Obama is way more successful than Grover, and yet with all of his success he has wasted more political and actual capital than any human in history.

Obama had strong support among independents, but today's polls show that independents are leaving him in droves. He now trails the "generic republican" by 9 points.

All the name calling and obfuscating doesn't change the fact that Obama promised a new tone, and instead has divided DC more deeply than any President in modern history.

Obama is not a leader He is a follower. He votes present. He runs in front of the parade. He is a follower, and is so out of his depth even his staff of hundreds cannot save him from himself.

He is good at one thing: campaigning.

And what job did Obama ever hold. He seems to have gotten his education paid for all the way to the end. He then took the job of community organizer? What did that job produce? Oh yeah nothing. It was paid for by donated funds. Obama has never held a real job in his life. He has never produced anything. So far as I know his whole life has depended on suckling at the national teet.

Paul,

Let's get honest about the dividing.. Recall how the Republicans in the House and Senate said "NO" for all legislation presented to them during 2009 and 2010. And they even acknowledged it was their plan to do so even before the election. That's not divisive?

Then, we have how many attempts to increase the deficit in the past 60 years and NOBODY has ever tried to pull what these whiners are pulling! Tell me, when you have bills to pay and not enough income, don't you think you better cut your spending and get another source of income. "we will never allow additional taxes". That's not divisive?

And we have Reagan increasing taxes and Clinton increasing Taxes and economies taking off. And these guys want to stop it? This isn't divisive?

And Bush increased the deficit by 100%. Read that again - 100%. And crashed what had been a wonderfully robust economy. While Obama has raised the deficit 50%. And people claim he's crashing the economy? And that's not divisive?

I do comprehend that it is 2.5 years so far versus 8 years for Bush, but I happen to be a Keynesian believer and that is what you must do. As people generally believe that Roosevelt didn't spend enough government money fast enough. He did when the war started!

But how could I possibly trust banks and Corporations and non-regulating Republicans with my government money again!

Jimbob while I am not defending Bush as his raising of the debt was to high in my opinion he came in it was just shy of 6 trillion, and when his last day it was just shy of 10.7 trillion that is 4.7 trillion increase or 78% not 100% still alot though I agree.

In two years under Obama it raised just a bit over 3.3 trillion and more than likely if as projected and nothing major happens by the end of this year he will have outpaced Bushes 4.7 trillion in 3 years vs Bushes 8 years.

I am not giving Bush credit on this issue as his was bad, but Obama's is absolutely dreadful and to give Obama a pass while badgering Bush is just outright biased partisanship.

You seem to have forgotten the financial collapse of 2008, where 3 trillion dollars evaporated out of the economy!

And 1.6 trillion of that was Bush's budget through '09. So the correct figure would be 1.7 trillion Obama has added......

Obama has his foibles, but the blame for the majority of the debt, and the financial collapse rest securely on Bush's head. Those are just the facts nighthawkx1.

If Obama had the cajones to close the corporate tax loopholes, and point out the fact that the economy began it's decent shortly after Bush passed the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, we could begin repairing the damage.

You all seem to forget the dems had control of congress since 2006 elections. 8.6 trillion when pelosi took over and 14.2 when she left.

Jimbob, you said raegan and clinton both raised taxes. Well they both also cut taxes. Did you "conveniently" forget to laeve that out?

The financial/real estate mess wasn't caused by a party, it was financial ineptness. The fannie/freddie portion of this was brought up in congress in 2004. If one cares youtube it and you can see the reps trying to reform it and the dems, including frank, saying all is well. Fannie/Freddie reforms were shot down in the senate in 2005 by the dems including then senator Obama.

Ok Gidster if you want to play that game than I get to give .4 trillion back to Clinton for his 2001 budget if its fair for Obama has to be fair for Bush. As far as Bushes 2009 budget it was 3.1 trillion and tax reciepts for 2009 fiscal year were 2.7 trillion so thats a wash with giving Clinton 2001. So even if we take that away from Obama it as Projected he will still pass Bush but will take about 3 1/2 years from October 2009 if things stay as projected.

Also you had a complete control of congress by dems in those last two years of Bush as well who even overide some of Bushes vetoes of spending, so if your going to discount them and put it totally at Bush's feet just remember that as no matter how things turn out this year and next by that its all Obama's fault and you can't pin any of it on the Republicans.

As for the tax cuts you are just absolutely wrong the economy bounced back and revenues increased above inflation in 2004-2007 if it was the fault of the tax cuts revenue should have fallen than, not 5 years later. The economy didn't go down hill untill the Democrats took over congress. Not to mention they actually write the budget not the President, but oh well its all Bushe's fault keep leaning on that one.

Vaughnland - Please add the Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska to that list, explains all his traitorous behavior in the past years

As an aside is the FBI or CIA ever going to investigate Norquist on his alleged contributions to Hamas

Until the Republi-Crats show responsibility with the trillions they get every year in tax receipts why in heaven's name would we give them any more?

Any poster on this board, liberal or conservative, could balance the budget in two weeks. Why? Because we have no interest in shaking down special interests or constituencies for bribes- er, "campaign contributions"- to get reelected.

No more money from the productive class until they can prove competent to handle what they've got. Starve the beast.

I think playing the guitar would have been the better choice. I doubt the name calling you like would win very many debates for you.

And Obama's credentials to be president are ????? A community organizer, editor of Harvard law review, an IL state senator that voted 'Present'.

A large part of our running deficit under Obama is from 2 non funded wars that wasnt in any budget under Bush, but is under Obama.

And it is an old classic dirty trick to mess up your finances enough so the guy taken over after you looks bad and you can get 8 more years when he gets the boot.

And all the Bush taxcuts did for me and all I know was to pay of credit cards and/or put in the bank. No one went out and bought something for the money they got. I want anyone to show me an academic study that shows that low taxes leads to growth. Until then I see it as collecting the "saved" money on a pile. And remember that companies only pay taxes on profit! after investments and other deductions.

Yuo are so wright. I hate stoopid people two. Theyre havock and destuction is making speeling harder for all of us.

Yuo are so wright. I hate stoopid peeple two. Theyre havock and destuction is making all of us look bad. Good thing theirs smart peeple like us too tell them when their wrong. Yuo shoold give more speaches!

Obama has never held a real job in his life.

that is a lie.

Norquist's just a bagman for special interests. He's also undermining America as he was the one who started this "pledge" business that obligates politicians to put special interests over those of all Americans once they are elected.

Once a politician is elected then he has a duty to represent all his constituents and not just the ones he signed some "pledge" for.

