I love the line up of shows on MSNBC-- except the weekend! When are they going to get rid of those prison shows? Yuck. Surely, they could have weekend subs for the regular hosts or even just reruns.

Frank...Rachel has done us a favor with these charts. I'm already thinking about my crazy uncle right now. My thing is its only one day...thank GOD its only one day. Enjoy your turkey day!

he also created this new bloated government entitlement program- Obamacare- that is going to cover more than 30 million Americans. And he never ONCE demonized the lazy people taking this benefit. Because of this then surely the deficit is skyrocketing

I know facts are painful... just let it happen...

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

The SS disability benefits aren't included in the deficit and have no bearing on it as Social Security is separately funded and currently in the black as it will be for a few decades yet.

The SS disability benefits aren't included in the deficit and have no bearing on it as Social Security is separately funded and currently in the black as it will be for a few decades yet.

Exactly.

Disability, retirement. and related programs are supported by the SSI and SSDI payroll taxes that are completely separate from income tax.

The social security system is fully funded up and in no danger of collapsing for at least a decade despite the fact that Bush #1 and Bush #2 borrowed against it to fund three wars.

Our real problems are incarceration and health care.

Over-regulation of the medical industry involving things like anti-abortion laws are doubling health care costs every 10 years. That will bankrupt the country long before social security becomes a problem.

Attempting to put people in prison for 3,000 years every time they are caught with a handfull of cannabis has also been doubling every 10 years. That will bankrupt the country long before social security becomes a problem.

Thanks to the States of Washington and Colorado, that will be reduced ...a lot!

great comments, Crackhead.

miss your insights.

DH and I were being sarcastic in case that was lost on anyone.

it wasn't lost on me.

thanks for your humor, i had a good laugh.

Really. :). one would have to be a republican or a bagger to not appreciate the sarcasm. you know, kind of like they believe Colbert is really a repub.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Even with the facts, your pitiful.

"Must be an error", "I'm not aware", "deficit must have"...so much uncertainty, yet making a positive assertion.

"Must be an error", "I'm not aware", "deficit must be"...so much uncertainty; yet making positive assertions.

Sorry, you must have the misleading info. Rachel is right!

With results like this, deficits shrinking at record rates, etc, one would be a fool to mess with the equation. If it is going this swimmingly well, you'd be nuts to propose a change to the tax structure.

That's specious reasoning Rusty. By that logic we shouldn't try to get unemployment down because the deficit is being reduced and we should start another war.

The decrease at current levels does not mean that a. people are endorsing the high rates of deficits (for whatever reason conservatives keep walking away thinking this when NO ONE has made that argument) b. there doesn't exist a plateau point where if something else isn't done (like raising taxes and employment or ending th war in Afghanistan) we will still have a deficit it just won't be at the high levels we saw due to the recession or c. that there isn't more that we can do to reduce the deficit faster, safer, and to sustain that reduction for a longer period. Long-term results of keeping deficit spending to a minimum aren't reflected in this graph (then again no one claimed that they were) so you cannot make leaps like this in your thinking.

Cartoon, I love it when you use logic. It's comical and you get things all twisted up. If you haven't yet, you will.

That is about as dumb of an analogy I have ever heard.

This is either a big deal like all the liberals on here are making it out to be, or it is a blip in time and not very meaningful, as you would argue. In my mind, you are actually correct in that the charts are a point of some creative use of data and not meaningful. But, if I'm wrong and all the liberals on here are right, then don't do anything to screw it up.

The projection is strong with this one. I never stated that the information of this chart was meaningless or that it was a blip in time. What I stated is that just because you're seeing initial reductions now doesn't mean that those reductions will be sustained long term without continued action. That's because this chart isn't assessing that information therefore you cannot extrapolate anything beyond what the information is saying. This is, of course, what you were attempting to do. Notice, additionally, how you never attempted to address any of the points of contention I gave to your counter argument. You make the statement that raising taxes would somehow screw up the graph but of course you don't know this. Because of that your reasoning is suspect: you do not know that raising taxes would not, say, increase the effect OR that increasing taxes may be necessary for long term reduction. But since we have seen reductions with the tax cuts- your hypothesis- that means they can stay in place. By that logic we can keep unemployment where it's at and start another war since these reductions were achieved while the US was waging 2 wars and with unemployment over 8%. If you'd actually like to address my points that'd be one thing, but instead you side-step the issue and are "twisting things" all up. Heh.

