Well... that will fix it.

This is an announcement for the dunce and thief sitting on his worthless ass in Washington.

Moron:
Make a note of this..........the global warming hoax has been exposed for what it truly was, a marxist scam to redistribute trillions of dollars to your cronies and thieves. Your stimulus was nothing more than a payout to your cronies in the unions, media, AIG, and wall street for their donations for your campaign, which you gave them back with interest with this stimulus scam. Get a clue, be a man for once in your life and resign. Let a real American lead the country out of this quagmire that you and your worthless marxist assclowns have created for the past 50 years. Let real Americans undo all the damage, and we will allow you to live in the U.S. and pretend you are something your not. You worthless assclown marxist dunce.
Tutamen Deus

To Rob the A Hole

Good one!!!

Unfortunately everyhing you wrote hits the nail on the head.
We're in a world-o-hurt for the next three years.

As for the Rebs... Please remain the "Party of No" and derail everything these Maxist clowns send your way!

Gee, let's create yet another do-nothing committee that sucks up valuable resources, provides plum political appointee positions under the guise of bi-partisanship, then blame its failure on the political opposition.

There is no bipartisanship in D.C., just dems in power trying to ram their bullshit agenda down our throats and entrenched repubs digging in their heels. Evan Bayh is right, we should vote ALL of the scum out and elect newbies that want to make a difference and don't yet know how to fuck us all while playing the system.

B.O. the Community Organizer/Communist Sympathizer (whatever) just doesn't fucking get it.

Only 3 more years until the stench of B.O. wafts away...

Doc - That is the party of NO OBAMA to you and your MSNBC ilk.

Obama spent $787 billion for what? To "save 2 million jobs?" That's $393,000 PER job! And according to Joe Biden, the back half of the stimulus money is for jobs.

Why the hell wouldn't JOBS be included in the FIRST part of the stimulus?

The assclown in the White House hasn't a clue how to run a bingo game much less the fucking country.

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuslhiiiiit
...

Create a commission to keep your hands clean. Been done for years. BHO's a quick study.

If the purpose of the commission is to determine where we need to cut, then I am all for it.

If the purpose is to determine how to ass-fuck the working people (whether they make 20K or 20M a year) out of more of their money, then I believe it should be opposed.

THE ONLY WAY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET IS TO STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY.

For those on the left and the right... let me say again. No more pet projects. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more. Start with a 20% across the board reduction AS THE BASELINE... instead of a 5 - 20% increase. Then work on the numbers.

Figure out what we need to do to create more jobs in this country... and then make the changes needed. HINT... more taxes is NEVER the answer to creating jobs. Neither is crap-n-tax.

Don't give an incentive to move, but don't tax or regulate the business out the door either.

Look at moving from an income tax to a consumption tax... such as a national sales tax. REPLACE the income tax with the sales tax, not as an addition to the income tax.

With all the whining from the right about deficits they've had more of a hand in creating, why all the protests over the creation of a 'deficit commission'? Afraid of what will make the papers going into the fall elections? Probably.

It appears to me he doesn't need a commision to create a deficit. He's doing quite well as it is...

"Bipartisanship" would require Republicans to "participate" in Congress; you know, "do their jobs"; "jobs" they were duly elected and swore an oath to do...

That's asking way too much of Republicans; they'll just sit on their asses voting "no", and then rant wildly during the next election that the Democrats and Obama didn't accomplish anything. All-the-while trying to take credit for any progress that the rest of the legislative and executive branches achieve. Just like with the stimulus package; fighting against and critisizing Obama out one side of their mouth, while taking credit for the benefits back home out the other...

Republican politics as usual: we didn't win, so we're not PLAYIN!!!

F'n pathetic...

CAPT-
Can it be possible that your folks aren't interested in cooperating? Is it your thought that Dems won, so Reps must necessarily relinquish their views and blend into the Dems? What of the voters who sent Reps to Congress?

If not, how do YOU define compromise or bipartisianship?

band aids on a gushing wound

our nation has over the past 40 or so years pissed our manufacturing industry away. we have nothing to build an economy on other than bullshit and ponzi schemes (i.e. mortgages or insurance).

we have lived off the advantage we had over the rest of the world after WW2 for as long as we can milk it, now we just live on credit cards

and people call for cutting government spending? WOW dumbest idea of all.

how many people live off the public tit, stop paying them stop putting them to work, their income goes down, your federal income goes down your service requirements go up and recession worsens.

we have gotten here because we have as a nation encouraged businesses move overseas, we have not protected our industries we have given up our manufacturing base, we have killed our middle class.

it aint getting better any time soon.

fuck it lets send republicans to congress they can cut taxes (ie revenues) and encourage the rich to offshore jobs and they can spend like drunken sailors, they can fight hundreds of wars and not fund them and hand money to bankers hand over fist so their CEOs can get incredifuck bonuses

we can then put dems in office who can spend like drunken sailors and cant even get a sensible health care bill passed that actually might have HELPED the middle class

Many people think there is a difference between Demowussies and Rethuglicans. They are wrong. Clinton killed welfare and initiated NAFTA.

