By E. J. Dionne

The Real Deficit Argument

January 7, 2013 12:00 am Category: Memo Pad 111 Comments A+ / A-
The Real Deficit Argument

WASHINGTON — Should our politicians dedicate themselves to solving the problems we face now? Or should they spend their time constructing largely theoretical deficit solutions for years far in the future to satisfy certain ideological and aesthetic urges?

This is one of the two central choices the country faces at the beginning of President Obama’s second term. The other is related: Will the establishment, including business leaders and middle-of-the-road journalistic opinion, stand by silently as one side in the coming argument risks cratering the economy in an effort to reverse the verdict of the 2012 election? Yes, I am talking about using the debt ceiling as a political tool, something that was never done until the disaster of 2011.

My first questions are, admittedly, loaded. They refer to a difference of opinion we need to face squarely.

It is entirely true that in the wake of two budget agreements, in 2011 and the just-passed deal on the “fiscal cliff,” we have not reduced the deficit enough. The issue is: How much is enough?

Contrary to all the scare talk you keep hearing, Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, notes that we could put the deficit on a sustainable path for the next 10 years with one more deficit-reduction package equal to about $1.2 trillion, plus the resulting interest savings.

By sustainable, I mean keeping the debt from growing as a share of gross domestic product and holding it at around 73 percent of GDP for the next decade. This is a more than reasonable number by international standards. To put it in perspective: According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2011 Canada’s debt was at 85 percent of GDP, Germany’s was at 81.5 percent — and Greece’s was at 163.3 percent.

Holding the debt ratio in the low 70s is well within our sights. It could be achieved through a combination of $600 billion in cuts and $600 billion in additional revenue through tax reform — or through modest taxes on carbon or on financial transactions. (OK, for now, I am dreaming on the last two, but they are still good ideas.) The cuts could be made without wrecking Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and without eviscerating government’s capacity to invest in the future.

We could then shelve our deficit obsession for a while and confront the problems that should be center-stage over the next few years: restoring shared economic growth, spurring the creation of good jobs, dealing with gun violence, reforming immigration laws, improving our education system, and taking steps on climate change.

Pages →  1 2

The Real Deficit Argument Reviewed by on . WASHINGTON -- Should our politicians dedicate themselves to solving the problems we face now? Or should they spend their time constructing largely theoretical d WASHINGTON -- Should our politicians dedicate themselves to solving the problems we face now? Or should they spend their time constructing largely theoretical d Rating:

More by E. J. Dionne

Chuck Schumer: Take Two

Forget Obamacare — the rest of Schumer's infamous National Press Club speech lays out a Democratic plan for victory.

Read more...

Obama’s Boehner Bailout

What Boehner and Obama's temporary alliance tells us about the next two years.

Read more...

Will We Torture Again?

The reaction to the Senate's shocking torture report raises troubling questions about the future.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • nobsartist

    It is nice that the jackass’s that represent us can waste decades spending recklessly when they are in control and once they lose control, they can make us all suffer while they drone on about “spending”.

    These assholes had better wake up to the fact that we have been in a DEPRESSION for over 10 YEARS and they have done nothing to address it except lie us into wars that they have NO idea on how to pay for.

    The jackass’s in washington had better start being concerned about the cliff they are going to be thrown over if they do not start working to solve the problems that THEY created.

  • montanabill

    E.J., what is this “we have not reduced the deficit enough.”? We added to it! There is never enough spending for you and you would even justify more by the ‘phase of the moon’. And stop trying to be an economist. You are not even remotely qualified, nor apparently, can you do math!

  • Kenneth Bailey

    Congress should be addressing our current situation of creating new jobs and a stronger economy before attempting to discuss theoretical and ideological macro economics. This discussion should be left for the experts and not Congress. They have proven time and again they are incompetent in this area since we are in the Great Recession of this century caused by their lack of leadership.

    • sigrid28

      You have hit the nail on the head with this post. E. J. Dionne and Newt Gingrich agreed on something: we should all get past the debt ceiling by passing the thing, zeroing in on spending cuts that can be agreed upon, and return JOBS

      Why do these economics-challenged senators and representatives get to opine ad nauseum throughout the media? Because journalists want to increase ratings or newspaper sales (or the internet equivalent) by proposing a false equivalency: that both sides are refusing to negotiate and that both sides have equal standing in the argument. Now the fourth estate gets all worried about what they are calling “fairness,” when they happily took sides for a year (or more) prior to the election.

      If U.S. representative or senator said black mail should no longer be a felony (or whatever it is in legal terms), the press would be all over that comment, noting first of all that the idea is false and wrongheaded. When Mitch McConnell says it is appropriate to black mail American citizens by taking the debt ceiling hostage, he gets fifteen minutes to repeat this over and over again on “Meet the Press,” which is shown over and over again on NBC affiliates in toto and in pithy little sound bites sold to other media outlets.

      So the American audience gets to listen to this debt ceiling nonsense over and over again, with almost no mention whatsoever about how the senate is doing with changing the rules to stop THE ABUSE OF THE FILIBUSTER. What great investigative journalists have been discussing the slate-of-hand that put off for two weeks an up-and-down vote which supposedly had to take place in the 113th Senate the first day? Who among the White House Press corps emphasized that anyone who wanted to weigh in on this decision with U.S. representatives and senators had to have sent their snail mail letters SIX WEEKS in advance of January 3rd for elected officials to be sure to have received them in time? Combine this filibuster outrage with the Hastert rule, which didn’t get much criticism over the last year since the abuse of filibusters made it impossible to get reasonable legislation out of senate, and you start to get the picture: You have to run the gauntlet to get in touch with your elected officials, but once elected they get to play hard and fast with the rules, even if they get nothing done.

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

    With nothing to offer in terms of solutions, the only option left to the GOP is scaremongering. Claims of economic Armagheddon, denials that the economy is improving and that unemployment is not going down, and allegations of an imminent collapse of the U.S. economy and our currency, are designed to undermine consumer confidence – the key for an economic recovery – as well as the gains that have been achieved since the economic and fiscal debacle in 2008.
    The truth is that the days when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month are over, the days when our financial institutions and our economy were on the verge of collapse – acknowledged by W with uncharacteristic eloquence in mid 2008 – are over. The foreclosure and bankruptcy records of 2007-2009 are long gone, and are being replace by modest but tangible improvements in construction and real estate.
    The economy is improving, and if it wasn’t for GOP intransigence on the revenue issue and their refusal to consider investment in infrastructure we would be close to full employment by now.
    The GOP is the problem, not the solution.
    Yes, spending must be reduced to eliminate the budget deficits that resumed when George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 20o03, but that should be done very carefully with emphasis on not impacting the economic recovery and causing another recession.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/WXAQEVOSVCMLVOA66YIGQ7LGGA manfred

      Very well written!

  • http://www.facebook.com/val.twowolves Val TwoWolves

    When I was younger, I managed to rack up a rather substantial credit card debt. By the time I realized the hole I was in, I was struggling to pay bills on time each month, but I did. I didn’t simply stop spending–I systematically chipped away at my debt until today I have NO carried over balances. It took over 10 yrs. to get where we are today, but we’ve vowed to never be in that mess again. There IS a sensible long term solution to the National Debt, but it requires thought and careful consideration, NOT political posturing. And it’s not going to be solved by cutting benefits to the neediest among us, while we allow the wealthiest to continue to plunder the nation.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7DKWSXHQIDBW5PUAPZ2HZAYYUY Baron Cormac

      Great work Val. I ended up having to use a debt counsellor and service. It froze my damaged credit. It made me live off what I actually earned (after paying my debt). After three years, my credit was restored sufficiently to allow me to finance a car. After another year, it had been repaired sufficiently to allow me to buy a home. As a result of not having my credit card debt anymore, I am on track to pay off a 30 year fixed mortgage in about 18 years. What it meant was living within my means and only financing something absolutely needed (my old car died) that I did not have the cash resources to buy outright. This is obviously a lesson that our politicians have never learned. It took me 49 years to learn that message.
      One problem is these guys want to reduce taxes by $2 for every $1 they cut in spending. The problem is you still are deficit financing that way. We really have a problem when we need to increase our national debt in order to remit our debt payments!

