Please elaborate.

Why is investing in infrastructure a bad idea?

You know what they need to do ---- raise the President's and Congress' salaries. Yes, I said RAISE THE PRESIDENT'S AND CONGRESS' SALARIES!

That way, you'd have people WHO REALLY KNOW HOW TO FIX AN ECONOMY fighting to get to the top ---- to get all that money.

But if you think about it, if you're already in a position of great authority and don't know how to resolve an issue, don't you ask somebody who does? ---- And then keep working with them UNTIL THE ISSUE IS RESOLVED? ---- I mean, how hard would it be to do that Obama?

And by the way, the first two things to do, when you get started, is:

1) Don't spend more than you have.

2) Lower taxes ---- across the board ---- and keep them low.

@leroy2112 - The President submits a budget proposal every year, but congress does nothing with it.

Until they do, we will continue to go without an approved budget in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Anon.......

Investing in infrastructure is good. All republicans believe in this. The problem is that the president isn't investing in infrastructure. He isn't building new roads, pipelines, bridges, ports, airports, etc. He is spending most of the money on maintenance, which doesn't help us. Resurfacing a road or repairing bridges is not an investment in our infrastructure anymore than replacing your dishwasher increases the value of your home.

All that Obama presents is a patch work of nonsense that does not work. By providing all these different "packages" he and his cronies clearly signal their inability to govern!!!!

What a useless Democratic government - YUK!

PutAmericaFirst, Obama's proposals include revamping schools, improving manufacturing industry, and expanding ground transporation. That is exactly what infrastructure is.

@PutAmericaFirst - I live in Kentucky. We have a bridge that has been down for some time and has made life horrible for many people trying to go to work. Don't tell me repairing bridges isn't infrastructure. I am very ashamed of Kentucky's representatives to Washington, D.C. They are embarrassing.

You don't know what you are talking about and it's obvious to all.

@sbuliminal - Congress (the purse strings) is Republican run. Who are you complaining about...I don't think you really know.

I am tired today and probably a lot harsher than I mean to be, but the fact that Congress won't pass a budget is the only truth needed at the moment. They shouldn't get paid for not doing their jobs.

Of course it is going to be SHORT TERM.....and his budget is pointing again to more SPENDING and UNIONS (his voter base).

Here is a quick "look" at his next budget provided by an Un-disclosed, Un-named administration official because this information is not supposed to be released until Mr. Obama has another photo-op to announce his budget intentions:

The president's plan is laden with stimulus-style initiatives: sharp increases for highway construction and school modernization, and a new tax credit for businesses that add jobs.

The president's budget plan predicts a deficit of $1.3 trillion for 2012 and a $901 billion deficit in the 2013 budget year, which starts Oct. 1. It claims deficit savings of more than $4 trillion over a decade, mixing $1 trillion already banked through last summer's clampdown on agency operating budgets with $1.5 trillion in higher tax revenues reaped from an overhaul of the tax code.

An additional $1 trillion, more or less, would come from war savings, a move that budget watchdogs call an accounting gimmick, especially because the administration also wants to devote some of those savings to pay for $476 billion in road and bridge projects over the coming six years.

The budget also futilely asks Congress to adopt a "Buffett Rule"
guaranteeing that households with a yearly income of more $1 million pay federal taxes equal to at least 30 percent of it.

http://www.king5.com/news/business/139157164.html

Nothing new here....just more SPENDING.....and addition to our National Debt. Wait a minute......Mr. Obama will ANNOUNCE very soon his intention to RAISE the National Debt Ceiling AGAIN to support his FAILED policies.

slodon, et al, -- The president's budget was voted down because of the extreme polarization we currently have in congress -- With the Teapublicans lock-in-step on "our way or the highway" to defeat the president, and the Dems getting burned every time they offer a concession.

The budget sent by the House to the Senate was not a budget, but rather a recycling of prior legislation that failed (e.g., the draconian balanced budget amendment they knew would never pass). The joint committee fall back by Weeper of the House Boehner was all spin, just like your post. Please go back and read up on this using credible sources (not FOX or Drudge or what ever crap you subscribe to).

Harry Reid and the President have learned there is no negotiating in good faith with Teapublicans. Since the GOP/TP have an over-whelming majority in the House, and legislation usually originates from the House, why should Harry Reid and the Senate put out a budget first (currently about 50/50 with record Teapublican filibusters requiring a super majority on all legislation)? Homey don't play that game.

Nah, in fact President Obama going on the offensive and calling out the GOP/TP for their conniving, shenanigans, and machinations is awesome. We dare the GOP/TP, we double dare them to go for another debt ceiling debacle and further down-grade of our credit rating.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

Mr. Anon

many states including Ohio are entering final phases upgrading their outdated schools. The schools here are still introuble financially. What will happen is the federal dollars will placed into the building programs, and the local and staet money will be shifted to pay for the ballooning health care and pension costs.

Here in Ohio if a school hasn't been updated or rebuilt, it is because either a economy in the area or more likely, is the local taxpayers refusing to pass levies because they have continually found out the money didn't go to the stated cause but rather into somebody's wages, bonus, health care, or pension.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain... Let's take a look at New Orleans... It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) was asking Congress for 250 billion dollars. To rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number... What does it mean?

Well... If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) you each get $516,528

Or... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

Or... If your a family of four... Your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C. Hello is your calculators broken??

Building permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Tax, Dog license Tax, Federal Income Tax (fed), Federal Unemployment Tax(FUTA), Fishing license Tax, Food license Tax, Fuel permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting license Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest charges (tax on top of tax), IRS penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage license Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real estate Tax, Service charges Tax, Social Security Tax, Road usage Tax (truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State income Tax, State unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Federal universal service fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State, and local surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle license registration Tax, Vehicle sales Tax, Watercraft registration Tax, Well permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax, ( and think we left British rule to avoid so many taxes.)

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago... And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt.. We had the largest middle class in the world... And mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?? Can you spell politicians.!!

Deborah - Obama sent his budgets to Congress every year. From 2009 - Jan 2011, congress elected not to even send a budget in either house from committee to the floor. Instead they elected to pass a series of continuing resolution to fund our government.

Now with 2011, The republicans took the budget, cut it, passed it on the floor and sent it to the Senate were the Democrats burried it in the committe. No congress in history has ever done this before that I am aware of.

The question really should be why the democrats don't want to pass a budget.

Well, it does quite a number of things

- they can blame the republicans for not doing anything or holding up the process or that what the republicans sent them was bad. BTW: they are doing all this.

- Since no budget has been passed and Obama has sent his budget to congress, Obama cannot be blamed for the lack of budget

- without a budget you cannot easily determine what is spent, and where. Spending could be higher, lower, or the same. Without a budget it most certainly is higher than what we should spend.

- without a budget passing, they don't have to put their name on the spending, so that will not be a campaign issue for them.

Its similar to the road work stimulus package I personally observed here in Detroit. Signs went up "More of your stimulus money hard at work 1.6Mil" Thanks to President Obama and all of the local and state unions. We all thought kewl they are going to put a middle lane in for turning. So we watched for 2 months and no work. Then one day on my way to work I saw 6 or 7 trucks and about 20 men and women putting up signs and markers. I called my wife to tell her and waited to see what was being done. When I turned onto my street I was amazed...... we had 6 new sets of asphalt curbs and the signs were all gone. 1.6Mil and 6 curbs.

No compromise with obama. Oppose everything and anything proposed or supported by this president and his gang of petty tyrants. obama has done enough damage to our nation to last a lifetime. ANYONE BUT obama IN NOVEMBER 2012!

Momus2009.....

You actually got that right......"Blame Obama for anything that goes wrong."

When Mr. Obama assumed office of the President of the United States on 20 January 2009, he ASSUMED responsibility for ALL Domestic and International policies. However, it took him OVER TWO YEARS to finally state that HE was responsible for the Economy.

Yes, I could post 16 FAILED Mr. Obama's programs costing the American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars which only targeted his VOTER base or campaign contributors, however if I posted them again on Newsvine, I would get slandered by a moderator or Liberal for SPAMMING (even though some of the links were from.....yeah.....MSNBC) and kicked off for a week.

Hahaha, "damaged" or "destroyed" appear to be new buzz words of the right-wing.

Currently we are still engaged in Bush-era war, we still have tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare subsidies, and Medicare Part D. Explain how President Obama is responsible for this? And try, just try to do so in your own words and not with parroted squawking points.

"Obama's budget offers short-term help for economy"

Translation: Obama spends more in a vain attempt to mask the true state of the economy leading up to the fall election.

The next guy can working on actually fixing the resulting mess.

Short-term "help" from a short-term president.

No compromise with obama. Oppose everything and anything proposed or supported by this president and his gang of petty tyrants. obama has done enough damage to our nation to last a lifetime. ANYONE BUT obama IN NOVEMBER 2012!

That is very funny. This is the viewpoint all the Republican congressmen and Senators hold. And people here dare accuse President Obama of being "obstructionist"?

Hungrymoose: you cannot cut the deficit without raising taxes. It is impossible. And cutting taxes will only make the problems worse. Almost half of the deficit for the next decade are because of the Bush tax cuts, an expanding them would make it even more impossible to climb out of debt. We need a balanced plan of tax increases, spending cuts, entitlement reform, and economic growth. I know that Obama's budget has its problems (most notably the huge 2012 deficit and lack of major entitlement reform), but it is the only balanced plan we have. We could create hundreds of thousands of jobs with this proposal, which would speed up the recovery. And PutAmericaFirst, our infrastructure doesn't need expansion (at least not now). What it needs is MASSIVE repair. We have dropped substantially thanks to the past years of neglect, and we NEED to fix it. And repairing roads is infrastructure. I think you need to take an English course...

And Obama is essentially buying our nation time so we don't get downgraded and can start focusing on the economy. I find it reasonable to raise taxes on the wealthy; they'd had all the growth over the past 30 years and have paid LESS in taxes. We need EVERYONE to pay their fair share. And that is what Obama is proposing. All you class-warfare criers should shut up and do some research.

And here is a plan to cut the deficit by trillions over 10 years AND sustain an economic recovery. Check it out:

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $2.8 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts but retaining about $700 billion for the middle class.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Reform tax code: Repeal about two-thirds of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Approximate savings=$651 billion a year.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Total savings=$13.4 trillion plus perhaps trillions more in interest.

I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3472). Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by about 2022.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans over the next 5 years.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations where needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions to insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects every year for 4 years.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.

To be accurate, entitlements only helped a little bit of the deficits. But other than that, you nailed it, LMarc. I just wished there were more people like you in Congress and more people like the House GOP over here spouting their BS so the American people could see their real plans....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

The President promised that the 2012 federal deficit would not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet the White House is projecting a 2012 deficit for more than 5 times that amount. If the President is so far off on what he promises then we cannot continue to believe him on anything because of all the bs. Apparently the White House is including the second stimulus into their budget request. They want the federal government to borrow an additional 476 billion dollars to do work that states can get done far more cheaply than the federal government. I estimate that this loan will end up costing the tax payers more than 4 trillion dollars to repay. Paying 9 times the going rate for work is not a good deal for the tax payers.

Freshieee,

Yes "YOU cannot cut the deficit without raising taxes." Also, nothing is impossible. And cutting taxes will only make problems BETTER.

Just because you can't do something, or can't understand how something will work, doesn't mean others can't or won't understand.

Do you realize how much waste and fraud could be cut out of each budget every year? What about the massive amount of irrelevant programs that could be cut out? We hear the talking, but there is no new urgent action to cut any of these things from the federal budget ---- if you cut these things, you will not miss them.

About the cutting taxes ---- cutting taxes is a good thing ---- for everybody involved. If you cut the taxes, you make it easier to start up and maintain a business. So, if something (the main thing) is done to make it easier for a business to start up ---- that new business, along with all it's new employees will be creating MORE REVENUE that will be going to the government (than there would have been if the government hadn't lowered the taxes).

About the cutting taxes ---- cutting taxes is a good thing ---- for everybody involved. If you cut the taxes, you make it easier to start up and maintain a business. So, if something (the main thing) is done to make it easier for a business to start up ---- that new business, along with all it's new employees will be creating MORE REVENUE that will be going to the government (than there would have been if the government hadn't lowered the taxes).

Nope, stop right there. Reaganomics caused a decade and a half of tremendous deficits. Laffer curve has been proven false time after time.

Freshieee......

Must be talking points right out of a Socialist handbook, or were the talking points from an un-disclosed, un-named, senior White House offical, or maybe even the East Wing of the White House.

One and DONE:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JVAhr4hZDJE&vq=medium#t=19

Ido, do you know what socialism is?

TruePatriot-445959

Though it is Congress that must pass a budget, President Obama has submitted a budget every year he has been in office

And hasn't the budget been submitted by the House to the Democratic controlled Senate, who hasn't passed a budget for over 1170 days?

Now why would that be?

Ha ha...winemaker..I came down here with exactly the same quote AND comment.

Obama has had year and years to do everything he's proposing but hasn't done a single thing!!

Rhetoric and blame will NOT work this year! ABO 2012

It's a good plan, the stimulus worked, and the economy and jobs are getting better. Why walk away from a formula that works.

Go ahead Ryan, cut medicare and see what happens in November.

Deborah: No, Obama has not submitted a budget..ever. CONGRESS has submitted several, sent them up to the Senate, and the Senate (Dem.majority) has done NOTHING with them. Just set them aside, sit on their hands......then say it is the fault of the Congress (Rep. majority). Just political games. Congress has been working, and the Senate deliberately drops the ball. It's an election year so NOW Obama decides to submit a budget. He is clueless about economics and business. His answer is just higher taxes, waivers for his friends, class warfare. It's OUR money he's spending, he'll still get his salary and top shelf benefits and live the high life of luxury at our expense, so it doesn't matter to him. He loves spending other peoples' money.

"Republicans attacked Obama's budget blueprint even before it reached their desks."

Apparently they don't have to know what is in it.......to be against it.

The Obama budget puts forward $1.5 trillion in new taxes, primarily by raising income tax rates at the end of this year for families making $250,000 or more per year.

Obama, as he has in the past, also proposed eliminating tax deductions the wealthy receive and requiring households making more than $1 million annually pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Spend, tax and spend even more..., that's all Obama knows how to do.......

And still I ask again.....what recovery? More smoke and mirrors in a vain attempt to get re-elected. And for what? Everything he's touched has failed, why would anyone want 4 more years of failure. Certainly not me.

Obama budget pitch: 'Can't just cut our way into growth'

But it is also well know that you can't spend your way out of debt. So what gives? The only things that have worked to grow the economy is the precious little the Republicans have gotten through Congress. The Democrats have been a 100% fail with their spend-a-holic ways. And yet he continues to push failed policies........

Nobama 2012!

About the cutting taxes ---- cutting taxes is a good thing ---- for everybody involved. If you cut the taxes ---- that new business, along with all it's new employees will be creating MORE REVENUE that will be going to the government~Hungrymongoose

Well if we were to use your method on all of our cars and we bought all the gas saving devices out there and installed them on our cars......we would all have to start draining our gas tanks so they don't overflow???...............typical Republican Pretzel Logic

President Obama likes to say he 'Inherited” the huge Deficit for 2009, his first year in office, but let's look at the real record;

The Deficit for fiscal year 2009 (ending on September 30, 2009) was $1.413 Trillion.

When Obama took office on January 20,2009, the National Debt was $10.626 Trillion.

On September 30, 2009 (End of FY 2009), the National Debt was $11.910 Trillion, an increase under Obama of $1.284 Trillion in only 8 months. Gee, I wonder if that had anything to do with the $860 Billion 'Stimulus' bill and the $410 Billion 'Pork-barrel' bill he signed shortly after taking office. Here's the official government Treasury Department site to verify – Just put in a beginning date of January 20, 2009 and an ending date of September 30, 2009;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

And still I ask again.....what recovery?~willowbrook

Maybe try reading some of the information available to thinking people.... instead of listening to Rush would be a good start

Typical Obama.

It is obvious that Mr. Obama doesn't understand why the federal government needs to cut spending. No, it isn't to increase growth. No, it isn't so that we can cut taxes on everyone. It's real simple. Obviously too simple for the Idiot in Chief.

It's called lowering the damned debt!!!

It's real simple folks. Until we start to actually lower the national debt, it will continue to cost more and more of our money in order to just pay the interest on it. At some point, that interest will become unmanageable. Then it will be too late to cut spending.

No government and no nation can survive the level of debt we are building here. It is economically and financially impossible. That means BOTH PARTIES!! If our government does not cut its costs soon, we risk severe repercussions.

Don't believe me? Just check out Greece these days.

Has anybody noticed that the Treasury Dept makes it difficult to find deficit by year?