Obama is attempting to build cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. After Wall Street looted $13 trillion (its not even over yet) there is no will to spend $1 trillion for a good cause. How disgusting is that?

I wonder if I will live long enough to hear them talk about quadrillion dollar budgets and deficits.

this nation and the world is headed for a massive world wide depression. It will likely start with a real or manufactured shortage of a critical natural resource, oil or water, causing a crash of financial institutions, leading to revolution. wont be pretty

Barry doesn't need to create a commission. I already know what the problem is:

"Bipartisanship" would require Republicans to "participate" in Congress; you know, "do their jobs"; "jobs" they were duly elected and swore an oath to do..."
#11 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2010-02-17 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

CAPT -
Many of the republicans in congress were elected by conservatives to do exactly what they are doing, block dem spending. The new senator from Mass. was elected specifically for this purpose. Their constituencies sent them in the hope that they were fiscal conservatives, but most have been corrupted by the "system" of theft and coercion and now just look like hypocrites.

We need a clean slate and term limits NOW!

"I wonder if I will live long enough to hear them talk about quadrillion dollar budgets and deficits."

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-17 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

TRUTH -
Wait for the inflation to kick in, then hold on tight! You're right, this is gonna get real ugly before it gets any better.

I wonder if I will live long enough to hear them talk about quadrillion dollar budgets and deficits.
#16 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

That's about the size of Wall Street's OTC derivative market. It's what brought down AIG and now sovereign nations like Greece.

Kudos #8.

and people call for cutting government spending? WOW dumbest idea of all.

how many people live off the public tit, stop paying them stop putting them to work, their income goes down, your federal income goes down your service requirements go up and recession worsens.

Spoken like a true liberal. Government IS the problem, NOT the solution. Governments don't create jobs, corporations, people with money and ideas create jobs.

This country was made great because of CAPITALISM, not GOVERNMENTALISM/SOCIALISM.

Did your grandfather live off the government tit too?

Commissions, Blue Ribbon Panels, etc., all exist to give to the public the appearance of doing something while accomplishing nothing. Simply eyewash.

Truthhurts...

I can agree with some small parts of what you are saying... decreased gov't spending will hurt those people who are living on the gov't tit.

However, there is NO solution to the current problems if we don't drastically reduce spending. NONE. This country can not survive. Only question is, can any hard moves, such as drastic cuts in spending coupled with massive changes in tax laws and environmental laws revitalize this nation. I honestly do not know the answer to that.

I would rather have the attempt made, while there is still a chance of fixing the problem. Every day we wait, the situation gets worse, more people start sucking on the gov't tit.

2 solutions Libertarian:

1) Cut the entire Federal budget 10% every year until the budget is balanced and our HUGE, $15 Trillion, DEBT is paid for.

2) Cut corporate taxes on those companies that employ more than 100 people. You employ more than 500, you get another tax break, employ 1000 another tax break, etc.

A commission on the deficit is a good thing, in a vacuum. But anyone who knows how ineffectual the politicians are in our country knows this isn't going to make much of a difference.

If Obama really wanted to reduce the deficit, he'd go through the budget and determine things he wanted cut, and tell Congress he won't pass a budget unless meaningful cuts are made. Then he'd advocate raising taxes to further reduce the deficit.

He won't do that, because people like to have everything government hands out and nobody likes to pay for it. Can't risk being unpopular so the deficit just grows and grows.

Then he'd advocate raising taxes to further reduce the deficit.

Joe - Taxes ARE not the problem. Government spending IS. Do you really think the government should take more than .25 cents of every dollar you make?

No. I support lowering taxes and reducing spending dramatically, but I know Obama's not going to do that. I'm saying that as a liberal who claims to care about the deficit, that is definitely an option to Obama.

Get rid of the standing army and remove all bases overseas. Get rid of the FDA, EPA, FAA, FCC, DHS. Privatize the police, fire departments, schools. Get rid of medicare, medicaid, social security. Sell all federal highways to private industry and turn them into toll roads.