      • Countrybumpkin

        If you are comparing a family budget with our country’s budget you are starting off with the wrong premise. This is what Fox is teaching their viewers.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

          So glad to hear someone finally say that controlling the debt of a federal government IS NOT THE SAME THING AS YOUR HOUSE OR CORPORATEL BUDGET. A certain amount of federal debt is actually a good thing. It gives corporations and individuals ” a safer than most” place to invest (e.g. in government bonds and certificates). It’s only when polititians purposely ignore spending limits, as Bush and the irresponsible GOP congresses during his term did, by keeping unfunded wars and tax cuts and drug benefit giveaways to the drug industry and other unfunded lelgislation out of the President’s Budget, that spending really gets out of hand: like 8 straight years of nearly 1/2 trillion deficit spending every year.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

          And just let me rant a moment about another totally nonsense idea; A federal balanced budget amendment. Nothing could be more nonsense. What a balanced federal budget amendment does is simply set up a process by which legislators end up ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL. For example, when a disaster like Sandy hits, they want to figure out which government project, or which benefit program they can drastically cut to pay for paying to fix up the disaster. When it isn’t any project or benefit program, such as medicaid or medicare or finding a better solution to our energy problems that should suffer for fixing a disaster, it is everyone in the nation that should pay a little bit to fix that, because the next disaster may be in their backyard and they may need the help. Just like now where the North East needs the help while a few years ago the Gulf Coast needed the help, and before that Florida needed the help. Balance budgets are great for a homeowner, because if he has a disaster and chooses not to finance the fixing of it, he’s the one that’s going to suffer if he or she chooses to not buy a new car or whatever to pay for fixing the disaster. If a federal government is going to create debt for anything, nothing is more important than using debt to pay for fixing up what’s been destroyed in your country and which is bringing misery to your citizens.

          • elw

            I agree 100%.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/RGOUPZ3JYNMPBVOHLZRCRVRD6Q ivory69690

      its only took the CLINTON era 8 years to do it . and made 23 milloin jobs to boot at that time

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/WWMXSXSICDJ5OPOYGTQTSC6Q6E nancy

        Well said.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/WXAQEVOSVCMLVOA66YIGQ7LGGA manfred

      That is the most sensible comment! Then, if they could do away with all those pork barrel give aways and subsidies to only god knows what for!

    • jarheadgene

      I like the way you ended that…..YES the wealthiest, with far more resources than the 98% are PLUNDERING our nation. At what point do they stop and realize, the guillotine can be re-instated.

      • joeham1

        If you took ALL the wealth from the evil rich people it would only pay ONE year of the deficit. I know it’s popular to attack them but the real issue is the President is not willing to even slow the increase in spending.

        The fiscal cliff deal was supposed to be a start to curbing the spending issue. In fact the President campaigned on “A Balanced Approach to cutting the deficit”

        The final deal increases taxes 660 billion and increases the deficit 4 trillion. It’s time to focus on why he refuses to cut spending at all!

        Don’t be fooled by the crazies who are trying to say that he has cut the deficit. in 4 years he has increased the deficit 5.6 trillion. December 2012 alone the deficit was 240 Billion!

        • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.beck.9659 Jerry Beck

          Don’t know where to start,the very rich could pay what we owe but no one is asking that. This didn’t happen over nite,lets not think we can pay it off in a couple years.The so called cliff deal was the best the President could get out of the GOP,blame them.

          • joeham1

            lol Jerry, don’t be an idiot! This is the best he could get from the GOP???

            Let’s break it down for your radical mind:

            The GOP wanted spending cuts…. The President wanted tax increases! We got Tax increases and no spening cuts!

            Even you aren’t that dumb to think it’s not Obama’s fault are you?

          • elw

            The President made 1.2 trillion in spending cuts in his first four years and there is another 600+ billion in store for this year (so far). You got your spending cuts, just refuse to acknowledge them. Just the way so many of you refuse to believe you lost the Presidential election. Once more the President is looking for more ways he can cut spending without hurting the millions of middle class Americans who keep this economy running.

          • joeham1

            lol…Put your crack pipe away and tell me your source for the spending cuts. If he cut spending than how come the deficit was 1.2 trillion in 2012?

            Look I realize what the white house web site may say. But be realistic and admit that you made those figures up..

            Answer this question: If he really cares about the deficit than why after campaigning for over a year and giving over 100 speeches on a “Balanced Approach to cutting the deficit did we get a deal that increases taxes 660 Billion and increases the deficit 4 trillion! ELW I know you really want what you said to be true but the facts are the facts!

            Answer the question about the fiscal cliff deal!

          • elw

            First you tell me your definition of a balanced approach.

          • joeham1

            It doesn’t matter what my definition is. His definition was spending cuts and increased revenue! We got the increased revenue..

            So..if you have a fair mind at all you realize how much more he’s spending compared to all other Presidents you will realize his agenda will destroy our country. Right now when he leaves office the deficit will be at LEAST 21 trillion!

            Do you think we can handle that? The deficit for the month December alone was 240 Billion!

          • elw

            You cannot decide which president has added the most to the debt by looking only at dollar amounts. According to figures from the GBO Obama has lowered the growth of the national debt every year he has been in office. When Bush left office it was growing at a YOY basis at 15.9% and with a total increase by 89% during his Presidency. President Obama YOY in 2012 was 4.8% and the deficit total increase by by june of 2012 was 41.4%, Historically since Reagan, Democratic Presidents have added less to the deficit than their Republican counterparts. The new or renewed tax rates will make that growth rate even slower.

          • joeham1

            Spin it anyway Obama wants you to spin it. He has spent more than all the presidents together up until the end of clinton’s term.

            In 8 years Bush: 4.8 trillion

            In 4 years Obama 5.6 trillion

            Please don’t be such a puppet. The national Memo and MSNBC may control you but your figures are wrong. You are either a complete moron or your lying.

            The deficit in December alone was 240 Billion!

            Read, Learn, educate yourself!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            Sorry, your no.s are nonsense as usual. Bush started 4.9TR
            ended 10.6TR plus last budget with 1.4TR. Total for Bush 7 TR. To deficit total of 12TR. Obama at most – 4.4TR which included repairing worst Economy in history. Bush ran up 7 Tr accomplishing nothing!!!

          • joeham1

            Keep making up numbers, If it makes you feel better!

            Are you lying or just dumb?

            Look it up!!!!

          • elw

            Thank you Independent for answering the jo-ker.
            Not that he will get it.

          • Sand_Cat

            Hey, don’t confuse Joe with facts!

          • http://mediajunkie.com/ xian

            uh, in the 2011 deal we got spending cuts (or “spening cuts”) and no tax increases (or “Tax increases”)…

            so now, we’ve done some of both. balance!

            let’s do the rest 50/50, eh?

          • joeham1

            Uh..well in 2011 we didn’t get spending cuts or spening cuts. we got a deal that said if they couldn’t make a deal by 12/31/2012 there would automatically be cuts!

            If we do the rest at 50/50 we will still have a 21 trillion dollar deficit at the end the his disasterous term! Do you Math Much?

          • http://mediajunkie.com/ xian

            this form isn’t letting me reply to joeham1 below so I’ll post my reply here.

            hard to know where to begin.

            first, the 2011 agreement included both immediate spending cuts and the sequester.

            second, I’m pretty sure you do not know the difference between the debt and the deficit. We do not have a 21 trillion dollar deficit.

            as for the semiliterate question “Do you Math Much?” I suppose I will have to answer yes. Yes, I do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000428384794 Al Hubbard

            Are you serious?? in the recent deal taxes were reduced on 98% of all Americans. You were probably included. Ever you aren’t dumb enough to think that’s a problem.

          • joeham1

            Al are you that big of a hack that extending the tax cuts is now considered a reduction in taxes? please go talk to someone else!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZEDCQ4URHFFCKH5THB4DT3G54M Brian

            So your response to anyone who disagrees with you is to call that person an idiot?

