Such as?

Then why are you here?

LOL You think a few unhinged wingnuts spoil the entire discussions? No sireee, you folks enhance the experience...

Spending less is not the issue. The REAL issue is how to get taxes reduced or at least not to have them increased on the 2% When the T.E.A. Republicans won the House in 2010, the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity agenda was adopted --- "lower taxes on the job creators, less government regulation," etc. The focus on spending, especially on entitlement spending, was a bargaining ploy. A useful distraction. The Kochs don't want to cut entitlements, because they gain most of their wealth from government entitlement spending, but people who don't understand that, rushed to the defense of social security, medicare and medicaid and made them the focus of the debate.

As the "chief negotiator" for the House, Boehner has taken much criticism, but he doesn't have the real power. The real power is still in the hands of the Kochs who control the T.E.A House that has to pass any law that would contain the agreement. Watch Cantor, because he is the true Kochs voice.

Power, Power, who has the Power? The Kochs do on the Republican side. They know that Obama has the power on the people's side and they know that he is going to nail them to the wall, and so they are trying to delay the inevitable until the last possible moment. The Kochs have no interest in settling earlier than they have to. That's why Cantor told Republicans not to plan Christmas vacations.

Its a teeny little weeny!

Congratulations, jimes, you managed to spout out a load of delusional BS even more absurd than the original op ed piece.

Over at Washington Monthly, Ed Kilgore spells it out: the whole thrust of the Ryan budget and the GOP demands now is to (and I quote) "kick the crap out of the poor." Clearly the GOP idea was for a Romney presidency to raise taxes on the 47% and lower it on the top tiers.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_12/finding_another_dog_to_kick041765

If it were possible to drag out this fight for President Obama's entire second term, republicans would gladly do it. Anything to prevent this president from addressing the agenda that the public overwhelmingly voted for.

4% is real "overwhelmingly"

dimwatts, 4% is about 4 times greater than Bush got even his second term and he had a mandate, remember? When was the last time that a president won with 4% or greater in the popular vote.

agree with "Wanna reduce government spending very quickly? Implement the cuts recommended by the Pentagon and stop the wars."

not enough is being said about either side's intentions. Hate to think present levels will be re-instated after "the cliff"

'dim'km

you consider bush had mandate, I never did, nor did I state so. I do not consider democratic or republican government to be 'mandate' driven. governing for the people requires compromise and that NEVER includes someone (anyone) thinking they have a mandate to ram their view down the minorities throats. And before you start calling someone 'dim' and then make some asinine statement like "when was the last time..." please do some research. The last time was 4 years previous when Barack Obama won with 7.27%, then Bill Clinton with 8.51% and 5.56%, then the first Bush with 7.72% and then Reagan with 18.21% and 9.74%. A better question was when was the last time that someone won with less than 5% margin -- Mr 'dim' -- do some research before you spout off.

IF subsidies stopped to the Oil companies...who provide and maintain the infrastructure which delivers the Nations energy supply...WHERE do you think the oil Companies would recoup those losses?Duhhhhhhh.....

Poor scottie still trying to lie and spin his way into GOP history.

Really? I didn't know the oil companies built roads and bridges (aka infrastructure).

Maybe they could recoup some of their losses by cutting the insane salaries of their CEOs. Or (gasp) reduce those insane profits.

If you want the free market to operate, then they operate without government assistance - their prices will adjust to demand and competition. Where demand is defined as what the customer is willing to pay - and they may have to adjust their consumption habits based on price (note they already do that). And competition is defined as both other oil companies AND alternative energy sources.

Hi, Whomitmay, I keep Scottie on ignore. I no longer see what the trolls on the right have to say.

Why Scott - are you really that uninformed or just ignorant? Do you really think private oil companies build public infrastructure? DUH!

Kelvinator, No, not just over the top Scott, you are on ignore now, too.

Duh? How old are you, 12? No one over twelve says, DUH.

I think people build infrastructure, and corporations are not people.

They will raise prices, Scott, and all of my Rightie friends who drive dualie trucks and SUVs the size of the Space Shuttle can pay for the gas they burn without me and my Mini Cooper subsidizing their consumption.

Kelvinator, I think I must have misunderstood you post. Sorry. I looked at it again.

DAY,#4,

The GOP loves to call Obama the tax and spend president, when in fact he's quite the opposite. Spending is down under Obama and taxes were lowered at least 18 times.

People need to understand that Boehner and the other Republicans lie all the time.

I agree with Dogjudge, too. They won't even discuss the billions of unnecessary "welfare" to the profitable oil companies, but love to bring up the tiny bit involving the food stamp budget. They prefer to feed the oil companies than the poor children. Their priority has always been the wealthy, and they have a long record of throwing the working poor under the bus.

In short, they are C.T.A.'s. That means nurturing their wealthy donors.

The only interest the Kochs have in reducing spending is in areas like E.P.A. so they can pollute more easily, and education, so students can be outsourced (vouchered) to their private institutions and reducing regulation of the financial markets, they want to keep taking financial advantage of the American people.

Day and Jimes, That really does sum it up, the spending is not what the R's want to spend on. They have great difficulty explaining that to the voters, so they say other junk.

Hard to tell voters they want their sponsored businesses to get spending, but Granny and Gramps, plus the working poor have to pay more so they can keep their wealth.

