'s we now waste...

Or, in the alternative, I'd be happy to hear what right wingers are going to do with out of control health care costs. You DO realize that THOSE are the expenses that are killing our great nation. It's NOT welfare. It's NOT foodstamps. It's NOT SS. It's NOT Medicare. You COMPLAIN about spending, don't you? Why shouldn't we bring THAT spending in line? Then you can have all the aircraft carriers your right wing mentality desires.

excon

Great math Tom, but of course skewed by capitalistic thinking because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people. While you righties want to save money by cutting benefits your businesses are still making record profits without creating jobs or paying taxes. Sweet deal by any standard.

However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process. Wonder how that will affect buying stuff from rich guys? You know the ones who will still be rich since the $450K cap is for everybody, even gazillionaires?

Further while $450K a year may not be uber rich its still WAY above what the national and regional averages are

The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_7746957_average-annual-salary-america.html)


The average worker in the United States earns an average hourly wage of $20.90, reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2010-2011 occupational handbook. This rings up to an average annual salary of $43,460.

Read more: The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com The Average Annual Salary in America | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/info_7746957_average-annual-salary-america.html#ixzz2GjyYqJeF)

So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people, those rich guys will still be rich, so what's the problem if it goes to getting the economy out of the gutter. So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?

Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.

So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.

Hello tom:

Assuming you're correct, it's another reason WHY we should pass Medicare for all, and SAVE the trillions of $$'s we now waste...

Or, in the alternative, I'd be happy to hear what right wingers are gonna do with out of control health care costs. You DO realize that THOSE are the expenses that are killing our great nation. It's NOT welfare. It's NOT foodstamps. It's NOT SS. It's NOT Medicare. You COMPLAIN about spending, don't you?? Why shouldn't we bring THAT spending in line? Then you can have all the aircraft carriers your right wing mentality desires.

excon

Sorry ,can't go under the assumption that more government control of the economy will improve the situation since I am of the opinion that government intervention is the reason for the health care cost explosion.

I don't agree as there is evidence that health care is a valuable NEED by more and more and the rise of costs for it has been growing for decades while consumers were systematically being ripped off at the worst times for more profit and cost shifted to government and tax payers.

If anyhing there wasn't enough regulation, oversight, and accountability by government. But spoken like a true capitalist who doesn't believe in government in the first place.

Hello again, tom:

So, you don't believe Mitt Romney. Maybe that's why he lost. Of all the lies he told during the election, the ONE truth he spoke, was that Israel spends 5% of GDP LESS on health care than we do, and gets a BETTER result...

I'm just saying we should DO what severely conservative Mitt would have done.

excon

because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people.
Of that I don't dispute . Government is a very poor money manager .Many of the problems could be solved with simple efficiency management . But of course ,it is not in the interest of the various bureaucrats to operate on a tight budget like the rest of the country is forced to do.

So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people
Knew I'd get you libs to admit the Bush tax cuts were a good thing.


However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process. Good . That intentional gutting of the funding for Social Security had to end.
So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?
Unlike you ,I don't speak of fairness . If you were serious about fairness ,you'd see that the only fair tax rate is a flat no deduction system.


Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.
Sorry ;have no idea what you are talking about.

So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.
yawn... socialists see failure everywhere their system is tried and yet still try to impose it here.

Hello again, tom:

So, you don't believe Mitt Romney. Maybe that's why he lost. Of all the lies he told during the election, the ONE truth he spoke, was that Israel spends 5% of GDP LESS on health care than we do, and gets a BETTER result...

I'm just saying we should DO what severely conservative Mitt would have done.

excon

You know very well that Mittens was at best my fall back ,lesser of 2 evils alternative .

Quote:
Because government doesn't have to show profit to take care of its security to its people.

Of that I don't dispute . Government is a very poor money manager .Many of the problems could be solved with simple efficiency management . But of course ,it is not in the interest of the various bureaucrats to operate on a tight budget like the rest of the country is forced to do.

Extractionism, and starving he beast isn't the answer. Nor is hiding real costs like wars, or contractor perks and over runs for projecs. I go with more efficiency though.

Quote:
So while those beloved Bush tax cuts are still needed by most people

Knew I'd get you libs to admit the Bush tax cuts were a good thing.

For most Americans they were but for rich people? NEVER should have happened.


Quote:
However the payroll tax holiday is over too, and the middle working class and below will LOSE a few valuable bucks in this process.

Good . That intentional gutting of the funding for Social Security had to end.

I agree but then raising the cap for taxes for social security would also help even more.

Quote:
So according to you its unfair that benefits and breaks for ordinary folks is paid for by rich folks who didn't even know it was a recession?

Unlike you ,I don't speak of fairness . If you were serious about fairness ,you'd see that the only fair tax rate is a flat no deduction system.

That might be fair for the richer Americans but destroys the buying power of average and below average people in a consumer driven economy. Thats hardly FAIR, but of course what do conservatives care about minimum wage workers who are already on food stamps.

But such a flat tax would make McDonalds an even bigger company and their employees unable toafford a whopper,,,,,,,,,er...........make that a big mac, Sorry.