I'll never ever vote for someone who signs any pledges as it's un-American as hell.

strange how obama loses to a generic republican candidate but then beats every single republican in the field head to head.

but the only poll that matters is campaign cash.

and obama's beating the entire republican field, combined.

he's going to have a TON of extra cash to dump into red states.

can you smell what barack is cookin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjQ3rz-blU

President Obama is one of very few politicians in Washington who didn't grow up in a wealthy home. I don't know what he had to pay for college....he might have been a recipient of Pell Grants for all I know....but I do know that he received ACADEMIC scholarships for working hard through school. Many politicians went to school on daddy's purse strings....they have NO IDEA how difficult it is to pay for college!

You can slam him all you want (and call me stooooopid), but I firmly believe that he has the best interests of the country in mind....not the special interest groups, party lines, or stoooopid pledges!

According to former President Bill Clinton (he created a few jobs in his administration) we should be lowering the corporate tax rate.

Check out President Clinton's article for yourself!

Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal

The Huffington Post Alexander Eichler First Posted: 07/ 5/11 10:30 AM ET Updated: 07/ 5/11 01:46 PM ET

As the deadline to strike a deal on the debt ceiling draws closer, former president Bill Clinton criticized the nation’s corporate tax rate over the weekend, saying it should be lowered as part of an agreement between the parties, according to Politico.

“We’ve got an uncompetitive rate,” Clinton told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday, Politico reports.

There is no way to lower the corporate tax rate when they don't pay anything now.

Jesus said, "pay Cesaer." If you read your Bible, you can see EXACTLY the same lame arguments the people posed to Jesus regarding the payment of taxes. He actually got angry with them for being petty and not wanting to support the society in which they lived. OMG, Jesus was a socialist!

Seems our Christian GOPers have forgotten what the Bible tells them to do. So typical.

Rich

Actually there is.

Follow this hypothetical....

A company has a corporate tax rate of 35%, but with the credits, deductions and subsidies actually pays only 10% income tax on their profits of $1 Million giving the government $100,000 in revenue.

And now we lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, but eliminate all loopholes, deductions and credits and on the same $1 Million in profit the same company pays the government $200,000 in taxes.

Which tax code and rate is more favorable to the government?

@Rich: "There is no way to lower the corporate tax rate when they don't pay anything now".

In that case I guess no one should object to lowering their rates!

LMAO!!! Good answer, Kenn!

I EXCUSE ME NORQUIST....I BELEIVE OUR CONGRESS is suppose to WRITE LAW, NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!

These Teapublicans NOW, want to shift this work (responsibility) over to the Prez, cause their worthless CHICKEN @!$%#, ASSES, can't do it themselves! They wanted control.....NOW DO IT!!!

JUST SAY NO MR. PRESIDENT....MAKE THEM DO THE JOB, THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO, Not pass the buck.......

He has told them several times, what he wants.....IF THEY GOT THE @!$%# OUT OF THEIR EARS, THEY WOULD HERE HIM!

Yes, by all means, JUST SAY NO MR PRESIDENT! Just like your Dem party said NO TO A BUDGET when they held both the House and Senate. Talk about a calculated passing of the buck. You can't just cherry pick your facts, you know.

Do you really think obama didnt grow up in a wealthy home? his father was a politician his mother was a woman who spent her life jetting around the world and left him at grandma and grandpas house. I suspect he wasn't as middle class as you are thinking he is.

as for any job he had go ahead and name it. i think he was a graduate instructor for a law college, then a community organizer what ever that means then a politician and finally a president.

his aptitude is in raising money by making abstract promises and rallying the clueless around platitudes.

Free Speach4All

And what job did Obama ever hold. He seems to have gotten his education paid for all the way to the end. He then took the job of community organizer? What did that job produce? Oh yeah nothing. It was paid for by donated funds. Obama has never held a real job in his life. He has never produced anything. So far as I know his whole life has depended on suckling at the national teet.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One Poker:

Read "Dreams from my Father", written several years ago by Barack Obama.

You might learn something to save you making facts up.

I haven't read it, but I can be sure of one thing: If he wrote it or said it, it must be true.

"The explosion in spending under the Obama Administration" had plenty of precedent established under Bush, and might not have been necessary at all, if the latter had done his job and kept regulations and oversight in place. "The fundamentals of the economy are strong". Sound familiar?

If you're out looking for unicorns anyway, you might try looking for a conservative budget plan that has even a remote chance of working well...much less passing congress.

you couldn't raise taxes high enough to cover our deficit without stiffling any remaining embers of economic growth. And for what? To let gov waste it?

Proving that you have no idea what, or how government works, beyond what you are told on Fox....

Taxes are the cost for living in an advanced society. In the 50's and 60's the marginal tax rate was between 75 and 91%, yet we still made millionaires, we went to the Moon, and built the interstate system.....

Growth is there, but it is stifled more by the fact that 1% of Americans own 35% of the wealth, while the next 19% own 50%, leaving the other 80% or 256 million people to struggle for the remaining 15%.

Government was far more efficient before the Reaganites infected it.

Nothing is stopping anyone from becoming a doctor. They earn a lot and can go join that 1 %.

How about it?

Gidster

Taxes are the cost for living in an advanced society. In the 50's and 60's the marginal tax rate was between 75 and 91%, yet we still made millionaires, we went to the Moon, and built the interstate system.....

Since the 1930's federal tax revenue has been a very steady 17% of GDP, so the Federal Government has always collected a fair amout of money all along. The problem is that Federal Spending has risen from 17% of GDP to almost 40% of GDP over the same timeframe.

What you leave out of the equation is that there were loopholes that you could drive a truck through when the tax rates were that high, the effective tax rate was still around 35-40% even with 91% marginal rates.

The problem has never been revenue to the Fed, it has always been about the spending.

@gidster, government doesn't do ANYTHING that the private sector couldn't do better and more efficiently. I know how government works...more often than not it works BADLY.

Taxes are the cost for living in an advanced society. In the 50's and 60's the marginal tax rate was between 75 and 91%, yet we still made millionaires, we went to the Moon, and built the interstate system.....

You are confusing tax rates with tax receipts. Tax receipts since around 1960 have been around 17-19% of GDP, regardless of the tax rates. What accounts for the success you cite is economic growth. The answer to raising tax revenues is not to raise tax rates but to grow GDP. Unfortunately, the president and his disciples on the left are either ignorant of the fact that tax increases have a negative effect on economic growth or they are purposefully inciting class warfare to bolster their re-election chances. Maybe both.

Gigster ..... the 1950's had revenue as a percentage of gdp of 17.3% when the rate was 91%. Bush reached higher than that, in the 18% range, when he had a 35% rate.

So the economy can't grow when a certain percentage of our wealth is owned by a certain percentage of the population? You realize how silly that sounds? Socialist countries have a much higher rate of the few "owning everything" than we do.

Taxes are the cost for living in an advanced society. In the 50's and 60's the marginal tax rate was between 75 and 91%, yet we still made millionaires, we went to the Moon, and built the interstate system.....

Growth is there, but it is stifled more by the fact that 1% of Americans own 35% of the wealth, while the next 19% own 50%, leaving the other 80% or 256 million people to struggle for the remaining 15%.