Continued self loathing from republicans. Honor no longer resides in them. Laughable. Trouble sleeping at night? lol. Can't look at yourselves in the mirror? lol. We all know why. The republican party is their own worst enemy. Laughable. Wonder if the GOP will ever get their ducks in a row. Their opposition has at the unhonorable GOP's own phony cost. Idiots all.Polarized to the point of stupid. Truly laughable. McConnell really screwed you guys from day one of this administration. LOL

If it comes from him we know its BAD FOR AMERICA!! Plain and simple enough for ya??~Truetexan

I think this underscores what party is full of obstructionists, if it is simple enought even the conservatives capiche. Simple answers for simple minds is the Pub motto.

Tea Earl, It is rather amusing to think that conservative representatives don't need anything except pychic powers to understand how to legislate and to know what is good for the country

marklepew - there has been no recovery as the Administration has spun it. When you look at the real pictures, we are at best limping along, and as I said in my last post, the only real progress has been made by the Republicans in Congress. NOTHING the Democrats have done/spent has made actual, sustained growth. When you are spending a million for a job that pays $45000.00/year, that is a fail. When you give away money to support the service sector, when product producing jobs are what we need, that is a fail. When you throw money at companies that do not have a chance of being successful, (and you give them the money anyway, because they supported you campaign) that is a fail. Letting the President do more of this is yet another fail. Intelligent people don't keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

It seems that you need to get out there and see the big picture, not me. It is very scary when we realize there are people like you out there, who apparently have no clue what it takes to make a strong economy and are willing to blindly follow others who don't know much more than you, and those you follow are manipulating the populace to keep themselves in office. Sad, really sad.....

Roy - where were you guys when Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor (or coke-head - chose)?

The whole tax-cut dodge has been slammed by both right and left wing economists around the world, and the peanut gallery continues to spew forth their garbage. Do any of you guys who want more tax cuts even understand economics?

Paul Ryan commenting on the economy, when Bartlett, one of Reagan's advisors and a noted conservative (not neo-conservative) called Ryan a a*hole!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Reuters is reporting that in this budget Obama is requesting $800 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID TO THE ARAB COUNTRIES.

OMG - what is wrong with the people who still want to re-elect him?

That money belongs to the American people to help our citizens in need.

Well said kath63! Voting you up!

2009 budget deficit is estimated at $1.2 trillion

Jan 7 10:08 AM
US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal budget
deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year,
according to a Capitol Hill aide briefed on new Congressional Budget Office
figures.

The dismal figures come a day after President-elect Barack Obama warned of
"trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

CBO's figures don't account for the huge economic stimulus bill that Obama is
expected to propose soon to try to jolt the economy. At the same time, they do
not reflect the immediate cost of the Wall St. bailout.

The shrinking economy has led to a sharp drop in tax
revenues, which is largely responsible for the deficit, along with about
$350 billion in spending so far for the Wall St. bailout.

Obama and Congress are promising quick enactment of the economic recovery
plan, which will blend up to $300 billion in tax cuts with
big new spending programs and could cost up to $775 billion over the next few
years.

The flood of red ink probably won't affect that measure but could crimp other
items on Obama's agenda.

The $1.19 trillion 2009 figure shatters the previous record of $455 billion,
set only last year. It also represents about 8 percent of the size of the
economy, which is higher than the deficits of the 1980s. The 2009 budget year
began last Oct. 1.

CBO predicts the deficit will come under control within a few years, but such
predictions depend on the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts at the end of
next year and repayments from financial institutions that received bailout
funds.

While expected, the deficit numbers will give lawmakers second thoughts about
creating new spending programs without finding ways to pay for them. And it is
likely to prompt a debate about whether tax
increases are necessary after the economy recovers from the current
recession.

On Tuesday, Obama issued his most serious remarks yet about the danger of big
budget deficits and promised his administration will take steps to bring the
tide of red ink under control.

"I'm going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a
handle on this deficit," Obama said Tuesday.

article from rightwing radical breibarts website.

A good leader leads and does what he has to get the job done. Odumbo can't work with the GOP and does a shabby job of getting his own on board with his plan(s). If they can't work with him then do something about it. Fire them all and start with "Odumbo" the so called leader who can't lead. We all learned about the word "Change" and if your lucky enough to still have some left in your pocket you can give that to the ones on all the street corners so they can have some change too. What a bunch of Horse Pucky not to pass a budget. Our company couldn't do this and we have to work along side banks and Board members. The guy at the top would be fired after the first year. So, come on People of the United States-"Fire this clown we call Commander in chief" and let him go back to being a Communnity organizer. That's easier since he organizers eveybody elses money and spends that too. We are the laughing stock of the world with this guy. Vote him out now, don't wait until the elections, get er' done before the election and maybe there will be some more choices in the race, since everybody is so stuck on Choices!!!

Kath63 -

As with most anything, even losing weight is more nuanced than merely cutting out 'bad' food. Cutting your calories without increasing exercise is not enough to lose weight. In your analogy raising taxes would equate to exercising more.

Winemaker.....have you heard of "filibusters?" This is why budgets have not been passed in Democratic-ruled Senates. They have threatened to filibuster ALL budgets that they don't agree with, which makes it just a little difficult to pass anything that would ACTUALLY help the citizens of the U.S.

Two important observations from this article. First, if the revenue gain on just that tax increase is 1.5 trillion then why increase spending by 2.4 trillion?( the proposed deficit of his budget is 900 billion) Why not freeze spending at current levels and use the surplus 200 billion (deficit is 1.3 trillion, new revenues equal 1.5 trillion, leaving a 200billion surplus) for debt reduction? After all he is getting cuts from defense and cuts from medicare as well so why not try and reverse a worsening situation? The answer is that Obama, like most liberals in government doesn't understand that the tax roles are not an unlimited supply of cash and that all money we borrow will eventually have to be paid back.

Methodology

Contributors to the nation’s fiscal situation in 2009 and 2010 (in billions of dollars), as measured against surpluses projected in 2001

20092010

President Bush’s policies
-$923 billion
-$918 billion

Current economic downturn
-$426 billion
-$469 billion

President Obama’s policies
-$225 billion
-$497 billion

Financial rescues begun by President Bush
-$422 billion
-$123 billion

All other
-$302 billion
-$262 billion

Obama: We just can't cut our way to growth.

U.S. Citizens: We just can't spend our way out of debt.

HChris - we can't even get Washington to cut anything, and that is the absolute first thing they need to do. Get rid of the waste and squandering first. There is no point to raising taxes BEFORE they trim out the waste. Why? Because as long as they see more tax money on the horizon, they WILL NOT CUT. That's what they've been doing all along. It is time for change.

Republicans think Education is bad business. There's a reason for that.

Infrastructure, Education and stability within a city is integral to economic security.

We can no longer believe the GOP/TP when they say they are for America when they are all for being selfish, living in the moment and screw the other guy.

We must make congress accountable to raise our country up, not for our ideology, but for our country's well being. Those of you ABO folks may not understand that there may be lower bidders that get elected in 2012, and then where will you be?

The only way to promote 'across-the-aisle' politics is to practice them here!

Willow,

It is sad, really sad, as you have said, to think you haven't taken a nanosecond to investigate any of your tired conservative talking points. I agree with you about one thing, "it is very scary when we realize there are people like you out there, who apparently have no clue what it takes to make a strong economy and are willing to blindly follow" and make foolish statements to buttress their Pub squawking points. It is hilarious that you suggest "the only real progress has been made by the Republicans in Congress"............how can anyone take you seriously after that?

I'm ashamed to admit I voted for this joker, his new "budget" is full of pie in the sky gimmicks to show his cuts, like including the savings from the wars as cuts, what a bunch of BS and then there's the increased revenue from the wall street bailout fee. and one of my favorites a per takeoff fee of $100 for every commercial flight or private jet. this guy is an utter moron. unfortunately the republicans have just as crappy a field and no one that's even capable of beating him. truth is all the politicians any more are crooks and out for nobody but themselves. we need to send a message and vote out every incumbent. and continue to do it until we find some people that will actually do the job we elect them to do. problem with that is most people look at their own congressman or senator with blinders and think he's doing such a good job. that's why we have a bunch of crooks in Washington. until we change our mindset we will continue to get the same garbage in office.

By Michael Ettlinger, Michael Linden |August 25, 2009

Before explaining these further, it should be said that the generally worse deficit numbers reported today aren’t all that surprising. Since the last projections in May, it’s been plain that this recession has been worse than most analysts thought. With a weak economy comes lower tax revenue and higher safety net expenditures—with the loss in tax revenue causing the lion’s share of the deficit problem. The effects of a deeper recession have a long-lasting impact. Even as growth is restored, it is growth from a reduced starting point—a smaller economy in 2009 usually means a smaller economy than previously predicted for several years hence.

Encouragingly, there have been signs of late that the administration’s policies to end the recession are starting to take hold. Without such efforts, the picture would be much gloomier, particularly in the short term. One piece of good news is that the government is no longer expecting to spend another $250 billion rescuing financial institutions through the Troubled Assets Relief Program—which explains the improved deficit picture for 2009. And the projections for deficits in future years would be far more pessimistic if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act policies were not starting to get traction.

As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies—fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping—contributed mightily to the nation’s current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010

And still I ask again.....what recovery? More smoke and mirrors in a vain attempt to get re-elected. And for what? Everything he's touched has failed, why would anyone want 4 more years of failure. Certainly not me.

Obama budget pitch: 'Can't just cut our way into growth'

But it is also well know that you can't spend your way out of debt. So what gives? The only things that have worked to grow the economy is the precious little the Republicans have gotten through Congress. The Democrats have been a 100% fail with their spend-a-holic ways. And yet he continues to push failed policies........

Well, Willow, with that argument you just made, this election should be a no-brainer. With all this failure so apparent, seems you have little to worry about. And that statement about the Republicans "precious little" still growing the economy, it's a wonder how the US credit rating was lowered. We should all be grateful for the Republicans. I never looked at it your way...

Aggie, you are simply wrong, stop listening to Fox News' deceptive statements and do some research. President Obama has submitted a budget proposal every February that he has been in office. Congress did pass a 2010 budget in 2009.

I might also add that "Congress" is both the House of Representatives and the Senate. You seem confused about that. Both Houses must pass the Budget bill to become official.

Without a budget, Congress can pass continuing resolutions which essentially just continue the previous budget, Likewise, they can pass additional funding on an individual bill basis. That is how we have been funded since the last official budget which technically ended in September of 2010. It is through continuing resolutions that funding beyond 2010 was approved. Essentially, budget levels have been capped at the previous levels but only when Congress authorizes or increases funding through bills and continuing resolutions.

In reality, Republicans in Congress really don't want to pass a budget other than an extremely restricting one. By not having one this gives them a great deal of power by constantly holding continuing resolutions over the President's head. It also gives them negotiating power to sneak their pet agenda items into the continuing resolutions.

President Obama has done his part in submitting budget proposals every year. Congress has only passed one under the Obama administration, which was when Democrats still had workable majorities in both houses of Congress. I see no budget being passed this year either as Republicans will not accept anything that looks like some kind of compromise. And in reality, they want the advantage of holding the government hostage to get their way. Fox news and the pundits and politicians play this to their advantage to make it look like the President has no interest in budgets. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Like I said StoptheCannibals - "precious little." Most of what the Republicans have created has been stopped by the do nothing Democrat controlled Senate. We had the opprotunity to not be downgraded, but the Democrats couldn't let that much control be taken away from them, so they dug in until they go their way.

For me it is a no brainer, we cannot let Obama have another 4 years to further destroy this country/economy. But we have too many people living off the entitlement teat, and too many who've lost sight of this country's original ideals and turn instead to a selfish, "me first" attitude, no matter what the cost. None of this has been a plus for our country. We need to buckle down and fix our problems NOW, not kick the can down the road further, as this "new" budget will do.

YOU CAN'T SPEND OR TAX YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT EITHER. O'Bama needs a reality check - the only people supporting O'Bama are on Welfare, 99 weeks of Unemployment and the Illegals. O'Bama is still running a "con" on the American people. A way to improve the economy is to cut any additional spending and don't spend money that doesn't exist. You can not Tax your way out of debt nor can you spend your way out of debt. O'Bama needs to take his Socialist ideology and take it to someplace like Russia where they more experience being ruled by similar leaders. Bottom Line - O'Bama is not a Leader that can be trusted, his word & promises mean nothing.

When you get an outlandishly high electric bill, what is the first thing you do? TURN OFF THE FU%&ING LIGHTS! Can't cut your way to growth?! Who said SH&T about growth?! We haven't had GROWTH in a decade! We are trying to stop the boat from sinking! You FIX THE HOLE as FAST AS YOU CAN! NOT Hire more crew to pump water!

I trillion here a trillion there...sooner or later you're talking about some real money.....This from the liar that promised to cut the deficit by 50% by end of his first term......

GuyLittle: excellent post!! I encourage everyone to read it;)

Willow,

I'll be surprised if the Democrats have a chance with that solid argument you've given. As promised, the Republicans will come into power and jobs will take off like a rocket. The debt will be solved and we'll have prosperity like no one has ever seen. Yes, I can see it now.

I disagree with the liberal and conservative agenda. Out here in the real world the story is why work so hard, it doesn't pay off.

Sure lower welfare and medicaid but increase Social security retirement fund and increase personal pay.

Medicare for everyone and have insurance companies come up with plans to cover what medicare does not. Than you have a tri-fecta Government, free enterprise (insurance), and actual providers (doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc.).

Again I think the biggest problem is republicans are not republicans they are anti-democrats more so anti-Obama. Obsessed on the streets we call these kind of people haters.

With or without Republican assistance or lack thereof, there has been no budget in over three years time, and nothing to indicate that there will be any firm budget in future. These cuts sound grand, but they are based on ten years of supposed cuts on budgets that haven't even been written and may never be written, so how can I view these plans as anything other than smoke and mirrors-good sounding words to generate votes.

I don't want no goll darn budget I want you to sell your Government to make some jobs for people that actually want to work..

repost: Deborah S.

@PutAmericaFirst - I live in Kentucky. We have a bridge that has been down for some time and has made life horrible for many people trying to go to work. Don't tell me repairing bridges isn't infrastructure. I am very ashamed of Kentucky's representatives to Washington, D.C. They are embarrassing.

You don't know what you are talking about and it's obvious to all.

@sbuliminal - Congress (the purse strings) is Republican run. Who are you complaining about...I don't think you really know.

I am tired today and probably a lot harsher than I mean to be, but the fact that Congress won't pass a budget is the only truth needed at the moment. They shouldn't get paid for not doing their jobs.

up arrow 104

• !

#1.8 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:50 PM EST

dzaffina "Methodology Contributors to the nation’s fiscal situation in 2009 and 2010 (in billions of dollars), as measured against surpluses projected in 2001"

Why not measure against the 'surpluses' projected in 2008? Yes, Bush projected surpluses in his last Budget too.

President's Budgets are notoriously optimistic.

Politicians extended the Great Depression by starving the economy, and now the GOP wants to do the same thing this time around.

It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, it won't work.

Go back to what we were doing right in the 1990s. The 2000s was an unmitigated economic disaster, brought to you curtesy of the GOP hucksters schilling for the rich. The 2010s is turning out to be nothing more than Republican hypocrisy. After a decade of their OWN profligate spending, they suddenly want austerity, while poiting a disingenuous finger at the other guy.

Which is worse, there lack of competence or their lack of shame?

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party wants too many give aways that benefit too few (it's not as bad or as expensive as the GOP give aways to the rich, but it's not what we need, either), and lacks the backbone to stand up for what we really need.

The insane right-wing hates socialist / communist / national socialist fascist Europe ... except it's austerity ... simply because they're the same Bush neocon-nazis who got us to where we are today and are in torment and hysteria in destroying us ...

I'm ready for the American uprising and will stand a post at a FEMA Camp full of insane right-wingers at ready for the *final solution* as my 2nd Amendment Rights / Remedies ...

Our 1% Trillion Dollar Government spender is out spending our 99% tax providers and it isn't enough? When is our 1% government going to start protecting the 99% tax providers? The 99% earners can't earn enough for them to spend at the rates they what to spend anymore.

Provide us a real budget that has real cuts that our government has to live within, not just increase taxes by 30- 40% at the rate they are spending (i.e. loaning 42 cents for every dollar spent).

@marklepew

"Apparently they don't have to know what is in it.......to be against it."

apparently you (and the rest of the libbie culture) didn't have to know what was that healthcare ponzi scheme trash to be FOR it...isn't it cool?

K I Smart Simple "Has anybody noticed that the Treasury Dept makes it difficult to find deficit by year?"