CATO decided they had to put forth a false narrative to get voters to turn against it and toward the Wall St. wizards that tanked so many pension funds and 401Ks

I guess that the GOTP has forgotten that the USDA's Food Stamp program was designed to benefit farmers (Red states) and select food retailers. While the funds are distributed to the poor, the funds can only be spent on approved foods, at approved stores. Yes we've all heard the fraud stories, but at the end of the day the USDA's cash only goes to farmers, processors, or retailers.

Jango's dad,

Frankly, I think they've screwed the pooch and we are never going to recover from the disaster that was handed to us by Bush and the GOP. I mean, it would be possible if we didn't have a House controlled by the T-party, but we do now and for the foreseeable future. They will NEVER help the president. What we need is a large Keynesian stimulus and they will surely say NO to that, as it would actually help the economy, and make Obama look good.

The American people do not matter to them. Only their wealthy donors matter.

Here in PA, our GOP governor has turned down Obamacare. They don't want health coverage for the poor even if it is free (which it will be for two years).

What more does anyone need to know about these Republicans?

India...

They are morally bankrupt. No class. Economic terrorists. The list goes on. They can have all the money in the world backing them... but they have finally been revealed for the trash they are.

#6.2 Jango,

Yep.

One actually has to wonder if the GOTP actually have a clue about "how the government is supposed to function and what role does it have in society"?

2nd point - how can the GOTP talk with a straight face about the "free markets" when BIG OIL/Pharma/Agriculture/Defense Contracts are on the welfare teet, and yet not one GOTP will acknowledge that???

India

I think that you will find that it is a long way to 2014 and the creature with the shortest attention span in the universe is the voter. The democrats are on top now, but in my lifetime both parties have been considered DOA more than once and yet here they both still are - screwing up my world and laughing all the way to the bank. Mr Obama is doing what almost every second term president does - he is overreaching. Maybe he will get more than he expects and maybe he won't. Doesn't matter. In the end your life (and mine) and the rest of Americas won't be one bit better or different in the end. The political class will protect the group that kicks in the biggest check and the 'average' american will get by the way they always have, with family, community and church or whatever fulfills that role in their lives. Mr Obama had both houses of Congress when he was elected and nothing changed. You can depend on the government to be your 'sugardaddy' or you can plan for yourself. When we look like Greece (and we might) then some of us will be getting by with our support networks and prior planning and some of us will starve. you should be able to tell by now I will not be counting on my "uncle" to be all things for me or the economy.

dwatts, 54,

Personally, I am in good financial shape and luckily won't be adversely effected either way. I've never needed government assistance. I have no idea what a food stamp looks like. However, I've worked for charities that feed the poor and have great empathy for their plight. As a Catholic, I am committed to charity.

Mr. Obama, as you call the president, did have both houses of congress for a while, that it true. What you overlooked is the 380 filibusters used by the GOP against everything he wanted to do.

Also, how can you possibly say nothing changed? Please check out all the things he did to improve our lives, against the subversive Republicans will to stop him.

You are addressing a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian here, not someone who believes the government is my rich grandfather!

We can agree on the short attention span of the voter and we cannot underestimate the toxic propagandists on Fox "news". That troubles me.

dimwatts in typical right wing fashion just made the argument against his position and doesn't realize it. Whenever you wave the Greece flag, you are making the argument that taxes should be increased. What happened there was that their spending on a per capita basis was only average compared with the rest of Europe. Their problem was that too many people were avoiding paying their taxes (Sound familiar?). Therefore the way their problem should have been prevented was to make sure that no one got tax benefits all out of proportion to their wealth.

India #6.1

One of the problems is that conservatives do not see the Bush years as a disaster. Did their taxes go down? Did oil rise to $100/bbl, making more money for Bush's friends? Did wars in Iraq and Afghanistan create no-bid contracts that sent billions to Halliburton and others? Where is the problem?

Those who think this way are not public servants and must be replaced by those who are. Only when they are on the outside looking in will they look to change their way of thinking.

India #6.1: what I wish I knew about the GOP today is why do they hate America, and Americans ? I am sure that they do, because that is the only thing that lets me make sense of what the GOTP say, and do.

#6.8 That's a good point, Joseph!

I'm for replacing them, too.

bacon. #6.9 I don't get it either! I agree that they make no sense!

When you seek no truth and rely only on The Maddow brotherhood for your news insight, you will not only never understand a conservative position, you will never understand much of anything.

My comment was to India, and in response (to her) I do not categorically oppose Keynesian economics, however, they are based on an expanding economy. I would posit that as the earth approaches the 8 billion mark in humanity we will have to find a way to balance an economy. We may be at that point now, where standard Keynesian responses will not suffice. The automation of work is rapidly changing the economic stature of every living person on earth and we will not be able to 'stimulus' our way back to steady growth. Global economics also works to suppress the efforts of developed nations trying to stimulus their way out of recession. Are there many things we need to do? yes, but public works (badly needed) draw resources out of the economic engine, they do NOT stimulate the economy.

I do not question that President Obama has attempted to do many things, none of which has to date made any difference at all. When I say nothing has changed, I mean nothing that has been measured yet. The healthcare initiatives will be judged in the future - for good or ill. Right now I see nothing but the same old gridlock and lack of compromise that I have seen for the past decade or so. How has anything any politician done in the last 4 years improved your life?