Rusty,

...all the liberals on here are right, then don't do anything to screw it up

for your INFORMATION, repubs will screw it up, NOT LIBERALS.

remember w. bush AND HIS MINIONS IN THE REPUB PARTY (2000-2008)? i'll also extend the blame of the repub party through 2012 due to all their filibustering and OBSTRUCTION. and before you raise an objection, remember who the american people blame per the results of our latest Presidential election where Obama won his 2nd election!

just placing BLAME where MOST OF IT it belongs.

Even the Queen of England pays her fair share of taxes!

Lear- haven't heard much about the tax breaks for corporate jets lately. It was huge in the news back in 2011, all over msnbc.

Thanks for being a voice of reason!

Gradually overtime people come to demand "government" to provide more and more. As the group of those who are willing to work gets smaller the group of those who are willing to live off someone else's labor grows ever larger. As the fiscal load increases taxes increase sucking capital out of the system until the economy grinds to a halt.

What is it that government is providing and when did the demand increase? How is this different from general market demands? And who is the group that are willing to work and how are they shrinking? Employment has been going up, not down, so who are these mysterious people? And who lives off of someone else's labor? Last time I checked anyone who owns a business lives off the labor of others- are you saying that business owners are going down and therefore we're becoming labor dependent and therefore the economy will stagnate? That would be true if we were manufacturing based, but we're consumer based so this can't happen. So how does this lead to economic stagnation? And how would increasing taxes suck out capital of more is being paid back to the government?

doctyler... what a load.

There are many, many countries in the world that have a strong central government that provide a safety net for their citizens. In none of these has the number of "takers" overgrown the number of "makers". In fact, in many of them, the economy is stronger than the USA. So, stuff it.

Cartoonthenews! i will follow the herd, with 80sGIrl,

80sGirl, name one country , don't be attacking me , the moderators will suspend you.

You post BS, expect to get questioned and attacked. And that's all you've ever posted.

Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, hell even China has many of the same social services that we do and they are doing stronger than we are. For the record I wasn't attacking you OR insulting you nor was I asking you to follow the herd. You made a claim so now you have to provide supporting evidence to prove your claim correct. If you cannot then that's on you, but you cannot expect someone else to follow everything you do and say without you proving it to them. You are not god and you're not a dictator so don't be surprised when people don't automatically fall in line with whatever it is you have to say.

You made a claim so now you have to provide supporting evidence to prove your claim correct.

Laura Conaway posted the supporting evidence.

80sGirl, name one country , don't be attacking me , the moderators will suspend you.

I would add to Cartoonthenews!'s great list: the UK, Norway, Australia and New Zealand.

Also, calling you out for posting reichwing talking points that have been debunked countless times and are just silly at this point isn't attacking you. It's truth-telling! I thought you righties loved a little truth-telling. No? Oh well.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/relying-on-government-benefits.html

From the NY Times even...

larry74 you make up the rules of this site??

The democates are narcissistic. They live in a world where everything they think is right and all others are wrong. If you don’t agree you are labeled. These labels include racists, women haters, religious whacks, morons, hypocrite, haters, delusional. FAT CATS, Rightwing nutz, Turd Blossum, pasty doughboy

Don't forget troll. Love it when they throw that one out there. One response one day to me was just 6 words- "Go have sex with your mother." They are brilliant! (At least they think they are!)

Narcissism has nothing to do with whether or not you call other people names. I suggest you look up the disorder. For the record it's hypocritical for you to call someone a name while simultaneously complaining when they call you a name.

Pasco: that dependency comes from Social Security and Medicare and applies to those over the age of 50 who are going onto retirement and/or disability. It's the children of "the Greatest Generation" and because there are so many of them that is why use of the programs has gone up. They will not exist forever and that trend does not apply to other generations. The article itself explains this in the first couple of paragraphs. You cannot make one generation the basis for hysterical claims about government dependency on the rise. Additionally nothing in your article addresses the problems I asked for in my initial posting.

well, shall we add to the list- hypocrite already in there, so we just add troll, Thanks pasco

These labels include racists, women haters, religious whacks, morons, hypocrite, haters, delusional. FAT CATS, Rightwing nutz, Turd Blossum, pasty doughboy, troll.