True, but here's an official site - Obama's own White House;

See Table 1.3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Aggie-345886

Deborah: No, Obama has not submitted a budget..ever. CONGRESS has submitted several, sent them up to the Senate, and the Senate (Dem.majority) has done NOTHING with them. Just set them aside, sit on their hands......then say it is the fault of the Congress (Rep. majority). Just political games.

Sorry for the technical correction, but Congress includes both the House of Representatives AND the Senate.

Also, your message is one that was created by the right for the right... you may want to check your "facts" on this one. I believe you will find that Republicans blocked the budget process to the point of hopelessness... in the Senate. Yes, the House submitted a budget. A severely flawed right wing statement is what they really submitted.

Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official government source to verify;

Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.

Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.

Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.

Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year.

Obama (2009-2012p) = $5.453 Trillion (Proj) over first 4 years, or $1,363 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.

If Obama is reelected, he projects another $5 Trillion of Deficits in the next 4 years, or over $10 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will have as a 'millstone' around their necks for their entire lives. Running up huge debts is a great way to 'pander for votes', but somebody will have to pay it back (our children) - with interest.

Here's the official government link - See Table 1.3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Leave it the Tea-publicans to say no, After the GOP and Bush racked up Trillions of dollars in debts for phony wars, giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, and collapsing our economy, They wont help our president, Time to vote out every Teapublican incumbent and then we will really see a turnaround in our economy

Aggie-345886 "Deborah: No, Obama has not submitted a budget..ever."

Technically, that's not true. Obama submitted a Budget for 2012 about a year ago.

It was rejected by Harry Reid's Democratic held Senate by a vote of 97 - 0. Every one of the Democratic Senators rejected Obama's Budget.

In fact, Harry Reid has not passed a Budget in over 3 years - And he is still refusing to even allow debate on the 27 jobs/growth bills passed by the Republican House in the last 12 months.

Of course, then he has the gall to say it's the Republicans who are responsible for the 'Do-Nothing Congress.

Increasing the tax rate on the 235,000 million dollar earners to 30% will produce about $14 Billion in new revenue, 1.1% of the $1.3 Trillion the President proposes for his budget, all other thing being equal. All other things will not be equal however.

A problem is that many of the million dollar earners faced with the increase to a 30% tax rate will divert their investments accordingly away from those investments into other areas.

Although the President thinks this notion will gain him votes, between now and the election most voters will realize this change may cost them their jobs in the end.

LMarcT

hmmm...the republicans COULD NOT block a budget vote in the Senate...a budget bill CANNOT be filibustered...and it only needs a simple majority to pass it...last I checked you libbie democrats own the Senate

...and as you so eloquently put it , "you may want to check your "facts" on this one"

To Sally and Tyler the moderators. If you are suspending Richard Small and Freshieee, then you need to permanently suspend Feisty Redhead on the First Read articles, or is she a paid MSNBC poster? I find her avatar, much less what she says, to be profane, vulgar and offensive. Why can't the moderators hand out suspensions equally? I hope you both see and read my post.

raleigh....tru dat!

Excellent idea HCHRIS...if raising taxes equates to the other half such as excercising more ets doe EXACTLY that and tax the 47% h=whom pay ZERO federal income tax!!!!!

now that equality and REAL "workout"

I'm tired of paying for the lazt slop that doesnt pay anyting and ONLY takes

1NewDay "I see no budget being passed this year either as Republicans will not accept anything that looks like some kind of compromise."

We'll probably never know who's unwilling to 'compromise'. The Republican House passed a Budget last year, and the normal process is for the Senate to then debate the House Budget and make adjustments, and then any differences are resolved in a 'Joint Committee', passed by both houses and sent to the President for signature.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leader in the Senate - Harry Reid, refused to even bring up the Budget for discussion, so the government has been funded with 'Continuing Resolutions' ever since the 2012 Budget year started on October 1, 2011.

Harry Reid seems intent on refusing to perform his constitutional duties and pass a Budget. He is also refusing to allow discussion of the 27 Jobs/Growth bills passed by the Republican House (Where are the jobs?- Ask Harry) - I guess he's afraid that some of his Democratic Senators might actually vote for them.

Of course, Harry Reid blames the 'Do-Nothing' Congress on the Republicans, when the reality is that it's Harry Reid that is preventing anything from being done.

didi, you said,

have you heard of "filibusters?" This is why budgets have not been passed in Democratic-ruled Senates. They have threatened to filibuster ALL budgets that they don't agree with...

The only thing is, you don't understand that a BUDGET cannot be filibustered...it NEVER HAS BEEN...it just needs a simple majority vote and the Dems have 51 Senators...What say you now?

I am clearly on the left and was busted a few days ago for an infraction that I really didn't understand. So...there is no bias here in the busting.

Doing it equally means that the standards do not change, not that equal numbers of people need to get busted. If one side does more trash than the other, and gets busted more, then perhaps one side is not as nice as the other.

(I won't get busted for that will I?)

Will All of you PLEASE Stop Collapsing Posts.

Mr. Anon Comment collapsed by the communityPlease elaborate. Why is investing in infrastructure a bad idea?

All Mr. Anon did was ask for clarification.

Mr. Anon, The Infrastructure that President Obama is talking about IS a STATE Responsibility thru STATE TAXES, STATE PROPERTY TAXES, etc. as money already collected; but, misused by the STATE Governments.

There is also the matter of this NOT helping the US Citizens Job Situation, as the majority of these US Labor Union Construction Jobs have already been taken over by the over 23 Million Illegal Aliens at the US.

As far as the Federal Infrastructure Longterm Projects and Programs most of the US Citizens are demanding a Budget Cut to these US Infrastructure Projects and Programs without even knowing it (they do not know who's responsibility these are), So Previous Budget Cuts Results: 1. No money for the Dredging of US Streams and Rivers, Result Flooding., 2. No money for the maintenance, new construction, etc. of man made water sources like Lakes and Reservoirs, Result Current Droughts., 3. Previously no money for the upgrades, new construction, retrofits, modifications, etc. of the Levees at New Orleans before Katrina.

Mr. Anon Do you know which US Government Entity that I am talking about?

hungrymongoose,

Raising the amount of their salaries will not help. If you ever have been to D.C. (Dyfunctional Congress) you would know that D.C. is occupied by Brain Dead Zombies.

The smart people unarsed the US after the first interration 2007-2008 of Candidate (Senator) Obama's "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share", especially the Richest Person In The World and all the other Rich that were emulating his successes and instead of Investing in US Businesses they moved to China, Mexico, India, Vietnam at comprehensive Business Tax Rates of 6-9%. At the US due to the Local, City, State Budget Shortfall, loss of Revenues from Taxes, Property Taxes, etc. they increased all of their Business Taxes; so adding this to the Federal 35% Taxes on Businesses, the Richest Person in the World could either lose $10 Billion before President Obama or after Candidate Obama became US President lose $100 Billion. After the Richest Person in the World Left the US, most of the US Businesses that he was heavily Invested in ended up as either Bankruptcy Closure or Bankruptcy Reorganization, so of the repercussions are still occuring, as the suppliers, manfacturers, whole salers, distributors, transportation, construction, etc. are now feeling the Results (what they do, make, etc. no longer needed).

TruePatriot-445959,

You are becoming part of the Problem, not part of the Solution. Do you even know why? Spouting the Political Party Line, instead of actually doing the research yourself or actually gaining some Experience, is counterproductive.

You mention the Scrotums (Tea Baggers) as if they have any Real Power or Authority at US Congress. That is far from the Truth. Those in Power at US Congress are those that are the US Congressional Appropriations Committees. Those Freshmen (and women) Congressional Representatives like the Tea Party get US Congressional Committees like the US Congressional Refuse Collection Committee (decides which one of them empties out the trash cans).

So sure TruePatriot-445959 keep on spouting off the Party Line all you are doing is proving to Newsvine how uninformed you are, proving to your Political Party how easy it is to get the uninformed unwashed uneducated masses to start foaming at the mouth, etc..

Freshieee,

Your supposed solutions post, most of what you posted either counter acts each other, when some are combined have an adverse effect, and most are AGAINST President Obama's Policies. Enough with the copying and pasting of someone else ideas (with you not knowing the details of their research, example: some of the things you claim to know about will CUT the real US Infrastructure Projects and Programs and because this was NOT your own Research you don't even know.).

dzaffina,

Nice try at copying and pasting baloney to confuse people with numbers, as I do not see President Obama's 2010 $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion added to your FAKE:

President Obama’s policies
-$225 billion
-$497 billion

Do you even know what this President Obama 2009-2010 Policy is that costs $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion (Adjusted for Inflation). This was previously NOT Budgeted for by US Congress and keeps getting moved as the Budget Deficit of one year to the next. So to attempt to find the money for this President Obama Policy, US Congress is going to chop the previously Budgeted for things believing that there will not be any adverse effects.

Richard Small,

Are you even a US Citizen that graduated Elementary School.

GuyLittle is correct. During the Colonization of the Americas, the British emptied out their Debtor Prisons (including those that could not pay the British Taxes).

To pay for the British Military at the Colonies (of the British Empire)(Americas, Middle East, Asia, India, etc.), the Debt of the Naploaenanic Wars, the use of the British Military to expand the Colonies (maybe fight the French), protection from the "Indians", etc. the British Crown (Government) started to Tax the crap out of the American Colonists.

Their (British) Belief was just like President Obama's "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Own Share". As the Founding Fathers were actually considered the "Rich" as they had others (usually Indentured Servants aka Slaves usually from the British Debtor Prisons) to tend to their Farms and Businesses, they were just like todays CEOs, so they did not have to do Daily Subsistance Living like all the other Colonists.

The Founding Fathers refused to pay the British "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" and started the American Revolution stating with Movements like the Boston Tea Party to rebel against the British Stamp Act Taxes (aka British Tea Taxes). They fled the British Bounty Hunters, Tax Collectors, British Military "Regulars", British Loyalists, British Mercenaries, etc. along with the "Well Organized Militias" after General Cornwallis and Henry Clinton (Ancestor of Bill) seized all the "Well Organized Militia's" Armories before the start of the Rebellion. The Individuals, as "Minutemen", helf off the British Regulars using Guerrilla Warfare until the First Continential Army could be formed. This is why the US Supreme Court Ruled the D.C. Anti Gun Laws Unconstitutional as the Founding Fathers KNEW that the Militia and Individual Ownership were two separate entities, and individual ownership, not the Militias Armories weapons resulted in the eventual defeat of the British and their Taxes.

dzaffina,

Keep mumbling about billions, lets talk about the Trillions of President Obama.

And as far as the Wars, how about this why don't you go Research the current US Military Industrial Complex, as to who created it, why (motives), effects on the US Economy, etc..

How about this calculate the effects on the US Economy for President Obama's Repeating the Mistakes of President Clinton's Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military. As President Obama's RIF being 80,000 US Military being thrown on Unemployment, add 27,000 US Military returning from the Wars being thrown on Unemployment, add 10,000 returning from Germany (US Military Installation Closures) and thrown on Unemployment. With these numbers now calculate the numbers of US Civilians that previously provided support for these soon to be Unemployed US Military also becoming Unemployed. Now using a timeline as a "Predictive Model" calculate how many of Generation X and Generation Y will either be displaced (Unemployed) or become Non Competitive against these former US Military for US Civilian Jobs (same sh!t happened during the President Clinton RIFs of the US Military, and Closure of 14 US Military Installations at US (Great Depression Era Economies in the surrounding towns and cities.)).

dzaffina - Troubled Assets Relief Program

Really, do you even know the motive for the November December 2008 Demoncraptic Party Controlled US Congress pushing that thru as "Time Sensitive" (no Public Scrutiny). That "TARP" was used to Buy the January 2009 Electoral College Votes. Go do the research, you will figure it out.

dzaffina - Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars

The US President DOES NOT DECLARE WARS, both Houses of US Congress do. Nor does the US President pick and chose which US Laws to Enforce, the only excuse would be if there were no US Congressional Appropriations. It is also US Congress's Job to come up with the money for the US Laws that they enact. With that said:

IRAQ:

A Declaration of War (requires both the US Congressional House of Representatives and the US Senate).

The US Laws: 1. President Clinton's H.R. 4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Justification Weapons of Mass Destruction, Section 2 "Findings". This US Law becomes US Military Operation Iraqis Freedom 1998 to 2011 after US Military Operation Desert Fox.

2. US Senate: 2002 Iraqi War Resolution (with US Congressional Appropriations).

To make Iraq Internationally Legal President Bush got the UN and NATO involved as a UN Mission Nation Building. Same with after the 9/11 2001 Attacks with Afghanistan, US Laws with US Congressional Appropriations, and as a UN Mission Nation Building.

dzaffina,

The only "Illegal" (against US Laws), "Unfunded" (no US Congressional Appropriations and funded thru Discretionary Funding), "War Criminal" (against International Laws, and International Court of Justice previous Rulings) is President Obama's Libya. President Clinton and President Bush had US Congressional Laws (1. and 2. above) with US Congressional Appropriations to cover their arses.

If you want to keep being uninformed and uneducated, oh well, as you keep saying "Budget Surplus" like that really means something, especially since Repugnant Controlled US Congress Sandbagged President Clinton's Budget (Appropriated more money than President Clinton could spend). The real indicator of the US Economy (after the fact) is:

The Interest on the National Deficit:

President Clinton: $18.9 Billion.

President Bush: $16.6 Billion.

How about this instead of the Deflection of Blame Game. How about doing the detailed Research (who, what, where, when, why (Motives), how much (Money), etc.) of the Glass Steagall Acts. I am talking about $60 Trillion to $100 Trillion added to the upcoming $54.6 Trillion. And yes, it was also President Bush's Fault for not reinstating the Glass Steagall Acts; but, he is NOT President NOW, so this is also President Obama's Fault as what he MUST have done as his FIRST Priority, now ask yourself (do the research, I already did) why he is doing nothing about this:

US Economy:

http://david393071.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/22/6107088-the-current-global-economic-crisis

And when and if you actually do the Research DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA:

Wikipedia Disclaimer: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

1NewDay - Congress did pass a 2010 budget in 2009.

REALLY, then why was the US Military being funded by a CR (Continuing Resolution), 2009, 2010, 2011. Do you even know what a Continuing Resolution is? And what that means (Real World not the text book academic idealistic nonsense)?

The REAL reason why the US Congress (H.R. Democratic Party Controlled Appropriations Committees) and the Democratic Party Controlled US Senate do not want to Pass a Budget is that the first thing (highest cost) that will pop up will be President Obama's Unbudgeted for expenditure of $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion, that will make all of them look like Fools (commit Political Suicide).

wb52 - This from the liar that promised to cut the deficit by 50% by end of his first term......

That's nothing he promised (Verbal Contract, youtube.com) to get us out of Iraq, not later than, December 31, 2009. I am talking about DEATHS.

His promised (another verbal contract, youtube.com) solution to end the continous deployments of the 1% of US Citizens of the US Military was to start the Selective Service and or Mandatory Compulsory US Military Service to get the 92% of US Citizens to Serve in the US Military to do "Their Fair Share" (based on his April 2009 US Military Defense Budget Cuts of the USAF and USN that means US Military Service as US Military Ground Combat of the US Army or USMC.). Candidate Obama, "US Military Service is a Civic Duty", "US Citizenship is not an Entitlement" (Earned US Citizenship, not given based on accident of place of Birth).

President Obama, "US Military Combat Units have withdrawn from Iraq" (youtube.com). What was not stated was that the "Combat Units" were withdrawn and replaced with "Non Combat Units" (on paper) that were trained as Combat Units to conduct Combat Patrols to keep the $1 Billion US Embassy Compound of 104 Acres out of range of snipers, mortars, and rocket attacks. My younger brother in law, US Military Officer, just returned from Iraq before I could visit him from here (Afghanistan). Of the 16,000 current at the $1 Billion US Embassy Compound 1,500 are US Embassy Staff, who do all of you think is currently living at the multi dormatory complex four to a room. By the way it costed $1 Billion to build, and takes $1 Billion each year to run the $1 Billion US Embassy at Iraq, Pakistan, etc. (as the US Department of State Disneyland Resort and Spas).

Promised not to deploy US Military ABM's to Europe as part of President Bush's Plans. Backpeddled as if he were Lance Armstrong doing the tour de france in reverse, December 31, 2011, Deployment of US Military ABMs to Romania.

April 2009 US Military Defense Budget Cuts of the USAF and USN. Loss of 95,000 US Civilian Jobs manufacturing the F-22, the Demoncraps at California screaming bloody murder insisting that the USAF buy more of these 1990s Cold War Era designed Aircraft. Backpeddles on his Cut of one USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Group, with anyone that has access to the internet and can count knows he did not tell the entire truth about not decreasing the USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups from 11 to 10, during his 2012 State of the Union Address (Hint: USN does not have 11 Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups). And the REAL reason that he did not eliminate any more USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups, WAS NOT the Iranian Threat, but the Unemployment of a hundred thousand US Labor Union Workers at Virgina (that provide support for just one USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Group) that would have driven to D.C. to Strike in front of the White House.