Now to my buddy Dim dkm, the parrallels between Greece and the US are likely beyond you-judging by the hostile (and banal) claptrap you attach to any of my posts. But try to wrap your little mind around these opinions. Greece allowed their government spending (in deficit - that means more than they collected) to get up into the 50% range of their GDP. We have let our share lag from an historical average in the 20s to the 15% level. No question that revenue must increase. The danger is in permitting the entitlement stream to consume to large a share of the total. I am NOT talking about throwing my parents under the bus, I am 58 so I am talking about my personal retirement that has to come down, be extended in time or some combination that gets our great country over the baby boom hump of retirement. There are too many infrastructure and safety net programs needed in the country to sacrifice everything for one generation. And that is where we must not be like Greece. You look at Greece and see low taxes, I look at Greece and see exclusions, deductions and outright fraud and tax evasion. We don't have those problems here, we institutionalize them. The Democrats solution to raise the tax rate will NOT solve the problem. The rich and their lawyers will either find additional deductions to avoid the increase or they will lobby for additional exemptions to permit them to legally avoid any more taxes. The Republican solution of comprehensive tax reform is the ONLY solution. And it cannot be trusted solely to the Republicans. This is the perfect instance of where compromise and cooperation is essential to our nation. The Republicans have the right idea and the Democrats are necessary to ensure that it is fairly applied. If you could get off your left wing 'talking points' - we are not keeping score here - and become part of the solution we would all be better off. God gave you a brain, use it, think for yourself and tell your elected representatives to get to work.

dwatts54 #6.12

Ask the families of soldiers who returned from Iraq in one piece if their lives have not improved.

Ask the seniors who no longer pay for the prescription 'donut hole' if their lives have not improved.

Ask the soldiers who no longer have to conceal their sexual orientation if their lives have not improved.

Everyone wants to see a more robust economy and more Americans with jobs propelling that economy but remember President Obama was elected to improve things in this nation for 100% of Americans and he has done that in spite of a Republican Congress staging a sit down strike.

dwatts #6.13

I would accept that tax reform is part of the solution if the Republicans treated it that way. No one who has analyzed their tax proposals have made their numbers work to increase revenue even if they take away every deduction in the book. Further, they clamor for spending cuts but NEVER MENTION reducing or eliminating subsidies to oil companies, tax breaks to those who send jobs overseas, farm subsidies, allowing Medicare Part D to negotiate lower drug prices, Defense Department programs the Pentagon says they do not need or any other spending that benefits rich people. All of the above fuels the perception that the only thing the GOP is interested in is decreasing taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest of us and this is PRECISELY what was rejected on November 6. The President has reduced the deficit 21% since he has been in office without Republican Congressional help. It is past time they and the 1% started to help and move this nation forward, not right or left.

That IS the problem Joseph, there is nothing in the R play book that is a solution. They do not care about a solution, only create massive debt so they can point to cutting what they hate- Medicare, SS, the things people want.

They want to cut things people want and not raise tax rates, like people want. That should create a thought bubble, who do they work for, then?

The thing that is being ignored is that people want tax rates to increase on wealth. There is that alone, not saying it is a solution, but the people want it. The people do not want Medicare and SS cuts. That is on its own why we should stop opening the door for that, because it is not a solution either.

The cuts in Ryan plan to Medicare STILL did not solve the problem, they just want them cut. That is all there is to it.

They created the crisis, they seem to thrive on threatening and crises. That is all I need to know. Congress put this debt ceiling and spending into motion, now they want to use this crap for election purposes.

Just like the Susan Rice thing, Graham almost jumps out of his own skin to slam her for his T-Pub voters in S.C.

Politics is truly an ugly and vicious game, which Graham also says "we will play that game" just to get elected. How does it feel to threaten U.S. credit rating again to appease some people that think this is going to stop spending. It stops paying bills, and when we do that, people we owe get nervous and start looking for ways to get their money or service elsewhere, duma'sses!

sandy954 #6.16

Everything you say has merit but let me point out a few things. The people want FAIRNESS and certainly perceive that President Obama's plan institutes that much better than any plan Mr. Romney and the Republicans presented (we are still not sure which one they settled on; it was tough to sort that out without flip-flop translator software). To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: if fairness was raising the eligibility age for Medicare, President Obama would raise it. If fairness was eliminating SNAP, President Obama would eliminate it. The American people have determined that fairness begins with returning tax rates to the Clinton levels for income over $250,000 and eliminating excess defense spending and oil company subsidies BEFORE asking seniors, the middle class and the poor to sacrifice AGAIN. The people want what the 1% want - their taxes lowered - but they are CALLING for fairness. President Obama is working for fairness, the conservatives for the 1%. Let us not make the same mistake the conservatives made and aim at any class of people but look to make our country better for all because the 1% live, work and vote here too.

But those are the GOP's friends!!!!! (sarcasm and irony)

LOL!

Matt More, Well, feel free to drop dead.

You've got it all backwards anyway. Might as well throw in the towel. I'd love to see this right leaning, centrist president put a little socialism in the mix, but he never will.

Oh no, we'd have health care like other civilized countries!!!! O the horror of it!!!

It is so funny when liberal can't make an argument based in fact, the revert to personal attacks. What they don't understand is when he raises my taxes another 40k i just fire somebody to maintain my income. It is how small business works. That is the reality of it Miss LaCarre

Matt. I have yet to hear any conservative make an arument based on fact. I have yet to hear a conservative state a fact. Please show us this "socialist" agenda. Please show us this "craddle to grave" policy. Please tell us what "personal freedoms you've lost. Your nothing more than another right wing mouth oiece spewing you hate and lies. Please get help. there's still time.