We could get a net positive out of this, how could any real Republican complain, unless they were a poser.

Let's gut the NIH, NSF, NASA, DARPA as well. Science is for losers and Al Gore types. Imagine the savings!

Close down all publicly funded universities as well.

None of these programs are in the bill of rights or the constitution so you dont have a 'right' to any of them, excepting the military of course (UCS sec. 8):

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

All we have to do is call your senator and tell him vote against the next military appropriations bill.

USC that is....

Great idea DeLabia...

Only a dork would want to get rid of our army.

The fox eats all the eggs then sets up a commission to examine the problem.

It was our money Little Barry. Thanks for nothing.

"The fox eats all the eggs "

After coming into the henhouse with only a few hens left. It seems the prior owners, who at one point had record hens, left town with almost all of them.

Not so fast Danny Boy...Obama has fucked as many, if not more, hens than Bush.

deficit commission with no teeth and congress not required to vote on any recommendation.so what is the point? obama just created 15 more jobs.

Why a commission?

Isn't it the job of the House to approve spending and the president to sign said spending into law?

This appears to be an attempt to divert blame for constitutional responsibility.

I'd think the right would be very happy to have a deficit commission. The Republicans in Congress who were for it are now against it. Afraid of looking like hypocritical fools for having created the deficits in the first place are they?

AU,

Why a commission at all?

It's congress' job to approve spending - just do their fricking job and spare us taxpayers the expense of another beaurocracy which has no constitutional power.

JEFFJ

Bush and Cheney fought the formation of the 9/11 Commission. After all, our country's security is an Executive Branch responsibility.

I would expect Republicans in Congress to be jumping for joy over the formation of a Deficit Commission. Why some of the same bunch who were for it are now against it can only be attributable to their being afraid of the chickens coming home to roost (their culpability in creating the debt and deficits), or they're the same bunch who holler about deficits but say 'NOT IN MY DISTRICT' when it comes to cutting government expenditures.

Why a commission at all?

It's congress' job to approve spending - just do their fricking job and spare us taxpayers the expense of another beaurocracy which has no constitutional power.

See #42. This is a 'commission' not a 'bureaucracy'. They're do their research, release their findings and that'll be that - like any other commission.

It's going to be interesting watching the REpublicans of today ruthlessly attacking Republican statesmen from yesteryear who recommend taht taxes need to be increased. The scum who call themselves REpublicans and Libertarians today enjoyed the benefits provided them by The Greatest Generations' willingness to pay taxes and build a great nation, these unappreciative selfish punks of my own generation whine for tax cuts while the country crumbles around them. At least my kids have been well informed about who is destroying this country. Terrorists have never done as much damage to America as the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush have. Funny thing, the Bush administration never even tried to pay for its efforts to conduct the all important War on Terror. It's hard to take that war seriously if the people in charge at the time thought it offered them an opportunity to cut taxes.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes every year but his first. Still, he tripled the national debt and started the GOP fiscal 'kick the can down the road', 'fuzzy math', and now 'fuzzy memories'.

"Ronald Reagan raised taxes every year but his first."

On working people. He dramatically lowered taxes on rich folks.

See #42. This is a 'commission' not a 'bureaucracy'. They're do their research, release their findings and that'll be that - like any other commission.

I hear what you are saying, however it seems to me that this is just an opportunity for congress to hide behind the so-called 'expertise' of some vaunted commission as an excuse to enact unpopular provisions - such as cutting spending (NIMBY) and raising taxes.

It seems cowardly.

Having said that, if end result is congress making tough decisions that end up reducing our deficits and hopefully actually address our out-of-control debt, then I can get behind something like this.

Actually, Reagan proposed massive spending cuts to coincide with his tax cuts. However, the programs he sought to cut were near and dear to the Dem majority in the house and a deficit budget was the comprimise.

Further proof that our government is only good at 2 things. Killing people and wasting money...

Does anyone on this board believe that the final solution penned by the Deficit Committee will include a reduction in overall government spending? Even 1 measly percent? Who believes that instead they'll 'reduce the rate of increase' and jack up the taxes, 'fees', 'surcharges', etc..?

The solution is easy to say and hard to sell:
1. Fair Tax
2. Term limits (6 years max)
3. Eradication of the funded 2-party system
4. Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.

"1. Fair Tax"

code for more tax cuts for rich folks.

Let's gut the NIH, NSF, NASA, DARPA as well. Science is for losers and Al Gore types. Imagine the savings!