Withdrawal from here (Afghanistan) by 2011, our orders dates were lined thru and changed to 2012, now they are changed again to 2013. Now President Obama is saying 2014. And people wonder why most of us are so f**king happy to be going back on Retirement again, NEVER to be Recalled to Active Duty again (and again and again) in less than 4 months.

Sure President Obama, tell us good job, well done, etc. then stab us in the backs with your US Military Defense Budget Cuts, Reduction In Forces, proposed cuts to our Benefits, keep letting us get paid below minimum wage, chop our (Earned) Retirements, etc.. And do NOT even attempt the Blame Game as it is NOT the Repugnants that are on the Appropriations Committees demanding these Cuts to previous US Congress Approved and Budgeted for US Military Defense Budgets.

I will not even bring up the Termination of Osama Bin Laden, the Rescue of Captain Phillips, etc., all of you can wait 20 years and using the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) obtain the Mission Videos, Video Conferences between the C4I Helicopter, Afghanistan (General Petraeus, and Bagram AFB), SOC, JSOC (then Admiral McRaven), CIA (then Leon Penetta), Pentagon, White House. Then all of you will have to eat your previous words about President Obama's involvement (actual lack of). By the way these videos cannot be "accidentally erased" as they are on multiple media (including DVDs), most of the US Military did this to Cover Our Arses so that the US Politicians cannot use us as Politically Expedient Scapegoats like before (too many times).

And those are just a few of the US Military related Promises (Verbal Contracts).

All these President Obama US Problems will all be on Generation X and Generation Y. It will be almost laughable as Generation X and Generation Y end up fighting using the current 1960s to 1990s US Military Equipment versus the 21st Century Chinese and Russian Federation Weapons Systems after they get their arses "Drafted" under President Obama's proposed Selective Service and Mandatory Compulsory US Military Service. With those of us that previously had to "Deal With It" using our decades of experience going on Retirement and becoming like most on Newsvine, "Arm Chair Generals or Admirals".

The Reality (not your Academic Idealist baloney) during our US Military Careers of 20 or more years we fix the previous f**k ups of the 4 or 8 year Politicians, then in days a US Politician undoes our 20 or more years of sacrifice. Deal with that Generation X and Generation Y.

Gee - the President submits a budget proposal that lowers the deficit - and - the Republicans go nutz!!!!! Not only are the Republicans proving to be obstructionists - they are nutty obstructionists.

If the President submits a budget proposal that requires less deficit spending than last year - that is a step in the right direction - that is a good thing.

If the Republicans were REALLY worried about the deficit and debt - they would applaud the President very loudly - agree wholeheartedly that the President is heading in the right direction - and then work toward meeting or exceeding the target the President has set forth.

Apparently reducing the deficit is NOT what the Republicans are really working toward. Apparently the Republicans are simply using the deficit and debt to push a political agenda they are not willing to discuss. Otherwise why would Republicans castigate the President for doing exactly what Republicans say they want - a lower deficit next year?

I dont know why anyone that isnt a die hard democrat bothers to talk on these boards. The die hard democrats aren't even americans. They will blindly side with their party until america burns in ashes no matter who is in office, or what dumb ideas they have. I'm no republican, and probably will have to vote independant because I cannot in clear conscience vote for any of those in either of the 2 main parties. But it really amazes me how so many democrats will blame bush or the republican party both for what is their fault and what isnt just to be able to turn a blind eye to the failures of their own party. They pretend or are blind enough to believe that the democrat party is 100% perfect and have an excuse for 100% of their failures being the republican parties fault. That isnt even realisticly possible and outright stupid, yet they do it. The republicans tend to over support their party, but not to the point of practical impossibilities. They will actually turn on their own from time to time. But mostly when their party isnt doing a good job, they turn on both. Not the democrats, they are ostriches, putting their heads in the sand to their own parties failures repeatedly. I cannot stand what either party is doing and while we are being members of one party or the other the entire government is eating us for breakfast. But as long as either party has a bunch of blindly loyal followers no matter how bad they screw up, then we are screwed. Those of you that arent old enough to remember several decades of this country are being blindly led as to what is going on now being normal. This country keeps going farther and farther from normal the longer we let these thieves of both parties give us 10% of what we want while they take 90% of what we need. We better find a way to quit being as prejudice as we were on racism once upon a time but now its partyism instead. Just because someone is the opposite party doesnt default them to being a lesser person or wrong automatically. Quit believing the media and just look at the Now U.S. and look at the U.S. in the past. We are decaying and it is obvious to those that know how to look. They seperate us with gay marriage, illegal immigration, and stuff like that while they little by little burn our bridges and take our rights away. I want what is best for democrats and republicans and we arent going to get it with either. My best to you all.

I dont know why anyone that isnt a die hard democrat bothers to talk on these boards. The die hard democrats aren't even americans. They will blindly side with their party until america burns in ashes no matter who is in office, or what dumb ideas they have. I'm no republican, and probably will have to vote independant because I cannot in clear conscience vote for any of those in either of the 2 main parties. But it really amazes me how so many democrats will blame bush or the republican party both for what is their fault and what isnt just to be able to turn a blind eye to the failures of their own party. They pretend or are blind enough to believe that the democrat party is 100% perfect and have an excuse for 100% of their failures being the republican parties fault. That isnt even realisticly possible and outright stupid, yet they do it. The republicans tend to over support their party, but not to the point of practical impossibilities. They will actually turn on their own from time to time. But mostly when their party isnt doing a good job, they turn on both. Not the democrats, they are ostriches, putting their heads in the sand to their own parties failures repeatedly. I cannot stand what either party is doing and while we are being members of one party or the other the entire government is eating us for breakfast. But as long as either party has a bunch of blindly loyal followers no matter how bad they screw up, then we are screwed. Those of you that arent old enough to remember several decades of this country are being blindly led as to what is going on now being normal. This country keeps going farther and farther from normal the longer we let these thieves of both parties give us 10% of what we want while they take 90% of what we need. We better find a way to quit being as prejudice as we were on racism once upon a time but now its partyism instead. Just because someone is the opposite party doesnt default them to being a lesser person or wrong automatically. Quit believing the media and just look at the Now U.S. and look at the U.S. in the past. We are decaying and it is obvious to those that know how to look. They seperate us with gay marriage, illegal immigration, and stuff like that while they little by little burn our bridges and take our rights away. I want what is best for democrats and republicans and we arent going to get it with either. My best to you all.

Nerm_L

If the President submits a budget proposal that requires less deficit spending than last year - that is a step in the right direction..

Umm, Nerm, the "less deficit than 'last year'" was OBAMA'S RECORD DEFICIT SPENDING!!!

Good Grief

Nerm_L......

Nerm....Mr. Obama's 2013 budget is going NOWHERE....according to the Democratic Senate "Party of One - NO" Reid. Further, even Mr. Obama's White House Economist Adviser even said that the budget was nothing more than a "CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT".

So, Mr. Obama could have cut ALL government agencies to ZERO and the thing still would have went into the trash.

Mr. Obama might have "submitted" his budgets for the PAST THREE YEARS, but....his spending budgets have not been approved nor went into effect. So, America has been running on "continuing resolutions" thanks to our Community Organizer in Chief.

Yeah, ALL Americans should be going "NUTZ" the way Mr. Obama is running our country and should DEMAND that he step down.

And for SALLY .....

Thank you for restoring my non-spam post.

Markelpew

I didn't say republicans need psychic powers to know what is in the budget I said they need only pretend to have them and would have it 98% correct since it is just the same BS that even his own party wouldn't go for last time. One turd looks about like another and these budgets are the same turd with a bit more corn for show.

FEBRUARY 13, 2012

Why Debt Reduction Won't Create Jobs

The Job Killing Deficit Hawks

by DEAN BAKER

It’s budget time, and that means that we can expect to hear the Washington elite wailing about the budget deficit for the next several weeks. When hearing the cries about out-of-control deficits, people would be best advised to turn off their television sets, put down their newspaper, and smash their computers. (Okay, don’t smash your computer.)

The economy has one major problem right now and that is a serious lack of jobs. We still have more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed, or who have given up looking for work altogether because there are no jobs. This should be the issue that everyone in Washington is talking about.

Instead, many politicians and pundits want to distract people’s attention from unemployment by complaining about the deficit. They have deceived many people into thinking that the economy would somehow be stronger and there would be more jobs if the deficit was reduced, either due to spending cuts or increased taxes.

This view makes no sense. There are no businesses that are going to hire additional workers because the government laid off school teachers or firefighters and we cut back spending on food stamps. Businesses hire more workers when they see more demand for their product. All of these actions that reduce the deficit, either on the spending or tax side, translate into less demand and therefore less employment. In short, those who want to cut the deficit now are lobbying for fewer jobs and higher unemployment.

This is only part of the story that they got wrong. The other part is the cause of the deficit. There are thousands of people running around Washington blaming the deficit on out-of-control spending or irresponsible tax cuts. Both sides are way off the mark.

It is easy show from the data that the huge deficits of the last three years are the direct result of the economic plunge caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. The budget deficit was actually quite modest in 2007, and it was projected to remain low in 2008-2010, even before the Bush era tax cuts expired.

However, the deficits came in much higher than projected because the collapse of the economy sent unemployment soaring and tax revenues plummeting. There is an irony in this situation. Back in the years 2002-2007 some of us were warning about the housing bubble, but our voices were largely drowned out by the big deficit hawks.

Of course now that the bubble has collapsed and the deficit has exploded we are still hearing the same complaints from the deficit hawks. If the country had paid less attention to the deficit hawks back in the bubble years, and more attention to the bubble, then we would not have had such a horrible recession and the deficit hawks would not have a large budget deficit to complain about today.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/13/the-job-killing-deficit-hawks/

david-475776

Will All of you PLEASE Stop Collapsing Posts.....

David, this is an opinionated forum...you need to figure out how to state the facts without writiing a BOOK !!!!!!

I agree on all that I've quoted but pleeeeeez make your point!!!!!

The 27 Republican Bills That Aren't About Jobs

Excerpts:

From the House Republican Conference and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue, congressional Republicans and their conservative allies have touted 27 measures passed by the House of Representatives that they claim are "bipartisan jobs bills awaiting Senate action." But the bills are mostly highly partisan attempts to slash regulations that protect, among other things, public health, consumer rights, workplace safety and the environment.

The GOP has also dishonestly included in its count a few viable measures with popular bipartisan support; one of these is being held up in the Senate by a Republican, and the others have been placed on the Senate calendar.

Not a single bill among the House GOP's "jobs" bills is a clear-cut example of the Senate neglecting a real, viable measure aimed at job creation. The Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration aren't against creating jobs — they're just against bills that would harm the environment or human health, or that would have no impact on job creation whatsoever.

Most of the GOP's "jobs" proposals aren't really about job creation. Instead, the majority of the bills are meant to advance the GOP's radical deregulatory agenda, and many would sacrifice the health and safety of Americans for the sake of a bottom line.

politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201240004

Will someone please explain that prosperous job growth will soon eliminate the deficit, the debt and the entitlement crisis. Virtually all of the most serious projections for the economy rely on stagnant job growth. We can and must change that picture. Bailouts for Wall Street and banks have proven useless.

Bailouts for GM and Chrysler have proven to be profitable with a huge surge in employment. Our focus must remain on jobs. jobs, jobs. Contrary to contrived public opinion, the American people are not lazy. They find unemployment comp. and public assistance stifling to achieve prosperity and better lives. Progress is to be found with fair wages and fair opportunities for advancement.

Some say that jobs are never coming back. They will remain correct in that assumption till the American people revolt against a tax system that rewards big business for shipping American jobs overseas. The corporations seeking slave labor overseas with no environmental regulations must be heavily penalized when they attempt to sell their products to the world's largest consumer nation. Corporations willing to invest in American workers and American infrastructure should be rewarded for their efforts.

This is a simple task once corporate influence is prohibited from the halls of Congress, the White house and the Supreme Court. We must look among ourselves for patriotic citizens to once again honestly represent the American people in government. Both major political parties have sold themselves to the highest bidder. They offer nothing but further decay with false hopes for recovery driven by political division.

The final option is a second American Revolution that will make the first one look like child's play. The biggest losers will be the biggest winners driving this nation to ruin today. This land is our land. The land of the free and the brave was proudly won by the people at it's birth. It will be so once again regardless of the cost.

Don't worry!

Obama's Ministry of Magic er "truth" will get right on it!

First he should look into those vicous slanderous attacks on the credibilty of his administrations jobs numbers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/

Lols.

There is only one person ruinning for President who isn't lying right to your face.

It isn't Obamney.

every picture i have seen of Obama, he has his mouth open. i wonder if the pre-presidential candidates (Gingrich, Romney, Santorum) will include this big mouth, empty headed, deceiving character. the way i see it is Obama is using scare and phony tactics to try and control the pre-presidential candidates so he will become one of them. politics today is a gimme and the citizens are caught in the middle. Obama will not get my vote, 3 years of his phoni ness showed me the type of person he is. has he invited anyone else to the white house for a beer lately? how about his great aunty on his mother's side or was it someone else, did she get her citizenship? i don't see or read about many other countries inviting him back for a visit. guess his fall into a ditch in Ireland, and dishonoring the Queen of England, was enough. hopefully in November i can say good bye to him and a better president for the next four years.

dzaffina

By Michael Ettlinger, Michael Linden |August 25, 2009 (OH YA...note the date...lol)

As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s....blah blah.... law during the Bush administration are responsible....blah blah.......tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency .....blah blah blah....federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government ....blah blah

Had President Bush not......blah blah blah

Still blaming Bush - 4 years later - Obama = EPIC FAIL , NOW OWN IT!!! Good Grief

Roy,

Lets get real, the House passed budget was not a compromise on the Presidents proposal. It was a total re-write that had nothing to do with the Presidents proposals other than the categories of spending were similar. You might call it a counter-proposal, but even that would be being generous.

In theory, the President sets the tone and Congress refines it. The House passed budget was no such thing. What they passed was a complete refusal to accept any part of the President's direction. What part of compromise don't you understand. Sure you can blame the Senate for not doing their part, however it would have made little difference as the House message to the President was NFW, so why waste further time to get the same answer again? The only "compromise" that would have come out of the Senate and then be approved by the House would have been a complete capitulation of any of the President's ideas and passing the house bill exactly as written. So why bother? The House very clearly communicated that they were not about to play. It would have been pointless.

David,

Yes I do know what continuing resolutions are. I have painfully read most of them which is both brutally boring, but also a bit revealing.

First off, you need to remember that in 2009, that was Bush's budget. And I might also add that he didn't include the wars in his budget. There was only one Obama budget officially approved which was for FY 2010. True there was a Defense Department continuing resolution to fund some additional items and change a few others in FY 2010, but this was far from the entire defense budget and in terms of the large dollars associated with defense spending, it was relatively minor. There was no official budget for FY 2011 so the only way anything could be funded was through continuing resolution and the same applies to 2012.

One needs to look at these carefully and understand when the Fiscal Year encompasses. Also, these resolutions are often passed after the fact to cover shortfalls. Most recently, Republicans have used short term continuing resolutions to fund the entire government and prevent government shutdowns. It has proved a useful manipulation tool for them and they have repeatedly stretched the basis of a CR.

I don't post based on some crap I picked off some agenda based website. I read the official documents as painful as that is. I know what is in these although I will admit that I don't commit it all to memory and often have to go back and refer to them.

If you are the same David I believe you are, I respect a lot of your opinions on the military, and understand that you may have different perspective than a lot of us, however, what I posted was accurate. And the reasons for Defense Department CRs are logical at least in principle, although I might question some of the individual components contained therein. My comment was based on someone claiming that the President hasn't submitted a single budget. That was completely false. Only the FY2010 budget was passed by Congress during President Obama's time in office. The FY2009 budget was passed under GW Bush's term and by design, required CRs and special appropriations for many Defense Department funding issues.

I personally don't really like the use of CRs because they are good at hiding things. But I also understand that a complete budget that covers every possible scenario isn't practical. I see a budget as a roadmap that attempts to cover what we know in advance and where we expect to go in the future.

The President can use a budget to attempt to set some direction for the country, but it is up to Congress to hammer out the details. Unfortunately, of late, Congress has attempted to use budgets as policy making tools that may or not have anything to do with what our Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief has in mind. As I see it, the budgeting process should be more about Congress deciding the specifics as to how to implement the President's ideas. What we have seen in the last couple years is Congress using it as a tool to fight and oppose the President's ideas. That isn't entirely new, but what is new is the complete refusal by one party to even accept that the President has some role in setting policy. There is no desire on the part of some to even consider compromise.