In order to be taxed another 40k, you'd have to make million dollars over the $250,000 limit. So, you're willing to give up $960,000 to keep from paying $40,000? Not to get too personal . . . but that makes you an idiot. And that's not President Obama's fault.

Matt. I think India was referring to the fatalism in your post. We are Americans, we want more people to succeed, not "die a little more". I don't presume to speak for India, but that's what I read. You opened the door with the dying and all.

Having the negative view of America has replaced the can do spirit? How sad is that? The RW has taken that role, saying outlandish things without examples.

I will watch for answers to the questions and responses.

#8.4 LOL!

And here I thought everything was Obama's fault!

Hi Sandy, truth is, I was telling him to drop dead. I can't take credit for your being so nice. I get tired of hearing all the negativity about our "community organizer" president.

OK, India.

I agree the devaluation of our President and his accomplishments is very annoying.

I think the knee jerk reaction to fire people to maintain income is just a threat, what business owner would fire someone they need to properly run a business?

I get really tired as a consumer of reading about employers threatening consumers, government and employees if they do not make a certain profit. What kind of business would ruin its image with such things?

The Papa John Pizza guy. I will never forget what he did, when he could increase the pizza price by 15 cents, opted to threaten employees. I will NEVER buy Papa John Pizza, even after he walked it back.

It is painfully obvious you are not a business owner or accountant. I pay my fair share. The system cannot sustain for long when half pay no income taxes at all. You can tax the more successful all you want it will not make a dent in the deficit or debt.

It is just so sad the debt burden the Democratic party is leaving our children and grandchildren with the unsustainable social programs they insist on pursuing.

Sad

Matt more,#8.8

Yeah, why take care of the elderly and the poor when you can give tax breaks to millionaires. Sad. Our priorities are soooo screwed up......

PS: Two wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, an expensive prescription drug plan...all unpaid, all on credit to our children and grandchildren...I'm sorry, I thought George W. Bush was a Republican!

Matt, it's a shame that you people are so greedy and selfish that you care nothing about others - so much for that oft touted morality & family values! You feel as if your "freedoms" are being trod upon - I dare you to say that to an Iraq/Afghanistan veteran - especially those that died for your selfish ignorance! See Active Duty in Combat Zones pay NO TAXES - of course they're not making anywhere close to the millions that you must be making, but they do have the stones to put themselves in harms way!

Oh, those "others" who pay NO taxes - grandma's that worked all of their lives, yet because they may have had families to take care of on their minimum wage jobs weren't able to sock anything away for their future you actually believe that they NEED to pay taxes making less than $24k/yr. really - selfish oaf!

What about those 11,000 corporations (GE, Haliburton, et.al) that not only don't pay their taxes, but off-shore, and have the nerve to suck on the government teet - or don't they count? Yep, I surely wish I knew what business you own, cause just like "Papa John's" - you are a selfish, greedy, individualist who actually believed that the roads that lead past his business - you think you built that all by yourself! Moron!

Matt, I refer again to a compilation of facts, hoping the redundancy is forgiven. Trying to show what I am talking about.

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

The pinning of debt on D's is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

I had a business for a time, but admittedly, I have mostly been an employee and a consumer. That does NOT mean I am unqualified to offer my views, as you IMPLY.

If one actually wants to seek the truth and pay debt without killing the economy, we have to stop lying or willful ignorance about this.

Well Matt, if you fire a worker because of a tax increase, than you must have a terrible product or terrible salesman. If you take money out of the hands of the middle class and give it to you, how do you expect there to be any demand for you products? Be real in this. You don't hire and fire people because of taxes. You hire and fire due to supply and demand. You do understand that 97% of small business are not going to see a change in rates right? The small businesses that the right talks about are the capitalists on wall street and not the ma and pa places.

To the mathmetician. $40k is only 4%. Real tax on buisnesses is 40% But you still couldnt understand economics or the fact that if a buisness cannot turn a profit it is no longer a buisness.

To Zora, i know of at least 10 people on Welfare. Not because they are down trodden and fallen on hard times, its because they love to wake up whenever and not have to anything all day, everyday. And they have no desire to ever stop that gravy train. As a matter of fact they would down right fight for it.

Matt More #8

If you want to get rid of socialism, let us start with subsidies for oil companies and farm conglomerates (you did not want all that messy government interference in your oil or food, did you?). Conservatives have also been at the 'socialist' public trough too. The difference is that progressive policies seek to protect people rather than exploit them for fun and profit. Do we spend too much on the wrong things as a nation? Possibly, but for the 1% to react to getting tax breaks by DEMANDING MORE is not a solution and neither is an UNELECTED Grover Nordquist dictating fiscal policy. President Obama has labored to move 100% of the nation forward and it is past time the 1% and their representatives in Congress help do so.

Yes, johnnymoses, 40k is 4% - the proposed increase in the tax rate (from 35% to 39%).

skeptonomist,

Republicans actually want to RAISE the deficit. That is their dirty little secret that the Democrats haven't caught on to yet. Keeping taxes lower for the wealthy and increased military spending are big deficit raisers.