Close down all publicly funded universities as well.

Lets cut social security in half, across the board.

Eliminate public schools, public highways, eliminate it all. Food stamps, aid to states.

Thats the ticket.

"1. Fair Tax"

code for more tax cuts for rich folks.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-18 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag

When you have to lie about the tax rate in the propaganda, you know it is bad.

You righties think 25 cents on the dollar is too much, how do you justify 30 cents on the dollar under the "fair" tax.

"Actually, Reagan proposed massive spending cuts to coincide with his tax cuts. However, the programs he sought to cut were near and dear to the Dem majority in the house and a deficit budget was the comprimise."

Actually he greatly increased spending on the military and the Democrats voted to pass his plan. What created the huge deficit was the huge recession that followed due to the high interest rates imposed by Paul Volker to fight inflation.

As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent.

This is a joke right?

Only Washington could come up with a Bipartisan Deficit Commission that will spend millions of dollars on how to handle the deficit.

When you have debt you must cut spending, it's not that complicated.

"When you have debt you must cut spending, it's not that complicated."

When I have debt I increase my income and leave my spending as it is. We need to raise taxes and increase the income of the federal government. YOu can't cut spending and fight a recession at the same time. That is a recipe for a depression Mr. Hoover.

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
With all the whining from the right about deficits they've had more of a hand in creating, why all the protests over the creation of a 'deficit commission'? Afraid of what will make the papers going into the fall elections? Probably.
--------------
As long as there are people like you who support this stuff, it's not shocker that we are in mess were in.

Putting a commission together that will add to the deficit to try and figure out how to lower the very same thing they are adding to is worthless.

Do you really think the government should take more than .25 cents of every dollar you make?

In the short-term, and coupled with reduced spending, raising taxes is the best solution. Anyone who argues otherwise is blowing smoke. If you really want to fix our budget woes, everyone is going to have to take a hit.

The Fair Tax is for suckers. What we will get, mark my words now, is a VAT along with our current income tax regime.

When you have debt you must cut spending

And collect more revenue. Cutting spending alone will not fix the problem.

#59 | Posted by taxman

When you have debt you must cut spending

And collect more revenue. Cutting spending alone will not fix the problem.
-----------
I never heard Suzzy Orman give that advise or any otherdebt counsler for that matter.

Rasing revenue will do you no good if you don't control spending.

If you really want to fix our budget woes, everyone is going to have to take a hit.

Yes - accross-the-board.

This collective-hit must both encompass serious cuts in government spending AND, *ahem* modest tax-increased accross the board. We've really reached that point.

Dollar-for-dollar, let the Dems decide where to allocate the tax-increases and let the GOP allocate where to cut spending. It will be messy, but fair.

Dave says "sell the car".

I never heard Suzzy Orman give that advise or any otherdebt counsler for that matter.

Suzzy Orman doesn't deal with the federal budget. If you think you can fix the problem by reducing spending alone then you have no clue as to how bad the problem is. You want to fix the problem but feel you shouldn't have to suffer. As I have said before, everyone wants a fiscally responsible government except when that fiscal responsibility may affect that generally fiscally responsible person. For example, "raise taxes, but not my taxes." Or, "Cut spending, but not spending in my district."

Rasing revenue will do you no good if you don't control spending.

Did you notice the "And" at the beginning of my response. Reduce spending AND collect more revenue. Reading is fundamental.

How can the man first post a budget that leads to 18 trillion in debt and then follow that up by creating a deficit commission?

Seems like he's going against his own ideas... Can this possibly be seen as a commission to look at his own budget proposal? But it's encouraging... Maybe he is seeing the light after all.

#64 | Posted by taxman
Rasing revenue will do you no good if you don't control spending.

Did you notice the "And" at the beginning of my response. Reduce spending AND collect more revenue. Reading is fundamental.
-----------------

Reading is fundamental, and so is commonsense, which you lack.

Washingtons problem is not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.

Go to any debt counsler and they will tell you the same thing.

As long as we have people like you the problem will continue.

It's the spending stupid!!!!!

Washington is the last 20 years has raised more revenues than it did in it's 1st 100 years, yet the % of debt per GDP is much higher or any other way you calculate it.

If revenue was the problem than why was Washington not in this kind of debt it's 1st 100 years? Hmmm

Washingtons problem is not a revenue problem

When more is going out than is coming in, you have a revenue problem. In order to cure such a problem new streams of revenue must be generated along with budget cuts. Once the budget is balanced you can cut taxes and assess which programs, if any should be reinstated going forward. If you want the problem fixed you have to pay the piper as well. Don't try to pass the burden on to someone else; otherwise, you come off as a disingenuous hack who has no idea what he is talking about.