You can debate the ideas of the President, but you can't refuse to accept that he is trying to develop budgets and has done so since day one. It is Congress who is responsible for not having budgets and most of that blame falls with one party. I believe that in reality they want it that way. It serves as a very useful tool to criticize and attempt to stop anything the President wants to do. For the most part it is used for political blackmail and holds money hostage in order to get their way. For anyone who pays attention, it isn't about being fiscally responsible, but it is about using it for political advantage.

If a corporate CEO presented a plan to the board of directors like the President had presented in his latest budget, he would be fired on the spot. Under President Obama's leadership the federal government has been running the most massive deficits ever with little to show for it. The President is predicting that under his plandeficits will continue to be massive for at least the next 10 years. Under the President's plan, 10 years from now the deficit will be larger than it was under Bush's last year in office. And both I and the President thought that the Bush deficits were bad. Though the President is not formally admitting it, he is predicting that his promises regarding the economy will not be kept. The President is still convinced that the federal government can turn the economy around by increasing spending. It did not work under the Bush administration and so far it has not worked under the Obama administration. Obama is like the gambler that has been loosing all of his money but is convinced that he can turn things around by betting more money. The saddest part of it is that it is our money. Worst yet is that he has been borrowing money to gamble and we, the tax payers, are going to be on the hook to pay it all back. President Obama has yet of offer a plan to repay all this money that we have been borrowing. He has yet to predict how much all of this is going to end up costing us tax payers.

Didi-376564

For all of you who mention filibuster of the budgets please keep in mind that most of the budgets sent to the democrat controlled senate have been tabled by Harry Reid. You may also want to read this from politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/jack-lew/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/

The evil obstructionists in the spending bill last year were the tea party guys and gals. They are considered crazy people for not wanting to overspend the budget by 50%. Keeping to a budget and spending what you have is considered crazy talk now in this country. I don't think overspending is a good idea however. Deficits do matter.

Is this Obama's first budget?

@leroy2112 - No is the answer. He submits one every year. It also doesn't mean it will be approved by congress either. They haven't approved one yet.

@alan_static - If you will actually look the President has done a lot to cut spending as well as trying to keep money in the people's hands that need it.

If Congress really wanted to save money they would vote to cut their salaries and retirement plans. They haven't earned them this year.

Kicking the can again..!!

Is this Obama's first budget?

No, it is his second budget. The first joke of a budget plan presented by Obama failed in Congress by a bipartisan vote of 95 to 0.

Just once I'd like to see the GOP/TP base their positions on FACTS.

Look at history, first our own and austerity versus stimulus. Stimulus is what got us out of the Great Depression. And how Teapublicans love to rant about Greece. Spending was a problem, but mostly as it compared to revenue -- No one was paying their damn taxes.

Now look at Greece, and the longer they impose austerity the faster unemployment increases. If you don't want to "be like Greece," why do you propose making the same mistakes they've been making?

Tax rates are lower now than ever before. Everyone just needs to pay their damn taxes, and that goes for the 1% and corporations as well as the self-employed and families using tax credits to pay little or nothing. And we need to invest in our country if we want to get out of this mess and remain a Super Power.

Mr. Anon

There was NO BUDGET FOR 2009! Just Continuing Resolutions. Bush submitted a Budget but the Democrat Congress didn't act upon it. The LAST Continuing Resolution signed by Bush was Dec. 2008. It covered the Federal spending until Mar. 2009. ANYTHING spent after Mar. 2009 belongs to Obama and the Progressives. Do some research. Here I'll give you a start.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/06/President-Obama-signs-continuing-resolution/

slodon -- Funny that you defend Bush on anything to do with the economy, particularly when he didn't include the cost of the wars in his budget...(and with no mention of TARP and auto bail outs, and everything else Republicans were for before they were against it). The Dems may have made a poor decision about getting the budget done when they had a super majority, but that is OLD news.

We all know why a budget hasn't been passed since, and that has to do with the 2010 mid-terms and current Teapublican majority in the House, and 50/50 in the Senate in gridlock due to non-stop GOP/TP filibusters, blocks and holds -- Not to mention every underhanded tactic such as hostage-taking.

It is even worse at the state level. Virginia is the epitome of Teapublican "strategery" of Tyranny of the GOP/TP Minority via abuse of parliamentary procedures. The day Teapublicans can win on merit with majority support should become a National Holiday to celebrate a miracle.

Deborah -

If Obama has done so much to cut spending, why do we have the highest levels of deficit spending in the history of this country?

The federal government has grown by at least 20%, with nothing to show for it.

True - Deeming a budget is NOT passing a budget. The republican-controlled House did their part this past year. Why can't the democrat-controlled Senate?

Tammy, Obama did pass a budget. Unfortunately, the Democrats (and the GOP) in the Senate said no to it, the GOP for obvious reasons (not enough cuts, too many tax increases); but the Democrats rejected it for some reason (probably didn't want to look like tax-and-spend liberals. And the Republicans may have passed a budget, but it was more of a partisan bill that they should have known was unable to be passed. I mean, it privatized Medicare (not in the Democrats' OR America's best interests) and gave elderly people vouchers that would expand only at the rate of consumer price index, not at the rate of health care costs increasing (vouchers become smaller and smaller every year in purchasing power). The only good thing about that in my opinion is that it would slow the growing costs of healthcare. Yet it places the burden on the seniors. As for revenues, it relies solely on the implication that federal revenues will remain at the historical rate of about 19% and not a tenth more.

In addition, the Ryan budget does not disclose the full reason of the debt. In the document, it talks about "big government spending" and borrowing, which is technically about 45% of the fiscal problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't show that the debt has been growing part because of the costly Bush tax cuts and the recession, and Ryan plans to extend the Bush tax cuts forever. Not to mention that a little over 20% of the expected $6.2 trillion in savings are from repealing Obama's healthcare reform act, a dubious estimate that may prove costly as recent CBO reports state that Obamacare will reduce future deficits by at the very most $200 billion. The budget also cuts tax rates even further, reducing the top rate to 28% (great, more tax cuts).

And Ryan pretty much scares people. True, we have a debt crisis, and yes, we have a spending problem. And even though this is scary, Ryan does not tell the full truth (typical conservative nut head). He fails to mention to costs of the Bush tax cuts and its effect on the debt, and he takes support from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) which claims that his plans to cut taxes and spending will create jobs. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that cutting taxes rates to record lows will spur any economic growth, as our tax machine is low on fuel and any more reductions will exhaust our government and could lead to another recession.

To summarize it Tammy, the Republican "budget" was essentially a dead bill the moment they passed it. The Democrats should have passed a budget, but technically they don't have to according to the Constitution. And the House failed to come up with a REAL plan, not one stuffed with massive cuts to entitlements, phony numbers, huge cuts to discretionary spending (leaving us with a government of pre-Great Depression proportions; STUPID), and no credible revenue increases.

Cite your sources Will Haas.

The President said that deficit spending was bad and he vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. I heard him say this on television when he was campaigning for president. The deficit is computed at the end of the fiscal year. The last full fiscal year of the Bush administration was 2008. The figure that I found for the 2008 deficit was 458.55 billion dollars. When Obama made the pronouncement that was the deficit. The last full fiscal year of Obama's first administration is 2012. So for President Obama to keep his promise the 2012 federal deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars. His own White House is predicting that President Obama will not keep his promise.

Slodon, in that case he will very nearly halve the deficit. The 2009 (Bush) deficit was $1.5 Trillion. 2013's Deficit is expected to be $900 billion, and the 2014 deficit will be $700 billion.

Will Haas, you forget that 2009 was Bush's deficit. Projections in any case had a deficit over $1.2 trillion with spending just at 2008 levels. This proves that almost all of Obama's deficit is from the recession, and very little is actually from increased spending. As you see from the link your buddy put up, his projection was made when the deficit was projected at $1.3 trillion. Remember also that even into 2009, the severity of the Recession was underestimated.

So, as it turns out, Obama, by only 1 year into his second term, will indeed halve the deficit. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, he will reduce it to a third of 2009's value.

Funny how these things work.

No politician wants to be associated with the pain of doing the right thing so they hand out more goodies and hope things get better or they get a better job. This is why no politician has the credibility to talk about any real solutions.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

"Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."

slodon

Mr. Anon

There was NO BUDGET FOR 2009! Just Continuing Resolutions. Bush submitted a Budget but the Democrat Congress didn't act upon it. The LAST Continuing Resolution signed by Bush was Dec. 2008. It covered the Federal spending until Mar. 2009. ANYTHING spent after Mar. 2009 belongs to Obama and the Progressives. Do some research. Here I'll give you a start.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/06/President-Obama-signs-continuing-resolution/

The only thing President Obama added to that budget was extra benefits for returning veterans.... look it up...

Spend now, cut later won't work Mr. President. If you are a student of history you will see that when "later" comes, the people like yourself find an excuse not to cut because nobody wants to be seen as allowing money to be taken away from a program that can get a few votes. If you Mr. President want to be a true leader, then start doing it. Make the big cuts now. Cut the sacred cows. Only by reforming our sacred cows do we stand a chance of running a surplus anytime in the near future. If we just tax and spend, we will go bankrupt like Greece.

So Mr. Obama, what will it be? Will you ensure we become Greece someday, or will you be the leader you were elected to be, and demand the cuts to everything including those things that aren't popular to cut? I hope you can finally be a man, and not just the guy who keeps laying blame everywhere but at his own feet. If you just keep passing the blame, then you should be ashamed of yourself like every other person in Washington should be.

So What? Please find a life. alex cali.

I get what the President means- You can't grow government if you have to cut it's spending.

My real response- Yes you can have growth through cuts, here's how: Current status is that we are spending more and more above what taxes the government takes in, creating more spending programs and regulations, forcing businesses to participate in new programs(unless you are a friend company- then you get a waiver), and the politicians are saying that the federal government must spend and "create" more. If they took the drastic stance that we can't continue to spend more and needed to cap spending to specific indexes of growth, it would insight "stability". That is- currently businesses aren't growing because they are cash strapped(small businesses), holding their cash(large buisinesses), and not sure what new regulations and taxes are coming. By establishing some governmental "stability" these businesses could project where things are going for the next few years and make strategic decisions about their staffing and development that would insight "growth".

You see, you can't keep pushing the gas peddal in your car so that it creates more gas. It only makes the car go faster and burns the fuel faster.

I love grilled cheese sandwiches......hmmmm grilly goodness

Ahhh, well, when you discover that the Federal Government is the largest employer in the NATION perhaps you begin to realize that there is a serious problem. Where does the government get its money? Does it produce anything tangible?

When the Federal Government keeps taking from the struggling producers, the herd of productive thins to the point if non-existance. So, when the Federal Government has no more producers to sustain it, what happens? In a nutshell...Greece.

Obama's approach has worked and the economy and jobs are getting better. Even the Republican candidates can no longer say "it's worse".

Obama's method will keep the recovery on track. Republicans will insist on huge cuts that will stall the economy and lead to more unemployment.

Republicans big idea, "cut medicare".....go for it Ryan.....see how many votes you get.

"Jack Lew, Obama's chief of staff, said the administration had to contend with a deep recession and soaring unemployment that had driven the deficits higher than anyone anticipated."

Finally! Now even the Obama administration is admitting they are clueless. C'mon November!

Only in Washington is a reduction in projected future spending increases considered a cut. Obama has not cut so much as a dime in spending. He has run the largest deficits in our nations history, and there is no end in sight. Obama has taken every opportunity to stuff the wallets of those politically connected through crony capitalism with results such as Solyndra. For the rest of us that are guaranteeing the credit cards from the banks of China and India, it is socialism full steam ahead.

When Obama says we "can't cut our way into growth," he seems to ignore the fact that we haven't be able to spend our way to growth either. But to test whether his statement is true or false, the first thing Obama would need to do is actually cut spending. Something that so far he has not done. Obama screams about the Bush era tax cuts, which cost a trillion dollars over a 10 year time frame. So does Obama really want us to believe that ending a 100 billion dollar annual tax break is going to save the country?

Maybe Obama should appoint another commission. Maybe he should appoint another Czar. Or maybe Obama should have listened to Simpson/Boles, I mean if he were even remotely concerned with the mounting debt. Future generations will all be sitting around wondering why they are being taxed up the wazoo to pay for nothing. Which is exactly what we have to show for all the increased spending and 6 trillion in national debt, nothing.

History is going to treat Obama very harshly, and Congress for that matter. This country had been heading for the precipice for quite some time, but Obama put it on the fast track. Obama was unqualified for the job, a great reader but a terrible leader. Yes he broke through the barriers, but he has done nothing more then lay an egg.

Washington creates problems, and they have no track record for solving anything. But the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the voters that keep sending the same idiots back to Washington but expecting different results. Just give Obama four more years, and he will definitely sink the ship.

Obama claims to have deficit cuts, but the only thing he is doing is raising taxes to claim he has less deficit spending, the actual national debt will continue to increase under Obamas budget well beyond 2020.

This President has no clue, none!

This country can not continue to GROW GOVERNMENT as has been done under Bush and NOW OBAMA!

Government intervention is not a cure all, but the problem!

Simple solutions the crooks in Washington ignore, including the President = Term limits, fix the tax code to a flat tax on all, based on income!

Clean up Government fraud and waste!

Cut, Cap, Balance!

Politiicians, Address This!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Maybe we can't "cut our way into growth" Mr.B ....but we can "cut our way out of debt' by cutting back on the spending!

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer:

BTW I think we need a sharper knife to get the job done!

Here's an idea. How about we:

• cut the size of Congress by 1/3
• cut the remaining member's salaries by 1/3
• nobody is eligible for re-election until both the unemployment rate is less than 6% and the deficit is reduced by 1/3.

These folks should lead by example and not by using insider trading for their own personal gains.

When I sit down to do my household budget, I start with how much money we currently have coming in. Not what I think I can steal from others in order to pay my bills.

Good luck spending your way out of debt..... fluff infrastructure spending only gets you shiny bridges and roads etc..... What good are those when there's only short term jobs for a select few providing them?

President Obama likes to say he 'Inherited” the huge Deficit for 2009, his first year in office, but let's look at the real record;

The Deficit for fiscal year 2009 (ending on September 30, 2009) was $1.413 Trillion.

When Obama took office on January 20,2009, the National Debt was $10.626 Trillion.

On September 30, 2009 (End of FY 2009), the National Debt was $11.910 Trillion, an increase under Obama of $1.284 Trillion in only 8 months. Gee, I wonder if that had anything to do with the $860 Billion 'Stimulus' bill and the $410 Billion 'Pork-barrel' bill he signed shortly after taking office. Here's the official government Treasury Department site to verify – Just put in a beginning date of January 20, 2009 and an ending date of September 30, 2009;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Rick: Yup, but Obama is only a victim of the evil Bush, if only there had been no Bush (or Clinton, or republicans, or tsunami, or national debt etc.) Obama would be a much better president. It's any and everybody else's fault, never, ever lay the blame on the Obama doorstep.

Scorned, you sound like you are pretty peeved that you are not one of the "rich".

Eric, you are right at this pace sometime in 2018 we should have unemployment down around 4.5%.

and just think it will only have cost us close to 10 trillion dollars, that is money well spent.

Republicans attacked Obama's budget blueprint even before it reached their desks.

This one sentence says it all. Partisan politics at the expense of the Average American Citizen. Also You would think any Businessman would know you have to invest in something in order for it to grow.

Whether it is time, money, or resources. The republican party does not want to invest in our Nations Infrastructure so we can compete. The republican party ought to know this.

The republican party lost my vote by doing one thing. Refusing to look at all options or any options other than the tired old political bashing in Washington. Obama is going to win for one reason only.

The republican party has not come up with a Worthy candidate. Period none of the jokes that are running for the GOP are true republicans.

Ron Paul is the best they have and he is scary.

Mygirl1,

I'm sure he has regrets about some of the programs that didn't go as well as they could have, and I recognize and admit that. With that being said, are the conservatives willing to admit some of the problems we are now dealing with are due to the prior admin and some of the decisions they have made lately? If not it sounds like they are the ones that never, ever take responsibility for their actions.

The information Obama is giving out is incorrect; "At a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we’ve got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track." There is no growth, nor is there a "recovery" to keep on track. The data he is based on BLS D/D model, which adds non existent data to the numbers.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the first month of this new year 243,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate (U.3) fell to 8.3 percent. This good news is incorrect. It is due to faulty seasonal adjustments and to the BLS birth/death model. In a prolonged downturn, seasonal adjustments and the birth/death model produce nonexistent employment.

