By @LOLGOP

5 Reasons The Republicans Are Getting Clobbered On The ‘Fiscal Cliff’

December 11, 2012 4:37 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 188 Comments A+ / A-

The polls are pretty much unanimous. When it comes to the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the public supports the president by margins even larger than those by which he won re-election in November.

Beginning in 2013, the automatic ending of the Bush tax cuts and automatic spending cuts would most likely send the economy into a recession. The president has made a proposal calling for what he calls a “balanced approach” of spending cuts with the ending of tax breaks for the rich, while the GOP’s counteroffer demanded larger cuts and much less in revenues.

Here are five reasons the Republicans have little to no leverage on the “fiscal cliff” other than a threat that the president will begin his second term cleaning up another Republican-sparked economic crisis.

Pages →  1 2 3 4 5 6

5 Reasons The Republicans Are Getting Clobbered On The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Reviewed by on . The polls are pretty much unanimous. When it comes to the so-called "fiscal cliff," the public supports the president by margins even larger than those by which The polls are pretty much unanimous. When it comes to the so-called "fiscal cliff," the public supports the president by margins even larger than those by which Rating:

More by @LOLGOP

Barack Obama, Joe Biden

5 Elections Obamacare May Help Democrats Win

Want to reduce the number of uninsured people in your state three times faster? Here’s a crazy idea: Stop sabotaging Obamacare! A new poll from Gallup finds that states that built their own insurance exchanges and expanded Medicaid reduced their uninsured population by 2.5 percent, compared to .8 percent in states that did not, despite

Read more...

colbert

LOL Of The Week: Middle-Class Conservatives Don’t Get That The Joke Is On Them

Conservative pundits exploded on Thursday when CBS announced that Stephen Colbert would be replacing David Letterman as the host of The Late Show. And they weren’t just mad because a highly paid and powerful position didn’t go to a member of the Bush family. “Low-Rated Hyper-Partisan Lefty to Replace David Letterman,” screamed a headline from

Read more...

Paul Ryan

5 Ways Paul Ryan’s Budget Screws Seniors

Republicans marched to their biggest landslide victory since before the Great Depression in 2010, buoyed by a terrible economy and the withering attack that Democrats had cut Medicare to fund Obamacare. Democrats saw their 4-point advantage with voters over 65 in 2008 turned into a 6 percent disadvantage in 2010. In 2012 Democrats won 2

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/Pen_Bird Phlip

    Question for anyone who didn’t support Obama in November but does support his fiscal plan now: What exactly did you expect Romney to do? Tax his friends & backers?

    • montanabill

      And exactly what do you expect new taxes to accomplish?

      • amazonfan

        It would help raise revenue, for one thing.

        • montanabill

          How much per year?

          How much will it reduce the annual deficit? Is that significant?

          How long will it take those increased revenues to pay off the national debt?

          • idamag

            Montana, those figures have been put out there, look them up. As a real American and a member of the middle class, I will be willing to pay more taxes. It is my country and I love it.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yes, but remember that Bill is a greedy old Scrooge, whose sphincter goes into spasms whenever it’s time to pay the bills. Sucking up public benefits all his life, he is allergic to paying his share. America be damned, Bill just wants another few shiny pennies to roll around in.

          • patuxant

            Yeah, and claim he is a capitalist! BS!

          • montanabill

            Not to worry, idamag, you will be. It may not be income taxes, but you will be paying more taxes.

            And like all others before you, you ducked the questions. Of course the answers are out there. I have offered to post them for people who can find them and do the math. I just think a little self discovery tends to get better results.

          • WhutHeSaid

            You couldn’t discover your own ass with two hands and a flashlight.

            Just stop your whoppers and admit that your argument is just a bag of hot gas. ANY increase in revenue is better than NO increase in revenue, just like ANY decrease in spending is better than NO decrease in spending. Add to that the fact that you are lying about the numbers, and we can see that you are just another greedy, tax-slurping deadbeat who wants a free ride. Well, you won’t get it.

            Got it?

          • montanabill

            I get so confused. I just gave the numbers which I believe, according to Obama would now include my ‘fair share’, even though my ‘share’ has been a lion’s share for quite some time. Far more than my share of the income. Are you redefining ‘fair share’ again?

            I fail to understand the cutting expenditures argument. What expenditures are we cutting?

            If you think I’m lying about the numbers, you had better check with the President.

          • WhutHeSaid

            For starters, ending two ‘hot’ wars that were unfunded ($808 billion for Iraq, $570 billion for Afghanistan) is a pretty decrease in expenditures. Of course we don’t know exactly what these wars would cost over the NEXT 10 years, but suffice it to say that it would buy a lot of donuts — even in your unhappy donut shop.

            So let’s see: $1.028 trillion that Obama ALREADY cut via the 2011 Budget Control Act. I know you’d probably like to argue with the numbers, but it IS step in the right direction.n Next the proposed cuts of about $680 billion along with interest savings on the whole deal.

            Now, I know that you pooh-pooh the revenue generated by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top income brackets, but that’s about $850 billion over 10 years. Another $100 billion+ could be saved over the same period by restoring estate and gift taxes and closing other miscellaneous loopholes.

            Does this alone solve our fiscal worries? No, of course it doesn’t — and that’s just a testament to what a mess the GOP ‘fiscal conservatives’ have put this country into. We don’t need more of the same ‘fiscal conservatism’ that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades from Republicans.

            Another important point is that the economy isn’t strong enough yet to take more drastic measure on either the revenue or expenditure side. Economists know that we need to be growing at a much healthier clip before doing something like, say. letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire.

            So you don’t like higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans? Tough noogies — they’ve made out like bandits for long enough. The only reason that you can claim an increase in the tax burden of the upper 2% is because of the ASTRONOMICAL increase in wealth distribution over the last few decades to a level not seen since the 1920′s.

            So the jig is up in this respect: Nobody is falling for the ‘hallowed job creators’ argument. The wealthy do NOT create jobs at the same rate that their wealth grows, and we’ve seen that perfectly demonstrated by the Bush Tax Cuts. If the ‘wealthy-need-tax-cuts-to-create-jobs’ argument was true, we would be swimming in jobs today — but we aren’t. Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the upper 2% is one of the least economically detrimental ways to increase revenue that we need to start addressing our deficits and debt. It’s not that much, you say? Fine, then perhaps you should argue a tax increase BEYOND letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. The Lord knows that the wealthy are paying the lowest rates in a LONG time.

          • neece00

            You are my hero, very well said…

          • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

            I Hope He Know He’s Talking To A Troll!! They Are Only Here To Act A Fool I Doubt Any Of Them Own Nothing They Might Know Some One Who May Own Something But Believe Me None Of These Trolls Own Anything!! And I Doubt Any Of Them Have A Job Cause Clearly You Can See They Have No Lives!!!

          • montanabill

            The cost of the two wars was funded by borrowed money from China and just about equal to one year of Obama’s overspending. Not spending on Iraq has not reduced current spending at all.

            You need to read the 2011 Budget Control Act. It hasn’t cut a single cent yet, although it is supposed to cut a whopping $21 billion from FY2012. (Some green energy company won’t get a loan) As usual, the President made sure his fingerprints would not be on a single specific cut so that he couldn’t be blamed if someone gets unhappy about their ox getting gored. When the sequestration occurs, if it occurs, it will rapidly be undone, unless the President is willing to live with a misery index that makes Carter look good. But maybe that is what he wants, more and more decline and dependency.

            When the President finally, if ever, proposes specific cuts to specific items, let me know.

            Do you have any idea why the wealthiest Americans have ‘made out like bandits’? You obviously believe the propaganda and don’t know anything about how the economy works, what events have propelled people to such a wealth differential, or even know what the results of high taxes on the rich mean in terms of new revenue or deficit reduction. The taxes will have absolutely no impact on the middle class or low income earners, except to put more of them out of work.

            We are not ‘swimming in jobs’ because of Obama. You can’t threaten and demonize the very people who can create those jobs and expect they will invest in uncertainty.

            You claim the wealthy have been paying the lowest rates for a long time, but then why has the percentage of the total taxes that they pay increased to well over historic levels?

            And finally, I go back to my standard set of questions regarding tax increases on the rich.
            1) How much new revenue per year will they bring in?
            (You can use Obama’s extremely optimistic projections)
            2) Will they eliminate or significantly reduce the annual deficits?
            (Subtract those annual revenues from the projected annual deficits)
            3) How long will it take those increased revenues to pay off the national debt?

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’m going to put an end to your bullshit story right now:

            President Obama holds the record for the LOWEST annualized growth in federal spending in the last 30 years. That’s right LOWER than the growth under Reagan (8.7% 1st term, 4.9% 2nd term), LOWER than Bush I (5.4%), LOWER than Clinton (3.2% 1st term, 3.9% 2nd term, and LOWER than Bush II (7.3% 1st term, 8.1% 2nd term).