If revenue was the problem than why was Washington not in this kind of debt it's 1st 100 years?

A result of not generating enough revenue to pay for government spending. Pay-go was a novel idea, but politicians always find ways around these kinds of issues.

Again, if you really want to fix our budget woes, you need to cut spending accross the board and raise taxes in the short-term. If you don't like it, you are part of the problem.

I think another possibility is to cut taxes across the board AND cut spending at an even higher rate. If you, the federal government, cannot get by on the over $1 Trillion you receive every year, then you are the problem. We are getting into figures of money that most people cannot even comprehend.

I think another possibility is to cut taxes across the board AND cut spending at an even higher rate.

Just above you said taxes need to be raised (short-term) coupled with a cut in spending. Which is it? I agree with your argument of cutting taxes, but not in the short term.

Of course we can all talk about how great cutting spending would be, but where do you want to cut it? Entitlement programs are the easiest targets because of who they benefit, but entitlement programs don't make up a huge chunk of our spending.

Maybe the feds should accelerate repayment of federal student loans, SBA loans, and other forms of government loans.

And collect more revenue. Cutting spending alone will not fix the problem

the problem is the government spends any new revenue as fast as it comes in.

the problem is the government spends any new revenue as fast as it comes in.

That's our fault for voting in people who have no sense of fiscal responsibility.

Just above you said taxes need to be raised (short-term) coupled with a cut in spending. Which is it?

No. I said if Obama cared about the deficit, he would raise taxes (because he is a liberal). I am not a liberal (economically speaking), so I don't personally support a tax increase. I'm saying that if liberals cared about the deficit, that's what they would do.

Of course we can all talk about how great cutting spending would be, but where do you want to cut it? Entitlement programs are the easiest targets because of who they benefit, but entitlement programs don't make up a huge chunk of our spending.

Are you kidding? Social Security and Medicare combine to represent 39% of federal spending. I'd cut it there by increasing the age at which people receive benefits and reducing the amount of benefits available.

I'd also cut spending on defense by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, and by removing unnecessary military bases across the world, keeping those bases only where necessary to protect our immediate security interests.

I'd also drastically cut spending on the "war on drugs" which costs us billions every year.

There are plenty of places where spending needs to be cut. The time is now to deal with our budget problems before our currency collapses.

BTW here is the source for my 39% number.

If we look at history we can clearly see that recessions reduce tax revenue, thus recovering from the recession is the most important thing to do to balance the budget. Therefore, consideration should be given to the effect on the economy of everything considered in closing the budget gap. Tax increases on working families will not necessarily raise revenue because it will at the same time reduce demand for goods and services which will slow the economy. Cuts in spending may not really have much effect on closing the budget gap either because, like tax increases on working people, cuts would also mean increased unemployment and some reduction in tax revenue. Thus, I suggest that if they want to get serious about budget reduction then tax cuts on the wealthy which will not significantly effect their spending but which will increase tax revenues is the best place to look for answers.
It isn't rocket science. We only need to look at our history and see how we managed for decades while at the same time building the largest manufacturing economy in the world and the largest middle class in the world.

There are plenty of places where spending needs to be cut.

And at every single one of those place you are going to find someone entrenched who will refuse to cut spending because it will reduce spending in their district, or severely hurt their chances of being re-elected. No politician has the guts to cut Social Security, and we have already seen the fiasco with health care reform, so what do you think a revamp of Medicare would look like? I am with you on reducing spending by drawing back on troop levels in the ME, but that kills jobs here in the US due to our reliance on the military inudstrial complex (see Lockheed, etc.). Regarding the war on drugs, the religious wing of the republican party will have nothing to do with that.

Be back later.

I agree that these are all areas where spending can be cut, but we need to find a way to deal with those who refuse to make the hard choices, or who are too entrenched to make the right choices.

I am sure that other patriots here have already made note of this but this shit is created for one reason and one reason ONLY..

anyone who has ever had any dealings with a large group or entitity like the govt KNOWS that the perfect means to rid yourself of personal responsibility is to put things in the hands of a committee..

this is to RAISE TAXES ON EVERYONE and then be able to look us in the eye and say

"I did not have TAXUAL relations with that woman"...

(okay so joining those two issues wasnt THAT clever, but you get the idea)

And at every single one of those place you are going to find someone entrenched who will refuse to cut spending because it will reduce spending in their district, or severely hurt their chances of being re-elected.