Cartoonthenews! "don't be surprised when people don't automatically fall in line with whatever it is you have to say"

Yeah I agree- Democrats are certainly using math.

RIGHT BACK AT YA.

I never expected you to fall in line with what I have to say. If you'd like me to provide evidence for any assertion I've made please point to it and I will. This is why I ask YOU to do the same. I'm extending the same curtesy.

As for hypocrite: were you calling people names while simultaneously deriding the calling of names? Then this is, by definition, hypocritical behavior. In this particular context I was not a. applying it to all Republicans or conservatives (as seeing how it is only a behavior you engaged in) and it's rather presumptive of you to make that leap in logic and b. I was only applying because of your actions. If you don't want to be called a hypocrite then do not engage in the same behavior you are deriding in others. It's very simple.

I have never called you a racist, a woman hater, a religious whack, a moron, a hater, or delusional. So why you continuously apply this to me I have no idea. For the record you are decrying people painting you with a broad brush that you feel is unfair and inappropriate, yet you are doing the same to other people (liberals and Democrats). That would ALSO be an example of hypocritical behavior. Again if you don't want the accusation then do NOT engage in the behavior. Exercise personal responsibility and recognize that your language dictates the way that other people respond to you. If you want to foster a different response then you need to change your actions.

Cartoon, you are the sole human being on here that I have the utmost respect for. You do not fall into the name calling. You have a lively discussion, which is the reason I am on here. I can not stand the people that pop in and throw some random derogatory name becuase they have nothing else to contribute. Either they call you names or they correct your spelling or grammar.

That being said, one of the issues I do not see being address (and being in FL, it is a big problem) is the fact that a LOT of people here have gone from making over $50K and up a year to $10/hr. This may onnly be in FL, but I think it wil become an issue. When they were downsized, a lot of them emptied out their 401K to make their mortgage. I have a dozen or more friends that are in this situation. They have nothing left. What is going to happen when they reach retirement age and all they have is Social Security? I think we are going to be in big trouble. I haven't heard this discussed anywhere.

Again Cartoon, I have nothing but respect for you. You have always been respectful to me, and I appreciate your information and viewpoint. Although I may not agree with you, you have my respect.

That being said, one of the issues I do not see being address (and being in FL, it is a big problem) is the fact that a LOT of people here have gone from making over $50K and up a year to $10/hr. This may onnly be in FL, but I think it wil become an issue. When they were downsized, a lot of them emptied out their 401K to make their mortgage. I have a dozen or more friends that are in this situation. They have nothing left. What is going to happen when they reach retirement age and all they have is Social Security? I think we are going to be in big trouble. I haven't heard this discussed anywhere.

I agree 100%. It is a huge concern and I know plenty of people who are in the same boat as what you're describing. It's a huge problem that seems to have gotten lost in all the complaining back and forth. We have already had a problem of stagnate wages here in the US, but now we've coupled that with people having their 401k wiped out or nearly wiped out AND their having lost a good paying job (per your example a 50k/yr job) to a low paying job (10$/hr) that likely doesn't provide benefits or provides limited benefits. That doesn't help the person pay their mortgage or all the expenses they had in place when they were making more money. This is part of where I personally get annoyed when people make statements like "well they just need to work their way up at their new job" sorry but even store managers are McDonalds only make around 12$/hr. You can't just "get a new job" at a lower income level and expect that the individual just makes a few cuts here and there and then everything is A-OK. It's not like your friends were spending like crazy anyways. But when you have a sudden drop in revenues- and to that EXTREME of an extent- then no matter how much you cut back you're SOL.

One of my best friends- his parents lost their job at Intel when Intel made that huge round of layoffs a couple years ago. They went from making around 200k/yr (with both working) to now making around 20k/yr with them both now working at Best Buy as those Geek Squad specialists. They went from being senior software engineers at what I'm presuming is the most popular internal hardware company in the world to being paid 10$/hr to run McAfee on people's computers. They went from full benefits and retirement package to having nothing- not even health insurance. And because they are both in their 50's they have found it nearly impossible to get a job at another company paying them equally because why hire someone who requires such a HUGE salary when you can hire a person with 3-5 years work experience to do the same job, but half the pay? And that is an issue that we, as a nation, have to address.