            I’m sure you’d like to falsely accuse Obama for the 2009 budget, however, that was put in place by none other than G.W. Bush — and it was in effect starting October 2008 — 4 months before Obama’s inauguration (that’s the start of the federal fiscal year).

            Here are the CORRECT growth rates for the budgets that Obama was actually responsible for thus far:

            2010: -1.8%
            2011: +4.3%
            2012: +0.7%

            If you include projections for fiscal year 2013, Obama’s 1st term annualized spending growth rate would be around 0.4%.

            Not only is Obama’s federal spending growth LOWER than any of the Republican Presidents in the last 30 years, but BOTH Democrat Presidents had a LOWER annualized spending growth rate than ALL of the Republican Presidents. Reagan was the king of annualized federal spending growth at 8.7% in his 1st term (remember Star Wars or SDI?), with Bush a close runner-up at 8.1% in his 2nd term (the same term where he nearly hurled the country into another Great Depression).

            So why is it that people like you lie about Obama’s spending until your tongue nearly bursts into flame?

            “We are not ‘swimming in jobs’ because of Obama” – Who do you think you’re fooling? EVERYBODY knows that the massive loss of jobs began during the Bush administration. Trying to blame that economic disaster on Obama is not just a lie — it’s a stupid lie (because everyone knows better).

            The wealthiest 2% have seen ENORMOUS wealth gains over the last few decades because they have had the biggest breaks and economic advantages. If you increase your income by 100%, you can’t plead poverty by citing a 5% tax increase. But that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. The tax burden went up slightly on the top 2% ONLY because their share of the wealth increased by HISTORICAL proportions. As I said before, it’s the biggest disparity since the 1920′s.

            So just stop lying. Assuming your home state is Montana (given your moniker), even your state sucks up an oversized share of federal aid while simultaneously being chock-full of liars who blame liberals for ‘handouts’ — all the while slurping up tax dollars from the ‘liberal’ (or so-called blue) states.

            It’s time for you to come up with a different story. Why don’t you just come clean, admit that you’re a greedy deadbeat, and be done with it?

          • idamag

            Montana, btw, there are still Americans in Iraq and afghanistan. Haliburton (Cheney was CEO of Haliburton) and their subsidiaries cheated the US out of a ton of money.

          • montanabill

            Cheney was a ‘former’ CEO of Haliburton. I’m sure if you can prove Haliburton cheated the U.S., you would be entitled to recovery share. If not, you are a rumor monger. I suspect they might have, but I can’t prove it so I can’t accuse them.
            Did any of the ‘green energy’ deals bother you?

          • ObozoMustGo

            Ida… there is nothing that prevents you from paying as much in taxes as you want. Here is the link [replace (dot) with a period]:

            https(colon)//www(dot)pay(dot)gov/paygov/forms/formInstance(dot)html?agencyFormId=23779454

            Why don’t all of you leftist freaks agree to pay a lot more and leave the rest of us alone to save and invest our own earnings?

            Merry Christmas!

            “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” – Ronald Reagan

          • WhutHeSaid

            The ‘leftist freaks’ have been paying more taxes than you right-wing, knuckle-dragging bigots for years. Everyone knows the ‘red’ states slurp up a disproportionate share of federal assistance.

            Why don’t you people learn to walk upright already?

            Oh yes, keep quoting the ‘Champion of Runaway Federal Spending’ (Reagan) to make your points. You need to add Reagan’s 11 tax increases and strong support for gun control to your quotes.

          • patuxant

            Stop repeating your posts. I say you guys need to pay retro for the last 10 plus years!

          • montanabill

            You want to go back to the Clinton era. I’m willing, just so long as the budget also returns to Clinton era spending.

          • patuxant

            Excuse me? Who was handed a surplus in 2001 and who left office with a huge huge deficit? Please be objective. And have you ever read the works of Galambos or Jay Snelson or anyone of the true capitalists? I truly doubt it.

          • montanabill

            These kinds of questions always remind me of trying to excuse bad behavior by pointing the somebody else’s behavior, but so be it.

            You do remember 9/11. That hit the economy pretty hard, as history will bear out. Then Bush got the tax cuts passed and the following year saw a record revenue for the government and the economy had recovered to pre-9/11 levels. At that point things went south. Bush went after the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan. It was also feared that Hussein was giving aid and comfort while trying to create WMD’s. He would not let nuclear inspectors do their job and he had used poison gas on the Kurds. His actions had bi-partisan approval. Democrats took control of the Congress. Bush took the military actions off the books, which should not have happened. Democrats approved these actions and upped the push for ‘affordable housing’ and sub-prime loans and thwarted efforts to stop this madness before the bubble exploded. Explode it did. Boom. Big deficit. But not nearly as big as it was going to get in the next four years.

          • patuxant

            Why do you have all manner of excuses for Bush but none for this current President?

          • montanabill

            I wouldn’t classify my synopsis as excusing Bush. It was as it was. Obama had two years of absolute control and he used it pushing through a stimulus that was miss directed, more bail-outs for the financial industry, law violating auto industry bail-outs, and an healthcare bill that we as a country will pay dearly for. No budgets have been passed for three years. Our annual deficits nearly equal Clinton’s entire annual budget. He excels at making speeches, so that has been the hallmark of his Presidency. Very few press conferences and almost no questions at the few held. He has significantly extended and expanded entitlement programs, which do little more than enslave people.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Obama has the smallest federal spending growth rate of all Presidents in the last 30 years.In fact, BOTH Democratic Presidents (Clinton & Obama) have lower spending growth during their administrations than ALL of the Republican Presidents.

            You can stop lying now.

          • idamag

            Montana, the first day of the first session the house sets the voting rules. And they set the rules for 60 votes to pass anything and then they misused the filibuster where one man can hold up the entire congress. Obama never had the backing you like to claim he had.

          • montanabill

            It was never tested.

      • jarheadgene

        Start paying down our national debt….WHOSE STUPID IDEA was it to go to war for non-existant WMD’s and do that on a CREDIT CARD. BRILLIANT—- for the first time in the history of the United States we went to war without raising taxes; rather, GW gave sweeping tax cuts to what he called “his base” And who kept voting for more KBR/Halliburton expenditures(disguised as MILITARY), for the same war? Why let me see…..who was the budget comittee chair ……hmmmm. let me think……..thinking….thinking……
        OH YEAH…..wasn’t it that GW Rubber Stamp Man, AKA PAUL RYAN ??????? What a F***ing COINCIDENCE !!!!
        Sorry, RYAN…..You and ROMNEY should have known….”BLAMING IT ON THE BLACK GUY !” Only works in RED States….you know the only States YOU won. Those states are becoming fewer and fewer. Every Democrat will freely admit……YOU BUILT your unpopularity.

        • montanabill

          How much will the higher taxes bring per year?

          How much more, if any, will we be spending per year after receiving those taxes?

          How much will be applied to actually paying down the debt?

          • jarheadgene

            Any amount is “Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!” As for where it will go….? I know where it WON’T go…IRAQ !

          • montanabill

            Can’t do the math or don’t want to face up to reality?

          • MrFreeman122

            montanabill, so you think it all added up when we got tax cuts and increased military spending for two wars basically on credit.

          • montanabill

            Of course not. We have added $6 trillion to the debt in the last 4 years. How much was because of tax cuts? How much did the wars cost those 4 years?

          • WhutHeSaid

            And how much did the unfunded Prescription Drug Program cost?

            The national deficit AND debt would not have increased so fast without Republican mismanagement. GW Bush is your deficit/debt hero — not only increasing federal spending by 17% during his tenure but tanking the economy as well. This 1, 2 punch is the primary cause of the recent spike in both deficits AND debt. If Bush hadn’t started 2 unfunded wars and wrecked the economy, then tax revenue would be much higher and deficits much lower.

            Republican Presidents are the undisputed kings of runaway federal spending, and the increases that Obama’s policies are actually responsible for are less than any Republican President in the last 30 years.

          • montanabill

            Sorry to bust your bubble, but the Prescription Drug Program was simply one of a long line of government’s ‘lower healthcare costs’ fiascos. Every single time government has passed any legislation to ‘lower healthcare costs’, it has resulted in even higher costs. The latest, Affordable Healthcare Act, will, I believe, be the most costly.

            I suppose we will disagree forever on who wrecked the economy. Sure looks to me like it was a busted housing bubble courtesy of government once again trying help people and not being smart enough to understand the consequences of sub-prime mortgages for people who couldn’t afford them. The last man who had his foot on the accelerator was Barney Frank.

          • WhutHeSaid

            So what you’re trying to say is that Barney Frank wrecked the US economy, and the $2.5+ trillion cost of unfunded wars and $955 billion in tax cut revenue losses actually HELPED our economy, correct? Have you been eating magic beans again? The reason I ask is because you seem to be arguing out your ass again, and the arguments stink.