Quote:
Why shouldn't we tax the "job creators" who didn't create jobs? Only conservatives would be trying to hold the door open for policies that extract more loot from the national economy, while returning nothing. Bet if we tied the tax structure to the true unemployment numbers, we would have more jobs.

Sorry ;have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course you don't because you have a capitalistic profits over people idea of what fairness is.I mean heaven forbid that businesses are actually responsible for creating jobs as well as making money off the backs of workers. Profit without people is robbery and greed.

But I understand why fairness and responsibility is foreign to conservatives.The fix is simple, stop lying and calling rich guys job creators and be honest and be the greedy fat cats we know and...........wait for it..................LOVE!!!!

Would tying taxes for the rich reduce profit? I don't think so.

Quote:
So crunch you numbers and justify to yourself why rich people are more important than poor people. That's making capitalism God, and par for the course for those that put profits before people.

Yawn... socialists see failure everywhere their system is tried and yet still try to impose it here.

And capitalist see fairness as socialism. Let face it, the reason fat cats are running to other countries is to exploit cheap labor, no rules, and a lot of new cutomers they can raise prices on. Admit it, thats why you are a conservative in the first place except when it comes to profits over people then you don't care what they call you.

Nor surprising you have no clue what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE]Of course you don't because you have a capitalistic profits over people idea of what fairness is.I mean heaven forbid that businesses are actually responsible for creating jobs as well as making money off the backs of workers. Profit without people is robbery and greed.

But I understand why fairness and responsibility is foreign to conservatives.The fix is simple, stop lying and calling rich guys job creators and be honest and be the greedy fat cats we know and... wait for it... LOVE!!

Would tying taxes for the rich reduce profit? I don't think so.
[/QUOTE oh wait... I think I get it... you think that taxing the rich more will compel them to create jobs. Lol... not surprising coming from someone who thinks the government is the job creator .

Clintons job creation of 20 million jobs with a 41% tax rate was a good example to emulate. What's yours? Richs guys will make jobs if they want more profits. But you have to have demand or supply is of little use for expansion.

Seems capitalist should know that. Oh that's right, you don't need anyone but yourself to get rich and the more loot you have, the better person you are. Certainly better than those lazy slobs who pay NO taxes, and are jealous of your own fortune.

Heard a great idea. The House should amend the bill the Senate passed last night while the rest of the country was distracted concluding their celebration of the New Year. The House should pass the bill with a single amendment to eliminate the tax increase that Obamacare forces on the nation with it's medical device tax. Then it would go to a conference committee . Dare the Senate to reject the provision and the President to veto it because it eliminates an unnecessary tax on pacemakers and insulin pumps.
Since y'all defend Obamacare... defend that tax increase .

Clintons job creation of 20million jobs with a 41% tax rate was a good example to emulate. Whats yours?
Oh so now you tout the dot com boom and bust as your best example ? Then why don't you say that all the Bush tax rates should be repealed like President Zero said in the campaign ? Why don't you praise the budget cuts that Clintoon negotiated with Gingrich and the welfare reform ?

The House should pass the bill with a single amendment to eliminate the tax increase that Obamacare forces on the nation with it's medical device tax. Then it would go to a conference committee ..

Surely Tom the time for brinkmanship is over, tweeking whatever has been agreed to just because it wasn't invented here is nonsense, there is a job to be done and it was too hard so they do a little bit and then a new Congress gets to wrestle with the big issues, how to cut expenditure and deal with the debt limit. It's time for responsibility not buck passing

It is good to note that sanity has prevailed and the opposing political views have learned to comprise in the interests of their nation and the world generally. It is hoped the coming months might see a similar spirit of bipartanism to resolve deadlocks and bring economic equilibrim closer

Compromise my a$$ .The Repubics caved .

Yes and it is remarkable how little you have to say. It is interesting that when your system is turned on its head it is possible to get something done. A new era has dawned

Clearly weenie whiny Republic leaders have to stand down and step aside to new leadership.

Like that will happen

The lie of the year, already.

" As I've demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise." -Barack Obama

I guess all the legislation from now on has to start in the senate and go to the house to be approved which is backwards but the only way to govern against the backward leaning house republicans.

Hope the next batch has more sense.

I guess all the legislation from now on has to start in the senate and go to the house to be approved which is backwards but the only way to govern against the backward leaning house republicans.

Hope the next batch has more sense.

Lol ,the obstructionist Harry Reid had to be evicted from his own chamber so the VEEP and the Minority leader could dictate a deal ;a deal that did nothing but kick the can down the road 2 months .

That would be Reid the obstructionist who refuses to take up House legislation that has been passed.

Good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-pork-asparagus-nascar-rum)

Or NASCAR??

Ridiculous isn't it ? Not one law maker that voted for or against the bill read it . Not one !

good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff .... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-pork-asparagus-nascar-rum)

Nothing new there Tom just kicking the can down the road but why are you complaining that your corportate friends get a handout

Because I'm consistent and have always complained about pork spending .

Tom there is a price for everything, you know that and republican pork is just as much a reality as democratic pork. I'm amazed that there was so much ruckus about so little result. This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?

Again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.


This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?
They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows... entitlements .