Government was far more efficient before the Reaganites infected it.

First, when income tax rates were that high, there were also a smorgasbord of tax shelters that allowed the investing of $1 and getting multiple dollars of tax deductions with little or no economic substance to the tax shelters or no risk of loss above the $1 initially invested. The trade off for the lower income tax rates of the 1986 Tax Reform Act was the elimination of many of those abusive tax shelter and denying tax deductions for shelters that had no economic substance.

Second, there were no medicare, medicaid or welfare programs of the Great Society until the mid 60s and their expenditures were initially very small and not a significant part of federal expenditures. That is not the case today, the expenditures for these programs have exploded over the last 4 or so decades and represent a huge percentage of federal expenditures.

Third, the 80% of Americans who are alleged to own only 15% of the country's wealth could take some personal initiative to increase their share of that wealth. While some of the wealth was inherited (in spite of an until recently 55% estate tax) many of the top 1% and 19% of wealth holders earned their wealth and would seem to be entitled to keep what they earned rather than those who didn't earn it being entitled to it.

And finally, fourth, it's a stretch to say the government has been efficient at much, if anything, over the last 40 or 50 years.

Gridster, I actually am a gov worker, so I probably know more than you what it is to work in gov. It's inefficient in the extreme; most gov workers do try to perform at acceptable levels - at what private sector jops would require (and I spent 25 yrs in the private sector) but can't due to the constraints of the job - the rules we have to live by. Gov just isn't good at most things, compared to the private sector. This seems to be something most pols don't understand. It isn't that the workers want to be inefficient, it's just all the bureaucracy that creates the mess.

one problem with the taxes is that the income of americans has been stagnant and cost are going up. If we look at what a living wage is and maybe adjust every salary for cost of living increase (2-3% a year) especially hourly wages. It is a shame that americans have to have 2-3 jobs to survive.

The number one prerogative of the boss is to stay on budget or the whole company goes down the tubes. Same with the President.

Our President is spending more than 6.5 trillion dollars in 4 years and there is no revenue for 1/3 of it. Not even close to fathomable.

Someone call the guys in white coats for "gidster"...liberal indoctrination is truely the devil's workshop

How about some perspective?

Does anybody remember that just 11 short years ago, we were running a surplus so large that it was thought we would pay off our accumulated debt in just 10 years or so?

Does ANYBODY posses unbiased statistics that could show us where we went wrong?

Does anybody really know how much was: war, accumulated real estate bubble, bad government management, unionization of our government, or outside factors?

I have my suspicions, but they are just suspicions or biases, as I have no means to understand our government.

The government acts like an inept corporate manager trying to conceal what is happening to protect their job

Tax deductions, loopholes, and other incentives currently amount to around $1.1 trillion in revenue not collected by the government.

The amount of tax deductions (taxes not collected) is almost as much money as the amount of money actually collected from individual and corporate income taxes. Basically taxes have been cut in half through deductions, loopholes, and incentives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/teb2012.xls

The projection is that the government will give up $7 trillion in revenue from 2012-2016. That is more than the Ryan budget cuts in 10 years. Just as there is government waste - there are tax deductions that are not appropriate either.

Aren't we all getting tired of hearing the incessant babbling of the socialists complaining about how these top 1-2-5% (take your pick) are holding all the wealth? Their solution to all that ails us is to take that wealth from them and give it to the masses who are the very people that squander everything they get their hands on. The post by Gidster 2.2 complains that 1% of Americans own 35% of the wealth and the next 19% own 50%, and so on.

Gidster would avoid another little stat that shows the top 5% pays more in taxes than the other 95% combined because it doesn't jive with his "the rich are the enemy" ideology. I suppose we'll have to leave it up to the socialists to determine how much people are allowed to keep of what they earn.

BTW, the latest figures now show that the number of people in this country that pay no income taxes has risen to 51%, not good news. In keeping with Obama's class warfare tactics, there is no amount of taxes the wealthy pay that will be enough for him because in his Marxist vision, there are no wealthy. Everyone is equal in their poverty.

This is what is known:

Around $1.5 trillion in spending reductions were agreed to in the Biden negotiation talks. The cuts would come from areas of common ground such as discretionary spending and federal employee pensions and tightening interest deferrals for student loans. This is what Democrats conceded to.

The Democrats want to supplement that with revenue increases to get to the $2 trillion benchmark based on a dollar-for-dollar increase in the debt limit to get through 2012. That would be a 3 to 1 deal, with the small amount of revenue raised like this:

With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code.

Republicans are adamantly opposed to revenues of any kind or amount. And that's the impasse. Further complicating the matter is that NEITHER side will put down their deal on paper, at least not yet.

Obama then presented more details of his proposed $4 trillion Big Deal that would add cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, and Republicans supported what they heard. However, Cantor reiterated GOP opposition to any revenue increases, which continues to be the sticking point to any deal. They are keeping their unconstitutional pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist instead of to their oath of office and representing their constituents and the best interest of our nation.

After all, the $3 trillion in cuts including trust funds would mean $1 trillion in revenue. To get to $1 trillion in revenue, Republicans would have to get behind the Shared Sacrifice bill asking millionaires to do more. Think about it, $6 billion in revenue could be raised just from the top 25 hedge fund managers if capital gains loopholes were closed!

But no, Republicans then offered a Plan B for a "clean vote" (as a matter of housekeeping as always), but not quite...McConnell started negotiation with Reid on spending cuts. Cuts in increments, each time refusing to give on the revenue side, with hopes it will play to their advantage in the 2012 election.

President Obama already said he wouldn't agree to a piece-meal approach that would cause continued uncertainty in the market and distraction from work on real solutions like creating jobs, balancing the budget, and tax reforms.

So now the Republicans are pushing for the Balanced Budget Amendment--again. Keep in mind folks, that this amendment requires cuts only. It does not ask for shared sacrifice by closing loopholes and credits. The Bush tax cuts will expire, and cuts for the richest 2% will not be extended--the votes won't be there this time. So what's the end game with all this Mr. Cantor, McConnell, and Boehner?

If the Republicans fail to compromise on loopholes now, they will be at fault. But if the US defaults, who's at fault is just a footnote. Things will good from bad to worse, and elections won't be the concern, rather revolution.

@TruePatriot,

Let's be clear. Republicans aren't against revenue increases. They are against tax increases. This is because tax rate increases hurt economic growth and don't increase actual tax revenue receipts.

Since 1960 tax receipts have been around 18% of GDP, regardless of the tax rate. The answer to increasing tax revenues then, is not to raise tax rates but to grow GDP. Raising tax rates, conversely, has a negative impact on economic growth and that's why the Republicans won't agree to them.

Regarding the debt ceiling, it is madness to believe that the answer to our debt problem is MORE debt. Spending must be cut, and significantly. The government must shrink and the free market allowed to work.