Now why would they do that? Well, if the deficit gets high enough, there will be no money for the three safety nets. Their main aim in life is to end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Their refusal to raise the debt ceiling is one way of insuring that if we do not pay the bills, it will be much harder to borrow money, as well, and we may not be able to fund the entitlements. Then they will have achieved their greatest trophy. They've not put the entitlements on the bargaining table for nothing. They want to chip away at them, at the very least.

That's my theory, FWIW.

You must not have children. you seem unconcerned with borrowing money to fund programs we cannot afford. Our generations legacy is a collar of debt we are hanging on them. Brutal

Exc~ use me? Are you trying to say GWB was a Democrat? Get real about who caused the deficit to raise. Nor are you clear on what is raising the deficit. It isn't the safety nets! TWO UNFUNDED WARS AND A TAX CUT TO THE WEALTHY! TWO UNFUNDED, unnecessary WARS and a TAX CUT. BUSH. Sane presidents have always RAISED taxes to pay for a war. Even Lincoln did that!

Do I have children? I said I was a Catholic. You're not paying attention.

If we raise tax rates on the wealthiest 2%, we won't need to borrow as much. That should make you happy, Matt.

India, that isn't just your hypothesis. Many people have thought that and even a few right wingers have admitted that this was the reason for their behavior.

As for Matt's crocodile tears about programs we can't afford, I haven't seen him suggest actually cutting the military budget to something reasonable like only what the top three countries pay for their military together rather than the top thirty. Or how about cutting oil subsidies, or coal subsidies, or the ability to hide money off-shore, or the tax write offs for the expenses of moving your company overseas, or using the power of the marketplace to bargain for drug prices for Medicare, or a small tax on financial transactions to reduce the temptation for churning, or numerous other programs that affect those who can afford it rather than the powerless?

It says a lot about a person's claim to be human when they would rather hurt the helpless than ask the well-off to chip in a bit instead of just taking out.

dkm, You said it! Good post!

Are you suggesting there are others as smart as me. Go on! LOL

Mark More #9.2

If Henry Ford (a 1%er if there ever was one) was told by the government during World War II that his contribution to the war effort was to take a tax cut he would have replied: 'Are you NUTS!? If that got out I would NEVER sell another thing in this country and I wouldn't blame ANYONE!' Today's 1% get tax cuts and demand more - DURING A WAR. We progressive are most concerned about the country we leave to our children but find that today's rich are only concerned about the size of their dividend checks this quarter. President Obama has presented a program that turned deficits into surpluses in the past but a Republican Congress that chooses to execute a sit down strike instead considers budgets that replace senior's health care with vouchers and privatize Social Security so that insurance companies and Wall Street speculators can control that money. The program the GOP presents works only if you are part of the 1% or an insurance company. This is a major part of the Republican's problem this election - promoting policies that exacerbate the problems and issues of 99% of the citizens instead of fixing them in order to give the proceeds to the 1%. If Republicans cannot or will not help fix these issues the least they can do is get out of the way of those who will.

Mike, I've become cynical enough to start to wonder why Obama does not just use the 14th amendment and avoid the debt ceiling crisis. He has that option.

Obama does not want to create a constitutional crisis because it would not be good for the government or business. However, Obama has the Republicans in a vise and he is squeezing it real hard. Republicans have a face saving way to get out of the problem with taxes, but they seem intent on creating another crisis. They lost the public opinion with the last debt ceiling crisis that was manufactured. Republicans are losing public opinion with the tax cut issue. I don't see how creating another debt ceiling crisis is going to improve their situation if Obama says no to their demands. The public is not going to look kindly on Republicans if they try to get tax cuts through the debt ceiling right after they lost the elections on that issue. They have already lost the business community's support on their positions. That puts Republicans in a corner with little support outside the lunatic fringe base.

whre did you go to school? The 14th amendment verifies the validity of the public debt as "authorized by law". Which means that Congress (the only branch capable of making law) has to authorize the extension of the debt. How would you expect the President to "avoid" the debt ceiling crisis? Even the automatic authorization that he was granted and is now seeking to be made permament would require Congress to 'validate' by either voting to agree or choosing not to vote (depending on how the law was written). Transferring the authority permanently to the executive branch would require an amendment to the constitution, and that is not likely. the power to spend monies and raise funds are all concentrated in the legislative branch.

Raising the debt ceiling is not in the Constitution as any power enumerated for Congress. It is a legislative creation. The debt ceiling is merely a validation of the debts already incurred by Congress and does not authorize new money to be spent beyond what was authorized. In other words it is a promise to make good on the debt and no more.

Thanks, Mike. I knew that, so why couldn't he use his authority to avoid the GOP debacle about raising the debt ceiling? I understand the differences in the three forms of government. I know who makes the laws. I know the president is in the executive branch.

I know it means making good on what congress has already spent. It's a promise to pay our debts. That's why I do not understand why the house T-party types would want to cause us to default.

I don't see why the president needs to act. It is Congress that authorizes the expenditures and a president has little say in the budget. A president can only spend money that is authorized. So the law about the debt ceiling makes no sense to me.

Which means that Congress (the only branch capable of making law) has to authorize the extension of the debt.

And when Congress passes an appropriation in excess of revenues, what does that constitute? There's even a line in the budget for "deficit."

Or is this a case of "Congress can borrow all the money it likes, but when it reaches its self-imposed spending limit it's not their problem?"