          • montanabill

            Debt is one thing, a wrecked economy is another. Yes, Barney Frank was the last man with his fingerprints on the housing bust.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I’ll bet Barney Frank will be impressed to learn how he single-handedly caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. He probably thought it had something to do with risky and predatory lending practices, but now you have taught us it’s not the lenders’ fault — bless their innocent little hearts. And the Iraq and Afghanistan wars actually REDUCED the debt, yes?

            If you are trying to sell us that steaming load of crap I wouldn’t entrust you with running a lemonade stand — so I guess you’d better keep your dusty old CV (resume).

          • montanabill

            The wars added to our debt. The Democrats with Bush created additional spending that wasted the new revenues created by the tax cuts. Barney Frank didn’t start the affordable housing fiasco, but he was the person most responsible for blocking efforts to head off impending disaster.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Montana, Montana…. how many times have I told you that these leftist freaks in here don’t like Obozo’s record shoved in their faces?

            Merry Christmas, my friend!

            “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

          • WhutHeSaid

            Let me shove it in yours: Obama holds the record for the LOWEST increase in federal spending over the last 30 years. ALL Republicans since Reagan raised federal spending at a higher rate than ALL Democrats.

            Reagan was the absolute champion of runaway federal spending, raised taxes 11 times, and strongly supported gun control.

          • ObozoMustGo

            what…. I see you’ve been hitting the crack pipe yet again. Shame. Obozo has had the biggest deficits in the history of the world 4 years running. Obozo has added $6TRILLION to the national debt. Any moron that can read numbers and did not smoke crack knows this.

            Merry Christmas and have a nice high!

            “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the DemonRATS believe every day is April 15.” – Ronald Reagan

          • WhutHeSaid

            No matter how much you want to spout lies, President Obama holds the record for the LOWEST annualized growth in federal spending in the last 30 years. That’s right LOWER than the growth under Reagan (8.7% 1st term, 4.9% 2nd term), LOWER than Bush I (5.4%), LOWER than Clinton (3.2% 1st term, 3.9% 2nd term), and LOWER than Bush II (7.3% 1st term, 8.1% 2nd term).

            I’m sure you’d like to falsely accuse Obama for the 2009 budget, however, that was put in place by none other than G.W. Bush — and it was in effect starting October 2008 — 4 months before Obama’s inauguration (that’s the start of the federal fiscal year).

            Here are the CORRECT growth rates for the budgets that Obama was actually responsible for thus far:

            2010: -1.8%
            2011: +4.3%
            2012: +0.7%

            If you include projections for fiscal year 2013, Obama’s 1st term annualized spending growth rate would be around 0.4%.

            Not only is Obama’s federal spending growth LOWER than any of the Republican Presidents in the last 30 years, but BOTH Democrat Presidents had a LOWER annualized spending growth rate than ALL of the Republican Presidents. Reagan was the king of annualized federal spending growth at 8.7% in his 1st term (remember Star Wars or SDI?), with Bush a close runner-up at 8.1% in his 2nd term (the same term where he nearly hurled the country into another Great Depression).

            Let’s also remind you that the undisputed king of runaway federal spending — Ronald Reagan — also raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES and strongly supported gun control (The Brady Bill).

            Now then — don’t you feel like a foolish bigot?

          • ObozoMustGo

            what… maybe you’re not smoking crack? Most likely shooting heroine. Lets look at how this roles:

            1) Obozo comes into office, national debt about $10.3 TRILLION.

            2) Obozo voted for the 08-09 budget AND voted for TARP

            3) Obozo’s first act was to pass so-called “stimulus package” of neary $1TRILLION

            4) Obozo, with control of Congress for 2 years, passes a grand totla of ZERO budgets.

            5) Obozo baselined into annual spending his “stimulus” amount

            6) Obozo finishes 4 years, national debt at $16+TRILLION

            Now, by normal people math, that’s an increase of about $6TRILLION in debt, or about 60% growth in spending.

            And all of Obozo’s spending has been done with nearly ZERO economic growth. As opposed to Reagan who grew the economy on average over 5% per year and with tax cuts exploded revenue into the federal coffers, which Tip O’Neill was more than happy to spend. By the way, old Tip bald-faced lied to Reagan when he got him to agree to some minor tax hikes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. Reagan’s biggest mistake was believing old Tip.

            Just because you think everyone is a stupid as you to believe that because Obozo starts his term with a first year deficit at over $1.5 TRILLION and then keeps is stable, that this is somehow responsible is not only laughable, but downright sad. How can you be that stupid? Really, dude. I’d say you were as dumb as a rock, but I’d be insulting rocks.

            Merry Christmas!

            “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” — Milton Friedman

          • WhutHeSaid

            If I were you I’d demand a refund on your tuition. Not only are you a liar, but the lies are really stupid since this is all readily available public information.

            Here is the actual rundown on Bush vs. Obama:

            Bush (2001-2009):
            +$1.81 trillion (Bush tax cuts)
            +$853 billion (Iraq & Afghanistan)
            +$616 billion (Other defense)
            +$608 billion (Non-defense discretionary)
            +$480 billion (Other tax)
            +$293 billion (Other entitlement)
            +$224 billion (TARP & HERA)
            +$180 billion (Prescription Drug/MMA)
            ____________________________
            +$5.064 trillion (Total Bush)

            Obama (2009-2013):
            +$874 billion (ARRA)
            +$620 billion (Tax cut extension)
            +$324 billion (Other mandatory expenditures)
            +$113 billion (Other revenue)
            -$503 billion (Automatic spending cuts)
            -$271 billion (Defense)
            -$123 billion (Health care)
            -$51 billion (Non-defense discretionary)
            ____________________________
            +$932 billion (Total Obama)

            Or, if you prefer, here is a breakdown published in Forbes for yearly spending growth rates since Reagan:

            +8.7% – Reagan 82-85
            +4.9% – Reagan 86-89
            +5.4% – Bush I 90-93
            +3.2% – Clinton 94-97
            +3.9% – Clinton 98-01
            +7.3% – Bush II 02-05
            +8.1% – Bush II 06-09
            +1.4% – Obama 10-13

            The Republicans were the clear winners in runaway spending growth. ALL of the Democrats had lower spending increases than ALL of the Republicans.

            All you have to offer is lies. That’s become the only Republican strategy, since they have no accomplishments to offer. Even foreign policy, which used to be a Republican strong suit, is now eclipsed by Obama’s record. The GOP is a BIG FAT ZERO on the recent accomplishments scale. If you count the despicable, obstructionist, lying, ignorant and racist Tea Baggers it’s LESS THAN ZERO.

          • ObozoMustGo

            what… now I am certain you are shooting heroine. It’s simple math. On Obozo’s watch he took the national debt from $10TRILLION to $16TRILLION. That’s an increase of $6TRILLION in real people math. Heroine addict math may be different, but it’s not real. It’s heroine addict math.

            Have a nice high, and remain oblivious, you fool!

            Merry Christmas!

            “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

          • WhutHeSaid

            You really shouldn’t try to debate anyone while you are going through the DT’s — you aren’t making much sense. I suppose that’s what happens when you catch your sister cheating on you, so I’ll allow you some time to work on it.

            After you dry out a bit, try to figure out how much 6 trillion less 5.1 trillion (Bush’s spending spree) works out to be (hint: It’s less than 6 trillion). Even a bigoted old alcoholic redneck should be able to perform simple subtraction, after all, you do have your fingers and toes to work with.

            Take your time, make up with sis (she can’t help it), and try to enjoy a dry holiday for once. When you master the basic arithmetic involved we can wok on teaching you fractions and percentages.

            “If I got smart with you, how would you know?” – WhutHeSaid

          • jarheadgene

            REALITY? REALLY….I can do the math. Just which Republican version of hocus pocus, voodoo economic math do want me to apply. SO, here is your chance to defend yourself against the responses I’ve seen today against you, as a business owner. When you had your
            business, or still have, do/did you pay your employees a decent wage that they could support a family on? Because here is the REALITY of those you seem to want to be like, worship, vote for, side with. They, use many examples, Walmart, for starters, and just about any other fortune 500 company in America operate on simple rules. Pay the people, who do most of the work, and that there are the most of, the LEAST, or as they say, “Whatever the market can bear” (loosely translated means keep them on min. wage and poor) [in "true capitalist" fashion] to help undermine and keep control as they fight like dogs for the scraps off the table. And pay your executive level EXPONENTIALLY higher wages, way more than they are possibly worth. Not because they work harder, but because they are the ELITE they have chosen. And no matter how much those little worker bees produce…..DO NOT share the HONEY with THEM. Or else they may gain some financial power and bite you. The bigger the company the uglier and more evil the game. Blame all your woes and issues on those beligerent 47% freeloaders, while they, themselves, (CORPORATIONS) seek every gov’t assistance, created just for them, by them. And pay others to convince those lowly little worker bees to vote against their own best interest.
            As for what I am hearing …. TAX the rich more and JOBs will disappear…….WHAT A BUNCH of BULL SH*T !!!! Those “job creators” have had ALL advantages for 12 years now and where has it gotten us….Well let’s see….those job creators have way bigger Cayman Island and Swiss accounts. And the Chinese continue to get more jobs at less than $2.00 hr. Oh and also, those same PLUTOCRATS will go away to other Countries……MY A$$! I say GO…..they’re ruining our country anyways. But they won’t go…even with a tax hike they won’t go. DO YOU KNOW WHAT kind of taxes rate rich people pay in other Countries? And those that don’t have HUGE taxes, are countries they don’t want to spend time in or BAIN HQ would be in Zimbabwe. The RICH have it made here or they would have left a long time ago. First ones that start leaving better be packing lots of HEAT, because other country’s citizenry is not as law abiding as ours.