3RD BASE: Obama worked as an attorney. Not my favorite profession, but it is a profession.

PAUL: Our debt problems started with Reagan when he cut taxes to the wealthy in half. Then G H W Bush cut it more, and George W even more. Our debt sky rocketed.

The government takes in half of what it puts out. It is not going to kill the wealthy who have 70% of the entire wealth in this country to pay another 5% in taxes.

When Reagan removed tax breaks for the middle class and small business we had a recession.

When under George W gas went to over $4 a gallon, we had a recession. Because the middle class had to make a conscious choice between driving and eating. That means less shopping trips. Less dining out and so on.

In short when the middle class tightens their budgets we have recessions. Simple economics; inventory exceeds demand.

Do you really think the rich spend twenty times as much on gas? Twenty times as much on food? Twenty times as much on socks and underwear?

You need to stop believing the Republican rhetoric and use some common sense.

Vito Vera

PAUL: Our debt problems started with Reagan when he cut taxes to the wealthy in half. Then G H W Bush cut it more, and George W even more. Our debt sky rocketed.

Please do some actual research. Federal Revenue in the form of taxes (Income Taxes), has been very consistent 16-18% of GDP since the 1930's, Federal spending on the otherhand has risen from 17% to approx 40% of GDP over the same timeframe.

The government takes in half of what it puts out. It is not going to kill the wealthy who have 70% of the entire wealth in this country to pay another 5% in taxes.

Therein lies the problem, our government has been irresponsible, they are spending twice what historically what they take in taxes and there is nothing to show that this trend will be reversed just by raising taxes on any one group of citizens. The fact is that ALL wage earners should be taxed at the same RATE so that all people are treated equal, with the elimination of all credits, deductions, and loopholes.

You need to stop believing the Republican rhetoric and use some common sense.

Try doing research and see for yourself, spending is the problem, not revenue.

Stop listening to the Liberal mantra of class warfare and open your eyes.

Here is the other big lie... Raising taxes by 5% on the top 1% or 2% would not even come close to bringing down the debt. Obama would have you belive that his balanced approach of letting Bush's tax cuts for all expire on just the top 2% would solve our problems. It won't.

What's "right for the country" is an opinion that is open to debate. There are people that think the right thing is to cut spending and not raise taxes. There are also people with opposing views. Just because someone is advocating a path you disagree with doesn't mean they are not doing what they feel is right for the country.

Liberals were fine not doing the right thing for 8 years of the Bush admin, and the two years Democrats tanked the economy (just look at the debt Pelosi's House built in the last 2 years of Bush's presidency - and if you want to blame Bush, you have to then blame Obama for everything the current congress is doing).

Sorry libbies, you don't get it both ways. Either Congress is responsible, and they are, or the President is responsible.

What's so much worse is that the President is a leaderless child. He is an embarrassment and a fraud.

The only sane plan is to cut spending. Real cuts, across the board. Even 3 or 4 % per year, year after year.

And, in 2012, get rid of the Big O. If we don't I can't see any outcome other than catastrophe.

OK. Tax cuts have really worked well for the economy over the last 8 years or so. Oops, no they haven't. The month Obama took office, the economy lost 700,000 jobs. That is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND in one month. We are no longer in a recession and are gaining jobs, albeit slowly. Quit talking about how the president hasn't done anything right.

Country before party!

Kevin - there are a great many who feel that not raising taxes during high unemployment is what's right for the country. From what I have gleaned from what those involved in the negotiations is they can't nail down the President on the cuts he keeps talking about.

The only ones who will get their taxes raised are those who can AFFORD to get their taxes raised, namely the richest 2%. That's the same 2% that have benefited the most from the Bush policies and tax cuts. NOT the other 98% of the country that's been hit the hardest. Also taxes for EVERYONE are at historic lows.

And the financial collapse happened in '07, well before Obama took office. And within 2 months of Obama taking office unemployment was nearing 10%, long before any of his policies had taken place. No one can just snap their fingers and turn around the economy. BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats gave Bush EVERYTHING he asked for when he was in Office.

Now Obama is trying to clean up the mess he was left with without any assistance from The Republican party who are ONLY concerned with getting back into office, so they can focus the country back on the REALLY important issues, like light bulb requirements!

Goodbye Norquist. It will be great without you and your treason to the country. By asking our representatives who swore oaths of office on the holy bible to ME and the people to sign a pledge swearing them to you by force and by extortion with blackmail you have violated and perpetuated a conspiracy to act against the people and government of THIS United States.

Provable by public statements by you to hold accountable our representatives to you if they do not fulfill there pledge to YOU even in the face of bringing our country to an economic and disastrous end to the detriment of this the United States of America..

Guess who I have in high school dedicated to making your downfall his soul purpose... ;]

There! I threw my juice on it.

mowdy5000 2011

www.goinh@rdinthepaint.com

Cheers

MKLND, we are not gaining jobs. The jobs reports are skewed based on how many are collecting unemployment benefits. It doesn't account for all those who have run out of benefits.

Hear! Hear! Let's see what he considers a balanced approach. Pay particular attention to when the taxes go up and when the spending "cuts" take place. My prediction: Taxes up now. Spending cuts in 2017.

I think you are right on the taxes but early on his cuts. From what I'm hearing the bulk of his cuts are scheduled for 2022-2024. Like Boehner said the Potus is Jello and not even he knows for certain at this point because as with his budget the specifics are something he refuses to give. Personally I smell a liberal rat that needs to be sent back to Chitcago in 2012.

Raven - Don't you know that this administration expects it's bills to be passed BEFORE they are written.... spend enough money to buy the votes of enough sheep and they will continue giving you blank checks, until it all collapses.

Dont you guys get it, intead of publically announce every stance, he keep his cards to his chest, so he doesnt get painted into the corner like the folks who were stupid enough to sign this pledge. When elected you have to take the high road and compromise (in republican talk to achieve a mutual agreement since you cant use the word compromise any longer) to get anything done, that is what the tea party and republicans have to understand. Because if you win your district by 55 -45 you have do keep the other 45 in mind of your decisions. You represent all your constituents, either you like or not. That is why Obama is so good, he is as middle as a president has been since... Clinton. They pisses of the right and the left wings equally.

This past week during Obama's press conference speeches, he was talking about introducing more "programs"...this man has to be out of his mind...we can't even pay for the "programs" that we tax-payors are supporting now, let alone any new ones that this idiot is still planning on introducing...and on top of everything else, we haven't even begun to see the budget crushing effects of Obamacare.

Obama = Higher Taxes & Debt.....

It is not rocket science people! Obama's answer to the national debt is to raise the debt ceiling. What kind of idiocy is that! Exactly how does Obama expect our nation to pay down the current debt and now he want to increase that debt by uncapping the ceiling?... I appreciate the nation wanted "Change" in 2008; however, throwing in a fiscally irresponsible President into the mix is not the kind of "Change" this nation requires.