The birth/death model that estimates the net effect of jobs lost from business failures and jobs created by new start-ups was designed for a normal growing economy, not for one in a prolonged downturn. Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that the BLS adds 48,000 new jobs per month to the payroll employment report based on the birth/death model even though the economy has not come out of the deep recession. In other words, over the course of a year, the birth/death model ADDS about 580,000 jobs to the reported jobs numbers. End of year benchmark revisions quietly take the nonexistent jobs out of the totals, but these revisions do not receive headlines and pass largely unnoticed.

The reported January jobs gains are contradicted by other official reports. For example, the January payroll jobs report shows 50,000 new jobs in manufacturing, but according to the recently released 4th quarter GDP, 81% of the reported growth consisted of undesired inventory accumulation. Normally, companies produce for sales not for inventories. Why would manufacturers be hiring people to produce goods for undesired inventories?

Most of the new reported January jobs are in services. The January jobs report has 24,500 new jobs in wholesale and retail trade and 13,100 in transportation and warehousing. However the data shows that inflation-corrected real retail sales are down. Why does it take more people to sell fewer goods?

The other remaining sizable components of the January jobs number are: professional and technical services (30,000), administrative and waste services (36,700), health care and social assistance (29,700), and leisure and hospitality (44,000) of which the largest component is food services and drinking places (32,800).

The leisure, waitresses and bartender employment numbers seen high for January. Perhaps it was an excellent ski month in the US. However, accommodation (hotels) does not support this conclusion as accommodation lost 3,900 jobs.

The BLS reports 21,000 new jobs in construction. However, the housing report says that housing starts dropped more than forecast in December, falling 4.1 percent. Why does it take more construction workers to produce fewer houses?

As the adjusted data produce phantom jobs and employment, the BLS should headline the raw unadjusted data. With so many discouraged workers unable to find jobs, dropping discouraged workers out of the measure of unemployment seriously understates the true magnitude of the unemployment problem. If Americans were aware of the double-digit unemployment rate, would they be as tolerant of Washington’s multi-trillion dollar wars? Would Obama be facing a tougher re-election campaign? Would Republicans be pushing to reduce the federal budget deficit at the expense of the social safety net?

The phony data serve many interests, but not those of the American people.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal

Bush spent our way into a recession and now Obama thinks to spend our way out?

Crackheads and strung out junkies have about the same in common sense.

And yes, it's an apt comparison, because our government is addicted to spending, like a junkie is to heroin.

Scorned, you sound like you are pretty peeved that you are not one of the "rich".

and why wouldnt I be? It is sooo unfair! I want whats coming to me!

This President just loves to BS the American people and the voters are so stupid for falling for this smooth operator. Obama spends more time in front of the camera then behind the desk doing work.

So why do you people that worship at the feet of PBO, hate Bush.

They have done the same exact things, spend more than we have, create a bigger Government, take some of our rights away (Patriot Act), cut taxes, go to war(s), bail out companies, try a stimulus package, create crappy education plans, lie to the American people, I mean what is the difference?

"He said his proposals would “invest in the things that will help grow our economy right now. We can’t cut back on those things that are important for us to grow. We can’t just cut our way into growth."

Well, we've borrowed an additional $4.7 Trillion on the National Debt for Obama's 'investments' since Obama took office - just 3+ years. Can we afford another 4 years of Obama?

Roy, Of course we can't afford 4 more years, but can we afford 4 years of Romney or Rick?

If I am a Repub, I don't say anything about this budget I just let it fail miserably in the Democrat controlled Senate just like last time.

No business has ever expanded by NOT spending money. Nor has any National Economy.

No business has ever expanded by NOT spending money. Nor has any National Economy.

We must build a deficit in order to find out how to pay one down...

Nancy Palosi

Con't: Both the democratic and republican party are working against an American recovery. Why? A healthy America is not conducive to the World economy nor the world order.

Because a healthy America would not be led to be a part of the "World Economy"/"World Order" with the UN in command of the worlds decisions regardless of what each country wants.

Hard to face? Sure, because it means that you would actually have to call for arrests of a huge part of the current administration regardless of party because the only way to turn this around is to get control of OUR federal government under the US Constitution back under control, with accountability to the US People. Dump "parties", and just have candidates.

Free Trade: Means that anything that creates cost is bad. So keeping clean, drinkable water is a raise to the cost. Keeping workers from being made sick, or injured, or even killed is more of a cost then just replacing them. Keeping the soil so we can graze healthy animals, grow reasonable healthy crops (no genetic modifications, VERY unhealthy but LOTS of profit) is an extra cost of doing business. Keeping the air clean is also a raise to the cost of doing business. See, all the things we now take for granted is prohibiting those who prefer more profits to the above list.

Don't believe me, go see what countries are the biggest in the UN, they would have the say over what happens here in the USA. From zoning to education.

The news is owned, and releases only what they are told to release. Ex:A Los Angeles Times editorial (2/7/12) begins: When the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism released a report Sunday claiming that U.S. drone strikes have killed dozens of civilian rescuers and mourners in Pakistan, the American media scarcely noticed.

It's a good point. The Bureau's report got remarkably little media attention in America. A New York Times story (which included an anonymous U.S. official smearing the researchers as Al-Qaeda sympathizers) might be the only story in the mainstream media; the only stories coming up in the Nexis news database are from Antiwar.com (2/5/12) and papers in Pakistan. The report was covered on Democracy Now! (2/6/12) as well.

In other words, when the L.A. Times is talking about a media blackout, they're talking about themselves too.

“It’s ridiculous that our country’s main source of news is owned by a few large corporations that have a GLARING conflict of interest in providing us with accurate, honest information. They have an agenda both in downsizing news rooms as well as promoting certain political views. It’s time for us to hold them to account and demand a true separation of corporation and government, both in the running of and in the reporting of.”

Media consolidation also plays a profound role in how our society prioritizes values, from self-esteem to consumerism. “It gives them [corporate media] a great deal of influence over how our culture thinks about itself,” points out author and activist Anne Elizabeth Moore.

The deluge of advertising, for instance, which takes up a lot of broadcasting and radio, certainly has an impact on shopping habits as well as more serious issues like body-image.

2006: the FCC passed rules “which allowed broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership in the top 20 markets,” as Katy Bachman wrote in AdWeek. “The last thing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski [who became the FCC head in 2009] wants to talk about are the media ownership rules.”

A media system dominated by such a narrow coterie of owners has a direct impact on the quality of news presented to the public – affecting a diversity of viewpoints as well as the depth of coverage on issues such as corporate greed, poverty, corruption, racism, climate change and a host of other topics that an electorate needs to know in order to make educated decisions which directly affect their lives.

Knine "US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the first month of this new year 243,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate (U.3) fell to 8.3 percent. This good news is incorrect. It is due to faulty seasonal adjustments..."

Actually, you are correct. The number of people employed in December 2011 was much higher than in January 2012. The government 'tweaks' the numbers, and there were actually several hundred thousand net jobs LOST in January, 2012.

You will never see this reported in the pro-Obama media.

So what will Harry Reid in the Senate do with Obama's proposed Budget - ignore it, like he did the last 3 years?

Obama can't even get his fellow Democrats to take his Budgets seriously.

True patriot, You call that a budget ? Do You see the deficit it creates ? Is this how You construct Your household budget ? This is real money even though it isn't theirs. The teapubs as You put it were elected because people are sick and tired of them spending money We don't have. Until a real budget, that actually starts reducing the deficit now, I'm sure it will continue to be shot down by both the house and senate. Where do You get off on saying everyone needs to pay more ? It's time for the government to take cuts across the board and quit spending!

We're teetering at the edge of a recession. This is NOT the time for massive cuts.

The government has to spend in a recession because the people aren't. That's how you keep the economy going.

Massive cuts haven't helped Europe at all. You'd think we'd have learned by now.

skorned:

Who pays your wages, (if you work) hmmmm could be a tough one, lets start with THE RICH!!!!

Let the rich keep less, you think they are going to just say ok? NO, what they are going to do is cut your wages, or not hire you. They are still gonna make theirs. they arent rich because they are stupid, or lazy. they are rich because they work harder, and smarter than you in most cases.

How much is enough? Romney paid over 3 MILLION dollars in taxes last year, to get the same services you did. And thats not enough for you?

Take every dime from the 1 percent and you wont get us out of debt. and any amount you knocked down would be respent by your messiah before the check cleared.

To quote "you act like ignorance is a virtue"

Go back thirty years and Obama's speech sounds like something Reagn might say. Dems sound like Republicans. Republicans sound like Dems. The world is turned upside down.

Even to the stupid the truth should be obvious. These guys don't care about anything but opposing each other. No matter what one side says, the other will oppose it. If Dems opposed homosexual marriage Republicans would support it. If Dems opposed abortion Republicans would support it.

However, don't ever mistake Obama for Reagan. Reagan could comprimise and get people to work together. Reagan was a leader. Obama can neither lead nor get either side to work with one another. He is a president in name only.

The most unfortunate thing in all of this is that there is no Republican worth placing in the White House. It's replacing a known evil with an unknown evil. I always go with the Devil I know. At least you have an idea of what to expect.

American taxpayer to Mr. Obama:

"We can't SPEND our way into growth."

ONE and GONE !!!!!

70% of our deficit was caused in Repub administrations.

Obama's not going anywhere. Americans don't want the disaster of another Repub Presidency.

Obama is not entirely wrong, I'll give him that much. After reading some of the details on the budget plan the House passed, I noticed some tax cuts that I honestly felt were excessive and it was primarily to banks and large corps. Looking over that plan though, and then looking at Obama's proposition, I honestly feel that those cuts might be worth it because while you can't "cut (your) way into growth" you also cannot tax your way into growth, especially when most of the spending will be going back to (surprise surprise) banks and large corps. The difference is government grants can be squandered and lost (Solyndra, MF Global) and then the government is against the wall for it ultimately. With tax cuts to the same, if the money is squandered and lost, it is the company's fault entirely and the people who lose are investors on Wall Street.

Bart Conner "70% of our deficit was caused in Repub administrations."

Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official government source to verify;

Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.

Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.

Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.

Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year.

Obama (2009-2012p) = $5.453 Trillion (Proj) over first 4 years, or $1,363 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.

If Obama is reelected, he projects another $5 Trillion of Deficits in the next 4 years, or over $10 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will have as a 'millstone' around their necks for their entire lives. Running up huge debts is a great way to 'pander for votes', but somebody will have to pay it back (our children) - with interest.

Here's the official government link - See Table 1.3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

@Bart Conner

We're teetering at the edge of a recession. This is NOT the time for massive cuts.

Stop buying into the BS, the government doesn't actually "cut" anything. It's all smoke and mirrors and John Q Public buys it hook line and sinker. Consider the Paul Ryan budget proposal from last year. The critics screamed about the draconian 6 trillion in "cuts" but wait...the current budget is only 4 trillion. How do you cut 6 from 4? Obviously you can't, what you can do is reduce the amount of growth;only in the government is that considered a "cut". In his SotU address Obama bragged bout 2 trillion in "cuts" but all that means is that instead of growing the budget from 4 trillion to 9 trillion over the next decade they're only going to increase it to 7 trillion. As I said, only in the government is a net increase of 3 trillion dollars considered a "cut".

Note as well how 8.4 billion in foreign aid is attached to this 'budget proposal.' Now, Egypt is to get a billion, Afghanistan is slated for 3.3 billion, one billion goes to Pakistan and a paltry 180 million goes to the 'Arab Spring,' whoever and whatever that means.

Hmmm, so guess Americans aren't worth much but the 'Arab Springtime' gets a handout. Nice to know that he's giving money to countries that are in turmoil, countries that hate us and countries rapidly heading towards Islamic fundamentalism.

Money well spent, wouldn't you agree?

skorned:

Who pays your wages, (if you work) hmmmm could be a tough one, lets start with THE RICH!!!!

The government, oh sweet, caring, Uncle Sam! The rich are evil,,,and I dont work for the devil! Sometimes I make a little side cash going to protests...protesting the evil rich of course! Sure I use their products, only because they is a hoggin all the smarts doesnt mean I cant use their products to better my life!

Mr. Anon, If we use numbers that the President provided in speeches during 2009 then he promised that the 2013 federal deficit would not exceed 650 billion dollars yet his own White House is predicting that if congress raises taxes on the rich that the deficit will be a little more than 900 billion dollars, assuming that congress will raise taxes on the rich which will not happen. 900 billion dollars is much more than than the 650 billion dollars that the President promised in 2009.

In his state of the union speech the President spoke of paying down the debt. To do that the budget first has to be balanced but the administration is projecting that the budget will not be balanced for at least another decade. The administration is projecting that debt servicing costs alone will end up costing more than we are paying for definse. Apparently the Presdent lives in a world of economic fantasy but the rest of us have to deal with the real world.

1 trillion dollars a YEAR!!!!!! this is 1 trillion in numbers:

1,000,000,000,000.....thats alot of zeros. If he can do that then I can walk to the moon from the bottom of the deepest trench. In other words: a recovery that big is impossible, even WW2 didn't produce a recovery that big.

TruePatriot-445959Restored

I should just press on the "Ignore this author" pertaining to your posts and not waste my time.

TruePatriot-445959 - Look at history, first our own and austerity versus stimulus. Stimulus is what got us out of the Great Depression.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REWRITE HISTORY, AND DARN SURE DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA.

From 1929 to 1939 many attempts were attempted to get the US out of the Great Depression. The start of the successes was the creation of the Glass Steagall Acts that made Illegal the Causes of the 1907 Depression and the 1929-1939 Great Depression. It took from 1933 till 1939 for the Glass Steagall Acts to take effect; just like it took from 1999-2000 to 2008 for the effects of their Removal by President Clinton to take effect. The Glass Steagall Acts worked from 1933 to 2000. After many attempts at very harsh Regulation that failed, the Glass Steagall Acts were passed into US Law(s) 1933.

After President FDR's Failed New Deal To The American People (US Government spending money did not have to create Jobs, your so called "Stimulus"), President FDR: 1. Nationalized all US Businesses and US Industry (start of the current US Military Defense Industrial Complex)., 2. Suspended All US Labor Union Activities as possible Mussolini Sympathizers (later proven during WWII, US Labor Unions of "Italian Organized Crime" violently striked during the US Military Liberations of Sicily and Italy)., 3. Started the Sales of US Manufactured "War Materials", this got the US Out of the Great Depression 1939 before US Entry into WWII 1941; as President FDR realized that US Consumerism could NOT get the US out of the Great Depression and the sales of "War Materials" could and did., 4. To put more spending money into the hands of the people, he instituted his Universal Health Care for All US Citizens by getting the Insurance Corporations out of the Medical Profession. As it was both the US Labor Unions and Insurance Corporations that were taken over by "Italian Organized Crime" as a "Legit Business with Political Clout"; by getting the Insurance Corporations out of the Medical Profession President FDR was getting rid of "Italian Organized Crime's" main source of money as well as marginalizing Mussolini's supporters at the US, similar to how the US Froze the Jap Financial Assets at the US prior to WWII.

President FDR knew that these measures would work as with the exception of the Suspension of US Labor Union Activities, these were the same measures that Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito used to get their Nations out of the Global Great Depression (people literally starving to death) years before the US. This is why the Germans, Italians, and Japs worshipped them (stopped them from starving to death during the Global Great Depression) and increased their Standards of Living.

US Entry into WWII finally allowed the US to completely recover from the Great Depression. US War Department Study (Recommendations to decrease Catastrophic Accidents at US Munitions Plants and Factories) is implemented by President FDR Nationwide, minimum hours of sleep, maximum numbers of work, skills for pay, child labor laws (except family farms), work place safety, Saturday (Jews) Sunday (Christians) off for "Religious Worship", etc., all those things that the US Labor Unions claim to have done but could not since their Activities were suspended, and President FDR could and did since the US Government controlled all Nationalized US Businesses and US Industry. You can request this US War Department Study thru the Freedom Of Information Act, it is a very large book size of an unabridged College Reference Dictionary, with lots of diagrams similar to "cartoons" (literacy rate was very low back then).

TruePatriot-445959 - And how Teapublicans love to rant about Greece. Spending was a problem, but mostly as it compared to revenue -- No one was paying their damn taxes. Now look at Greece, and the longer they impose austerity the faster unemployment increases. If you don't want to "be like Greece," why do you propose making the same mistakes they've been making?

How about YOUR wanting to repeat the same mistakes and expecting a different Result. How about you researching the percentage of population at Greece that are Greek Government Workers.