          • montanabill

            Here’s what is probably a surprise for you. I pay my employees well above average wages. Why? Because they are the people that make a difference. So I go out of my way to find the best people for each position. I want them happy and productive. Not only do they get good pay, they get 2 weeks of paid vacation, 3 weeks after 5 years. They get 5 days of sick time. They have fully paid family medical and dental and they receive 15% of their salaries as a 401k deposit. As you might imagine, turn-over is very low. It is these people who have made sure that our company has grown every single year since the mid-70′s, including the last four years. We were hiring even during the worse of the depression. The same is true for a couple of newer ventures. While they are only a few years old, they still grew and prospered during the last four years.

            My companies are S-Corp or LLC, meaning that profits from these companies are taxed at my personal rate which is the highest effective tax rate possible. What is leftover is used to re-invest, to develop new products and new markets. It is that money that allows to to grow. It is that money that higher taxes will take away. With less development capital, we will be growing slower and creating fewer jobs.

            That is the real world, my friend. Until you have walked in my shoes, don”t begin to assume you know how the rich live, invest or pay taxes, or even got rich. You don’t!

          • jarheadgene

            Well Bill, you ARE in a class by yourself. I have to take you at your words here and I salute you for doing right by your employees. You seem to be creditting your employees for much of your success. You sound really sincere about it and that makes you, as an owner, a rareity, in my experience. So I can’t understand then, why are you a Republican. You seem to care about people and the GOP has done nothing for small business since George Sr.

          • montanabill

            It boils down to the question of which party does the least damage.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Exactly — like which party grew the federal spending levels the most over the last 30 years (Republican). Right?

          • montanabill

            No, but you will believe what you want to believe.

          • WhutHeSaid

            It must be rather annoying for you when actual FACTS get in the way of your arguments, yes?

          • montanabill

            Might, if I actually saw some.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I guess that you don’t believe your lying eyes, right? I suppose you too look at a President who holds the record for runaway federal spending, increased taxes 11 times, and vigorously supported gun control (Ronald Reagan) as your conservative hero as well, yes?

          • ObozoMustGo

            Gene…. most business owners I know are similar to Montana in how they treat their employees. I know this shocks you, but it’s true.

            Merry Christmas!

            “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yes, yes — please quote Reagan, who is the 30-year king of runaway federal spending, raised taxes 11 times, and supported gun control.

          • neece00

            Aren’t you one of those in the top income bracket which mean you really don’t want the taxes to go up because it will affect you?

          • montanabill

            My taxes are going up 3.6% regardless because of Obamacare. And you are right, I would prefer that my taxes don’t go up.

            However, you still ducked the questions.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/RFEPMKNCBVGJYV2X7LBNDGRUEY William

            Are you as foolish as you sound? All I’ve heard from the GOP is don’t leave this dept for your kids, after they created it. Now they want to save the Rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Open you’re eyes and read between the lines, try fact checking for once. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.

          • idamag

            William, the middleclass are the consumers. When they are gone, so are the consumers and taxpayers.

          • montanabill

            Nice rhetoric, but you didn’t answer the questions. They were pretty simple, actually. If you need help with the numbers, just say so, and I’ll post the answers. Then you can fact check all you want.

          • patuxant

            You wealthy folks out there should have these taxes paid retroactively! Just been sucking from the community teat for the last 10 years now, haven’t you?

          • montanabill

            Never taken a dime from government in any form except for SS which I donate to veterans charities.
            By the way, you are still ducking the questions.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Stop lying, you tax-slurping freeloader. We all know better. You wouldn’t have a pot to piss in if you weren’t the beneficiary of the generosity of generations of Americans who didn’t squeal like stuck pigs when their turn came to pay their share.

          • patuxant

            You don’t take from Soc Sec. when you have  been putting it into the system for 47 years. Please…don’t insult with your ignorance. And “ducking” your questions? You never answered mine. Do you know anything of the FEI or AJ Galambos? Until you can answer that, you in my estimation, know little.

          • montanabill

            I have not only put in my share but shares for all of the current and past employees I have had. I don’t need SS. I understood what it was back when I was 17 and have always planned to be sure I wouldn’t need it. I was free to be independent of SS while I was still working for someone else.

            Which FEI are you referring to:
            1) the world leader in electron microscopy technologies, or
            2) international governing body for all Olympic equestrian disciplines (I know a little about them)
            3) a leading association for senior level finance executives.
            Why is any of them pertinent?

            Further, why would I care about Galambos? As far as I know, his writings didn’t have a bearing on tax policy nor are they part of the current financial problems this country is having.

            You continue to duck, as I might add, has every single person who responded. It is pretty clear, there is a lot of ignorance associated with Obama’s ‘tax the rich’ crap.

          • patuxant

            FEI is the Free Enterprise Institute. If you didn’t know what it was, then you don’t know who Galambos is. And most likely you don’t know who Jay Snelson is. Light years from most all on the subject of Capitalism.

          • montanabill

            I suppose it is nice to have theories, but we have a couple of hundred years of capitalism experience to draw from. Many of us have learned first hand how it works. I will admit I had never heard of the Free Enterprise Institute or know who Jay Snelson is or Galambos. Upon doing a little research, I am reminded of L. Ron Hubbard.
            It has been my personal experience and appears numerous times in history, that ideas and inventions are not necessarily unique to an individual. When the time is right and relatively the same information has been disseminated widely, new inventions or thoughts usually occur in multiple people at widely dispersed locations at about the same time. This not always true, but does happen more frequently than one supposes. For example, I never patented anything during my creative computer years, simply because new ideas seemed to be obvious follow-ups to what had gone before and by patenting an idea, I would be obstructing to some degree, future advances. I had plenty of opportunities, many of which would have given me a much better competitive advantage, but I felt they were advances for everyone rather than something distinct with me.

          • patuxant

            Don’t want to beat a dead horse, but FEI, Galambos (who died a number of years ago), and Snelson who also passed away just recently are in no way similar to Hubbard. No connection to any “religion” or similar cultist beliefs. And while our form of government originated under a capitalistic concept, it was only in embrionic form and certain never ever evolved to the point where Galambos (an astrophysicist) took it. Also, he always gave credit to those whose ideas culled his own. He quoted another who said, “If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” Googling FEI etc will never give you the depth and true meaning of this theory of capitalism. I took advanced classed from him in the late 60s and early 70s. We still don’t have it and I doubt if I will see it in my lifetime. What we have today is one step up from the invention of the wheel. This is light years away. Under a true pure system of capitalism, you would be in hog’s heaven and so would everyone else. We wouldn’t be having these useless arguments about right and left etc etc. and the tug of war going on daily.
            Have a happy Holiday!

          • WhutHeSaid

            Stop lying. You’ve been given enough of a response from several directions.

            ANY revenue that can be collected will help reduce the deficit. Claiming that it’s not enough therefore it’s useless is like saying you will refuse a 5% raise because it doesn’t meet your desired salary goal. Only a very stupid person would refuse the 5%, because every bit counts and you have to start somewhere. If you really want to argue that it’s not enough, then you should advocate a tax increase BEYOND just letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. I’m betting that a majority of Americans would also support that approach, knowing full well that the upper 2% have benefited VASTLY disproportionately to the rest of Americans over the last several decades. The upper 2% have it better in terms of wealth distribution than at any time since the 1920′s.

          • montanabill

            Went through most of this in the previous post. If you don’t think the 8.1% increase will bring in sufficient revenues, see if a 100% tax will eliminate deficit spending.
            No? Well heck, since eliminating the rich didn’t solve the problem, maybe we just need to spend even more money.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Hey, I like your thinking. If we aren’t cutting enough spending to eliminate the deficit by 6:00 am tomorrow, hell, perhaps we should just give the wealthy another $800 billion in tax cuts. How did you ever get to be so smart?