            I’d say you learned your lessons well from your party affliation.

          • joeham1

            Brian this isn’t about party or idealogy. Anyone who can’t do simple math or admit the truth and is so clouded by their party is an idiot….

            But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt:

            The President campaigned for over a year on a “Balanced Approach” to cutting the deficit. The final deal he signed has 660 Billion in tax increases and 4 trillion in new deficit spending.

            1) Did the President Lie
            2) Does he care about the deficit?
            3) Are you concerned he did not cut spending?

            Now don’t come back and say he doesn’t control spending, and don’t come back and say any other lefty talking point.

            FYI: In my opinion George Bush was the second worst President we have ever had!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            Well hello IDIOT!! You yourself just said it – anyone who can’t do the math is an IDIOT! And from your posts here it’s clear you have no clue how to do math.

            I’m going to repeat some FACTS FOR YOU!! Reagan took office our deficit was 800 billion, for Bush Sr. it was 2.3 trillion, for Clinton it was 4.3 trillion, for Bush jr. it was 4.9 trillion, for Obama it was 10.6 trillion – plus 1.4 trillion in Bush’s last budget. So any way you cut it: Bush was responsible for 5.7 trillion of deficit increase while he was in office (actually more since he inherited a surplus budget of 3-400 billion) PLUS the 1.4 trillion in his last budget or 7.1 trillion.
            Now stop pulling numbers from your head that you’ve heard from FAUX NEWS and do some research to make it clear t o yourself that George was a big spender. But you know what, as a percent of budget increases, Reagan was actually a bigger spender. Reagan averaged 8.7% budget increases every year in office while Bush Jr’s were a little less at about 8.5. While Obama is the first president in office since Eisenhower to actually have negative overall budget increases for his first term.

          • joeham1

            Let’s get one thing straight….BUSH Sucked!!!!!! He was a terrible President when compared to Clinton and Reagan!!! The only difference between the Bush and Obama is Presidents is Obama is a bigger spender! and he has idiots like you thinking he’s great , even though the evidence shows he’s not much different than Bush!

            You are the most retarded person on this site.

            Obama in 4 years has a deficit of 5.6 trillion!

            Bush had a defficit in 8 years of 4.9 in 8 years.

            If you go just by Obama’s estimates he will raise the deficit 87% in 8 years in office!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/DJM7UFOCTUFZEMPSTQE2XZIWCE Mike

            You’re right joeham1, you do have a radical mind; not very logical, but radical. To resolve deficits, all Presidents have suggested tax increases, when and as needed. And, reasonable thinking and acting Congresses responded approvingly; that’s logical..
            Gingrich’s “Contract on Americans” majority did little to support Pres. Clinton, but once he was gone, the economy positively exploded. The recent Congress is the only one that did less than the Gingrich one, hence the logical referral made above as to “the best deal this President could get from the GOP.”
            Dumb is thinking that a Congress that votes to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act over 30 times, stated that their role was to defeat Obama (which they didn’t do!), seemingly only cares about tax cuts (no proof at any time in history in any country that tax cuts somehow jumpstarts an economy; in fact, studies of the US economy over decades indicates tax cuts stymie growth), and a host of additional acts misstatements made by GOP apologizers is a Congress for the people.

          • joeham1

            Mike your whole post is completely made up! when Gingerich was speaker he got the only balanced budget signed in over 60 years. He also got wealfare reform signed. Clinton was brilliant to sign it and it worked. Unfortunately we went into a reccession at the end of his term. Bush came in and cut taxes and then the economy improved. Reagan took office in 81 and cut taxes and the unemployment rate went from 10% to 7 his first term and down to 5.6% his second term (taxes were raised in the middle of his second term.

            Look up Canada. They cut taxes in 2008 and their economy and unemployment improved. In fact because of their tax cuts they created for jobs in 2012 than we did!
            LOOK IT UP!

            There are no “studies” saying lowering taxes stymies growth!

            Here’s more proof of how mis-guided you are: Go to you tube and look at Obama speech from 2009: he says raising taxes is bad when an economy is slow. Look up JFK”s speech from 1961. He said exactly the same thing.

          • dtgraham

            Canada cut taxes alright. Two rounds of unnecessary corporate tax cuts and a 2% cut to the GST (a kind of value added tax). The result was budget deficits after running budgetary surpluses for 11 consecutive years. It starved the government of revenue.

            The 40 billion dollar stimulus (including 3.3 billion to U.S. car makers) wasn’t the problem. Economists estimate that it resulted in a 1.9% increase in economic activity in 2009 and 1.4% in 2010. Unemployment went from 6.0% before the tax cuts to 8.3% by 2009, although it’s now down to 7.1%. Meantime, the Canadian Finance Minister recently announced that the government’s projections were off and balanced budgets may not occur now for 2-3 more years. Nice. This, from a country that ran 11 straight surplus budgets until it stupidly elected a Conservative government. To an extent, they did to the Liberal Party’s tax rates what Bush did to Clinton’s. They’ll be gone in two years.

            About Obama. His annualized growth of federal spending from 2010-2013 is the lowest since Eisenhower. Your so called spending boost is the 2009 U.S. budget. That increased spending by a whopping 17.9%—going from a budget of 2.98 trillion to 3.52 trillion. However, any incoming President is saddled in the first year by the budget of the previous President. That 2009 budget was Bush’s budget and was passed by the 2008 Congress. I’m not holding that against Bush because he saw what was happening near the end.

            You can find this in a Forbes op-ed from May 24th, 2012.

            The problem is a revenue one stemming from the Bush (now Obama) tax rates and the economy not fully coming back yet. The latter I would largely blame on GOP obstructionism regarding Keynesian stimulus because they’re fanatics on fringe, Friedrich Hayek, classical Austrian economics…. but they even partially misinterpret that. They’re alone in the developed world on that. You’ll notice that every rich nation affected by 2008 announced their own stimulus package the next year.

            It’s not a spending problem.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            I have no clue why you’re not holding Bush’s last budget against him. No other president did so much deliberate damage to our economy in an effort to pump the maximum tax dollars into the pockets of his friends. And no other president inherited a budget anything like what Bush passed to Obama – I’m sorry but Bush is responsible not only for the 1.4 trillion in additional deficits in his last budget and also at least a couple more trillion for passing along an economy that makes the one Hoover inherited from Coolidge look like a walk in the park. And just to follow a little with your comments on Canada, have you heard the Canadians screaming about going bankrupt? What I read says they’re debt to GDP ratio is much worse than ours – over 85% whereas Americas debt to GDP is around 67% and for Japan it’s around 100%, Yet the GOP can do nothing but spread fear with their nonsense notion that America is on the verge of bankruptcy. And the sad part is too many Americans believe their nonsense.

          • dtgraham

            What I was referring to was mainly the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that was passed in 2008 after Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG began to collapse. That really contributed even more to Obama’s first budget deficit, but something had to be done. Bush would have left him in the red anyway, and that really jacked it up, but the world was falling apart.

            I may not hold that against him exactly but, trust me, I blame that cocky, clueless, arrogant bas**rd for just about everything else. The problem is that Obama has kept about 85% of the Bush tax structure and that, more than anything, is what has contributed to the growing debt since 2001. I keep seeing charts on it. Given that and given the Republican recalcitrance on the Pentagon, I’m at a loss to see how the White House balances another budget without taking a meat cleaver to the social compact.

            Incidentally, there’s never any talk of bankruptcy or “Greece” in Canada for a lot of reasons but one of them is that those figures from the National Memo story were wrong. I knew it right away but checked it out anyway. Canada’s debt to GDP ratio is 34% when just talking the federal government. When you add in Provincial debt, it’s 57.9%. I think the Memo was talking about some alternative methods of calculating that ratio that differ from the standard methods normally used. It’s ridiculous anyway. Much higher levels than that are acceptable depending on the situation. I’ve heard Japan is about 120% but it means little. They will remain the second or third strongest and largest economy in the world and, like the U.S., they can borrow for nothing. The U.S. was around that level after WWII.