Tom I agree with you about appropriations, this is why such measures are not allowed here, however, aren't you complaining about continuation of existing programs, and not new programs? Undoubtedly these measures were tacked on to something in the past and so you have past congresses to thank for them and a Congress now past for continuing them. You should root out the real culprits and determine who enacted these measures in the first place

I don't know the origin nor do I care. New spending ;old spending ;it's bad spending and a waste of taxpayer's money. Today there is faux outrage over the fact that the House did not pass a so called 'Sandy relief bill'... that is dripping with so much unnecessary wasteful pork that I doubt that any of the money will ever reach the people here who need it .

again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.


They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows ...entitlements .

Or the bloated defense budget.

Or the bloated defense budget.

Indeed you could halve military expenditure and still have the most effective military in the world, but you won't do it because of the economic impact

How about some Democrap sacred cows ?

Like the cut and paste of a Senate bill crafted in August (The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012) into the fiscal cliff bill that gave massive subsidies ;not only to the ones cited above , but also gave special interest tax credits to GE,Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup . You think GE needed any more taxpayer subsidies ? You think "banks too big to fail " need subsidies ?
Now get this.. the bill sat on the shelf after the Dem Senate passed it in August ;and that's where it would've stayed except that the President insisted that the bill be added into the fiscal cliff bill. Yeah that's right ;the same man who demagogued against corporate greed during the campaign .This came after the President demanded that a whole slew of temporary corporate tax credits be made permanent . The Repubics refused to sign on to that ,but did allow the bill from August to get into the bill as a rider.So Title II of the fiscal cliff legislation is a word for word replication of the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012.

Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one...

CBO | Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43565)

Letter on the "Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012" | U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2012/letter-family-and-business-tax-cut-certainty-act-2012)

http://www.adp.com/pdf/FINAL-SFC-Extenders-Markup1.pdf

I doubt you read the whole thing or even see that repubs even supported it.

Hello again,


Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one... Chirp, chirp...

Look. I don't know WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I would have cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

Excon

Hello again,

Let me ask you this.. What if the Republicans said they wouldn't raise the debt ceiling unless they got what they wanted, and the Democrats said, proceed?

Who'd be blamed?

excon

Hello again,

Chirp, chirp...

Look. I dunno WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I woulda cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

excon

And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.

Hello again, Steve:


And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.Uhhh, I don't know that.

What I DO know, is that you wingers TALK about fiscal responsibility, but when you get the checkbook, you SPEND, and SPEND, and SPEND, and then SPEND some more...

So, if Romney had won, he would have spent money we don't have on wars and more tax cuts for the rich, so, I'd RATHER have a guy who's going to spend money on the health of his people...

My math may not add up, but my MEMORY does. Now, if it was ME, I'd make cuts.

Excon

PS> Are you going to answer about you guys refusing to raise the debt ceiling?

I'd refuse to add to the debt ceiling ;I'd let the government shut down. The President had his chance to negotiate in good faith and failed . The only Dem in leadership who can get anything done evidently is Joe Biden. So yes; the President has proven beyond a doubt that he has no interest in budget cutting . So I'd force the issue.

Hello again, tom:


So I'd force the issue.

I understand you would. My question is, who's going to get blamed?

Excon

Given the power of the compliant press ;I'm sure the Repubics just like they were blamed for the last crisis over the debt ceiling... just like they are being blamed for the delay in the Sandy bill that was also loaded with pork in the Senate by the Dems .
I'm not an elected official so I don't really care . I'm just hoping that the whimp Speaker Bonehead gets ousted today from his Speakership .

And by the way, our taxes just went up (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-payroll-taxes-rise-under-fiscal-cliff-20130102,0,4431063.story).

Can't be... we were told only the 2% would see tax increases.

And “2013 will be the first year there's not stimulus-related targeted tax relief for individuals,” he said.

What's the problem you said Obama's stimulus didn't work any way? You mean you want them back?

Me ? I'm happy this defunding of Social Security by the Dems is ending .

Whats the problem you said Obama's stimulus didn't work any way? You mean you want them back?

Why would I want to give the feds more of my money to waste? But hey, at least you can feel good about making the rich pay their "fair share" even though this disproportionately affects the poor and the middle class.

Okay speech what's the alternative, all those on welfare, social security, unemployment suddenly have no money, that will make a wonderful bounce for the economy, or perhaps you prefer the military and the civil servants don't get paid, or the government defaults on its contracts, no I get it, they just won't pay the bond holders their interest. You could, of course, shut down all those Congress boondoggles, or shutdown local government or state government, it's so wasteful having all that duplication. Hows's that for disproportionately affecting the poor

okay speech what's the alternative, all those on welfare, social security, unemployment suddenly have no money, that will make a wonderful bounce for the economy, or perhaps you prefer the military and the civil servants don't get paid, or the government defaults on its contracts, no I get it, they just won't pay the bond holders their interest. You could, of course, shut down all those Congress boondoggles, or shutdown local government or state government, it's so wasteful having all that duplication. Hows's that for disproportionately affecting the poor

How does $150 million for fisheries in Alaska help someone who lost their home to hurricane Sandy?