          • idamag

            Or not making a payment on a bill because you don’t have the entire amount.

          • patuxant

            It is good that you were/are an entrepreneur. That is admirable. Not everyone is going to be that but will be working for someone else just as I have for 47 years. Does that mean that those of us on SS are not entitled to the amounts we are getting? Please let me know.
            As far as your questions regarding revenues etc., go back and read the article and others that discuss the topic in detail.

          • montanabill

            Depending on how much you earned during your working career, after somewhere between 5 to 7 years, you will start to exceed the money deposited by you and your employers, plus the interest such money would have earned. At that point, you are basically on welfare.

          • patuxant

            Something sent through email and a woma from your state.

            SO TRUE. j

            —–
            Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:53 AM
            Subject: Fw: Fwd: Fw: Fwd: Fw: Ticked Off

            :

            :

            : Ticked Off

            A good read. I hope it got to Alan Simpson.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Just stop it with your whoppers. Admit that you want to slurp up taxes like no tomorrow to fund more wars and defense-related projects — ain’t that so?

        • patuxant

          Good post gene!

        • oldtack

          Ruh Rah!

      • WhutHeSaid

        Really now. You’re a businessman — what do YOU expect revenue to accomplish?

        • montanabill

          If I’m spending $100 a day and getting $1, not much.
          You are ducking the questions.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Would you rather spend $100 or $99? Don’t duck the question.

          • montanabill

            I believe ‘not much’ was my answer. A better question might have been, how much longer can I afford to lose $99 a day than $100 a day. So assuming you know the answers to my questions, how many more years can we afford to spend $860 billion more than we take in a revenue as opposed to $1 trillion per year?

          • WhutHeSaid

            You know full well that the economy needs to recover fully to be able to successfully address the mess that Republicans (read: people who have been arguing your argument) have gotten us into. But you are correct: The tax rates on the wealthiest 2% should probably be increased above and beyond just letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. How about a 50% or 60% rate? That would make you feel better, yes?

          • idamag

            Whut, I have told Montana this on another post. If you inherit a house with a leaking roof and it’s leaking pretty bad, do you let the leak destroy the house or do you borrow money to fix the roof.

            Obama inherited a leaking economy and he’s plugged the leak now it is time to pay the bill. However, there are saboteurs out there who are trying to keep him from the practical goals.

          • montanabill

            Just so you will feel better, once the tax rates are raised back to pre-Bush levels, with the increase in Medicare taxes and the increases in various states where I pay taxes, I will be paying over 50% in income taxes. Will I be getting any more benefits than you? Absolutely not. So you can feel good that I will be punished for being far more successful than you.

          • WhutHeSaid

            You are already getting more benefits than me — I don’t collect Social Security.

            I feel confident that you would not be qualified to ever work for me, but as I said before, you may send me your dusty and tattered CV for consideration if you’d like. Oh yes, a ‘CV’ is also known as a resume for those who were short-changed on their education.

            I noticed that you gave up on the ‘Obama-is-spending-us-into-oblivion’ lie once I pointed out that Obama holds the record for LOWEST annualized federal spending growth over the last 30 years. It’s hard to admit that GOP Presidents are the champions of runaway federal spending when you’ve been spouting whoppers for so long, yes? Let’s see if an old dog can learn a new trick.

          • montanabill

            I told you what I do with the SS they send.
            I doubt that anyone would be qualified to work for you since you obviously don’t have a clue how business works.
            I ignored your ‘lowest annualized’ nonsense. The truth is in the real spending numbers, not some ‘spending growth’ from a ridiculous starting point. Again, pretty good proof you have never run a successful business.

          • WhutHeSaid

            You collect Social Security – period. It doesn’t matter if you buy groceries with it, give it away, or rub baby oil all over your body and frolic about in a tutu while tossing it high in the air — you’ve collected it, it’s yours.

            Despite your obvious need to stroke your own ego, you don’t appear to be very knowledgeable about business OR government. You didn’t even know what a CV was, for Christ’s sake! A starting point is what it is, no matter whether you call it ‘ridiculous’ or not. I remember Reagan’s SDI excesses, and I though those were pretty ridiculous at the time. It seems that after 30 years, Reagan is still the undisputed champion of runaway federal spending (although Bush came close in spending growth and won hands-down in actual cost).

            Also you failed to address the issue of you and your fellow Montanans, who suck up an excessive share of US tax revenue, all the while squealing about how those ‘liberals’ (the ones whose tax dollars you slurp up) are spending the country into oblivion. It’s all bullshit, of course, mainly fueled by mean-spirited (but mostly ignorant) bigots. You need to come clean, repent you evil, bigoted ways, and pay your share. If you do not the rest of the country will empower the government to come TAKE what you owe, and you won’t like that — oh no!

          • montanabill

            I would suspect the Israeli’s are just a little pleased with the outgrowth of SDI. The resulting missile shield capability still worries the Russians.

            The government already takes from all of us at the point of a gun. If you don’t believe it, don’t pay your taxes and see if unarmed men come to get you.

            26% of Montana is owned by the Federal government. Maybe they are just funding their fair share?

      • anonymy2012

        revenue would help pay off the national debt. which we certainly don’t want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. right?

        • montanabill

          I really wanted you to check into what is going on, but here it is in a nutshell.

          Obama is expecting anywhere from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion in new revenues from taxes. That is over a 10 year span, so the best case is that it will bring in $160 billion ($1.6t /10) a year. We are currently spending $1 trillion +/- a year more than we bring in. Subtracting $160 billion from $1 trillion still means we are spending $840 billion a year more than we would get in revenue. That $840 billion every year ($8.4 trillion over the 10 years) gets added to the debt. It means we must still borrow or print $840 billion a year. If the new taxes only bring in $80 billion per year, the deficit will be larger and debt grows larger even faster. If the new taxes do as the Republicans expect and create more unemployment, then the deficit and the debt will rise faster still.

          • WhutHeSaid

            All the more reason for you to pony up your share, you recalcitrant tax-slurping Scrooge. The same argument can be made about cutting expenditures, but you are perfectly willing to snort taxes like a demon-possessed aardvark to pay for more wars and other defense projects — TELL ME I’M WRONG.

            Stop your pitiful lying and sniveling. PAY YOUR BILLS!

            It’s not like you are getting a choice.

        • ObozoMustGo

          anon…. if you actually believe that Obozo and the DemonRATS and many Repubs are going to really pay off the national debt, I only have one thing to tell you:

          I am a bridge salesman. I have many fine bridges going for very cheap prices. Please let me know which one you are intersted in and I’ll give you my accounts to which you can send the money. OK?

          Merry Christmas!

          “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” – Ronald Reagan

      • patuxant

        Stop massaging your ego. You don’t know very much about capitalism if you don’t know about the founder of the FEI.

        • montanabill

          I can’t see how asking a simple question was ‘massaging my ego’. Like everyone else I’ve asked, you ducked the question. You either don’t know the answer or know it is embarrassing.

          • patuxant

            What is your question? You have none…right? You confuse the word ‘challenge’ with the word ‘question’?

          • montanabill

            A question can be considered a challenge, if you wish.

            How much will the higher taxes bring in per year?
            How much more than we receive in revenue, if any, will we be spending per year after receiving those taxes? (deficit spending)
            How much of it, if any, will be applied to actually paying down the debt?

          • jarheadgene

            Why do you keep harping on this…..? The Dems are known for actual FACT checking unlike the FOX news crowd. What is your point? HERE….CBO …remember them…the ones you GOP’s called liars when they did a report on the RYAN/ROMNEY plan?

            Report for 2011
            Spending – Social Security 725 Billion
            Defense 700 b
            Non-Defense 646 b
            Other 545 b
            Medicare 480 b
            Medicaid 275 b
            Interest 227 b

            Revenues – Indiv Inc.Tax 1.1 Trillion
            Social Ins. Tax 819 b
            Other 211 b
            Corp Inc. Tax 181 b
            So what.. ?? Obamas plan calls for Increased taxes….mainly in the 1st category of revenue over 10 years 1.6 Trillion. Combined with a defense cut, we will be decreasing our deficit spending. Does it fix all the problems…NO but the GOP F**’d everything up pretty good. So it will take a while. Raising the taxes on Rich Income, is a start. Bring manufacturing back to America, from China and India and then lets see how quickly we lose all defecit spending. But NO you GOP have to continue in stupidity. Take OHIO. You have the humungous UAW working with the Corporate car makers, both sides gave a little to stay alive. And then you have an angry little white man Gov. who was upset Romney lost and probably took some dark money to butt in and enact a RTW law. WTF?

          • idamag

            you can take SS off the table, that spending is to pay back the 2.7 trillion borrowed from SS to fund Viet Nam.