I don't care. It's time for a president to step up and lose any chances of being re-elected by vetoing every spending bill that does not make these cuts.

"this is to RAISE TAXES ON EVERYONE and then be able to look us in the eye and say"

While folks like you whine responsible people have to make the hard decisions. I am so tired of the whine about leaving debt for our kids and grand kids by the same folks who left debt for our kids and grandkids every time the voted for Reagan or George Bush. They didn't care about future generations and they still don't. Those of us who do need to demand that we enact taxes so that protecting future generations isn't just partisan nonsense like it is now. Republicans pretending to be fiscally responsible now should be laughed out of Congress.

One thing most people on both sides of the aisle would probably agree with and which would greatly help any president limit spending....the line item veto. Unfortunately the SC ruled it unconstitutional the last time they tried it. Perhaps an amendment to create it and at the same time eliminate corporate personhood could be enacted. Seems to me it could be passed pretty easily and it could be quite effective in eliminating unnecessary spending.

JHeadline of the day:

I don't care. It's time for a president to step up and lose any chances of being re-elected by vetoing every spending bill that does not make these cuts.

Ross Perot tried running on that ticket, more or less. People said he was a kook, remember?

I'd also drastically cut spending on the "war on drugs" which costs us billions every year.
Joe is soft on crime!

I'd also cut spending on defense by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately
Joe is soft on terrorism!
Joe wants the terrorists to win!
Why does Joe hate America so much?

I'd cut it there by increasing the age at which people receive benefits and reducing the amount of benefits available.
Joe wants to pull the plug on grandma!

Nothing personal Joe, I'm just trying to point out what happens to rational ideas these days. The fact that my talking points came out of Sarah Palin's butthole is probably not coincidental.

danni danni danni

dont you see how what you are now saying is seen by us on the "RIGHT" side as being almost silly
you are so worried about the deficit and all and we all should be, but you are worrying about it and blaming bush and reagan and those of us who voted for them in the face of a GOVT takeover the likes of have not been seen in OUR HISTORY and a debt that your grandchildren's children wont be able to pay for.

and IM NOT WHIIIIIIIINNNING..

get it
get it

AND AGAIN...look to TEXAS as the model..
this AM heard a panel of state senators say that in the upcoming session they WILL CUT spending no matter how hard it may be..

why cant the 'federales' have that same idea?

", but you are worrying about it and blaming bush and reagan and those of us who voted for them in the face of a GOVT takeover the likes of have not been seen in OUR HISTORY and a debt that your grandchildren's children wont be able to pay for."

Your brain is so full of right wing propaganda you can't even talk intelligently. Government takeover is utter poppycock. You taling about what my kids and grandkids won't be able to pay for??? Hilarious. The Republicans were preaching the exact same thing for the past thirty years while the created the debt we can't pay now. Time for a new talking point.

a GOVT takeover the likes of have not been seen in OUR HISTORY

What does the TSA have to do with this?

"Time for a new talking point."

You are still justifying bad behavior with prior bad behavior. It was NOT OK for Republicans to spend like drunken sailors. It is NOT OK for Democrats to double down, merely using past history as an excuse. Remember Obama voted for every spending measure that came up for vote. It does not matter who got us into the problem. Obama has promised to get us out. Spending more in the face of astronomical debt makes not sense. It's illogical to simply say, well, the Republicans did it, so we can do it, too. Please feel free to actually justify why Obama should spend so much money, not merely bitch that the Republicans were spending freaks, too.

Please feel free to actually justify why Obama should spend so much money, not merely bitch that the Republicans were spending freaks, too.

I'm going with a simple "prime the pump" analogy.

(Now, it only makes sense to prime the pump when you're trying to get it to work again. Which is why Obama's spending comes at the right time, unlike much of the Republican spending. Oops sorry couldn't resist.)

What's really missing, and this crosses political lines, is any metric by which we can tell if our spending was worth it. We can always cherry-pick a success story after the fact, and that makes for good sound bites, but it's useless towards steering an informed public policy.

-Spending more in the face of astronomical debt makes not sense.

It's Keynesian economics 101, used by most economists of both parties.

govt takeover is 'poppycock'.,....(did you just use the word POPPYCOCK...lol)

oh really????