Blaming Prior Administrations or Democrat vs. Republican Parties, is rather like "closing the barn door after the animals are out." We are talking about today, not 4-8-12 or even 20 years ago. There is blame in every prior administration, Republican and Democrat alike; Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, etc., and every administration, (Democrat or Republican) back to Roosevelt. Laying blame on prior administrations for this shortcoming or that shortcoming; doesn't eliminate the need to take control of our current economic chaos.

President Obama's mandatory Health Care Plan WILL increase the national unemployment percentage. Mid-size companies and small companies with 50+ employees will begin laying off staff to reduce mandated Health Coverage Costs... Plus, let's not forget the $500 Billion allocated AWAY from Medicare to cover this Health-Care Plan "start-up costs".

Before any bleeding hearts attempt to justify this; let me remind you of a few Constitutional Facts;

1) Social Security & Medicare are Trust Accounts enacted by Constitutional Law. These two programs are fully funded by Employee/Employer weekly payroll contributions and NOT government funded. All funds paid into these accounts are supposed to be held in trust until employees retire or become disabled. Unfortunately, past and current Presidential Administrations have been "borrowing/Allocating" funds away (via annual budgets) from these accounts for decades. THIS IS THE REASON SOCIAL SECURITY IS ON THE BRINK OF DEPLETION. NOT FROM EXCESSIVE SPENDING/DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC. BUT, THE GOVERNMENT "BORROWING" MONEY AWAY FROM THESE PROGRAMS VIA PRESIDENTIAL ANNUAL BUDGETS AND NOW CANNOT/WILL-NOT REPAY THESE PROGRAMS. It's easier to convince the American People the programs are nearly bankrupt; than government agencies returning decades of allocated trust account spending.

Just because prior Republican and Democrat Presidential Administrations abused Social Security and Medicare funds, doesn't justify allowing the current Obama Administration to continue this practice; when combined with this Administrations' unchecked $Trillions in spending…. (Current national debt $14+ Trillion increasing, via Obama's budget, to $22+ Trillion over the next 10 years)… (Clinton created $5 Trillion in Debt; Bush another 9/11-Iraqi War….. $4 Trillion in Debt; Obama since 2009 over $5+Trillion and climbing).... It's time the American People said "Enough!"

2) Obama's current agenda to reduce the National Debt is "allocating" funds away from Employee/Employer Contributed 401K Plans & Pension Plans. Exactly how many of your retirement accounts will you have to lose before waking up to this President's unchecked spending crisis? First, Social Security and Medicare practically depleted and now Retirement Plans?

Wake up People... This unchecked spending by this Obama Administration is jeopardizing our national and international economic standings. If we don't take control of this situation and get the "Cash Hound" out of the Oval Office; we will be forced to repay Foreign Government Loans to America, or lose American collateral in the way of property, businesses, and government control.

It's time to dump the Political Party Propaganda and look at how close America is to the edge of Financial and Economic Collapse.

It isn't hard to see that if America can't take control of this downhill spiral; the U.N. or E.U. will step in and take control of America; for the military, economic and financial safety of the world markets and economies influenced by America!

It's time to re-group as Americans, and UNDO the Economic Chaos, "Our Nation" and its' people, are facing TODAY. If we don't stop this Republican vs. Democrat bickering, we may not have an America to save shortly. **This positive "Change" needs to begin now: starting with Obama, his spending and government control policies in 2012. **

(Clinton created $5 Trillion in Debt; Bush another 9/11-Iraqi War….. $4 Trillion in Debt; Obama since 2009 over $5+Trillion and climbing)??

Really? You are saying, 5+4+5= 14 so there was no national debt prior to Clinton?

What do you call opinions based on untruths?

I don't know whether to believe you people actually think you are correct, and come to illogical conclusions, or that you just arbitrarily make stuff up because you like the sound of it.

$600,000,000,000 and $800,000,000,000 are not drops in the bucket. Also to be honest Obama signed an extension to the Bush tax cuts (are they now the Obama tax cuts), increased war spending in Afghanistan, and did not close any of the tax loopholes he argues against. Actually in his stimulus there was a tax benefit for buying corporate jets.

The debt crisis is due to too many homeowners entering the market when they could not afford it because of Republican legislation signed by Clinton and a reduction in regulatory control under Bush

Wrong. Look at our debt during the Bush years. It got bad only after Democrats took control of spending in 2007. That is when the economy tanked, and the Democrats did it, all of it.

If the wars were a big deal, why, nearly 3 years in, has Obama done nothing but what Bush was doing? Obama added more troops to Afghanistan, and more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than ever. Iraq is scheduled for a withdrawal on Bush's timetable.

And now Obama is spending a new billion a month in Libya.

A leader does not blame others. A leader takes responsibility for today and tomorrow. The speechmaker said he knew how bad things were, he told us how screwed up everything was, and how he was going to fix it all.

His administration has had going on 3 years to fix things, and nothing that he said would happen has. Last year was the summer of recovery - REMEMBER?

Enough about Bush, he's been out of office for several years. Obama needs to grow up, grow a pair, and be the leader. It looks like he won't.

If you really look at the numbers, and have an understanding of the implications of the Bush tax cuts, you wouldn't be saying that. Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" lowered revenue by $800 billion over ten years. The tax cuts for the middle class lowered tax revenues by $3.2 trillion over ten years. Allowing the tax rates on the top 2%to revert to pre-Bush levels wouldn't hardly dent the current deficit we are running. So, aside from tired party talking points and generalizations, please explain how the tax cuts for the top 2% caused the debt crisis and must be reversed, but the tax cuts for everyone else didn't and should remain in place? How do you account for the 47% that pay no income tax at all?

Who do you credit with the housing collapse? If you say Bush (as I suspect you will) please explain why? Do you remember when he tried to get Fannie and Freddie under control and was lambasted by the Democratic congress? Lastly, Clinton's total budget in 1997 was $1.7 trillion. Do you know what Obama has requested (in his budget that was voted down 100-0)?

If you can answer these questions, how can you still honestly pass the buck and obsolve Obama of his responsibility for this debt that continues to balloon. It is very chic among liberals to continue to blame Bush, however outside of the "tax cuts for the rich caused this... unfunded wars caused this... deregulation caused this" there are nary a decent explanation as to why the debt continues to balloon.

Jooky, that's an appropriate name, for surely you jest! Let's roll out those "tax cuts" - which, btw, the Big O also signed - and we find it would add about 80 bill a year to the federal coffers. What's that deficit again - oh, yeah, 1,500 billion a year. Why can't people understand this? I believe it's because the O man has so pounded this as a solution to the deficit problem that people refuse to look at the facts = they want to believe it, too.