          • montanabill

            It will take a very long time as long as spending continues to be hundreds of billions more than revenues, factoring in new tax rates. Even by cutting defense spending by billions, we would still be hundreds of billions in the red each year. We simply can’t stop deficit spending by simply raising taxes and cutting defense spending at the current rate of government spending in welfare and entitlement spending.
            Put that into your ‘Democrat Fact Checker’.

      • idamag

        Montana – revenue.

        • montanabill

          Whoopee! And like all others, you ducked answering the question.

          Let’s say I run a donut shop and it costs me $100 a day to make the donuts. I had one customer who buys $5 worth of donuts everyday. I’m losing $95 a day, but suddenly I get new customer who buys $1 worth of donuts a day. Now I’m only losing $94 a day, but I have new revenue! Getting the picture.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yep: Your donuts, like your arguments, suck.

  • bpai99

    The Obama/Democratic/liberal partisans are still gloating so much over the November results that they have forgotten the overall GOP strategy, on which it continues to execute successfully and with unwavering focus. The general voter disgust and pessimism regarding the prospects of a negotiated solution to the fiscal cliff plays right into GOP hands.

    As stated by a veteran GOP staffer, Mike Lofgren, last year:

    “A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner…. Undermining Americans’ belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy.”

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

      How did that GOP plan work out last month?

      • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

        Not So Good!!

        • amazonfan

          Exactly!:D

    • http://twitter.com/the_judge the judge

      Lost the President, Lost in the Senate, Fewer VOTES for the “Do Nothing but block the black guy” tea party inspired, house of representatives. But on the other hand as a “Obama/Democratic/liberal partisan” atheist I should want the #tcot Republucans to double down on Stupid. :-)

      • idamag

        Judge, and they are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

      They Lost At Making Our President A One Term President And Now It’s Time To Stay Focus To Get Their No Good Ass Out Of Office!!!

      • idamag

        Fern, you wouldn’t believe the dumbass I found on another post. It was the one about seceding. I missed you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

      They sound like a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli…

    • montanabill

      Looks like Republican tactics with a Democrat President are exactly the same a Democrat tactics with a Republican President.

      By the way, exactly what do you expect higher taxes on the 2% to accomplish?

      Do you know they are already going to get a 3.6% or 3.8% increase because of Obamacare?

      Do you know that Democrats have suddenly discovered a 2.3% tax on medical devices in Obamacare will add to the cost of healthcare for the poor and middle class, and particularly the elderly.

      Do you know that there are other hidden taxes, over a dozen, in Obamacare that will also result in higher healthcare costs for everyone?

      Do you understand that the increases in the cost of our current health insurance because of Obamacare are really just another hidden tax?

      When do you think that Democrats will realize that the impact of Obamacare will result in the loss of tens of thousands of full time jobs and creation of lots of lower paid part-time jobs?

      • neece00

        I think we have had this discussion before but to reiterate, you and I were paying for these people long before you ever knew it. When an uninsured goes to the emergency room, you and I pay for it in higher health care costs. This has been the case for years, not just since Barack was elected president. The healthcare facility will either write off the charge as financial hardship or the account is sent to a collection agency. Are you aware that 60% of bankruptcies are for medical expenses on an uninsured patient with a catastrophic illness?

        So when you say Obama care will raise your taxes, I wonder if you are a business owner and you might now have to provide insurance to your employees (which is something you should have been doing all along). Every person should have access to affordable healthcare either through their employer or through other means.

        • idamag

          Neeceoo, I have put this figure out there before, but Montana obviously cannot process it. $800 out of every $2500 you spend in medical costs goes to pay for those who don’t and can’t. Since the poor have Medicaid, it must be those who won’t. It is mandatory that I have automobile insurance and that is only fair. A person who gets injured by an uninsured motorist ends up paying for their injuries.

          I resent the $800. I have insurance. it is responsible.

        • montanabill

          You are right, we have been subsidizing a lot uninsured. Now, however, we will be paying for lots of provider visits that never previously occurred. Worse, we will now be paying for more layers of government bureaucracy and the costs associated with meeting the expansive pile of new regulations. Lower cost healthcare will never be realized by Obamacare.

          I have provided medical and dental insurance for my employees and their families for over 40 years. Last year, as the result of Obamacare, the usual 3-4% increase in cost jumped to over 12%. It is my understanding that the increase for next year will hold at about 5%. The increase I personally will receive is that my Medicare withholding will no longer be capped, so the majority of my income will now have an additional 3.6% Medicare tax. That is over 6 figures for me personally.

          • neece00

            Have you stopped to look at the salaries of each CEO for the major insurance companies? That is what you are paying for and what needs to be changed. With the GOP in the pocket of the insurance industry, they continue to try and control the outcome of these policies. Without the government bureaucracy/regulations, the insurance industry will run amuck and the trend to higher salaries for them will continue while at the same time, decreased claims will be paid for patients.

          • montanabill

            Have you looked at the earnings of trial lawyers? Okay, insurance company execs may be collecting more than they should, but that is the result of the creation of HMO’s. Another bit of government ‘health cost help’.
            But the reality is that Obamacare is a very poor and flawed program. It would have been just as flawed if it was a Republican only program instead of a Democrat only program. Just watch the news for the next few months as both Democrat and Republican legislators start really getting the heat from everyone who is negatively impacted by this bill.

      • idamag

        Montana, you must have a business in the backwoods. I have been voting for a century and I have never seen the ugly,unAmerican hate by either party as the last 8 years.

        • montanabill

          Hard to believe you are only 8 years old. Sorry, couldn’t resist. You can either start with the transcripts of the debates of the country’s founders or see the movie Lincoln to realize politics has always been ugly.

          • idamag

            Montana, I have read those transcripts. I have also read the ugliness in past elections, but I have never seen anything like we have today nor were any of past politics so violent.

          • montanabill

            Unfortunately, your view of our history is simply not accurate. There were the race riots in 1835, 1919 and 1968. The 1932 Bonus Army demonstrations. Coxey’s Army and it’s offshoots. The Vietnam era was far uglier than today.

          • idamag

            Montana, you are absolutely right about the past being uglier than the present. I was talking about politics.

      • patuxant

        Wow! Such a font of wisdom and insider information you are! You are just a brainwashed mouthpiece for the BS of the TPty.

        • montanabill

          I know I must be a fountain of misinformation. The best thing to do is give me correct facts and specific information so that I’ll better understand where I am going wrong. Simply trying to insult me is not very educational.

          • patuxant

            You spend many days insulting others. Turn about is fair play don’t you think?

          • montanabill

            If it is insulting to be asked questions regarding defending your position, then I am truly insulting you.

          • patuxant

            What was your question?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    The reason for that is, in my opinion, quite simple. Most Americans are sick and tired of gridlock, partisanship, and finger pointing. People want results and the constant finger pointing, mostly from the GOP, is not helping them. It is a bit disingeneous to suggest the President has not proposed any spending reductions when he submitted a plan in writing that calls for $1.6B in spending reductions!
    I realize that fixing all the problems we are facing in a couple of weeks is unrealistic, but there is no justification to object to an extension of the middle class tax cuts and raising the tax rate for our highest earners by a modest 3.6%. If eliminating loopholes, subsidies, and other spending reductions allow for a reduction of the tax rate for the wealthy in the future, fine, we can deal for that then. Most importantly, it is unrealistic to suggest and overhaul of the tax rate two weeks before the so called fiscal cliff is scheduled to go into effect. It will take months to do that, and it is essential to pursue that worthy goal and complete it before the start of FY13.
    Political posturing is understandable under normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances and the time to act is now. These guys either get their act together or they will all be looking for a job two years from now.

    • TheOldNorthChurch

      I actually agree with you on something, trying to fix this in two weeks is ridiculous. Besides, the added increase in taxes by adding the 98% to the number by letting the”Bush” rates expire is minor. So if this small increase will causes the fiscal cliff then we are already there by letting any of them expire. So get this out of the way and go to work in 2013 to solve the problem for once.

    • jarheadgene

      I for one, would not mind seeing as many GOP congressman, as possible, lose their jobs in the next mid-term. They have been working towards that goal, themselves, since 2008.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ashetalia-Staatz/100001792695528 Ashetalia Staatz

        They can only win in election cycles that don’t get a lot of voters. They could well win 2014, the way they did back in 2010.

        • oldtack

          That has been the trend due to lack of interest but let’s hope 2010 was a wake up call. If the DNC does what the DNC should do it will really push to get out the votes i 2014. The 2014 election is very vital.

          The old stale adage ” let’s not get caught with our pants down” in 2014 as we did in 2010.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ALYOLBFEDHE2M65PG655WIZZHI Kevin

            You are absolutely correct Oldtack. The DNC needs to remind everyone of the legitimate rape comments, etc. – just in case there aren’t enough new glimpses at the mysogeny and bigotry of the right in 2014.
            I think in 2010 there was a little apathy in play. A lot of voters that thought Obama was a “true believer” got a heavy dose of the pragmatic moderate that he truly is. Obama’s reinstatement of most of the Bush era financial guys and the blank check that was handed to Wall St. were disheartening

        • amarquez647

          If we are dumb enough to let them, we are at the ten yard line and we have the ball.