            This is just Republican crap talk. They hate government and want to “drown it in the bathtub” (Grover), except for the military of course. This is a never ending meme on Fox News. It’s a drum beat there all day long.

          • elw

            Mike your forget that people like joe do not want the facts, at least not those the prove their ideas to be nonsense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/warren.nicholson.77 Warren Nicholson

            You are that dumb, check the 1950s, that is where we should be as a nation. If neocons like you would use what little brain power you have the problem would be solved. Stop quoting false facts. The repugs don’t want spending cuts, they want to give tax money to the 1%

          • joeham1

            Well Warren instead of saying nothing, tell me exactly where I’m wrong. Don’t be so far left that your blind.

            The cliff deal raises taxes 660 Billion and increases the deficit 4 trillion.

            1) Does the President want spending cuts?
            2) Did he lie when he said in 100 + speeched that we need a balanced appraoch?
            3) Do you think we need spending cuts?

            Will our economy be ok in 2016 with a 21 trillion deficit?

            It make you sound like your a 12 year old calling them repugs! cute!

          • sharkbait4711

            joeham1 – you are an idiot to think that all of this is Obama’s fault. Dare I type MORON to describe you???
            Let’s break this down so even you a moron can understand.
            – THE GOP wanted to cut spending to the neediest of our country, the elderly and the handicapped. Really? You want to cut aid to those that can’t fend for themselves. Nice plan GOP!
            – Obama wants to increase taxes on the richest people that walk on American soil. Those good old boy Americans that continue to hide their wealth overseas and dodge taxes – while flying around in their corp jets and living in their multiple million dollar mansions.
            Truth is is that if the 2% wealthiest of the USA paid their fare share and didn’t right off their jets and other crap then we wouldn’t be in the pickle we are in.
            Oh and let’s ask the GOP how they plan on paying for the wars that BUSH got us into. Where were the CRIES when Bush spent and spent and spent taking us to war?? Where exactly was this fiscal responsibility as BUSH took a surplus and turned it into a negative that is costing all of us years later?
            Really joeham1 – get your facts together – the GOP has, at a minimum, equal if not more responsiblity to the current deficit than Obama. Just say’n…

          • joeham1

            Wow Sharkbait, a little of what yousaid is actually correct. Put down you I love Barack blanket and listen close.

            The GOP or anyone wants to cut spending to the neediest or elderly. You have been fooled again by the left. If they can get morons like you to believe that then they can keep spending like drunks.

            The wealthiest pay 70% of all federal taxes. Isn’t that their fair share?

            We had a cliff deal that was just signed. The president called for a Balanced Approach. What we got is 660 Billion in tax increases and 4 trillion in new deficit spending. Is it still the republicans fault that he wouldn’t cut spending?

            Does the president care about the deficit? When Bush wanted to raise the debt limit Obama called it unpatriotic. If we raise it now is it unpatriotic?

            Yesterday the president said he wants the debt limit to go up and does not want to negotiate spending cuts! Are you seeing theproblem yet? Or does your hate for the right still make you blind?

          • sharkbait4711

            WOW joeham1 you should take some of you own advise and take your blinders off! It is apparent that you and I will not agree because as much as I’m blinded by the left you are obviously blinded by the right. At the end of the day though – OBAMA WON the people spoke and we won’t be fooled any longer by the right wing tea baggers tossing around the b.s. you keep sling’n and you need to just buck up and deal with it. Or better yet get the F outta here!

          • sharkbait4711

            Oh and one more thing – where was all this ideology of fiscal responsibility when BUSH was crank’n up the debt and spending spending spending???? Just say’n!

          • joeham1

            Wow what a coward you are. This isn’t an election issue or a right vs left issue.

            I gave you the facts about the cliff deal. NO SPENDING CUTS!
            Are you Ok with that? Does the deficit matter?
            What EXACTLY does the tea party believe in?

            Are you smart enough to give an answer?

            Educate yourself please. Stop with the left and right crap. I won’t get the f outta here until morons like you wake up!

          • sharkbait4711

            I’m certainly not a coward nor the bully as you would seem. The “facts” you give are scweded at best. Certainly it’s an election issue – you can’t stand who’s currently in office and I can’t stand who was in prior to him that got us into this mess. We all were doing really really well when Clinton was in office. Can’t deny the facts on that one!

            Let’s start with the spending BS you are tossing around. Fact is under Bush, his Admin didn’t count the wars as an expense. Hello dumb ass it’s an expense. Not a lot of press on this because it would just further tarnish Bush’s oh-so steller preformance. So this spending that you claim Obama has done is largely due to the fact that he had to take Bush war expenses and actually classify them as expenses which hiked up the overall debt. War is expensive and I’ll ask you again as to where was all this notion of fiscal responsibility when we went into those very costly wars. Costly on a human level and on a financial level. Do tell where your sense of fiscal responsibility was 10 or so years ago. I’m sick and tired of all the pandering right blaming the left for spending when in fact its the rights war machines cranking up the bills. AGAIN let’s reveiw the facts – BUSH started w/a surplus and ended w/the worst debt we had ever seen at that time. And let’s not forget he is listed as the single WORST president our country has ever had. FACTS joeham1 FACTS! He is going down in history as the WORST!

            Of course I’m concerned about the deficit but not nearly as concerned with Obama at the helm. It took Bush 8 years to almost sink the ship and drive up the debt so it’s gonna take that plus to right the ship and turn things around and we are already seeing progress on all fronts. Unemployment is down, interest rates remain low, the wars are ending or at least our involvement and real estate is picking up. All positive signs that were quickly spirling downward with Bush in office and as he quickly departed – THANK GOD!!

            Again, if the GOP wasn’t concerned about the deficit when Bush was in office then why should the GOP care now? Oh yes – because Obama is this crazy man spending our kids savings and grandkids savings and great grandkids savings blah blah blah. More right side rhetoric.

            And as far as the tea baggers and what they stand for – really? They claim to advocate the Constitution and reducing govt spending, reducing taxes, reducing the debt and deficit – but really they are more concerned w/taking advantage of the middle class, and poor, keeping their riches in place and not paying their fair share, keeping women in the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant and uneducated, sending anyone not born in the U.S. away and outsourcing U.S. jobs because it’s cheaper and better for their bottom line.

            I’m wide awake my friend and I embrace the actual facts – not the scare/bully tactics of you or the GOP that got our country into this mess. So again, get the F outta here w/your BS! It’s crippling the country and let me remind you that we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER! Suck it up joeham1 – Obama’s got 4 more years to right the ship that Bush and the GOP almost sank.

            Yep I drank the Obama kool-aid and will continue to do so until the GOP and it’s supporters like yourself stop gaining ground by consistently stepping on our fellow Americans to get to the preverbial top. We all can and should work together for the greater good, we all can be profitable (Clinton showed us that) if we all do our fair share and make things fare across the board and not just for the rich. Do we need to cut spending – absolutely but the GOP’s gotta come to the table w/a better plan than protecting the wealthy, big business and the wealthy’s pet projects.

          • joeham1

            A lot of your post is true. A lot of it is mularkey! I don’t know where to start..It’s not true thats some of the Debt Bush had wasn’t counted until Obama’s term. (CBO or even wickepedia)You made that up. Look it up! Second, if we use your logic than thank God for Newt for passing the balanced budget and welfare reform. I suppose Clinton forced them into it. Bush Sucked, no one can argue that. Again if we use your logic, the democrats ran the senate and house the last 2 years of the Bush admin and the first 2 years of Obama. Why isn’t anything fixed?

            You are a complete fool if you think it was the just GOP that got us into this. Both parties had an equal share in it. Barney Frank new what was happening at Fannie and Freddie.

            Who do you think is Obama’s top 5 visitors since he has been in the white house? Millionares! and Billionares!

            By Obama’s own estimates the deficit will be 21 trillion in 2016. Is that righting the ship?