If we taxed the worth of the millioniares and billionaires 100% we wouldn't cover the deficit THIS YEAR. We cannot tax our way out of this crisis. I'll say that again, just so liberals can read it again: We cannot tax our way out of this crisis.

We will have to raise taxes, much as I hate to say that, at some point. But not now. Not until the pols in DC are forced to cut spending. We can't just cut 40% of gov spending in one fell swoop, either. But we've got to start somewhere, and the Grand Deal the O is bantering on about ain't it. It doesn't cut spending until long after he's out of office - so he get's to perpetuate the myth that he's "DONE SOMETHING" all the while regulating the country into oblivian and taking out debt to over 20 trillion dollars, should he win another term. God forbid.

How about we just cut 3% across the board in every program except soc sec. This year. Next year. the year after. Until we are spending no more than we take in. 3%. Real cuts, not the smoke and mirrors we are being fed now. After they sign this into law, we tackle tax reform, the goal of which is that all loopholes get closed - yes, even for individuals - and we lower the rates. Then maybe only 15% of wage earners would pay no taxes.

We also take the cap off the individuals soc sec income limit. You all want the rich to pay more, here's the best place for that to happen.

We means test both medicare and soc sec, with premiums rising on weathier people, and soc sec benefits decreasing for those same people. Folks if we just raise taxes, gov will squander the money.

And, we begin decreasing food stamps, welfare and all other hand outs, 15% per year until they are gone for people able to work. So you're on the gov dole this year, your "benefit" is only 85% next year, then 70% until you have no more public funds being given to you. Gov should not provide a "living". Hand up, yes: Hand out - He(( no!

Actually Chicity if you look at government revenues after the Bush tax cut they actually increased. There was a reduction in 2002 but that was due to complete standstill after 9/11. I think one thing about Bush is people do not give him the credit he deserves for reviving the economy after 9/11 as by all rights we should have been in one of the most severe recessions ever and that did not happen. I own a travel agency and for 3 months corporations did not allow their people to fly yet we pulled out very fast.

Bush repeatedly tried to get Fannie and Freddie under control and was rebuffed over and over by mostly Dems but also congressional repubs. Where I blame him is that he didn't force the issue = I'm guessing he was so focused on the wars he was afraid he'd lose support for them if he bucked too hard on Fannie/Freddie. And, of course, he signed the Pelosi-Reid budgets, something he never should have done. That's when spending exploded.

Agreed Jerry. I was trying to highlight the fact that Obama's budget, for some reason, feels it is necessary to spend amounts that dwarf any other budget in the history of the US. As for talking about Bush's tax cuts, it is to dispel the notion that uninformed Libs hold that repealing the tax cuts on the top 2% will have any impact at all on the debt.

Actually if you took the complete wealth of the top 2% it is estimated to be $1.4 trillion which would cover the deficit for this year and then what

I am sorry but to say that it is a revenue problem do to the 2003 tax cuts and not a spending problem just doesn't bare fruit. The federal governments revenue went up in 2004, 2005,2006, 2007 above inflation each year, the first year it fell was 2008 by a little bit but than it plummeted for 2009 and 2010 was about even. Something tells me it wasn't those tax cuts that dropped revenue or we would have seen it in the 4-5 years following them and Federal revenue has been higher than when they were implemented every year.

As for spending though it increased at rate of inflation which really I wish it would of been less between 2003-2008 but spiked in 2009 by 550 billion over 2008. To me its a spending problem that erupted drastically in 2009 and by government projections through 2016 isn't going to get better piled on top of a weak economy. Granted their projections for revenue growth starting in 2012 look unreasonably high and wishfull thinking better than any we have had year over year.

Nighthawk,

If you factor in the amount of TARP that has been paid back it really shows you how much the spending has gone up. According to the White House we are only losing $50B on Tarp so that is another $550b that has been spent

@ Nighthawk

Did you factor in the TWO WARS, MEDICARE PART D, Dept Homeland Security that Bush 43 started? All those cost some serious dollars that were never put on the BOOKS.

Yes they are factored in that is total revenue, and total expenses, not any funny math that they tried to pull.

bush never added them.

Almost all the TARP that hasn't been repaid is in two places: AIG (which was bailed out mainly to cover the Euro banks), and Fannie and Freddie. Tarp actually worked, if you consider gov bailouts as "working".

Me, I would break up any company that is "too big to fail" and then let them fail. If we always bail them out, what incentive do they have to weigh risks appropriately?

Cee that is not budget totals, it is actual total reciepts, and total treasury outlays, no matter even if they are never mentioned in any bill period they are included Does not matter if he didn't include them in the budget

And not to mention the argument was about revenue(or lack there of) which none of the things you listed effect revenue. Please keep going off in your imaginary Bush is the Devil and trying to ruin your life mode

Since your so adament about it please provide proof that Homeland Security(despite having its own budget) the Afghanistan and Iraq war or the Medicare overhall were not payed by the government for expenses made during 2001-2008. Not being in a budget doesn't count as things still have to be paid and are. I am sure I saw a post on here a while back that explained this in detail for the conspiracy people on this issue. If i can i will try and find it.

Cee is correct--Fox will not repeat this, but OMB will. All of Bush's budgets were exclusive of the GWOT spending (borrowing). So a 450B deficit was actually a 700B deficit, once the GWOT "emergency spending measures" $$ (also grossly underestimated in previous years' budgets) were included. The right sticks their fingers in their ears and go, "naaa, naaa, naaaa" when you remind them...

(And also fortuitously exploited as part of the mis-direction that began when Fox and Koch bros started funding TEA party screams of "Big Liberal/Gov't Spending" 3 mos after Obama took office.)

Also @ Cele, I don't believe GWB tried very hard to reign in Fannie/Freddie, since he took credit in the 2006 SOTU for "...making the dream of home ownership the most attainable in history..." Can't take credit for the results, then run from them when the balloon bursts, and the results prove hollow...

Great posts NighthawkX1!! Hard to argue with the truth, but they try.

To those of you trying to lay the blame of the current recession and debt crisis at the feet of democrats, you really need to do your homework. The recession started in December 2007. The democrats didn't take office until the beginning of that same year. That gave them, what, 4 or 5 months to actually write, argue, and pass legislation that managed to cause a recession by the end of that year? Keep dreaming. The recession was mostly due to things like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act back in 1999. Many try to blame Clinton for that, but that bill was un-vetoable due to its popularity in BOTH parties.

As for the spending, its pointless to argue the differences between spending and revenue in the ways that many are. The Bush tax cuts weren't exactly "spending", but they did cost us $2 trillion dollars in 10 years in lost revenue, which Bush did not offset with really ANY spending cuts. If you look at overall growth of the economy during the Bush years, the Bush tax cuts not only cost us that money, but it was practically a complete failure in every category it was meant to achieve. Growth didn't occur due to it, jobs weren't created due to it. Add to that the, and I"ll use republican lingo here so you can understand, the "financial amnesty" that was given to corporations with major off-shore holdings in order to avoid paying taxes on it were rewarded for their gamble by being allowed to bring all that money into the U.S. tax free.....TWICE!