        • http://twitter.com/thebasslady P.T.

          Not this time! We slept 2010, and paid for it with the most un-American, immoral group of misfits imaginable. I’m sure it won’t happen again. The sleeping majority is now awake, fired up, and ready to go in 2014.

          • jarheadgene

            Love it….” FIRED UP !, READY TO GO !”

      • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

        You Must Admit It’s The Democrats Fault Cause Most Got Mad I Guess Cause They Seen Our President Bailing Out All These Big Banks, Companies And Wars Were Still In Mode, But They Fail To Realize Bush Made Into Law A Lot Of The Bailout That Happen And Bush Also Was One Of The Worst President We Ever Had In Years With The Polices He Put In Place!!! Why Do You Think Bush Give People A Check Just Before He Left Office??? Bush Knew He Had Wreak Total Havoc On This Country And He And He GOP American Taliban Walked Away Super Rich!!! WAKE THE FUCK UP TROLLS!!! Plus The Fact He Was Life Long Friend Of Bin Laden And Flew His Family Out Of The Country Under A No Fly Zone And Not One Word From The GOP/Tea Party On This Tell Me And Anyone With An Brain That The GOP/Tea Party American Taliban Don’t Give A Damn About This Country Nor The American People They Are Only In Office For Themselves And Their Only Agenda Is Control, Power Cause That Where The Money Is At!!! And Hoarding Money Is The Main Goal!!! I Was In The Voting Place And You Could Hear A Rat Piss On Cotton The Turnout Was Very Low That’s How These Terrorists Got In Office!!!

        • BDC_57

          Fern he was the worst President we ever had.

          • ralphkr

            Well, BDC_57, you seem to have forgotten about Buchanan (the president no one remembers), Andrew Johnson, Hoover, Harding, Grant, Nixon… One consistent rule of thumb is that if a man is a successful businessman that he shall be bad for the US economy (Bush (our only president with MBA), Harding, Coolidge, & Hoover were all businessmen).

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZJ5BBSQIGTUMERPZFALES6HQNY Bill

            Thanks Ralph. I don’t like the throwing of labels like the worst ever. W wasnt’ the worst ever and unlike Bozo the Idiot who clims President Obama is the worst in the last 100 years I thinks your list of Harding, Hoover and Nixon lay that claim to waste.

          • idamag

            ralph, if you take a good look at what BDC said, he said he was the worst president he ever had. Hoover was an engineer. Nixon was good at foreign relations. Bush was not.

          • ralphkr

            I am unsure of what your point is, idamag, but BDC wrote “worst President we ever had” not “he”. Yes, Hoover was an engineer but he was also a successful businessman and made a sizable fortune in mining just as the Bush clan made a fortune in oil. Nixon was good at foreign relations and made it possible for Walmart to stop supporting all American producers (the way Sam Walton did) and make more profit by switching to products from China. If I were to only judge presidents within my lifetime I would have to ignore all presidents before Hoover while I have a couple great-grandaughters who would only be able to count Obama.

          • idamag

            He was the worst president I ever had.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/ALYOLBFEDHE2M65PG655WIZZHI Kevin

          Fern, if you must post on each and every one of these articles could you at least dial it down a little. The caps, exclamation points, expletives, and and generally hysterical tone of your posts is getting old. Most of the rest of us that post here agree with much of your sentiment, but there is no need to express ourselves like teabaggers.

          • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

            Kevin Why Don’t You Take Your Dumb Tea Bagging Ass Out Of Here You Stupid Little BITCH!!! Go Suck Out Of The Koch Brothers Asses Elsewhere!!

      • ID-2

        You are going to implement his how when all but 11% of Republicans won their districts in 2012 with at least 55% of the vote?

        • jarheadgene

          Lots of that was due to Gerrymandering….and it is so bad, there is a District in PA that looks like SWISS Cheese so it could accomplish a GOP win. GET YOUR HEAD out…the DEMS outvoted the GOP by millions across the country which means that Congress should have followed suit, but not with the districts sliced and diced up the way they are. Do you know how many years it took to get Latinos representation in EAST L.A. ? They sliced and diced districts over and over again to maintain …White supremacy for over 100 years. Oh you can still carry lots of GOP wins in CA including Governor…but on the national level….CA is a blue state all the way with a HUGE electorate. Unfortunately they will elect a Gov like Gerry Brown D(at the time) and he will balance the budget and put surplus money in. Then they elect a R…and their state goes to shit. And they keep repeating the process….on that …they seem to never learn.

    • morgan520

      I just wonder if the repugs will do the right thing and bow to what we, the American people, want or are they just going to continue on in the same way by ignoring what is before their eyes – what are your thoughts on this? By the way, I really enjoy reading your comments; they are always spot on.

    • idamag

      An 11% approval rating should send a message to Congress.

  • dalnb

    The Republicans have relied upon huge funding from several of Americas greatest individual and corporate contributors to fund their hate campaign, their “Mission of Failure” against Obama, and their massive campaign to see that the Democratic White House did not accomplish anything that may get the President reelected. Allowing President Obama success in fixing Americas problems would defeat Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, Boehner, the Tea Party and sever others efforts to see Obama did nothing beneficial in clearing up our mess. Their hate campaign, continual misinformation, efforts to confuse, blocking any progress in fixing our problems and their massive efforts to create failure was intended to stop Obama; these same efforts are the ones that have held up our national recovery. Their loudest supporter has been FOX TV and affiliated radio Talk show hosts!

    Many Republicans have been forced to stand tight on the GOPs position advancing the war against Americas recovery. It appears several of them are now turning away from party mandates and party leaders like Mitch McConnell, Boehner, Limbaugh, and McCain as they learn you can not force good men and women to continually creat failure at the nations expense!

  • http://www.facebook.com/elisabeth.gordon1 Elisabeth Gordon

    What exactly is it that the GOP hates so much about this country?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wanda-Leverette/1101695192 Wanda Leverette

    The 1% who opposes paying more in taxes which would increase revenue didn’t have a problem paying 6 Billion Dollars in an attempt to Buy an election. They voluntarily paid the $6 billion because there was something in it for them, more control over the decisions being made in their attempt to turn the US into a third world country where there is only the rich and the rest of us… dirt poor. As tax-paying citizens, our tax dollars pays Congress’ salaries. To raise the taxes of the 1% would be requiring Congress to give back some of what We give them in their salaries. I say withhold their salaries until an agreement can be reached. Since Greed and Money rules these Elected individuals as opposed to a sense of responsibility towards those who elected them, withhold what they hold dear until a decision is made.

  • Jim Lou

    There are problems with threats.

    1. They are hollow.
    2. GOP don’t want to be blamed.
    3. Being obstinate is going to work. You can’t just say no without any counter.
    4. The clock is ticking…… Just like 60 Minutes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wanda-Leverette/1101695192 Wanda Leverette

    The article leads one to believe that “the only people who will feel the blunt impact of that choice at first is those people who are invested in the stock market. Of course, that will kill jobs and spike unemployment,” what a crock of s**t. Those invested in the stock market and part of the top 5% are making a killing, off the rest of us. Why do you think the gas prices are so high and nothing is being said about it? Because it’s not about the cost of a barrel of oil but the speculation on Wall Street. We all are paying out of our a** for gas so those invested in Wall Street can Make More Money and no one says anything. If we have to pay $5 a gallon on gas, why shouldn’t those making the money off us give back through a tax increase?? And they go to church on Sundays and call themselves Christians …… the Devil is always in Church!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wanda-Leverette/1101695192 Wanda Leverette

    I am just amazed at how “short-sighted” and forgetful these republicans are!! Bush and his republican friends made this debt with wars that were uncalled for in retaliation because somebody “tried to kill my daddy”. So republicans supported the war on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq and everywhere else like the bullies they are. Now 12 years later, with a forgetful memory, they want to oppose and bully the current president using the debt They Created as a platform for demanding what They what and f***k the people, again. Why do people keep voting these a**holes in office?? It is So apparent that Themselves is their focal point and Not the people they were elected to represent.

    • idamag

      Wanda, they turned their back on the American people when they signed the godfather’s pledge.