You are hilarious, seriously you should try standup. You want Boehner to get a 'real job' when the last two democratic presidents never had a real job in their lives? Well actually when the last ten or so haven't really had a real workingmans job. Most of congress and the executive and judicial branch are ivy league dumping spots of people that don't have a clue how to write a check, pay a bill or buy groceries for themselves. get serious! The political class gave up on the constitution a long time ago, at least whenever it got in the way of what they wanted. That's how a private citizen in Conneticut lost their house so the city could improve the tax base. If you really believe that one party is any better than the other one you are just kidding yourself. they will pander to whomever they need to to get whatever they want.

Uh OH, I think I spy a Libertarian.

Neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring: A Libertarian.

If you think there's no difference in the two major partys, you are not paying attention, dwatts.

I think both parties make a great attempt to appear different, but when you see the exercise of power after they are elected, then you see little difference. I see no great effort by either party to cancel the subsidy for sugar, to control offshore tax havens, to ensure foreign corporations pay any tax at all, to ensure that all taxpayers have "some skin in the game" and to ensure that all taxpayers (even after deductions) pay a progressive tax relative to their overall income. So no, I do not see much difference in the two parties. Their primary difference is only in what they want to spend more money than they have on. I haven't seen a politician with a vision in a long time. Immigrants built this nation, except for a few surviving natives, we are all immigrants and descendants of immigrants. But, do we have a vision for welcoming and embracing the drive and energy of immigrants? No, both parties squabble over who best represents them and who can best secure their votes. Labels are for small minds. I am a fiscal conservative, quite liberal in my immigration philosophy, etc. I refuse to be categorized. I recognize that there are things that only government can do and there are things best left to the private sector. If you are comfortable with libertarian - so be it. I have never voted that way, nor do I support their party in anyway, they are more naive than the regular two parties on far too many issues. If you want to label me then use Practitarian. I am practical and I want results. If you can't deliver a better world then get out of the way for someone who can.

Let's try your little experiment with marginal tax rates of 75+%, shall we?

The problem with your analogy is that it's the republicans who bought the car.

Possible strawman world record, way to go Varmint. I'm 100% positive you were stacking up milk cartons and standing on street corners yelling when Bush put two wars off the budget and gave the farm to Big Pharma. And anyone who borrows money to start a business is also subject to big large capital letters, right? They can't guarantee the payments, so they are drunken spenders, right? So many cars and chinese and pot... yeah lets hide the children...

Maybe I got the math wrong. Obama doubled the double and spent more that ALL not just Bush ALL the presidents in History combined, NO, I'm right Obama bought the car. And was running the country into the ground doubleing the fuel cost by not drilling and putting the hurt on deep water. And i think it was Obama who doubled out debt on the Solyndras and other failed "green Tech" and I think it was Obama who spent almost a Trillion dollars on Shovel ready projects that OH YEAH weren't shovel ready. $1 trillion on BS and not one single lasting thing to show for it. Oh yeah Obama care that sent my health care from $3600 a year to $26,000 a year. But luckily for me Obama paid off the unions and a car company or 2 so that I could pay for someone elses heatlth care. Yeah Obam didn't spend a dime that I can't see the long lasting benefits from. Like the loss of our credit rating for the the first time in History. Or maybe the benefits of our dollars worth being cut over 25% since HE took office. Maybe house values can get to zero and the record number of mortgage failures and BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES are at an all time high under his Golf Games and flights to New York for Dinner with his wife. Maybe the dead Emabssy personel cutbacks in security while he left for a fund raiser were a perfect example of leadership, just like Fast and Furious was a good idea, you can tell that to Brian Terrys family. Thank God...oh I'm sorry we aren't allowed that freedom any more or Christmas tree or any of the fine values that Obama brings to our country while gettting cozy with Hugo Chaves or letting Iran build nukes or north Korea to shoot of all the test missiles in our direction (actually California) without so much as a "stern, bad boy, don't do that....again" since he doesn't really care if CA lives or dies as long as he gets there MONEY first. Yeah this guy is the Messiah, he is King of the universe and the smarter man to ever breath air. If we could just grow any slower we could call it a recession but after China repo's our country and we end up like Greece in near civil war and chaos I'm sure you will look back on his Omnipotence and praise him as the best most productive snd economy savvy president ever to ruin a Democracy, long live the king our savior Obama! As long as he can keep us all stoned he is hoping we won't notice the collapse before 12/21/12 the end of the universe as predicted by the Myans...we see how well that worked out for them:-)

Feel better now?