I am all for companies making a profit (how could I not be? that's my goal for my own company!), but there is a point where the destructiveness of the profit only motivation causes huge ripple effects to our society that we cannot sustain. Intel posted record profits the year after they made those layoffs suggesting that the layoffs weren't due to loss of sales or loss of revenues. It's just a sham to make more income. And the irony is they know they can get away with this because Americans are stuck between a rock and a hard place. You can't demand better pay or better treatment without getting laid off and if you get laid off you may never get hired again.

The only thing I can think of that would work is for the government to step in and start offering either a. retraining for these people b. a retirement package for them since they can no longer be in the work force or c. offering temporary assistance jobs until we switch from being an employers market to that of an employees market (when employers would be likely to hire people over 50). But that would require the government to create another stimulus which I do not think would be very popular and it would also require Democrats and Republicans to work together and I just don't see that kind've thing happening.

We SHOULD be talking about it- I'm in COMPLETE agreement with you- and it is complete bull. But what do we do about it? I am not sure there is anything we can do at this juncture and that's a sad reality. Well no, we can do lots....but we don't seem to have the drive or concern as a nation to do lots.

Also I have much respect for you too pasco. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me as long as they disagree with me in a polite fashion. I don't figure you're an idiot because you disagree- I just figure you have a different, but equally valid, viewpoint to my own. I always thought the point of blogging was the exchange of ideas so I don't know why we have to harp on one another with name calling all the time.

Anyways I hope your Turkey Day was good! I'm pretty sure I gained 20lbs during mine because I had 3 dinners to go to (don't ask). Now I'm off to the gym~ take care man

Yes, because stuff that doesn't effect the budget would naturally not be included...ya know...in the budget.

if you don't count the borrowing in the budget, then what is the point of having one.

Just tax and spend. keep it up, the herd will follow.

That was under GWB. President Obama put it ALL in the budget. It's ALL on the books, unlike GWB.

Borrowing is not taxing. Borrowing is when you issue a bond to private investors or to other countries in exchange for the ability to print so much money (the bond amount) without it affecting inflation. It has zero effect on the budget. Well, no, you COULD argue that the interest paid for the bond return effects the budget, but the bond itself has NO effect on the budget because that's not what a budget is. A budget looks at the amount you expect to spend for the next fiscal year and the amount you have available to pay for that on the basis of the taxes you received the fiscal year before. That is where the spending you conservatives worry about comes into play (that is also where the taxes we liberals worry about comes into play). Borrowing has nothing to do with the revenues you gained the previous years from taxation. Borrowing (the issuing of bonds) is a measure you use for emergencies or short-gaps. And neither of those can be reflected in a budget because that has to deal with future spending that wasn't expected at the time the budget was planned. This is econ 101 stuff, man.

Borrowing effects the federal debt but the debt is not part of the budget. I hope both of you understand this. The annual deficit is what is reflected in the federal budget.

That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget.

Is that like how the polls were wrong?

Cartoonthenews!, thanks for the lesson in economics. Since, you are so good at this tell us why we can't balance a budget and have to keep borrowing more?

larry74,

you are CORRECT. georgie-boy kept the iraqi and afghanistan wars and medicare part D OFF THE BOOKS. when President Obama took office he said, "i will no longer keep SECRET the cost of the wars" (he also ramped up the unt for bin Laden, IMMEDIATELY) which is why he gets the blame and credit respectively.

drpaultyler,

one of the reasons we have to keep borrowing more is to PAY FOR the 2 wars that bush put on the CREDIT CARD. we are paying for PAST expenses incured mostly by the leader of the repub party, bush (cheeeeney), and his MINIONS. P.S. who starts two wars and signs the 2nd part of the "bush tax cuts" (march, 2003) the same month we invade iraq, DROPPING THE BALL ON BIN LADEN (iraq and afghanistan KEPT OFF THE BOOKS, and put on the CREDIT CARD.

does any of this make sense to you? can you EXPLAIN ANY OF WHAT BUSH DID?

Since, you are so good at this tell us why we can't balance a budget and have to keep borrowing more

Because revenues are at an all time low while spending has increased only to cover the wars. End the wars and repeal the Bush taxes and you will see the budget go back to being balanced. Remember borrowing affects debt, it does not affect deficits and budgets. You are/were using the wrong terminology.