Gm
banks
ATTEMPT to takeover health care..one SIXTH of the economy
and so many other areas and issues ..

please..so typical...leftist are smart and get thier info by some sort of grand intellectual event and right is propoganda....please try and use some other means of making your point..

and ONCE More you are closed minded and blame republicans for the deficit..
as we USED to hear at all tennis matches

"YOU CANT BE SERIOUS"

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-02-18 11:59 AM

Again - none of that rhetoric should matter to a president who actually wants to change our country. I said before that we need someone willing to risk all popularity by demanding these cuts and vetoing any spending bill that does not contain them.

"Ross Perot tried running on that ticket, more or less. People said he was a kook, remember?"

I didn't, and I wouldn't today. So what's your point?

"It does not matter who got us into the problem."

What nonsense. Of course it matters. We don't want those folks running things. REpublicans want America to just conveniently forget who created all this debt, not going to happen. They should all be required to wear "kick me" signs.

"Gm
banks"

Perfect examples. If Obama wanted to take over he would have had the federal government take over the banks as it normally does if it has to bail them out but he didn't. He made them very low interest loans which they have repaid.
Same is true with GM, we loaned them money which they now say will be repaid this summer.
Lee Iacocca borrowed money from the federal government to help Chrysler years ago but no one went around screaming that the president was trying to take over anything. You really need to stop listening to those right wing talkers who get you paranoid about everything.

"I said before that we need someone willing to risk all popularity by demanding these cuts and vetoing any spending bill that does not contain them."

And no consideration about the economy???
That's what is wrong with simplistic ideological ideas....unintended consequences.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHH

there is BLOOD coming out of my eyes

DID YOU JUST WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT unintended consequences?????

thats the sole property of LIBERALS...always has been....

Constitutional amendment stating that no US state can take back more in federal aid than it's citizens give in federal dollars. Any expenditure beyond that amount comes as a federal loan to be paid back in ten years. Default and no money for twenty. Military bases excluded.

I said before that we need someone willing to risk all popularity by demanding these cuts and vetoing any spending bill that does not contain them.

I agree, except that right now is not the opportune time to end spending (hence my "priming the pump" comment earlier). Our most recent chance to oppose good-for-nothing spending was right around May 2003, but instead we invaded Iraq.

Peggy Noonan's piece from a couple days ago played up Obama's comments that he'd rather be a good one-termer than a mediocre two-termer. And didn't he just recently try to play the PayGo card? Who knows what else might be up his sleeve...

ATTEMPT to takeover health care..one SIXTH of the economy

Two-fifths of that one-sixth is already "taken over" by the government. Including the part that pays for YOUR health care.

(See what I did there? I put a word in caps, trying to communicate to you in your own language.)

Constitutional amendment stating that no US state can take back more in federal aid than it's citizens give in federal dollars.

Because there isn't enough poverty already in the South?

ohhh snoofDOG..

you are REALLY clever...lol

They can either fix it now or wait for bankruptcy, and if bankruptcy happens it will be the Social Side that will get the biggest cuts.

You can't live without Police Officers or Fireman, but the person who teaches Office Training for OSHA, that job will go.

If I'm not mistaken 80% of all federal spending goes to Seniors in the form of SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Thats the Elephant in the room.

If I'm not mistaken 80% of all federal spending goes to Seniors in the form of SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.

That's the Elephant in the room.

#108 | Posted by 90c2cab

That's the truth. I live in a small county in eastern NC. The county spends 20% of their yearly budget on former employees. About 61 million a year.

Do any of my conservative brothers and sisters send their children to public schools? Stop spending my tax dollars. Take your children out of school and send them to church. The only education a child needs is the good book.

90c2cab,

You can't live without police of firefighters? I think most of humanity did for most of history. If it's not in the constitution, it's not a right. IF you really want police and fire, you should pay for private police and fire insurance out of your own pocket. Private industry can do the job more efficiently. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it. Why should I subsidize your safety?

Just remember a big chunk of the Federal Government was created from 1960 to present.

So we went from 1776 to 1959, without the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, The Department of Energy, The Department of Education, DEA, HHS, and Homeland Security, and thats just to name a few.

How did we survive, Happy Days must have been a myth we must have all been living in the streets.

Hey Obama - here is the way you stop spending - you do it by STOP SPENDING.

Kill the Porkulas - put the 500 B you made off of the banks back into the treasury and "Vola" 1 TRILLION back in the bank.

But you are not REALLY serious are you? You are just trying to find another way to institute higher taxes and make people more dependent upon government.

Well - you only have about another 9 months left...for us help is on its way. Remove the tax and spenders - Dems or Rep - and replace them with budget cutters.

Then two years after that we can get rid of your sorry ass.