Yeah Doug, better now if I could just get a job after the Govenment took my company to bankruptcy and replace the house I lost and help my employees who had no where to go thanks to corrupt officials in 5 federal agencies who told me as a whistle blower that the parties involved were, "too big to prosectue". Even though they committed over $60 billion in fraud and cost thousands of american lives, in a scandal that would dwarf every scandal to date under Obama. But the FBI and NHTSA, EPA, IRS, and a few others said they could not prosectue certain people who I caught committing $21 billion in TARP fraud and $40 Billion in illegal manufacturing compounded by Bankruptcy fraud. The Washington Post did a 6 page article on my story front page and despite calling over 200 Congressmen and Senators and having over 60,000 legal court stamped documents and enough physical proof and a body count in the thousands, all the Obama administration could tell me was, "they are too big to prosecute" so they gave them $21 billion in TARP money and NEVER got a dime of it back, gee I wonder why. So when I get up in there crawl, I am speaking as an insider who went from being the 1% to being completely bankrupt at the hands of this administration besides burying a lot of good people. So yeah Doug after I lost the first $11 million of my own money trying to protect over 10 million US citizens from serious bodily harm and possible death and NOTHING was done despite the media if my story went to TV now, Obama would be headed to Impeachment. Yeah I feel better now. I have many more funerals and bankruptcies to attend thanks to the government that can do no wrong. I defy Maddow to contact me and ask for the details and put it out there on front street on MSNBC. As an Expert Witness for almost 2 decades I can tell you if you go after a donor of Obama's or you expose what they are doing you will lose everything which only an idiot would look at what is going on in the country and the economy and not realize that is exactly what Obama wants, complete and total destruction of the US to force a "socialism ideal" into reality. Lets all become like the EU and Russia and China that's a great plan. practice you bow for both reasons cause your gonna get it from both ends really, really soon. that dollar in your pocket worth 46 cents, wait till it is worth 1c and a gallon of gas is $25 and a loaf of bread is $12 and unemployment is at 28% instead of 8% and tell me how good you feel. If you don't think it is close, look at England and Spain and Greece and Italy and others to far over the cliff to pull back....they don't call Obama the food stamp President for nothing. As a farmer, trust me if I can't fuel the equipment to get you the food lets see how long we last. Oh yeah Obama wants to tax the farmers and there estates in to bankruptcy also, no fuel, no food and how long do you think people will stand for that before desperation takes over. Whine people about he rebulicans but every dollar that is not ours puts us closer to the end...if life were that freakin great why have 25% of the population given up on finding any work and just fallening into poverty. Look around at the abandon homes, crime, cities declaring bankruptcy, in my 52 years on this planet I have never seen anything like this and it really doesn't matter how we got here if you don't put the brakes on right now and stop spending and over regulating and doing everything you can to prevent stagnation and impossible to thrive or prosper scenarios and tax what little drive or spirit we have left into FLEEING out of self preservation, you will see this country collapse. So ask yourself did Hostess want to go bankrupt and have 18,000 lose their jobs COMPLETELY or did unions and other stupid BS think that if you squeeze it to death IT REALLY WON'T DIE. so now instead of easing and taking a minor loss that my way or the highway attitude left everyone of the 18,000 with a BIG FAT PERMANENT ZERO for income and a job. You can not blame the company they were operating at a LOSS, no money in NO BUSINESS NO MORE. Like Duh. so rather than give at all, EVERYONE loses. Gee sound familiar like TAX the RICH into poverty adn once we have foolishly wasted the money what is left NOTHING. I loved paying my employees, I loved giving raises and bonuses for a job well done and I wanted everyone to grow and prosper, but when you have a government that does everything it can to kill jobs, the market place, overregulate, tax, raise pricesa and lower the dollar eventually you reach a sum zero. Only people who have worked to BUILD something would understand that. If you have never run a business, helped build careers or had any business experience and ALL not SOME ALL of the money you ever got was someone elses and you never had to earn it or create it's sorce andyou spent endlessly with your hand constantly out for more....well look around my friends you voted for the golfer and basketball in Chief and you got what you voted for. In 4 weeks watch the panic as business CAN'T pay for Healthcare, can't pay taxes, can't escape the sledgehammer of stupidity about to hit them and I'll bet un-employment goes through the roof in by March 1st. Do I want to be wrong, absolutely. Will I be not likely. Unless you have been at the mercy of the Dems as a business you will never understand what is about to happen. The perfect self destructive storm engineered by Obama is about a breath away. I say give him anything he wants, let him finish off this country until it goes to the brink and self destructs, from the ashes people will rebuild those that survive and the fools that can't farm or make food will be at each others throats and then we will look back with 20/20 hindsight and say wow wasn'tgreat that he got re-elected and look what he did for us...except I don't know chinese yet adn how to say that in chinese...as it will be there country then not yours. Cheers, I feel better now, thank you!

You varmint hunting with Mitt Romney? Quite the outdoorman, that Mittster...

The CBO shows that under current policy government spending has decreased from Bush's last budget until now. That's a four year time frame. Furthermore they project continuing decreases until 2014 when thanks to Bush's tax cuts (which the CBO calculates will be continued) the deficit starts to rise again.

Tomzak, The graph shows both lines going down from what looks like Obama era to now.

I thought I would show another view from Forbes' viewpoint, so as to allow conservatives to look upon it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

The upper right corner allows you to skip the ad.

"Why do teapubs hate America, the Constitution,freedom and Democracy so much?

They are fascists, Phenner.

so because the previous president was irresponsible there is no reason to ever start being responsible? If you spent less time hating your neighbor and more time working for a solution, perhaps we would all be better off. And don't get me started on military mercenaries. If some of the less brave and alternative thinking citizens would step up and serve, there would 1- be enough soldiers so that expensive mercenaries would not be needed and 2- a few more voices urging caution and recommending alternatives. What did you do in your life for your country? Easy to criticize a party that for all it's faults is really a group of people that have said they have had enough of the status quo. Seems to me you are happy to just drift along with things as they are, otherwise get out and start your own 'teaparty' of people that think like you. Otherwise shut up, collect your government benefits and drink yourself to an early grave complaining about 'fascists' with your friends. You are as worthless as any 'fascist' republican that you can name. you want to make America better? Do something! Right or wrong at least the teaparty folks are trying. If they were a little more reasonable I'd join them.