  • howa4x

    The republicans are negotiating for the Koch bros and all the other billionaires. that is why they have reached such a new low. They are more than willing to make seniors pay, but not the oil companies that get a 40 billion subsidy through depletion allowances. ADM gets a subsidy for ethanol and agra business gets loads of subsidies. Notice I don’t say small farmer because they only get local support on taxes. This is why the republicans will loose on this issue. Everyone sees through the veil. Job creation by the 1% is a myth. Let think of the recent jobs they created. Cisco created them in Ireland, GE in Brazil, Micorsoft in Bangalore India, Apple in China, Haliburton in Dubai, Walmart in Bangladesh, and China. Corporate profits are a high as they ever been so where are the jobs? The stock market rebounded from a low of 600 in 2008 to back over 1300. Where are all the jobs from this wealth creation? Unless these captians of industry, or masters of the universe on Wall st create real, lasting jobs they shouldn’t get 1 dime from we the taxpayers no mattter what Grover Norquist says. It is time for the 2% to pull their weight since they control 95% of the wealth. By trying to protect them and not going out for the middleclaas 1st, the republicans are going down the rabbit hole, and 2014 will come up quicker than they think.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JMT6C3LHLJDD4RX4NB4KY5ICAE gargray

    If you sign to be a republican, you sign a pledge to do what the party wants, and vote for a republican even if you feel that person is irresponsible. Our forefathers warned us about letting a clique or coterie take over our government. This bungling party has tried to change the rules that keep us a great nation. A state of ignominious penury where in the loss of more taxes are a tantamount to disaster.

    • idamag

      George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were against political parties. James Madison’s words were, “Political parties will only cause division and chaos.”

      Yes, Washington and Jefferson did join parties but they still didn’t like them.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JMT6C3LHLJDD4RX4NB4KY5ICAE gargray

        Madison and Jefferson disagreed on about everything they had hard fought battles. But they both agreed that they must keep religion, money, corporations and foreign ennities and the very rich from running this country. For the people by the people was their motto., so one group, minority, religiousor otherwise could control our government.

        • idamag

          Gargray, it is true that Jefferson and Madison were not bosom buddies. It started with something Jefferson said about Madison and it ended up published. However, they loved their country and were gentlemen so they voted together for the good of the country.

  • 1silverstar7

    come on G O P it did not work last time & it is not going to work this time smartin up Bubba

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DPY5ADXTDUGABOL7TPUJQEP5YE JOAQUIM

    Do you realize the red states are about the same states that supported slavery during the Civil War?

    • ObozoMustGo

      Hey stupid! Yeah, you moron, Jackassuim. What kind of idiot are you? First off, it was the Republicans that ended slavery. It was the Republicans who ended segregation. It was the DemonRATS that stood in the doorway of schools to block black kids from attending. It was Republican president that sent in the Guard to protect those black kids from the DemonRATS. It was the DemonRATS that fought against the Repubs in the Civil War. It was the DemonRATS blocking Civil Rights legislation. So STFU!!

      Merry Christmas!

      “I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.” – Booker T. Washington

  • elw

    The reason the Republicans are being clobbered is simple, the majority of people know they are radicals and do not like their policies, nor do they trust them. You can only lie, cheat and fool people for so long and the Republicans have pushed their nonsense to the end of their line.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7PEOIWPE27D6VSCGLX2JRFLNI tuco_bad

    Obama will cave in, just as he did two years ago.

    • oldtack

      Don’t think so friend. GOP is looking at the other side of Obama now.

    • idamag

      I hope not. It does make me nervous.

    • patuxant

      Don’t think so TB

  • CYNICALZ

    Since when can we spend and tax our way into prosperity? Increase tax rates, less for payers to spend. Increase spending, more first term results. Remember? Nothing has changed. And we are paying the bill in proportion for how we voted.

    Have you seen the detailed “cut and slash” sheet from either side?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BMRM52UYNZXK4ATA4GW5INH6IU frogger

    Ever since the ‘fiscal cliff’ became a popular term, I have been saying let it be and we’ll get back to reality after the pretend cliff and perhaps, just perhaps. people will wake up and exterminate the unruly and overbearing old men who run the Republican party now. I am getting a little sick of the ‘fiscal cliff’ and the ‘end of the world theory’ (which has been quiet as of late in favor of the stupid cliff). Truth be told, I believe the end of the world would come before we had to worry about the ‘fiscal cliff’, so let’s just get on with life, get to the inauguration in 2013 and let President Obama then take it to the people in a new year with a new group of players and see where it goes. I could be wrong, but seems like a logical direction, and I for one believe President Obama has been handling things rather logically so far, so why not trust him now. Just my opinion.

  • LJSearles

    6 pages? What is this 1998?

  • patuxant

    Am tired if reading this ‘fiscal cliff’ crap and the sob stories about the 1-2%. They have never had it so GOOD during the last 10 years due to Georgie Porgie, and his “base”. Learned long ago, give an inch, they take a mile. That mile the Ubers want to continue bleeding the economy into infinity. They want to let us believe they have created ‘jobs’ but that is an illusion. All they are interested in is houses in multiple locations with more square footages than the Queen of England has and live like Henry VIII. We all know what happened there. And those of you who want to lash back at this post and say that this writer is a socialist pig, I could care less if you have golden handles to flush your bidets. Just don’t step on my daily bread to get your asses into ‘polite society’!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000226085055 Andy Rossignol

    What The People of the USA don’t understand is……………Norquist hasn’t nor will he ever be President of the USA………………He wants to preach what the Country needs but won’t step up and do anything to change things…………..He won’t run for any Political office…(because he wouldn’t win)…..he just makes sure you Tea Baggers give him money (which I’m pretty sure his stock portfolio will play the Political game and he will make MILLIONS more off watching the repukes squirm)…….then he will LAUGH at all of you all the way to the bank…………..If he had that much interest in OUR Country he would run and have his vote counted………………It’s all about him and all you little lambs follow……..LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000226085055 Andy Rossignol

    OH and by the way I for one am VERY DISAPPOINTED that Jay Rockefeller gave the heads up to Capito that he wasn’t running again………….POLITICIANS take care of their own kind………………..VERY SAD…………………….

  • Jack Wormer

    “5 Reasons The Republicans Are Getting Clobbered On The ‘Fiscal Cliff’”…

    Ahem…., No 6: Their Jihadist single-mindedness to become MARTYRS for their God Mammon!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PPHJQFXFPE564LFJPGF3SLP57M orangeman65

    The Republicans are S.O.S.(Stuck n Stupid),R.O.R.(Ridng on Retardation), and D.F.D.(Dangling From Dumbness)! All the trickery they’ve attempted to pull in his past election backfired on those jokers! They casn’t even agree amng themselves; especially when they have this “Tea Pary”!

  • BDC_57

    Where your prove? And dont tell me fox fake news.

  • ID-2

    Did a 5 year old write this? The only valid reasons here are that the public wants the rich to pay more and Obama won. Voters do not have memories decades and images deep, such as back to 2009. I know the Memo needs a story but geesh.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/34MJT6YNPT6UCZ2VEORQ3HBIZY Paul

    Brian Bilbray is “retiring” because, just like Mary Bono Mack, he lost in November.

  • onedonewong

    We had an election and the Republicans won an overwhelming majority in the House. So as old peeelosi said elections have consequences

  • turnipgreens

    every picture I see of Boehner, it looks like he just took a toke or a good bit of booze. Why is that? I hope its a toke, cause he might pass pot for the masses.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VMMSUH74Z46AIUN3UPZUUHKLY4 Gilbert

    Not only that Dom, but it is the job of Congress to submit draft and bills. They have to come to an agreement among themselves to get the bill out of the House… then they need the support of the Senate. Once they’ve gotten that far, then the bill is submitted to the President either for his signature or his veto. It is not the job of the President, however, to draft legislation. If he took that upon himself they’d say he was ignoring Congress and assuming dictatorial powers. The truth is simple: Republicans have no idea what to do. They keep harping on “tax cuts” as though that were the cure-all for everything that ails us. Their foolish adherence to the Grover Norquist mantra of “no tax hikes” harkens back to an era when our government was experimenting with various taxation theories. In the book: “The Way The World Works,” Jude Wannisky, former editor of the Wall Street Journal revisits the Laffer Curve theory about excessive taxation inhibiting progress. During the addressed in the book, however, tax rates were more than twice what they are today… so the Republican tax mantra does not apply to the theory they are trying to invoke. Since our country reached the pinnacle of productivity during the era when tax rates were much higher than they are today… and has declined steadily since the implementation of the Bush tax cuts, it would seem that republican thinking is backward. As for the “Small Businesses” that Republicans claim to speak for… why don’t they just educate these small business owners to convert their business form to a C-Corporation? {Under the laws of Nevada or Wyoming} in order to shield their growing incomes from “Individual Income Tax Rates?” they can take advantage of the existing tax code in the same ways that large corporations do. Corporations are only taxed on profits… So if the corporation does not declare a profit for purposes of distributing a dividend, but elects to use those earnings for expansion, there is no taxable event. Remember, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet ran their companies that way for many, many years. There are a 1001 ways to shield income from taxation at the corporate level, yet the Republicans never mention this. These are a spoiled-rotten bunch of elitist with an inflated sense of entitlement.

scroll to top