The Obama administrations spending levels have been due to having to create growth from a stagnant collapsing economy that was spending money on 2 wars, and losing trillions in government revenue due to tax cuts. And it accomplished practically nothing. Its no wonder most of Bush's policies, such as his active foreign policy and things like No Child Left Behind *you remember, that thing that helped drive our education system into the ground* are being abandoned by the current republican representation. And with the enormous freshman Tea Party class claiming a mandate which doesn't exist and shouting "our way or no way at all" for the last year, and the entire republican party at large doing it for the last 2 years, is why the current debt crisis is where it is. The idea that we "don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" is beyond absurd. The spending problem is at least partially BECAUSE of the revenue problems created by Bush and continued via immovable republican politicians. In case you didn't know, the reason the Bush tax cuts are still in effect was because Obama had to cave on them in order to come to an agreement the republicans would find palatable. The primary thing Obama has done wrong is to surrender so much to the republicans. As was pointed out before, and which was ignored as it always is, when Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Less than a year and a half later, we were gaining 200,000 to 300,000 jobs a month. That's a million jobs a month turnaround. And isn't it funny that jobs start stagnating again....right as republicans are making completely unreasonable demands with a travesty like the Paul Ryan budget plan and the ending of the stimulus money. But then, most don't care to look at facts anymore. All they do is bring up historical facts, and then completely distort them regarding current events using Fox News talking points. I have never seen so many generally intelligent people become so absurdly dumb and blinded by ideology.

So you're saying Dems have no responsibility in the financial collapse because they took over both houses and nearly a year later the recession began.

And you're saying that Republicans have responsibility for the job market going flat because they took over one house and five months later no jobs are being created.

Hypocrisy thy name is you.

jerry l-1335133

Actually if you took the complete wealth of the top 2% it is estimated to be $1.4 trillion which would cover the deficit for this year and then what(?)

2% of 200,000,000 taxpayers is 4,000,000 taxpayers.

$1,400,000,000,000/4,000,000=$350,000 , so you suggest that the average total wealth of the top 2% of Americans is $350,000?

This is an example of bad estimation.

Nay...they will do it the dems way pass it then you can find out whats in it...

He won't commit to anything. This is all smoke and mirrors on both sides. O wants one thing - 4 more years. He'll demagouge anything that's presented, continue to cry raise taxes on the rich - which would reduce the yearly DEFICIT 5% - and never, never offer any specifics about what he would cut right now. All the "cuts" are long after he's gone, and left us with over 20 trillion in debt and climbing. Worst. President. Ever. And given W and the peanut farmer, that is saying something.

Obama is only good at spitting on the constitution and controlling the spineless U.S. media. How many press conferences has he called to spew his rhetoric on the debt ceiling?

When you have to actively try to keep the media members who don't bow to you away from what you are doing, you clearly know that what you are doing is not good for the country.

"Looks like the White House went after Fox News in 2009 after all"

""We'd prefer if you skip Fox please," a White House broadcast media staffer advised a Treasury Department public affairs secretary ahead of the interview....In yet another email, another White House press officer wrote: "We've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews …"

"These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement. "The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/looks-white-house-went-fox-news-2009-124710609.html

Paul Ryan didn't kick the can down the road and neither did the members of the GOP who voted for the budget he authored.

You are right and wrong. Ther has been an usuption of authority and the President is the one doing it. Last years election made a statemnet that we the American people want the insanity to end. We want the finances of this country in order. If it takes a knock down drag out fight so be it. The Government will only default if the President chooses not to spend the income that it receives daily on the priorty items.

Yes march on DC but Demand that the budget be balanced and that waste be cut. Get the government out of telling business how to run and then let them go to sink or swim on their own accord.

Free speach

No it was not 1/2 the people whom made a statement.

My statement is to repeal all the damn Bush (I know they will love me if I do this) cuts for EVERYONE!

Then let's rap-up the wars and take a sensable approach to cutting back in some areas -- But not just Social Security and Entitlements -- look at everything. Appoint a group and give them a deadline and then vote on it.

lern too spel

Sorry, sometimes liberals get their hands on keyboards.

Well I think what you just said was bald face lie! So what does that make you?

Mary - It makes him far more informed and far less naive than you.

No it doesn't...it just makes it clear there are a lot of clueless folks in America who wouldn't know their....from a hole in the ground.

And i'm not talking about Mary..to be clear...lol.

What is Obama lying about, exactly?

• USA producing more oil than ever before
• Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”
• The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
• If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it
• “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
• ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax
• We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.
• The Health Care Package will pay for itself
• We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
• I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go”
• Cut Deficit in Half by end of first term
• Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
• Recovery Act will save or create jobs
• Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus.
• No Earmarks in the $787 Billion Stimulus
• I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
• Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year
• Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year.
• Didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was Radical
• Would have the most transparent administration in History
• We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.
• I’ll get rid of earmarks
• When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it.
• My father served in World War II.
• Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009
• Present Votes Are Common In Illinois
• I don’t Have Lobbyists
• My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad

Numerous "press conferences" to his dumbstruck media replaces actual work.

Jimbob, the Republicans said No in 2009 and 10 to all the crap the Dems did that screwed our economy and took over our lives while refusing to secure our borders. Would agreeing with this have helped? They said what the majority of the American people want them to say. Thus the election results in 2010. The election in 2012 will have the final say.

@Shaking

Good lord, man. All the crap the "Dems did that screwed our economy." Really" The Dems?? That's someone 's thinking could be so intellectually bankrupt is just gobsmaking shocking!! The DEMS screwed the economy?

If you have your head buried THAT deep into Limbaugh's lap (or Fox's- jeez, must be hard to breathe in all that fat) and are really that clueless about how truly bizarre that sentiment is, it's far too late to hope you wise up and realize you're voting AGAINST you're own best interests..lol. You're just a classic example of the word "dolt."

But I take heart in knowing you're outnumbered by critically thinking people all across this land, who will not let men/women -- who care not a twit about this country or its people -- win back the political power they need to finish destroying our democracy.

Truth

So then why is Obama saying reducing the withholding by 2% is stimulating demand and this is helping the economy. If you reduce taxes it puts more money into peoples hand that they can then spend, which leads to increased production which leads to more jobs.

I'm with you on that statement! Brixton's that is. I disagree with Obama cutting SS withholding. SS needs that money.

And some think this is all the 'grand design' by Repubs/Norquist - so that government will have to be cut - because the shape Bush left us in has pushed us to the edge where we will be forced to reduce government programs. (?)