We did do something . . . we re-elected Barack Obama.

damSkippy, we sure did! Or Damn, Skippy, we sure did!

I'm glad that Dimwatts has finally come around to see the light. He is now chiding Boehner and the TP's for lack of responsibility by their insistence that we continue the policies that got us to where we are. After all, if they quit hating Obama and spent more time working for a solution, we would be better off.

But he forgets that the reason there are mercenaries is that Rummy was going to outsource just about everything, not that he was forced to by insufficient enlistment. After all, Eric Prince is a favorite of the republican establishment. And he also misidentifies those who are happy to drift along, since it is the republicans who are resisting change, not the Democrats. That has been the MO of conservatives since time immemorial.

I chide all useless politicains and I would never be 'proud' of trillion dollar deficits. I have repeatedly stated - and again, Democracy is about compromise. Mr Obama has to come to grips with that as well as Mr Boehner. No one is going to get everything they want. The debate over the size and scope of government is a valid one. It should not be left to the political class, it should be decided by the people. the lack of 'responsibility' ranges over more than one or tow congressmen and well beyond one party.

"Many Americans have entitlements now that they did not have before President Obama came to office."

Name those entitlements that did not exist before Obama.

The reality is that there is a national debt of $16 trillion headed towards $17 trillion, next year. To say that there are no cuts that can be made is simply untrue.

OK, NAME them. If you think we are spending too much on something then it should not be a problem to name what we are spending too much on.

It's funny that every time that someone brings up Simpson/Bowles as an example of what should be done, you then find that they vehemently oppose the actual recommendations of the committee. The reason that the republican contingent refused to sign off on the proposal was because of the tax increases and actual cuts to the military. They like to use it as propaganda, but like when Yertle tried to get cute and then found himself filibustering his own proposal, when they are confronted by the actual proposal, they deny everything.

According to the CBO, if we get rid of the Bush tax cuts and the wars and then invest in job creation so that we aren't being hurt by unemployment with the resulting decrease in tax revenue, by 2015 deficit spending will be negligible. The three factors that are driving the deficit right now are the economic downturn, the Bush era tax cuts, and the war in Afghanistan. Other expenditures are negligible compared to those three.

dkm, #21.1 You got it, it is exactly those three! Now, let's see if we can get the T-Party to believe that.

Oooops......

that is your opinion. I believe that there is a paradim shift occurring in the world and that there is no such thing as 'government job creation'. you are seeing the global transition to a 'global factory floor' and the continual automation of work. Jobs that have left the US are essentially NEVER coming back. There is not a new 'sector' coming into being and there is no 'knowledge' economy that requires a college education for America to lead. Physical things are pretty much going to be built where they are the cheapest and the service economy is not going to prosper if there is no wealth to employ them. the developing world is becoming just as knowledgeable as the developed world and do not need our expertise to prosper. Welcome to the world of insufficient work. we do not need, nor can we employ 7 billion souls. So you can throw as much money as you want to 'job creation' we are now approaching a Malthusian scenario that we may or may not be able to 'technology' our way past. While we may actually have some time left in actual agricultural support for 7 billion, we will not be able to gainfully employ them in the current world economic model. As resetting economic models is an extremely painful experience, we will muddle along as long as possible with ever greater numbers of people suffering through minor bursts of improvement followed by ever greater declines until the change is forced. Until then unemployment is a fact of life and an interconnected world with no frontiers is not able to sustain the necessity of an ever expanding economic model.

'dim' dkm where do you get your "facts"? If you read (I mean really read it - not go off someones summary) the CBO report "Choices for Deficit Reduction" dated November 2012 you will find that the very first 'factors' that they discuss that are putting increasing pressure on the budget is the impact of the baby boom generation. The direct quote is "without significant changes in the laws governing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, those factors will boost federal outlays as a percentage of GDP well above the average of the past several decades..." Later in the same document it states "...national defense, income security programs, retirement benefits for federal civilian employees and military personnel, transportation, health research, education, law enforcement, agriculture, and many other activities. Unlike spending for Social Security and major health care programs, spending on all of those activities would decline considerably relative to the size of the economy over the next 10 years under both the alternative fiscal scenario and CBO's baseline." the report assumes that tax revenue will go "over the cliff" or increase to a matching level. They still consistantly emphasize that the key is reduction in entitlement spending. If you have an alternative report from the CBO then provide a link. Otherwise, please quit being such a troll and spouting bs that you know nothing about, researched nothing and have no facts.

Ah, no, they aren't. As far as most of them are concerned (with significant exceptions), they want to know what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country.

A further benefit is that raising taxes on the people with off shore accounts doesn't hurt the economy at all because it is money that was just sitting there benefiting no one. With higher taxes it will go into the economy so that with more money flowing through the economy, more jobs will be created since consumers will have money to buy with, and producers will need to hire more workers to meet the increased demand.

sandy, I'd like to see that unwinnable, unsustainable, costly war end TODAY!

You are so right: If cutting taxes on the rich gave us so many jobs, how come we were bleeding out 800,000 a month under Bush's waning years? These Republicans live in some alternate reality. (And the Libertarians are in the twilight zone).

Hey, Sandy, we re-elected him, didn't we! Yes, we did!!!!

Now let's hold his feet to the fire!

Hahaha! spell check humor

"comic recovery". That's funny. Sometimes I edit my posts, then forget to update. uh, oh...

A little self deprecating humor, sorry.