And do you REALLY KNOW what happened to Greece. You don't. After the Glass Steagall Acts were removed by President Clinton eventhough the US Congressional Research Agency told him NOT to, Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction became 100% Legal, as to what Goldman Sachs did to Greece. The progression of these Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction are Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, France, Great Britain, Germany. The Chinese and Russian Federation are immune to Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction that can destroy Economies and Governments of Nations as they retained their versions of the Glass Steagall Acts.

So keep talking about Billions while ignoring the hundreds of Trillions. Again WHY is it that President Obama is NOT going to Reinstate the Glass Steagall Acts (I already know why he will NOT). So when you as a President Obama Athletic Supporter (Jock Strap) are eating rationed one can per week for a family of four of Obamachow (Dog Food of undermined sources) BLAME YOURSELF, during the Next "Crisis" of $54.6 Trillion that permanently puts the US into a Depression worse than the Global Great Depression.

TruePatriot-445959 - Tax rates are lower now than ever before. Everyone just needs to pay their damn taxes, and that goes for the 1% and corporations as well as the self-employed and families using tax credits to pay little or nothing. And we need to invest in our country if we want to get out of this mess and remain a Super Power.

Blah, blah, blah, even President Obama stated something correct that the Business Taxes of 35% must be decreased during his 2012 State of the Union Address.

Based on what you are saying and what President Obama is doing, the Chinese are predicted to REPLACE the US as a "Superpower" by 2015. The US then becomes a Fourth World Nation like the Somalis, Afghans, etc. Standard of Living. And if you do not know why, I got more important things to do, than attempting to tell someone Facts based on REAL Research and Real World Life or Death School of Hard Knocks Experience, as your posts indicate, "Don't confuse me with the Facts, Your, TruePatriot-445959 (not so true anything) mind is already made up".

There was NO BUDGET FOR 2009! Just Continuing Resolutions. Bush submitted a Budget but the Democrat Congress didn't act upon it. The LAST Continuing Resolution signed by Bush was Dec. 2008. It covered the Federal spending until Mar. 2009. ANYTHING spent after Mar. 2009 belongs to Obama and the Progressives. Do some research. Here I'll give you a start.

Think about what "continuing resolution means". That means spending is continued from previous levels. Continuing resolutions were also used for the entire fiscal year 2009, as one was signed in March. This means spending stayed at Bush level throughout 2009.

A couple problems with Will Haas' statements.

1. Obama is not a psychic. He cannot predict the total deficit for a budget he did not create. Stimulus revenue was not spent until fiscal year 2010, which was September of 2009. This means that Obama HAS lowered the deficit, contrary to popular belief.
2. The actual deficit for 2009 was $1.5 trillion. The predicted deficit for 2014, only a year into Obama's presidency, is less than $750 billion.
3. As a percentage of the GDP, the deficit will have halved by the 2013 budget, which will be passed during Obama's first term. In other words, he will have halved the deficit. Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html Btw, this is a Tea Party website.
4. Your statement about balancing budgets being necessary to lower the debt is wrong. Obama will have considerably lowered the debt by 2020. Why is this? Actual debt figures are irrelevant. The only thing important is debt as a percentage of GDP. As a percentage of the GDP, every president between FDR and Reagan lowered the debt, even though there were only a handful of balanced budgets. This is because the economy grew at such a level that it outweighed additional spending.
5. Should we take campaign statements and hold Presidents to them? Reagan promised to reduce the debt more than any other president. He nearly did the opposite. Bush Jr. promised a similar thing. At least Obama isn't making wild guesses like these.
6. Do deficits matter? This is a question asked by Dick Cheney. However you view things, spending got us out of the Great Depression. The resulting debt was paid down over time. Why can't we apply the same thing here?

Why was 2.9 collapsed?

In 2008, while running for office, Obama made statements regarding how bad the deficits were that the Bush administration was running. Without any conditions he then vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first administration. The last full fiscal year of the Bush administration was 2008, The federal deficit for that year was 458.55 billion dollars. The last full fiscal year of President Obama's first administration is 2012. So for the President to fulfill the vow that he made in 2008 the 2012 federal deficit cannot exceed 229.27 billion dollars. The administration is currently forecasting a deficit of 1,330 billion dollars for 2012.

From speeches he made in 2009 the President restated his vow but this time he based it on an assumed deficit of 1.3 trillion for 2009 with 2013 being the target year. The federal deficit for 2009 was 1,413 billion dollars so for the President to abide by this pledge the 2013 federal deficit cannot exceed 707 billion dollars. The Obama administration is currently projecting that the 2013 federal deficit will be 901 billion dollars. So the administration is saying that the President will not keep his 2009 promise either. Well, what is the President's excuse?

Will Haas, the deficits during Bush's administration even before 2009 were record, especially compared to Clinton's surplus. "Full fiscal year" is irrelevant. The budget for 2009 was made in 2008. 2009 spending levels were just continued from 2008. Maybe Obama would in fact have halved the deficit were it not for the recession (quite likely, actually, due to ending the wars and ending Bush's tax cuts).

$900 billion divided by $700 billion is just 29% off. A $900 billion deficit is just 64.3% of Bush's deficit. I'd say that's fairly within the margin of error, especially considering that even in 2009, the severity of the recession was underestimated. Once again, compare this to Bush and Reagan's claims that they would reduce the debt more than any other president. As we both know, they did virtually the opposite.

When Obama gets elected to his second term, his last deficit will be some $500 billion, nearly one third of Bush's last deficit. Let's say Obama gets the chance to reform tax expenditures. He will end up with a $400 billion surplus (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3472).

So you are trying to make excuses for the President. He either keeps or does not keep his promise. There is no margin of error. The President made his promise without conditions. I do not care about Reagan or Bush. Reagan is dead and Bush is no longer in office. It is a matter of our current President's credibility. If he cannot keep his promises then he should have not have made them in the first place. The President said that deficit spending was bad and then he proceeded to run up some of the largest deficits ever. The President seems to be convinced that we can spend our way to prosperity but so far it is not working. In early 2009 the Obama administration released a report that projected unemployment. The report includes a graph projecting unemployment vs time. There is one curve that projects unemployment without the stimulus and another curve showing unemployment without the stimulus. To date we are almost as well as if there were no stimulus at all. In other words the stimulus did not improve the unemployment situation at all yet it added about 800 billion to the debt and now the President wants to do it again. This debt is really getting bad. The administration is projecting that within a decade we will be paying more to service the debt than for defense. In his state of the union speech the President talked about starting to pay down the debt but he has never tried to explain what it is going to take to pay back all of this money we are borrowing. His administration is predicting that the debt is just going to keep increasing for at least a decade. I agree with President Obama that the deficits run during the Bush administration were bad but to date Obama's deficits have been much worse. With such a large trade deficit the money that was poured into the economy during the Bush administration did not solve our economic woes and the money that the Obama administration is adding is not helping either. More money increase demand for products and services but because so many of those products and services are produced in foreign countries our money flows out to foreign countries where our money helps job creation in their economy and all we are left with is debt. Until the trade deficit problems our solved problems in our economy are going to continue and most likely get worse. We spent quite bit of money during WWII but we emerged at the manufacturing power of the world. Now we are spending like crazy but are becoming more and more on other countries for the goods and services that we need and use. Even something as trivial as light bulbs. Apparently we do not make those any more yet we probably use more of them per capita that any other country in the world.

Mr. Anon "Think about what "continuing resolution means". That means spending is continued from previous levels. Continuing resolutions were also used for the entire fiscal year 2009, as one was signed in March. This means spending stayed at Bush level throughout 2009."

Nonsense. The total spending for Bush's last year in office (2008) was $2.983 Trillion, and Bush's continuing resolution, signed on September 30, 2008, provided spending at 2008 levels until early March 2009. Obama increased that to $3.518 Trillion for 2009 with his 'Stimulus' bill and his 'Porkulus' bill, which he signed in March 2009. That was an increase of $535 Billion (18%), by far the largest increase in spending in history.

@Mr. Anon

$900 billion divided by $700 billion is just 29% off. A $900 billion deficit is just 64.3% of Bush's deficit. I'd say that's fairly within the margin of error, especially considering that even in 2009, the severity of the recession was underestimated. Once again, compare this to Bush and Reagan's claims that they would reduce the debt more than any other president. As we both know, they did virtually the opposite.

ROTFLMAO! You realize that this $900 billion figure is nothing more than an estimate by Obama right? An estimate that is so laughable that even Harry Reid won't even bring Obama's budget to the floor. The Dems have the 50 votes they need to pass a budget item in the Senate, Why won't they vote and pass it? Obama's 900 billion figure is EVERY BIT as much bunkus as were the Regan and Bush estimates.

Obama's estimate is based heavily on increased revenue from raising taxes. These estimates NEVER raise as much as they claim they will due in large part to the Laffer Curve. The tanning tax which is supposedly going to help pay for Obamacare is a good example-

"The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this new “Snooki” tax (part of the awful Obamacare legislation) was going to raise about $50 million every three months.

Yet during the first nine months, the tax raised just $54.4 million, not $150 million.."-http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/the-laffer-curve-wins-again-snooki-1-irs-0/

If you are going to accept Obama's 900 billion dollar figure I'm sure he'd like to talk to you about a bridge he has for sale also. lol!

Mr. Anon

Obama will have considerably lowered the debt by 2020. Why is this? Actual debt figures are irrelevant.

This definately IS the type of logic one must grasp at if they at all support Obama. Complete ignorance.

Try telling the banks (that recently DOWNGRADED THE USA UNDER OBAMA) that!

ROY WILSON-336103

Mr. Anon "Think about what "continuing resolution means". That means spending is continued from previous levels. Continuing resolutions were also used for the entire fiscal year 2009, as one was signed in March. This means spending stayed at Bush level throughout 2009."

Nonsense. The total spending for Bush's last year in office (2008) was $2.983 Trillion, and Bush's continuing resolution, signed on September 30, 2008, provided spending at 2008 levels until early March 2009. Obama increased that to $3.518 Trillion for 2009 with his 'Stimulus' bill and his 'Porkulus' bill, which he signed in March 2009. That was an increase of $535 Billion (18%), by far the largest increase in spending in history.

Your numbers are off. Bush requested $3.107 trillion in spending, not $2.9 trillion. The remaining $400 billion was Obama's spending, but in a recession that is what you do. Since the predicted deficit for 2009, even before Obama entered office, was $1.2 trillion, Obama has actually lowered the deficit as 2013 will yield a $900 billion deficit. Our friend Will Haas even pointed out that when Obama was inaugurated, the predicted deficit was $1.4 trillion.

Backcountry164

@Mr. Anon

$900 billion divided by $700 billion is just 29% off. A $900 billion deficit is just 64.3% of Bush's deficit. I'd say that's fairly within the margin of error, especially considering that even in 2009, the severity of the recession was underestimated. Once again, compare this to Bush and Reagan's claims that they would reduce the debt more than any other president. As we both know, they did virtually the opposite.

ROTFLMAO! You realize that this $900 billion figure is nothing more than an estimate by Obama right? An estimate that is so laughable that even Harry Reid won't even bring Obama's budget to the floor. The Dems have the 50 votes they need to pass a budget item in the Senate, Why won't they vote and pass it? Obama's 900 billion figure is EVERY BIT as much bunkus as were the Regan and Bush estimates.

Obama's estimate is based heavily on increased revenue from raising taxes. These estimates NEVER raise as much as they claim they will due in large part to the Laffer Curve. The tanning tax which is supposedly going to help pay for Obamacare is a good example-

"The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this new “Snooki” tax (part of the awful Obamacare legislation) was going to raise about $50 million every three months.

Yet during the first nine months, the tax raised just $54.4 million, not $150 million.."-http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/the-laffer-curve-wins-again-snooki-1-irs-0/

If you are going to accept Obama's 900 billion dollar figure I'm sure he'd like to talk to you about a bridge he has for sale also. lol!

Once again, you assume the Laffer curve, which has been disproven time after time (see the Reagan example). $900 billion is very close to CBO's estimate, which is nonpartisan.

justoneguy

Mr. Anon

Obama will have considerably lowered the debt by 2020. Why is this? Actual debt figures are irrelevant.

This definately IS the type of logic one must grasp at if they at all support Obama. Complete ignorance.

Try telling the banks (that recently DOWNGRADED THE USA UNDER OBAMA) that!

Wow, nice job taking my entire statement out of context. By the way, only one bank downgraded the US credit rating, and that was because of Republican obstructionism.

Now, an ignored point I made were reforming tax expenditures, which will alone balance the budget. Also ignored were my points about worrying about the debt being unnecessary during the recession, and my points about holding Obama exactly to an underestimated campaign promise being picking straws, especially considering Reagan and Bush Jr.

Mr. Anon

Wow, nice job taking my entire statement out of context. By the way, only one bank downgraded the US credit rating, and that was because of Republican obstructionism..

No...not out of context AT ALL!! You are trying to say the the national debt is irrelevant. IT IS RELEVANT no matter the 'smoke and mirrors' that you AND OUR PRESIDENT are trying to introduce. The national debt is RELEVANT no matter how you paint it.

Find another patsy.....

Justoneguy, it's clearly out of context. If you showed the rest of my post, you'd see that I was referring to raw numbers vs percentage of GDP. $15 trillion is a meaningless figure. 100% of the GDP is a meaningful figure. Oh, you're going to take that out of context as well.

No..No NO...you are trying to manipulate numbers, and attempting to hide the fact that our President has spent us into a hole (most importantly) with no results.

OWN THE DEFICIT - - OWN OBAMA'S FAILURE!!!

Justoneguy, do you deny that debt as a percentage of GDP is more important than raw numbers?

I am going to explain this slowly, but this is the last time.

$100 billion seems like a small amount now, as we have deficits in the trillions. However, 100 years ago, a $100 billion deficit would have been considered gigantic. This is because of inflation, which causes the value of money to gradually decrease over time. To adjust for inflation, we have to use debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, which is the total amount of money in the country. As a percentage of the GDP, the debt was at its peak in WWII, at 120% of the GDP. Right now, the debt is somewhere near 100% of the GDP, and is expected to slowly decrease over the decade but still stay around the high 90%.

Using this method is inconvenient for Republicans, because if you look at history, every president between Reagan and Roosevelt decreased the debt as a percentage of GDP, and then Reagan and the Bushes decide to increase it.

All they can do is say they would cut more. Economists know that draconian cuts will stall the recovery and lead to more unemployment.

Deborah: CONGRESS has submitted several budgets, sent them up to the Senate, and the Senate (Dem.majority) has done NOTHING with them. Just set them aside, sit on their hands......then say it is the fault of the Congress (Rep. majority). Just political games. Congress has been working, and the Senate deliberately drops the ball. Obama has even refused to meet with Congress to discuss a possible budget. It's an election year so NOW Obama decides to submit his own budget. He is clueless about economics and business. His answer is just higher taxes, waivers for his friends, class warfare. It's OUR money he's spending, he'll still get his salary and top shelf benefits and live the high life of luxury at our expense, so it doesn't matter to him. He loves spending other peoples' money.

So Eric what is your solution? Continue to spend money we don't have and cross our fingers and toes that some how some way that in a few years somehow somebody figures out a way to actually spend less money than we take in?

Because at some point we will be using ALL the money the Government collects in taxes on just paying interest on the money we borrowed. There won't be ANY money left over for Medicare or Social Security, you know the things that people think they deserve because they paid into?

Then what happens when the Government has to send out IOU's to people thinking they are getting a Social Security check?

Regarding infrastructure, the republicans have the queerest notion about it. They would allow sewage and water systems to fall into total disrepair then replace it with 'outhouses and wells". Additiionally, they would allow all our bridges to fall down and replace them with foot logs, pontoon bridges, Etc. etc. Yet, they wish a nuclear power plant to be located every 3 miles in all areas within all states. I'm beginning to believe this isn't just politics. I contend, for whatever reason, most republicans suffer from institutionalized regressive functionality disorder. They are simply crazy.

Janet Anderson

yea they voted for it because all the republicans were spewing was that if you didn't you were against the soldiers and a traitor to America. Unfortunately they fell for that. Of course that was before we discovered all the lies about WMD's.

So what you are saying is that democrats are both ignorant (they didn't know enough about the WMD's but went ahead with the invasion anyway) and that they are easily swayed by an ever shifting wind as in your words they accepted something the republicans said and went along with it.

You and other left wing nut jobs continue to make a case against the democrats with what you perceive as a problem with republicans.

If the elected democrats are so ignorant and easily swayed, it certainly doesn't give good reason for any of us to elect more democrats or re-elect the ones in office now.

poor Janet!

It's not poor Janet, it's poor those of you on the right that don't know what you're talking about.

The Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq because they were lied to by the Bush administration.

America was told that there were weapons of mass destruction (none were ever found), that the Iraqis had been dealing in materials used to make atomic weapons (later admitted to be a complete fabrication) and that Al Quada was operating out of Iraq (they were in fact operating out of Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Read history, learn the facts, stop denying the truth.