Then why did not Obama have any convictions and get rid of the Bush tax cuts, instead he extended them saying "you do not raise taxes in a recession". To put blame on Homeland Security is crazy, what would you have proposed after 9/11. Also remember that the Democrats overwhelmingly voted and supported both wars.

On the Medicare Part D are you saying that we should not help our senior citizens pay for their medical needs because that would be very heartless of you.

Jerry: If I remember right it was the GOP who brow beat everyone insisting the tax cuts HAD to be passed. Aka Norquist Let them expire for EVERYONE if you wanna complain about the top 1%. Damn I have never seen so many people who are not in the top 1% complain about taxes on them go up. And what you remember about 9/11 is about as much as the idiot on FOX news who tried to say there was no attacks during Bush years then comes back to blame the Liberals him not remembering. No one above blamed Homeland Security but just like going into Iraq to go after someone who did NOT attack us creating MORE government was all on BUSH and the cost was STILL not paid for as so many conservatives like to ignore.

I havent heard so much complaining about the size of government for anyone as I have from conservatives and yet they seem to do their fair share of GROWING government BIGGER. The GOP/tea party was so eager to decrease government they have spent the majority of their time NOT passing ways to minimize wasteful government but instead have spent the time on social issues like Abortion. Talk all ya want about how bad Obama is on the economy and how he should be doing all the work on jobs bills, budget, and cutting government waste but when you do... you better get to talking about the WASTE we have called House of Representatives. Right now every single one should be fired for WASTING OUR TIME.

And it is so nice Jerry to pull the ole GOP twist on Medicare Part D. You want to complain on spending OTHERS do but when it comes to spending on the GOP you want to totally ignore it or cry and say... are you being insensitive to seniors? I doubt you could find a Democrat out there who is AGAINST helping seniors. They are trying to watch out for seniors now (as you want to cry about them) while the GOP wants to end medicare and social security cause it doesnt raise THEM a profit.

Thats the single biggest threat of government to anyone... it doesnt make THEM a profit. It sure made Dick Chaney a profit. And I am laughing each day as the GOP flip flops on the issues of cleaning out the tax code. They have no desire to do that... if the code was cleaned up and all the loopholes and ways to be creative with their taxes they couldnt be part of the group paying ZERO in income tax. With CEOs getting 20+% pay raises, the person with the balls to say they cant contribute more while the working class hasnt seen raises in 3+ years and this year are being asked to take what is equal to more then 8% pay cuts/increase in cost of benefits needs their head examined. And spare us the garbage about the rich being the ones who create jobs cause for 10 years they have had their tax cuts and done nothing but sold out America.

Midwestman, How would the conservatives get anything done to stop waste passed with the same Dems in charge of the Senate and the socialism minded leader holding the veto pen? Wait until after 2012 and you'll see how fast these things can be done.

Obama disagrees: This country is only for those who fawn over him.

"Looks like the White House went after Fox News in 2009 after all"

""We'd prefer if you skip Fox please," a White House broadcast media staffer advised a Treasury Department public affairs secretary ahead of the interview....In yet another email, another White House press officer wrote: "We've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews …"

"These documents show there is a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement. "The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/looks-white-house-went-fox-news-2009-124710609.html

FOX is not a major news organization. It is just a bunch of biased fools watched by the crew of a ship of fools.

pjamon...you really only have four people who agree with you; I marked it accidentally.

You are so outstanding in the field (picture a lone cow standing in a large field), I'll not give your drivel substance by commenting on it.

stupid idiot. fox news is owned by rupert murdoch, and see how he's made a mess of the press in great britain. would you trust news whereit was more important to hhacking into a phone of a murdered 13-yr old and paying off the police to get the phone number to listen to her parent's anguish or hacking into phones of killed british isle soldiers killed fighting the war of afghanistan, in support of american troops.? foxnews is 'yellow journalism', it's all bluster.

That's a wondeful idea. An even better one would be larger private donations from all our well-compensated sports figures and entertainers, and new-tech business titans raking in billions.

A wonderful idea,Pilgrim. Those multinational corporations and CEOs making all those donations to the US Chamber of Commerce could also pay that money to the treasury instead of subjecting our country to bought and paid for pols who are scared of a twerp like Norquist.Oh yes PJ, the president tried to warn the nation about the kind of journalism that Fox espoused when he didn't want to include them in the White House Press Pool. All of the other stations nixed his idea and look at the mess that's going on in GB. Dollars to donuts, the same thing is happening here.

You're an idiot!! The president we couldn't afford was the last one, who gave two tax breaks to the rich, started two elective wars and enacted coporate welfare for Big Pharma - all with deficit spending. THEN the gamblers on WS destroyed the economy, 6 million jobs and left a huge hole in the country's economic engine. The spending this president's done has been not for the rich, not for big pharma, it's been FOR THE PEOPLE - to keep the country afloat until some economic growth can take over the do the job Republican nitwits completely destroyed! Please!! When will you people stop being so infuriatingly ignorant!

Obama's spending has done nothing for nobody, we just spent money that went up into the air and created a larger government. We need real jobs and we need a real president not one that hides behind the left wing press. By the way you liberals are ignorant! Spend now and not worry about the future.

Ben Fox.

I'm so sick of the lie about the stimulus not working. It created and saved some 2 million job of the 6 million we lost in the economic collapse. The problem is that it simply wasn't big enough - thanks to Republican griping about spending - to make up for the huge hole Republicans blew into the country's economy.

Republicans don't have any problems spending for CORPORATE WELFARE - the deficit spending for tax breaks for the rich, the Med Pard D giveaway to Big Pharma, two wars, obscene tax breaks for big oil - but they just HATE it when money is spend ON THE PEOPLE of this country - like the stimulus, which was money spent to keep the country's economy from completely collapsing.

The stimulus DID WORK, which is WHY you can even entertain the lie that it didn't!!! But admittedly, due to Republican obstruction, we're just limping along..and it's painful.

Are you the CEO of a large corporation? I thought so. So shut up about "Obama's spending." He's "spending" for YOU, until the economy is strong enough that it can support YOU without govenment spending support.

And because your Republican buddies are TRAITORS, determined to make the economy NOT recover (so they can make Obama fail) the economy will continue to stagnate - millions of Americans will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future, or at least until 2012.when Americans (who can think critically) can get to the polls and UNDO the utter diaster that happened to the country in 2010.

And for Pete's sake, WHAT LEFT WING PRESS? What a joke!!!! All the "press" in this country is biased so far RIGHT, the left barely gets a word in edgewise.

That's the right wring press LYING to you about this massive bias to the left. The morning shows, the Sunday talk shows are all devoted exclusively to AIRING NOTHING BUT 24/7 Republican LIES!!!

I agree, lately even DG on MTP has tried to blame the Prez for not getting involved. I usually watch C-Span on the weekends, but every time I watch lately, it's some nut like Norquist or Louie Gomert from Texas.