            The dems and the GOP didn’t care about the deficit. That’s what created the tea party. The shame is people like you have bought into the far right and far lefts sterotyppe about the tea party! Why would anyone with any sense want to give this government another penny the way they spend!

            Last, you said unemployment is down…IT’S THE SAME after 4 years!!!!!!!!!!

            You really need to read your post again. It reads just like Rahm Emanual wrote!

          • dtgraham

            What Bush did was to largely pay for Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. Not only did that mask skyrocketing budget growth at the DOD but this process allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurements. Many look at the budgets of Bush compared to Obama and there’s quite a difference if the wars are deleted. It would be like showing someone your household budget and leaving out the house payment.

            The CBO reports that the single biggest reason for the budget surpluses in the 90’s was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (which passed without a single Republican vote) followed by the improving economy after that. The Balanced Budget Act didn’t come until 1997.

        • Tom_P

          I don’t know, you seem to have the idea that he’s King, and questioning the King is bad for you. Of course, I think he’s the lawfully elected President of the USA, and as we are piously reminded whenever people feel like slapping at Nancy Pelosi, spending originates in Congress.

          In addition, most of that boost was money that Bush spent on Iraq. He just wasn’t counting it as borrowed money, pretty much entirely because it would look bad. But perhaps you prefer deceitful accounting?

          • joeham1

            Tom your either mis-informed or your a liar..The Money Bush spent on the war during his presidency was counted during his presidency. Who ever told you he didn’t count it and Obama did lied to you. That’s not how it works. Inform yourself before you look more dumb than you may be!

            As far as your first statement who said he wasn’t the President? Nancy Pelosi ran the house from 2006 to 2010. What does she have to do with it?

            Try and stay on topic next time you post a comment

          • http://mediajunkie.com/ xian

            false… Bush kept war expenses off the books.

          • joeham1

            Your cracked! He does not have the power to do that! No president can do that!Who told you that? Your an author and the director of product and cloudon and your get on a left wing site and flat out lie!!! Why?

        • TaxpayerinAmerica

          Your opening statement is flawed. You’re talking about generalities of ALL rich people without defining who they are. You also mention the deficit for one year without saying what it is. The deficit for last year was about 1.2 trillion dollars. You’re saying the net worth of all “rich people” is 1.2 trillion dollars. That is patently false. If you add the net worth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet you’re already at 10% of the deficit.

          You make one false statement after the other. The “final deal” you mention is really the beginning of a negotiation process. The grand bargain the President sought included hundreds of billions of dollars of reduced spending that was torpedoed by the Tea Party .

          • joeham1

            You radical moron! The deal is done… 660 Billion in tax increases and 4 trillion is new deficits! Wake up! stop looking at the picture of Obama that’s probably on your wall!

            If you take all the assets from all the millionares in the country it will pay one year of deficits, or maybe 1 1/2 years! That’s of course not the point. He campaigned on a Balanced approach! We didn’t get ANY cuts!

            If you heard what he said yesterday (LOOK IT UP) he will not negotiate on the Debt ceiling!

          • Sand_Cat

            Why don’t you just give it up and go, and stop wasting intelligent people’s time trying to explain it to you rationally. Obviously, you have your own “facts,” and nothing will shake them, in your mind.

          • joeham1

            lol..Don’t call yourself intelligent..You just a puppet

          • TaxpayerinAmerica

            Go to Forbes. Go to list of billionaires. When you get to the 164th American you reach a net value of 1.2 trillion dollars. Those are still multibillionaires. This does not include mere billionaires, let alone millionaires.

            In high school debate class it was very clear to see that people who can not support their argument with facts resort to name calling.

            If you are going to resort to insulting people you disagree with you can certainly do better than “radical moron”.

          • joeham1

            Ok for the sake of it let’s say they are all worth 2 trillion…what’s your point?

            I have a question for you: Not of the 30 or so people will answer these questions.

            Let me start out by saying Bush sucked! I’m not a fan, and I believe he is in the top 3 worst presidents we ever had!

            Knowing that: The President ran on a platform of a Balanced Approach to solving the deficit. He gave well over 100 speeches. The final Deal raises taxes 660 Billion and raises the deficit up to 4 trillion. Now the debt ceiling battle is coming and he said 2 days ago he will not negotiate anyhting. (I agree we need more revenue considering the size of the debt)

            Questions:

            1) Does it bother you that we had no cuts
            2) Do you think he cares about the debt
            3) By his own estimates the deficit will be 21 trillion by the end of his term. Will that make you dislike him as much as you dislike Bush?

        • jarheadgene

          I don’t even know where to start with you except to say you are one of these pictured in this image.

          • joeham1

            Good Response! The facts are to much you. That’s how all of you poor uninformed respond. You don’t have an argument. You are just a poor puppet.

            Try explaining why there were no spending cuts in the cliff deal. I know your love for the president stops you from realizing that a year of campaigning on a Balanced approach resulted in no cuts! Your probably dumb enough to believe the deficit doesn’t matter.

            Tell me how we can have a 240 Billion deficit in december alone!

            If you radical people would relize that Both sides of Government are out of control. Epspecially you Idol!

    • joeham1

      The point to the argument is that The president shows no willingness to even slow spending. We have a huge spending problem. The president spent over a year and over 100 speeches saying we MUST have a balanced approach to cutting the deficit. The fiscal cliff deal he signed raises taxes 660 Billion and increases the deficit another 4 trillion.

      Now the Republicans are saying we need to cut spending in order to raise the debt ceiling. The president is saying he won’t negotiate on the debt limit. Then he said we still need more revenue.

      The left wing will only try to talk about Reagan or Bush or whatever. The deficit will destroy the country is we don’t slow spending!

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

        Congress and only Congress has the power of the purse. Look it up, its in the nations Constitution.

        • joeham1

          Wake up lady! How did Obama Loan GM billions? How did he loan Solynda 500 Million? How did he give 90 Billion in credits to the renewable energy industry?

          The koolaid you drink is spiked with The national Obama Memo juice!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            Sorry Joe, it was congress that did all those things you listed: GM got the billions because Obama followed through on the auto bailout that BUSH SET UP and CONGRESS agreed and signed off on funding the auto bailout!! Which by the way has paid the country handsomely: in the end, the tax payers may lose out on about 12 billion of their bailout money to GM when the treasury sells it’s reaming 300 million shares of stock, but for that 12 billion the country has already received over 120 billion in tax revenues from industry related companies and employees the past 3 years (which would have been lost) and every year this industry and the 1.5 plus million workers who did not lose their jobs keep paying taxes is just more bonus on the 12 billion in investment. And this isn’t even factoring in that the bailout was very likely the single thing that kept America from dropping into the GOP’s second created world-wide depression.

            And Solydra by the way was part of the “renewable energy” funding that was part of TARP which GEORGE BUSH also negotiated. And just for your info, only 26 out of the 90 billion allocated in TARP for the ‘green industry” was ever awarded, and Solyndra was just one of the minor payouts that didn’t work. Actually more than 87% of the 26 billion awarded have paid back handsomely and you can just take a trip to IOWA for example to see how that’s worked and ask some of the thousands in newly created jobs there how they’ve liked what they’ve gotten from TARO – there’s a thriving industry there building windmills which made Iowa folks a little ticked off at Romney for suggesting he’d cut green energy funding during his run for president. Just one of the many moronic ideas Romney had.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            Sorry about a couple of typos in my response – hope they don’t confuse your demented mind too much.

          • joeham1

            There you go again, making figures up!! Are you related to Obama?

            If we go by your socialist statement, then GM couldn’t have gone through normal Bankruptcy and survived? I bet your going to say something stupid like more jobs would have been lost or Obama wouldn’t look as good..

            We need to stop talking to each other. Your so far left it has made you retarded…

            I will leave you with this: When the deficit in 2016 is 21 trillion who will you blame?

      • Sand_Cat

        The president shows a great deal more willingness to cut spending than you and your friends do toward actually collecting revenue from those who benefit the most from being here. His willingness is gargantuan compared to your rationality and grasp of facts.