The wars are over of did Obama forget to tell you.

al-Qaeda is dead

paul,

the wars might be over.

WE STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.

WE ALSO STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR MEDICARE PART d, AND OTHER STUFF THE bush administration PUT on the credit card.

were it not for the tax cuts bush signed into law the very month he invaded iraq, WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS ECONOMIC MESS.

paul, do you even have a clue of how much of this mess georgie-boy (cheeeney) is responsible for? DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE REPUBS HAVE OBSTRUCTED PRESIDENT OBAMA? do you know how many times they have filibustered? DO YOU KNOW?

DO YOU HAVE A CLUE?

the american people do HAVE A CLUE which is why they don't want another repub in the whie house.

forget the budget we don't need one, haven't had one in three years.

You may wish to speak with the leader of the House of Representatives about that. His name is Boehner, I believe.

The House of Representatives is responsible for originating all "money" bills, the largest of which is the budget. However, to become law, the budget also has to pass the Senate and then not be vetoed by the President. Speaker Boehner has, for three years, refused to make any compromises on the budget he's submitted to the Senate. The Senate has refused to pass the budget as presented to them. Therefore, the House and Senate have passed continuing resolutions that, in effect, use the previous fiscal year's budget for the next fiscal year.

If there hasn't been a new budget the person to blame is Speaker Boehner as the does not have, and never has had, the power to require the Senate to pass any legislation submitted to it without any changes.

Nice try, though.

Doug, your a genius. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

1) the US government cannot stay in existence without passing a budget. What you mean to say is no new budget has been passed. They have been extending the same budget since 2009. That's where the fiscal cliff we have coming up stems from: the continuation of the same budget from before. The budget is a congressional issue so I am not sure what this has to do with your claim that not including the debt to the deficit matters OR President Obama

2) No one ever claimed that Al'Qaeda was dead- you are being hyperbolic and/or are engaging in a straw man. The claim made was that Al'Qaeda has been decimated meaning that their power structure and ability to organize and in particular attack US targets has been severely crippled from what it was before. Unless you have information to the contrary I do not know how this is relevant to the conversation nor do I know how this proves that spending would be going down with the wars stopped

3) For the record the major contributor to our spending reductions- that 20% everyone keeps talking about- have came about because we are winding down the wars and employment is going up. If we can get employment to 4% and keep it there for a decade, increase the minimum wage or otherwise increase the median salary by around 10k per household, repeal the tax cuts, and end these wars we not only will have eliminated our deficit, but we will have eliminated all funding problems with social security and medicare going on in to the future. That seems to me the logical thing to aim for. We may disagree on how to get there, but that is not a disagreement on the fundamental issues contributing to our deficit and contributing to future program worries. That discussion, however, is completely irrelevant to your initial claims about the budget and again I fail to see how or why you brought them up.

Wow big word, Hyperbolic.

It’s true that Al Qaeda is still active,

PS my posting is an experiment in human behavior. My hypothesis is that if one post something that goes against the liberal ideology, one will get attacked. Of course the null is the opposite, one will not get attacked. So, far (study not done yet) it looks like the conclusion will be to reject the null and accept hypothesis. Thanks for being part of the study.

Vocabulary word for today – Pedagogic

When have I attacked you paul? You cannot expect to say things that are factually untrue and have people nod and agree with you. If you state something factually untrue people are going to respond that X (whatever it is that you've claimed) is not true or not accurate (as applicable). This is not an attack it is a disagreement or counter-claim to the one that you made. That is how a debate works. When you engage someone in a discussion they will disagree with you on the things they personally don't agree with and agree with you on the things that they personally agree with. Disagreeing with you is NOT an attack. If you cannot understand that fundamental difference then I'm not at all sure what you're doing here or what it is you seem to think you'll gain by blogging on a liberal blog. Of course when you go to a blog that is designated as liberal the majority of those who post will be liberal and will therefore argue in favor of liberal politics against that of, say, conservative or libertarian politics. But that is not the same as attacking you, bullying you, or ganging up on you. You made the claim that X is true and multiple people corrected you that X is not true. That isn't an attack it's a fact check or at the least an opinion disagreement pending what the issue is. I do not understand this attitude that you seem to be presenting under the guise of victimization. I have never once done anything besides attempt to engage you in intelligent dialogue. And if you feel that I haven't then instead of crying wolf please point to the example and explain why. All I have ever done is asked you to verify your claims and this would be another example of that: please verify and explain your position if you disagree.