I bet the first recomendation made by the commission is to raise taxes on the middle class. Barrack will do a double take and state, "I reluctantly must go along with the commissions recommendation". A cowardist leader will always run for cover when caught in a trap that he stupidly set.

#12 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-02-17 09:33 PM
***"If not, how do YOU define compromise or bipartisianship?"

It's incredibly disingenuous for Republicans to claim that they are just idealists standing their ground when this Republican Congress has brought the American political system to a halt, to the point that Senators from both sides are retiring in disgust...

And, if the actions of the Republican congress are what you voted for, you are just as much a part of the problem as they are. And, if you earn under 2-3 million/year then you are just a mislead puppet...

Yo, ass-captain, how about you pull your head out of ur anus for a second and try getting a little air?

Lets try this. If you are playing football, when you have the ball, it is your job to move the ball in the direction you want it to go. When you don't have the ball, your job is to prevent the assholes who have the ball from moving it in the direction they want it to go. Got that?

When the elected republicans cannot move the gov't in the direction that they want it to go (in this case, to LESS spending), then all they can do is play defense.

Can you not understand playing defense? Sure, you try and get control back (hope to GOD it happens in Nov)... and then it is YOUR turn to try and implement what you want, and your opponents job to try and prevent you from doing things they don't like.

And bitch all you want about evil republicans and their run-away spending (which I agree has been out of control), but congress has been held overwhelmingly by dems since the 1960's... and you can track the largest increases in gov't spending to years when the dems held congress. So, out of one side of your ass, you bitch at repubs for spending like drunken sailors, and out of the other side of your ass, you support people who want to spend more!

. and you can track the largest increases in gov't spending to years when the dems held congress

Got a link? The last time Dems held Congress was during Jimmy Carter's administration.

And Clinton's first 2 years.

Got a link? The last time Dems held Congress was during Jimmy Carter's administration.

#116 | Posted by americanunity

To see who was in power (pres/senate/house) look here:

1Lib

I know for a fact the GOP had the WH and Congress from Jan 2001- Jan 2007

Still, GOP Presidents spent far more money and created more debt. Isn't even close the past 30 years.

Libertarian the President's administration writes the budget. The President pretty much owns the deficit as Republicans love to point out today. I think it is pretty hypocritica for the right to be bashing Obama's budget in one breath and saying you can't blame Bush and Reagan for the debt they left us and our children.

DANNI

Tsk Tsk Tsk!

Don't you know it's one set of rules for Republicans and another for Democrats in the right wing mindset?

Reading these posts, it's obvious what the right thinks about bipartisanship.

I believe it was george will in his SPECTACULAR and brilliant speech at CPAC that said..he doesnt need a commission to stop spending. a memo to nancy or harry is all he needs to have.

On working people. He dramatically lowered taxes on rich folks.

#46 | Posted by danni
Danni still thinks that poor perople create jobs, but then again danni was in a self induced coma for he last 20 years

"Danni still thinks that poor perople create jobs, but then again danni was in a self induced coma for he last 20 years"

Hey, the rich folks got the tax cuts, where are all the jobs moron???? Come on, you're so smart, where are all those jobs we were promised???

Breaking news: The commission has meet and hear are the findings

1.) STOP SPENDING BILLIONS THAT WE DONT HAVE!!!
Healthcare for those not willing to work for it.
CAP and Trade Scam
Stimulus for Jobs that cost us 400,000 per job
Bailouts of companies that need to fail
Illegal immigrants that suck our hospitals and public schools dry

#115 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-02-18 08:07 PM

Wow, that sure was enlightening...

Problem is: we are all on the same team 1Lib, trying to dig ourselves out of this hole the Republicans got us into. And, those Republicans are now obstructing any kind of meaningful legislation. Your statement exemplifies what is wrong with our country; people like you have let yourself become convinced that as Americans we are in opposition with one another. We are not. We are all Americans

The Republican congress whines about open and televised healthcare debate. They get it, and then whine that it's a "trap"...

They whine about government spending. Then vote against creating the very budget deficit committee they themselves came up with...

This has been going on for the last year; when America has needed congress to ACT, the Republicans obstruct...

This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't whine all the time about the Democrats and Obama not getting things done. And, when the Democrats actually can get something through by "ramming it down their throats", they try to take credit for it back in their home states...

Really Pathetic: Party politics over the good of our country as always: The Republican way...

"We didn't win, so we're not playing!!! (But we will bitch a lot)"

#124 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2010-02-19 11:26 AM

No, but poor people pay taxes, and bear the brunt of them...