    • elw

      You have to be a grown up to do what you describe. Lets face it the House of Representatives is very short on grown-ups.

    • mavilasr

      I am in total agreement with you, Val TwoWolves. Your perception is very clear and it shows a very logical and simple analyses. We need people like yourself in Congress who put politics aside and think about the people they serve.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    More important to the US right now than at any other time in history is to create jobs. That means all of us have to have a part in job creation. The small business community at large is best at job creation. Corporations do not, have not and will not create jobs. It’s not in their best profit interests to hire or create jobs. So when all is considered, what remains is a huge push by all Main Street Americans to be entrepreneurs in their own right.

    Today’s US Corporations are ancient relics of what once held as much promise as moonlight and champagne. Well? The moonlight is dimmed to a sliver and their champagne is flat. These US corporations have taken more in tax dollars than they should EVER have been entitled to. Yet, their CEOs are the first to decry having to pay salaries, employee benefits and tah dah….their fair share of taxes.

    Oh but how they do love to go on and on and on about how it’s simply Too Too Too expensive to hire and create jobs or to do business in their own country….the one that is supplying $150 billion a year to them from our taxes. They decry programs Americans invest in like SS, Medicare and Medicaid because…that money piles up and piles up and to their corporate disgust…can’t be touched for reckless high risk investing. They drool over the piles of money in these programs and don’t kid yourselves…those untaxed 401Ks in the trillions will be next on their hit list if you give them a sliver of opportunity to get their syrupy mitts on it.

    In fact, many of these corporate CEOs are already looking at ways to use those employer impounds for the 401Ks as a interest earning source of profit. That money sits in their employer impound accounts until it’s transferred to the 401K plan administrator and in that time collects wads of profit for corporations that don’t even offer a dime of 401K match.

    Meanwhile the GOP suckups are already hungrily eying the trillions sitting in 401K accounts. Let’s not pretend that the Bush Administration in 2005 didn’t already try to tax those 401Ks as taxable earnings.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/EOOP2CLTD4BKLDVZT6QW7PDOCI Robert M

    Maybe I can help the no tax party on how all of this shit works. We all have bills to pay for those things we need. We earn money to pay those bills, in the case of an individual that person has a job or other source of income. Hopefully that income is greater than the amount needed to service the debts and the costs of living. When an individual loses income that makes servicing debts impossible. In that case the individual must have more income to become self sustaining. So, less income means a need to increase income or lower your standard of living if no income is available, fairly simple?

    So it is too with the nation, income fails to meet the needs then income must rise. the nations income is not raised by jobs though it is raised by taxes. In 2000 our nation had a ten trillion dollar surplus, many in government saw this as an ideal time to reduce taxes ostensibly to stimulate growth in the private sector. Sadly in less than one year, the attacks on the U.S. happened and the need for income in the nation increased in order to pay for our response. Still with me? Instead of ending the tax cuts and increasing income as we spent more and more on the military needs, we not only kept on with lowered taxes but lowered them even more. So, we had greater expenditures and less income.

    Here’s the tricky part, the government in its infinite wisdom looked at the numbers and panicked. The wars started to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks were bleeding the nations bank account dry and if added to the budget the numbers would plainly show the need for at least a return to the previous administrations tax rates. Unfortunately, the majority party in congress was too beholden to wealthy and powerful entities to face the negative response from returning too those taxes they had heralded as being so wonderful by virtue of how the economy would grow and prosper since the entities would now spend more on increasing their output, putting more people to work and increasing income by adding numbers to the tax roles and keeping rates low.

    It didn’t take long to see that the effects were somewhat less than accurately predicted. Upper level incomes and holdings grew but there was no corresponding increase in wages or workers. The tax savings were parked off shore in tax havens. So in order to save face, congress decided to keep the stupendously expensive wars “off the books” this allowed them to try and hide or deny the looming disaster. They figured (and now these words are my opinions and assumptions) We will lose the 2008 election and we should be able to drop the consequences for what we’ve done into the lap of a likely democratic president.

    Once again these men miscalculated since the chickens came home to roost before their man could leave office. Still the disaster fell into the hands of the incoming president. Their free spending ways were exacerbated by the billions tossed to banks to keep them afloat all with no oversight to speak of. That has not stopped them from trying to associate the blame for this additional waste of funds on the man who did not sign the bill that passed it out like a reward for almost destroying the worlds economies just as thoroughly as our own.

    So, Mr. Speaker, Senator McConnell, you have a point spending is the problem but you oversimplify it by implying that it is spending on social problem that gutted our economy. You fellows and the way you refused to admit the truth about tax cuts along with deliberate duplicity used to hide the true cost of the war of aggression in Iraq. That is the spending that put us here, not health care, not SNAP, not Social Security or Medicare. The combined cost of all of these programs amounts to less than six months of war in Iraq.

    When you tell Americans that it is the fault of children, the disabled, and the elderly you lie. I know that lying is your go to defense for everything, having witnessed the last election cycle, but the time is over, trickle down is a lie. When the wealth is held by a few they do not spend it on the nation, they hide it and hold it like a medieval miser. So fellows, it is time to be men and face the music, admit that you have failed and that the economy and the nation must have more to function. Sure, there must be spending cuts as well as tax increases in the brackets that can afford them but, why must it be cuts made on those few things that help those people in need and not corporate subsidies or inheritance taxes or luxury taxes? Do you fellows think that it is okay for a poor person to go sick and hungry and live on the streets instead of making Joe Millionaire forego a vacation home or Rolls or two?

    • nobsartist

      Well put. How do we make THEM pay?

    • neeceoooo

      Such a well spoken statement, now if the right people would read this and take a lesson.

  • Debbie10

    The Republicans are so concerned about the deficit now and want a more balanced budget in hopes that the next Presidential election a Republican will be elected as President so that THEY can then SPEND MONEY. President Clinton turned it over to G.W. Bush with surplus that he obliterated, now they want the Democrat President to clean it all up, once AGAIN so that they will be able to give the big Tax Breaks to the Rich!!

  • William Deutschlander

    The 21st Century Republican Cartel is so damn ignorant that they do not posses the ability to sensibly govern themselves.

    The Republicans CREATED 85% of the NATIONAL DEBT, talk about imbecilies, they take the cake.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RGOUPZ3JYNMPBVOHLZRCRVRD6Q ivory69690

    Is it either sensible or humane to decide in 2013 on the basis of such limited knowledge to toss future seniors and low-income Medicaid recipients under the bus? Health care costs are something we must keep working on. We can buy time for this difficult undertaking by getting the deficit down to a sustainable level.//// is ZERO a sustainable level ? . if so then go to what worked for a fact . the Clinton era. THE funnest thing of all is when we owe no-one nothing were all these ppl. in office when we started to owe other country,s money ? why wasnt thy doing something about it then when it started get the country into debt.? i mean come on some one had to see the country going from being in the black and not oweing no one nothing. to a time when we started going into the red . why wasnt this addressed when it was happening ? it should been addressed when it started going into the red from the dirty bush era. who,s to blame ? prob. both party,s and the strange thing now is the GOP party of no want the ones that need it the most to get us out of trouble . while the greedy bastard 2 % rich just keep making money off the backs of the 98 % middle class . the 2 % are the ones that got the most out of the country going into the red oweing money . so its only right that thy at least pay a fair share of a % no more no less . thy really should pay more . but justy a fair share of a % would work . as for the ppl. that are on here that find things wrong with the greedy bastards paying a fair share of a % dont even understand that thy are in the 98% bracket . and there hate is so bad thy cant even see whats going on . the greedy 2% dont come on here and read this stuff on yahoo news thy could care less . thy are all thinking how thy can make more money and screw the goverment and its ppl. so thy can get more money . thy dont have time to be on here reading this stuff . so all the ones that talk about the 2 % shouldnt pay a fair share of a % are really standing up for the ones that want to take from them . is your hate that bad for a black Pres.?so much hate that you want your selfs to suffer and it dont matter because you hate is so bad? thjere are times when every race had a hate club against them . the Irish Ital. Spanish Greek Blacks . and so on . every rate has a hateing fan club. untill every one understands yes its a race thing and it always should be (A HUMAN RACE THING ) untill ppl understand this then and only then can we move on to a better life

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RGOUPZ3JYNMPBVOHLZRCRVRD6Q ivory69690

    how many ppl. truly would like to go back to the time of the Clinton era ? if you was told that in 8 years the country could have 23 million jobs made and the rich can even get richer and at the end of the 8 years the country wouldnt owe no one nothing would you say yes to that or no ? and put hate aside and just think of helping yourself and the country and its people .