When you make the statement: new vocabulary word today: pedagogic you are implying via that statement that the people posting here are not educated. That is an insulting comment. Yet your paragraph before you state that you are being insulted because you are posting against liberal "ideology." In this case this is neither a liberal or conservative issue: this is a politeness issue. You are calling people names and then becoming upset when you perceive other people as calling you a name. That is the definition of hypocritical and is therefore appropriately applied in this instance. Does this make you personally a bad person? No. But it does make your argument a hypocritical one and makes it harder to take you serious. Why would you engage in this behavior when you don't have to? If you have something to contribute or a valid counter point then please present it and leave the personal attacks by the way-side.

Suzette- what do you mean, we have to pay for the wars? I distinctly remember my President telling Americans how he was going to use the savings from war spending. If I put a lot on my credit cards, then swear off them next year, I wouldn't exactly want to start spending that amount of money on something else? And since I figured my President would be honest, wouldn't that mean the wars weren't on credit cards?

First, I never called anyone person a name> i made a statement about a group of people. I also never said you attacked me, I was purely making a statement in general about the behaviors of others.

YOu used the word Hyperbolic, not many would know the meaning, I figured you were trying to help educate other trollers, so I just returned the favor.

Oh, and thanks for admitting that this blog is a liberal one.

Rusty,

you and i have had this discussion before.

why do you refuse to believe that bush kept the wars OFF THE BOOKS?

in sept of 2011, during an interview with Brian Leher, on WNYC, mitch daniels was asked, "do democrats have a point when they complain that bush caused much of the debt problem by putting the iraq and afghanistan wars OFF THE BOOKS"?

the President told us when he took office, that he would not keep the cost of the wars secret. when he told us "how he was going to use the savings from the war spending", he meant that the wars would not be adding to our debt and deficit.

mitch daniels responded to Lehrer by saying democrats do not have a point when they say the wars caused a big part of the deficit. don't you think logic tells us that giving tax cuts at the same time (march 2003) that we are fighting one war, and STARTING another, that 2 wars KEPT OFF THE BOOKS and a huge tax cut would increase our deficit?

the New York Times ran an article in 2011 stating that the reason the US went from huge surpluses in the Clinton administration to current huge deficits is largely because of the "bush-era tax cuts, war spending in iraq and afghanistan, and recessions.

DO SOME RESEARCH on the wars that were kept off the books (medicare part D also kept off the books) and the tax cuts. ask mitch daniels what he thinks about the wars being kept off the books (huff-post politics: mitch daniels says iraq and afghanistan wars played a very very small part in budget deficit). then do some logical thinking to determine what the TRUTH is.

repubs screwed it up when bush was "president". they signed onto and agreed with and LOVED EVERYTHING BUSH DID.

neither mitch daniels or rob portman or repubs in general are the deficit hawks they all want you to believe they are. the only time repubs are "deficit hawks" is when a democrat holds the office of the presidency. do some research. repubs are largely responsible for our deficit from nixon on. repubs LIKE (love) the way they increase our deficit, so to them it is all justified. just because repubs "say" they are deficit hawks, is no reason to believe them.

they have proven they are liars in regard to spending, which is why the american people didn't vote for them.

this has nothing to do with the "honesty" of our president, although he was HONEST when he said the wars were kept off the books, just as mitch daniels was.

OUR PRESIDENT IS HONEST, although you really don't "figure" that President Obama is "honest". you think he is lying, just as the repubs have led you all to believe.

paul,

oh, and thanks for admitting this blog is a liberal one

which is the reason YOU are here.

one would have to be deaf, blind and dumb to know that this is NOT a liberal blog.

suzette-3194003

I love this bolg, I keeps me informed of all the crisis going on. what do you have against blind people?

Suzette, I'm not addressing anything bush said or did. I realize it is in your best interest to keep him around. But, you claim it was paid for on credit card. Obama claims he can shift the savings from the war to domestic spending. If there is savings, then it couldn't be put on credit. One of you isn't bing straight and honest. In my opinion, though, I believe you and think he was / is being dishonest.