  • Countrybumpkin

    There can be no doubt that our Media is influencing public opinion. One only has to look at Fox and Limbaugh to see the difference between “reporting” and a party propaganda machine. Much of the rest of our media is following suit bystaying “neutral”, which works when you have an educated and involved citizenry, which is not the case in this country.
    Proof is the viewership of the right wing media, the influence they have over a large part of our citizen, resulting in the cadre of their elected Representatives.
    Thank you I.J. for a sane voice in sea of confusion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EQ5LTH2XTZCVP7G4FGK6Z2YTJE ignore the facts

    The noise of the tea party is laughable. These are the same jerks who put two wars on a credit card and didn’t even blink. Obama is trying to get us on a road to improvement. Improvement means investing in our country – infrastructure, solar energy, education, – all the things repugs hate. They DO love guns though. And they DO love dictating to women. Look at their ugly faces: READ their faces. Stop being so blind. These are the people who elect the lying idiots in SC and now plan to elect him again. Give me a break. They are rednecks, hating the fact our president is so much smarter than any of them, or all of them together.

  • Pingback: What I’m Reading, Monday, January 7, 2013 | Rationally Thinking Out Loud

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

    I didn’t catch this until I took a close look at the chart. If you check the Green zone, the revenue took a HUGE drop between 2006 and 2008. At the same time, spending SPIKED by at a factor of at least two.
    After George the Second was finished, President Obama actually began cutting the spending side of the equation. (NOT MY WORDS!!!! THESE ARE ON THE CHART SHOWN BY REPRESENTATIVE BOEHNER!!!)
    ALSO, REPRESENTATIVE BOEHNER CONVENIENTLY STARTED THE CHART IN 2006, WHICH DOES NOT SHOW ANY OF THE DECREASES IN REVENUE OR THE INCREASES IN SPENDING FROM 2000 THROUGH 2006 WHEN GEORGE THE SECOND WAS IN OFFICE.
    THE CHART SHOULD START IN 1996 SO WE CAN GET A TRUE PICTURE OF WHAT SPENDING AND REVENUE REALLY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE GEORGE THE SECOND WENT ON HIS “WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY” BINGE ALONG WITH HIS SPENDING BINGE.
    The spending side of the chart shows that spending will remain flat or will fall slightly until at least 2016, when President Obama leaves office. But the real problems begin in 2021 and later.
    Maybe it is just me, but it looks like Representative Boehner is predicting a Republican win in 2016. Or maybe in 2020.

    WHEN THE “CONSERVATIVES” CAN GO ON ANOTHER SPENDING BINGE!

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

    Clinton had the deficit under control. In the Bush era congress went wild and spent money they didn’t have, two wars and a drug program . Now they want to blame it on Obama .Get our economy going then worry about the deficit. Start by cutting congresse’s wages and medical insurance. Stop waste in congress pet projects and spend money on jobs. Social Security is not part of the deficit the funds don’t go into government they go into a social Security fund .

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

      Replying to gargray –

      Unfortunately, there is NO Social Security lockbox. The money collected from Social Security and Medicare has been used as a revenue source for decades, in order to paint a rosy picture of actual tax receipts.

      The funds went to pay for government spending, as well as to pick up the slack for the tax cuts that were offered to the public, as candy and ice cream for little children.

      People who did not understand that they were actually poisonous to all but the insanely wealthy, who benefitted the most by selling the candy and ice cream.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/C22AJV5GXSF4QE3YJY5IGBTULU TSB

    Where did the “debt ceiling” come from? Who devised it? What good is it? It’s always raised. Doesn’t that make it as useless as our legislation process?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1118543425 Robin O’Brien

    Health care cost inflation is dropping in part because they cannot ‘suck anymore blood from my paycheck’. The insurance companies know that middle-class folks do not have anymore money to contribute to their profit margins. Funny how that works???!!!!…..Remember decades ago when medical costs weren’t even part of our home budgets…..families didn’t have 30 mortgages…?
    Sorry big banks and insurance companies…..
    We’ve run out of money!

  • nobsartist

    Section 4, 14th Amendment was created to prevent these same jackass’s from using the debt as hostage for political gain.

    Force mconnell to apologize for being a racist asshole and then implement section 4.

  • Pi_Boson

    The Constitution is a wonderful demonstration of American ingenuity! There really is no foundation for a “debt celing” discussion as the 14th amendment to the Constitution commits the country to its debt. We need to MoveOn to more serious discussion about spending. Take the $69M for Sandy relief. Why are millions of dollars included for a Smithsonian roof!?! Or, why are millions of dollars included for Alaska fisheries!?! Emergency spending is the wrong place for this spending. Eliminate lifetime benefits for former elected individuals in Congress and we save nearly a billion annually. Means testing for social security. Reward outing of abuse. Eliminate tax credits for more than 2 children. Make R&D tax credits permanent.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

      I’m sorry, but I guess I’m getting a little tired of people looking at ear marks in the Sandy relief legislation and automatically thinking the ear marks are necessarily pork. And with that, I’m not saying some of them may not be pork, but no one posting comments here is qualified to make that judgement, any more than even another legislator is, that was not part of the congressional committee that created the ear mark. A couple years ago a couple prominent GOP congressional reps ranted for days about some ear marks in a bill that had been passed, only to come away with egg on their face when the ear marks were providing funding for some very critical national security and medical research projects. And given the abysmal record the 112th congress had with passing ANY LEGISLATION, the ear marks people are seeing in the Sandy relief legislation could be funding for projects that were approved by committees months ago and have just been waiting for the Senate to pass a funding bill they could be attached to. And given that the Smithsonian is housed in federally funded buildings, and Sandy created distruction in the DC area, why are people questioning that the Sandy legislation has an ear mark to repair a Smithsonian roof?

  • elw

    I find it funny that Republicans, after spending months calling people who default on their mortgages names, think nothing of threatened to not pay US bills for the money they agreed to spend. No wonder their approval rating is so low.

  • jstsyn

    “Only politics of a very degraded kind can keep us from moving forward.” Well, there you have it, exactly what republicans have been and will continue to do. The only way is to tie their hands. One way or another. Before they destroy America for their own misguided ideology. Or because they don’t like Obama and care less about our country.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CW65XXSV7JU3DG4S3WBB6AWH2Y David

    I agree with Val, you need to self evaluate and then make changes. Hopefully you will lower spending and have increased income at the same time easing the problem. Due to population growth the cost to run America will always increase but the income provided by an educated employed populous should offset some what. Sustained secure retirement provided by companies that work hard providing services and or products that we can use and should be able to sustain this American public. We need to focus that spending where we get some kind of return. That is education, college loans, loan forgiveness for work, loans to business for infrastructure projects, technological advancements and that not always the business of WAR

  • http://www.facebook.com/Imakakoloa Thomas Ah Yee

    If I remember Boeher used this same chart during the Presidential Election. Like do your GD homework, figure out the math. You are just using this chart as means and cutting the Social Security, Medicare and Medicade on the poor people and get us to bear the weight because you put this country in this predicament, you and your pork belly political push to get something for your own state. Enough is enough. A Social Security receipiant, not an entitlement, because I pay for this while I was working. Your benefits are an entitlement because we the people are paying for it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PASUKBKFRYDL62QPYTQDVWYM7A Bruce Brown

    If we chase all the rich people (or the well to do) out of America, then who will pay for the free cell phones for the poor. yes for all of you who do not know the poor get free cell phones and free min. every month, who will babysit your childern, now gramdma gets paid to babysit her grandchild, and your free child healthcare, your section 8 free housing, your free medicade, your $800.00 of food stamps for a family of 4. By the way these people say they are not on welfare because the don’t get cash assistance

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FZRMJBSL6FVVGXGV4JJNWALPRY KM

    Two things;

    I DO believe that health care IS a driver of our deficits – President Clinton TRIED to address that issue in 1993/94 and look what they did to him….