Rusty,

it isn't in my best interest to keep bush around. i clearly believe that blame should be PLACED WHERE IT BELONGS.

the "savings" you speak of, IN MY OPINION, refer to the MONEY THAT IS NO LONGER BEING SPENT ON THE WAR(S).

when i say that the wars were "kept off the books", and/or put on the "credit card", that means THE WARS ARE NOT PAID FOR (it also means that w. bush, cheeeney didn't want the american people to know the TRUTH of how much the wars were costing. tell me why else he would keep the wars off the books, along with other things. could it possibly be that he didn't want the american people to know how much he was spending?) the "savings" occur because the money we spent on the iraqi/afghanistan wars are no longer being spent there. that money can go for other things, HOWEVER WE STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE WARS. President Obama TOLD US THE COST OF THOSE WARS. BUSH KEPT IT FROM US, IN OTHER WORDS, HE LIED ABOUT THAT, TOO.

both of me is being straight and honest. unlike you, however, i do not examine every single little word the President says, because i CAN SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE.

ONE MORE THIING, as a general rule, i have found President Obama to be forthright and factual. it DOES NOT bother me, for example, THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS ABOUT BENGHAZI, because i believe the President doesn't know everything yet. it took YEARS for the bush administration to admit that they WERE WRONG ABOUT WMD.

i have also not found President Obama to be the OUT AND OUT liar that w. bush is/was. he lied about WMD in iraq, he outed a CIA agent, Valarie Plame because her husband, Joe Wilson, wouldn't lie about WMD after he went to Niger. starting from the beginning in Florida, in 2000, we saw the trickery and deceit that bush used to win the election, ending with his annointment by the supreme court. President Obama did NOT adjust the job #'s the month before the election, the President is NOT part of a cover-up in Benghazi, the President did NOT win this election or the previous one because of voter fraud, and the President is NOT part of a host of other conspiracy theories that you all think he is guilty of.

President Obama also didn't LIE like mitt romney did during his campaign to try to win this election.

LET ME BE CLEAR-I DO NOT THINK THE PRESIDENT IS BEING DISHONEST.

i don't know what else to say to convince you, except it doesn't matter what you think. you all (repubs) seem to have lost the ability to look at anything other than in black or white.

I TRUST PRESIDENT OBAMA, AS A GENERAL RULE. no one is perfect, but if i had to choose, AND I DO GET TO CHOOSE, President Obama has the best interests of the country at heart UNLIKE BUSH OR ROMNEY OR RYAN (AYN RAND) OR TODD AKIN OR MURDOUCH OR ETC ETC ETC.

DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT MITCH DANIELS AND HIS RESPONSE TO KEEPING THE WARS OFF THE BOOKS (and medicare part D, and ETC).

how many times do we have to have this conversation WITH REPUBS/CONSERVATIVES? are you all deaf, blind and dumb? the facts are there if you care to find out.

or you can maintain your ignorance.

Mary, when something is going well, should we screw around with the elements underlying these same results? Shouldn't we stay the course?

You're confusing/conflating the yearly deficit with the National Debt.

There can be no progress on the Debt until the Deficit is reduced through a combination of spending cuts/revenue increases that amount to enough to overcome the accumulating interest on the Debt.

Baby steps, baby steps.

While we are at the highest Deficit to GDP ratio since just after the Great Depression and WWII, we are also in a comparable period coming out of the Great Recession and the two longest wars in US history.

Note that after WWII the upper income tax bracket was as high as 91% and that was during one of the greatest periods of prosperity in US history.

The issue isn't so much the Debt/GDP ratio as it is the factors that are preventing us from ramping up our economy the way we were able to do it then... that is, through manufacturing production and export as with off-shoring and an imbalance in workers' wages vs CEO wages due to overzealous corporate exuberance to increase management/ownership income while cutting the rank and file employees' wages.

Note also that in at least the two decades following WWII we supplied something like 90% of the world's manufactured goods so it's not like we're in the position regarding import tariffs as a tool to encourage domestic production as we were in the days of Smoot-Hawley, when we were more vulnerable in a trade war.

Bill, is it your position that we can achieve 90% of the world's production like we did coming out of WWII? How do we do this? By increasing taxes to 90%+?