    Secondly; I don’t know how President Obama can call the tax issue just passed as part of the debt deal a victory…It’s a victory for W’s friends/& the Repukes who now have permanent tax cuts, while the payroll tax holiday – which will hit the 98% harder that the 400,000 limit will hit the 1%…was repealed

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FZRMJBSL6FVVGXGV4JJNWALPRY KM

    Plus…
    President Obama caved and raised the income limit on taxes to 400,00o from 250,000…

    The Repukes in Congress will only be emboldened by that and will try and coerce him on the debt ceiling…guaranteed…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YDGRKS5L2M2G2J6DTM4ZI25C2A John Griggs

    How about 1.2 trillion in cuts since we just got our tax increases?

  • howa4x

    This is funny since most of these same republicans voted for all the deficit making activities, like our 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded tax cut to the wealthy, and an unfunded drug benefit. They were still screamming about the deficit while trying to preserve the defict making tax cut for the wealthy again. They want to use this congress made crisis to try and roll back medicare and SS, while keeping tax subsidies for the oil companies and agra business. If we were really serious about this we would get the IRS to go after every wealthy american that stashed their money offshore to avoid taxes, like Romney,as well as all those corporations that paid none like GE. This is all a game to scare the dopes, who can’t understand complex logic and that make up the base of the party.

  • rustacus21

    Thanx to the Debt (‘fiscal cliff’) crisis, we get a chance to see just how anxiously detached from reality conservatives are ‘in reality’ & makes it far easier to reject their deficiencies & derangement’s. After all, is it anxiety on their part, to be so obsessed w/scaring people w/obsessive regularity? Why are they so averse to honesty & truth? What is responsible for their lust for discord & combativeness, when in the midst of negotiations that mean exercising of economic demons that have dogged the nation’s economy for over a decade now? Being marginal & completely useless, I don’t see the media fixation on reporting their every whine & belly-ache… If not for the tax cut cash still have on hand to hire out corporate media types to try making even the most vacant & irrelevant conservatives (McConnell, Boehner, Issa, Gohmert, etc.) into policy genius’ – in spite of their heretical inclinations. Having no clue what’s at stake, the Obama administration would be wise to simply ignore them & go about their business w/discussions between they and the American people exclusively. Their votes will on all of today’s issues will speak for themselves by the Mid Term elections, when the opportunity to replace conservatives w/competent, rational & actually ‘feeling’ human beings to responsibly preside over crucial issues in an adult fashion befitting their office & most importantly – PAY SCALE!!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/X2KKGDYW2F5T5XUT6233KBNWSI robert

    The Republicans/Tea Bags on the way out are leaving the same obstructionists in the House that were instrumental in shutting down the government in 2011, grid locking the economy, and creating the economic straits that kept unemployment on the rise so that they could blame it on the Obama/Biden administration. Not only should they be fired in 2014, Americans should seek out all of the Yellow Dog Democrats who are their sympathizers and work against America in favor of Republican/Tea Bag agenda. They have to choose between being a Democrat and work with their party and their leader or go across the aisle and vote with the Republican/Tea Bag scum. They sympathize with traityors, so they too are traitors and should be fired as well. America should clean house of all of those who work against American progress and the future of American people. We are AMERICAN FIRST, not Republican/Tea Bag, Moderate Republican, Moderate Democrat, Democrat, or Independent. Read Galatians 3: 27-29. In the light of God, there is no chosen, no Jew, no Gentile, no white, no African, no Republican/Tea Bag, no Yellow Dog Democrat, no Democrat. The moment Christ left the Cross, we are all ONE in Him. You can’t serve two masters.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LIOWPV3RG2BI6EUJVVKTE6KSQU Charles

    FUCK THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC. i AM TIRED OF THE WHOLE THING.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/OV7JCHKQWLL3CIRRJ7ZWIMAZBE carlondde

    I just saw speaker Boehner on a board that read Spending is the Problem I want to change that to Republicans are the Problem!

  • JohnRNC

    What is that ridiculous chart he is pointing to??? Is it modern art? Or Ross Perot run amuck!?

  • gahoof

    Cut Spending?

    Where?

    What spending?

    I have read reams of opinions and not one specific proposal for a spending cut. Are we talking about closing all of the national parks and laying off the National Park Rangers and support personnel? How about stopping border patrols? Maintenance workers for our roads and bridges? How about harbor pilots (let the ship captains dock their own boats). Give me some concrete proposed cuts to seriously think about!

    My taxes (and I pay plenty) go to support the many things that make this country a great place to live in this world (when was the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak across the border to live in Paraguay or Egypt, or China?).

    I guess what it boils down to is that those who want to cut government spending would like us to sign off on a blank agreement to cut spending; they’ll decide afterward what programs and personnel to cut (when we’ve realized, too late, how important the programs or personnel were to our lives and lifestyles).

    • daniel bostdorf

      Well…let’s start with defense….500 billion over ten years.

      Let’s get Halliburton and the other military industrial complex freeloaders and overbilers off the backs of taxpayers.

      Instead of trumped up wars around the world…..how about a “war on poverty that is the #1 problem in this country?

      Hard to believe but: Today—Jan 8th 1964…President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” in his State of the Union address.

      The GOP (and now the Teaparty) for over 50 years have nearly destroyed American economy with policies based on a civil war against the poor and middle class.

      President Eisenhower warned us…and we failed to heed the warning.

      From his farewell address on January 17, 1961:

      “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…
      This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
      We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

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

    When I was growing up I would watch the news in amazement at how many polititcians were removed from office by summary execution. I would listen to the spin as to how barbaric these actions were and how undemocratic were those who committed them. All the while… the truth behind these executions never came to light. We were left to swallow the fiction that only the United States is a civilized country, and that All others were backward and barbaric societies who were lucky to have the U.S.A. as an ally. Watching the actions of Congress over the past 4 years, I have come to understand why extreme measures are sometimes taken. The crop of mis-fits currently in Congress do not represent the interests of American citizens. The debt, for example, is the bill for what has already been spent. When George Bush launched two wars, he did so on credit card… Those wars have not been paid for… and because they have not been paid for, we are required to pay “interest” in addition to repaying the principal. The deficit that Congress likes to cry about is a direct result. When the economy took a nose-dive back in September 2008, millions of people were put out of work as debts were called on the hundreds of billions of dollars of CMOs, CDOs, etc., the monopoly money masqueraded as sound-investment opportunity… Defaulted!!! If it were not for the “Government” stepping in to fill the income void of millions of Americans put out of work, we would be in a “Mad Max” situtation. You would need to be heavily armed just to prevent marauders from crashing through your front door to steal the food in your cabinets and refrigerators. It would be hell on earth in real time. Instead of showing a little gratitude and humility, however, the Republican Congress has done just the opposite. They whine, bitch, and complain that they cannot have their way… and finish us off for good. If the Bush tax-cuts were such a stroke of wisdom… Where in the hell are all the damn jobs??? The truth is, not a single job was created. We had a “Jobless Recovery” in the early years, 2002-2005. Remember the collapse of the dot.coms??? Warren Buffet had been derided as too old to get with the new economy because he insisted upon seeing tangible assets before investing in the dot.coms. Well, as it turned out, he was on to something. Millions of jobs were lost. The Republicans in Congress do not have a plan. There plan is to stand in the way and obstruct. The time has come to remove them. They have bcome the enemy. Nothing they say makes any sense… and has not worked over the past 12 years or so. It could not possibly be the answer today. If they won’t leave office willingly they must be forced out.

scroll to top