You better go read up on what your demorats said on post 4.3. It is amazing how you demorats can't stop blaming Bush when it is now Obamy's problem.

Read history, learn the facts, stop denying the truth.

You should try some of that. Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. George Bush followed through. The Clinton Administration believed there was wmds.

Yes it's Obama's problem now. One that took your right wing leaders 8 years to craft through serious concerted effort and a campaign of lies against this nation. You can't blame someone for a problem you created. That my simple minded friend, is pure insanity.

You can't blame someone for a problem you created. That my simple minded friend, is pure insanity.

Words to live by, you should practice what you preach.

Dems are VERY easily swayed. You should read some of the books coming from ex-KGB bigshots reminiscing about how easy it was to sucker the liberals.

There will be NO FIGHT when Mr. Obama's budget gets to the Congressional Halls.

Mr. Reid has already stated that the budget will be SHELVED with NO VOTE since the Democrats don't want their VOTE known when they are up for re-election.

This is going to be the FIRST TIME in U.S. history that a President and Congress have failed to run our government with A BUDGET in, what, FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS ?

And the Liberals are eating it up.

Actually, there's a 2011 budget, enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

And a 2010 budget, submitted in 2009... and a 2009 budget submitted by G.W.Bush...

So...No, it's not the first time in history...it's Never Happened ldo....NEVER.

Mac Forrester

Regarding infrastructure, the republicans have the queerest notion about it. They would allow sewage and water systems to fall into total disrepair then replace it with 'outhouses and wells". Additiionally, they would allow all our bridges to fall down and replace them with foot logs, pontoon bridges, Etc. etc

Ummm, ya right - Good Grief!

Scare the voters 101 - (Democrat Freshman Coursework)

democrats are very good at demogoguery and taxing and spending. Budgets are another matter.

Budgets? We don't need no stinking budgets.

Nope, we'll follow the Grecian example, look how well it is currently working for Greece.

I wonder what it would be like if Obama was out to destroy this country? Some might think it would look exactly like the country he claims to be saving.

mygirl1

I guess you forgot about the 8 years of the Bush budgets. Record deficits, pay for nothing, put it all on the credit card. Remember Cheney saying "deficits don't matter"? By the way you should do some research about Greece's problems, before you compare them to the U.S.

It's the Repubs who like to blame.

9/11? Clinton's fault

Wars? Dems' fault

Recession that started before Obama? Obama's fault

...but take credit for successes: Osama killed years after Bush left office? Because of Bush.

HILARIOUS!

Poor, mygirl1--still spouting the same Repub propaganda.

Dems tax and spend? These are the lowest tax rates in history. As for spending, the Bush administration added 5 trillion to the deficit (Obama added 1.6 trillion--to get us out of recession).

Looks like Repubs are doing all the borrowing and spending.

Yes, some of the lowest tax rates in history and you honestly believe it is the democrats who pushed to lower said rates??? Talk about confused. Note that Obama has created the highest national debt in history and has done so in less than four years. Now he wants to spend us out of more massive debt and you still don't have a problem with that?

Conner since you worship at the feet of PBO and hate Bush.Why?

They have done the same exact things, spend more than we have, create a bigger Government, take some of our rights away (Patriot Act), cut taxes, go to war(s), bail out companies, try a stimulus package, create crappy education plans, lie to the American people, I mean what is the difference?

Where do you get the 1.6 trillion number? Just the first year?

fielden.....newbie

WMD info was gathered long before Bush came into office....public school?....good luck with that

Janet Anderson

Since you do not have Firsthand Experience with that:

President Clinton's State of the Union Address Demanding to a Joint Session of US Congress passage of US Law, H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998", Section 2 "Findings" JUSTIFICATION WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. President Clinton's H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" becomes US Military Operation Iraqis Freedom 1998 to 2011 after President Clinton's Operation Desert Fox Failed:

Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.

This is where all that WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CRAP CAME FROM NOT BUSH.

And I told all of you before, from being on the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, that the Chemical Weapons were used to END the Iran Iraq Wars, just like the US use of Nuclear Weapons made it unnecessary for the US Invasion of Japan during US Military Operation Downfall, resulting in the loss of millions on both sides. The Kurdistanis were/are the armed (men, women, children conducting Guerrilla Warfare) allies of Iran. I also hinted as to where the Chemical Weapons came from, and that the Chemical Weapons were destroyed at the Iraqis Munitions Storage Facility Northwest of Basra at the end of the First Gulf War; but, President Clinton insisted (His motives):

Iraq (I wrote this in the third person eventhough I was involved since the 1980s):

http://david393071.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/17/8369272-iraq

Janet Anderson - surplus

If you want to keep being uninformed and uneducated, oh well, as you keep saying "Budget Surplus" like that really means something, especially since Repugnant Controlled US Congress Sandbagged President Clinton's Budget (Appropriated more money than President Clinton could spend). The real indicator of the US Economy (after the fact) is:

The Interest on the National Deficit:

President Clinton: $18.9 Billion.

President Bush: $16.6 Billion.

Bart Conner - 9/11? Clinton's fault

Since it is clearly obvious that you were not even around during those times. Why don't you READ the US Congressional 9/11 Committee Findings and Recommendations.

It was President Clinton that Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies, especially the President's Own Executive Intelligence Agency, the CIA, that decreased the millions of Intelligence Assets worldwide to thousands or none at potentially Hostile Nations. That was like President Clinton sticking a sharp stick into his own eyes on the World. This lead to Intelligence Blackouts of entire Regions, the US then having to rely on non crediable non verifiable information from "Potentially Hostile Nations" like Jordan and Pakistan.

It will be Decades before the US Intelligence Agencies regain their previous Intelligence gathering capabilities as many Hostile Nations Counter Intelligence will be waiting for US Attempts at reestablishing the Intelligence Assets at their Nations as built up during Director of the CIA Bush (President 41).

President Clinton's Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces (RIF's) of the US Military included the elimination of USAF Aircraft at US Civilian Airports as Interceptors, as well as the US Army Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries that used to be near most US Cities. This also eliminated many of the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces that thru Special Reconassiance independently verify Intelligence with this Intelligence becoming "Actionable" intelligence.

Without Intelligence from the US Intelligence Agencies or the capability to link up with Intelligence Assets in the Potentially Hostile Nations, caused us to go into these Nations "Blind" , Somalia, Operation Desert Fox, weeks after the 9/11 2001 Attacks at Afghanistan, 2002 Operation Hotel California, etc.. And DO NOT TELL ME NO, I was involved (Firsthand Experience).

Bart Conner - Wars? Dems' fault

Iraq:

http://david393071.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/17/8369272-iraq

Bart Conner - Recession that started before Obama? Obama's fault

Try Depression. See post#2.73.

Bart Conner -...but take credit for successes: Osama killed years after Bush left office? Because of Bush.

Once again. President Bush's Amending the US No Assassination Policy, 2006.

AND:

I will not even bring up the Termination of Osama Bin Laden, the Rescue of Captain Phillips, etc., all of you can wait 20 years and using the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) obtain the Mission Videos, Video Conferences between the C4I Helicopter, Afghanistan (General Petraeus, and Bagram AFB), SOC, JSOC (then Admiral McRaven), CIA (then Leon Penetta), Pentagon, White House. Then all of you will have to eat your previous words about President Obama's involvement (actual lack of).

By the way these videos cannot be "accidentally erased" as they are on multiple media (including DVDs), most of the US Military did this to Cover Our Arses so that the US Politicians cannot use us as Politically Expedient Scapegoats like before (too many times).

Bart Conner -...HILARIOUS!

Yes you are Bart Simpson.

Delete

It was Obama, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Congress, the Federal Reserve, us as citizens. We all allow and endorse a continuation of overspending.

sacred - "those tax cuts for the rich, two wars and Medicare prescription drug policy have added untold trillions to the debt. Oh wait, but that wasn't Obama..."

You're right, Obama extended the tax cuts, added a 3rd war, forced Obamacare on America during a recession, wasted TRILLIONS bailing out banks and Unions, and most recently is pushing to lower the corporate tax rate, all while pandering to foreign criminals illegally residing on American soil... that is your Obama.

Technically, Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts for only the middle class, but the GOP forced him to extend it for all of them. The war in Libya was less costly then the other two and could reap benefits, with the Libyans possibly allying with the US or at least showing good faith towards the West for the liberation, which in diplomacy can be more valuable than gold or oil. Obama-care, as you cons call it, is projected by the CBO to shave off some billions from future deficits and has nothing to do with the depression. Obama did what was necessary to bail out the banks (like Bush did), and spent billions (not trillions) to reverse the recession, and he succeeded. Show me where he spent on unions. And don't you conservatives want a lower corporate tax rate???

Technically, Obama wants to show "mercy" towards illegal immigrants. You can agree with him or disagree, but don't let me catch you calling them foreign criminals. Yes they broke the law, but have you no mercy for your fellow man??? All these people want are a share of the American Dream, and just couldn't bear to wait for years just to get a green card (yet it is illegal). He, like many liberals, wants to show mercy for these people, and that can be either good or bad. These people don't take jobs away from Americans-they take the jobs that citizens don't want. Do you know any American who would like to work $5 a day picking radishes in summer??? Few would, unless driven by an intense determination to find work. So cut the right-wing crap pjam and get a life. Seek the truth, for the truth shall set you free...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee

Yes the truth sets you free. But people like Pjam can't seek the truth because it's in direct conflict with their twisted failed ideology.

And then we complain when a group like the teaparty comes along and actually wants LESS from the govt.

Consult the spending records of the majority of TP/GOP and you will find that those electees have SPENT billions on "Pork Barrel" projects, mostly within their States, by construing them to be mandated expenditures rather than what they are. Truth in advertising? NAY.

Dangerous Mind

.... people like Pjam can't seek the truth because it's in direct conflict with their twisted failed ideology.

Typical ranting and name-calling when Obama's epic fails are called to account.

Pathetic.

Easiest way to solve the criminal alien problem?

Pass laws making it legal to shoot them where you find them

"You can agree with him or disagree, but don't let me catch you calling them foreign criminals. Yes they broke the law, but have you no mercy for your fellow man???"

So.....they broke the law....but they are not criminals? hmmm. If this is your idea of logic than no wonder the Dems are so twisted in their ideology. That's one way to try and win an argument....redefine words so that they no longer mean what they mean.

Just a reminder: Banks were bailed out under BUSH.

Repubs have tried to shift this to Obama to convince the stupid minions--but no one's buying it.

By the way, the stimulus saved 3 million jobs according to the nonpartisan CBO.

...and that's not what drove the debt, either. Typical leftist dodge. Here's the facts:

The stimulus saved three million jobs? Where, exactly?

Ryan's plans always includes more tax cuts for the richest. Ryan's Plan was to end Medicare and then make it into a voucher plan where seniors have to play a lot more out of pocket. Trusting anything these treacherous republicans want done will never help the country out of the recession that still is possible for us to slide back into. Depression will be the result with the GOP at the wheel. They have so many corporate lobbyists to please. Lots of pollution and lots of harm to everyone but the wealthy.

C ... while telling the passengers that the road is just bumpy.

A better analogy is :

You're in a ship at sea. You hit an iceberg. Do you:
a) Fix the leak and bail water until it's fixed (government spending)
b) do nothing and hope it fixes itself (cut spending) or
c) put the wealthy in life boats so they can build a better ship to pick the people in steerage up before the ship sinks (tax cuts for "job creators")

The answer is pay the damn bill. You do the with cutting spending and raising revenue. How hard is that to figure out?

We've been paying revenue mudsharktoo, or don't you pay taxes already? Now we can afford Government healthcare too?? ENOUGH SPENDING!!

Man the damn lifeboats already!!

This President has no clue, none! Clean up government waste and fraud!

This country can not continue to GROW GOVERNMENT as has been done under Bush and NOW OBAMA!

Government intervention in the private free enterprise system, is not a cure all, but the problem!

Simple solutions the crooks in Washington ignore, including the President = Term limits for these crooks, fix the tax code to a flat tax on all, based on income!

Cut, Cap, Balance! Stop Government waste and fraud!

how will cleaning up government waste and fraud suddenly make our economy grow?

...crickets...

The analogy of the ship hitting the iceberg fails because it makes some incorrect assumptions. One doesn't have to look far to determine that the government is more likely to look for ways to increase the cost (regulation), lengthen the timeframe for repairs (waiting for a green solution/environmental impact study), give the contract to their friends who may not even be competent to repair a ship (where did the bailouts really go?), etc. They would send the bill to those who paid for the nicer cabins and open the bar for everyone else (that's where the captain was when we hit the iceberg).

Ba-roke Obama.

While we're on the subject of bad analogies, running government is not like running a business. I've never heard a single businessman say "we need less revenue and to shrink our business."

Nope, and how many bureaucrats are out there making something tangible? How many bureaucrats are actually investing their work with sweat equity, willing to take chances and running the risk of failure if their ideas don't pan out? How many bureaucrats actually create something other than reams and reams of self-sustaining, job-securing paperwork?

You're in a ship at sea. You hit an iceberg.

Government solution - Pass a law banning icebergs.

The government never looks at the reason for any thing, for example schools aren't performing, what do they do, throw money at the problem. Still schools don't perform and the government answer is we didn't throw enough money at it the first time we need to throw more money.

Remember that was the Dems idea after their first big stimulus didn't get un-employment under the promised 8%, the problem was is just wasn't big enough.

The government solution was actually to require enough lifeboats on the ship for everybody on board. It's also the reason so few passenger liners are registered in the U.S. - we have tighter safety regulations.

As for banning icebergs: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/

We just track the ice. We don't ban it. It isn't trying to get a same-ice marriage, after all...

they act like President Obama is the first to run budget deficits

Ah, but remember ~ when we had a Republican President, deficits didn't matter! For some unexplainable reason, now that we have a Democratic President, they do! Go figure ~

Pelosi, Reid, and other democrats ran on a platform of cutting deficit spending in 2006.

Once they gained control of Congress, deficit spending tripled.

What happened?

I have yet to hear an answer fron a democrat concerning this.

phil - "they act like President Obama is the first to run budget deficits"

No, they just acknowledge that he is the first ever to run the deficit over $1 TRILLION every year and not show the slightest bit of concern for the long-term damage as long as he can continue to buy votes from idiots who actually believe that handouts are free.

Pjam, there is more to the value of $1 trillion than you know of. The $1 trillion deficits are valued in 2012 dollars. Obama running trillion-dollar deficits is not good, but he wasn't the first. Bush made the budget for 2009 (which had about $1.2 trillion deficit), so he was the first trillion deficiteer. And valuing a deficit by nominal dollars is not the best way to show it. It is better to show it in a GDP ratio. The deficit is around 8% of GDP. About 70 years ago, we ran huge deficits during the Great Depression, larger than ever before. So don't say that "he was the first to run a trillion deficit."

Secondly, Obama didn't show any concern at first to the deficit because his main focus was the economy. You cannot cut the budget in a recession; it would be suicide. So he naturally spent our way out of the recession and into the recovery, as did his predecessors. Obama has since focused much of his attention on the deficit, and has even offered plans to cut it down in a balanced manner.

Tammy, the Democrats in 2006 didn't know of the impending economic collapse. And you cannot blame the deficit on them, as revenues decreased by over $400 billion in 2009 and spending jumped perhaps another $400-500 billion due to our safety nets, putting the deficit well over $1 trillion. Recessions reduce revenues and raise spending, so you might as well blame the recession for our deficits.

Obama's deficit plans are not enough to fix our fiscal crisis, but they are a good foundation to build upon. Cutting $4 trillion from the deficit will help lower projected deficits and debt, and if we can build on that with perhaps a few more trillion in extra cuts and revenue increases, we can get a surplus by perhaps the end of the decade. But we need cuts AND revenues or we might as well default and send the global economy back to the Dark Ages, which is apparently what you right-wing idiots want...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Tammy, and Teabaggers ran on a platform of job creation. Where the hell are the teabagging nutcases anyway? They obstructed, yelled, screamed, cried like a bunch of babies and then ran, pretty much disappeared. You don't hear a word from those lunatics anymore. Not that that's a bad thing, of course. Who wants to hear their nonsense anyway?

Tammy-311614

Pelosi, Reid, and other democrats ran on a platform of cutting deficit spending in 2006.

Once they gained control of Congress, deficit spending tripled.

What happened?

I have yet to hear an answer fron a democrat concerning this.

Bush was hiding the real cost of the wars by passing emergency appropriations, remember that these don't get added to the budget, therefore thy don't appear as deficit. Democrats come in and they want everything on the books, bush promises to veto anything that comes to hes desk. Then Obama comes in and gets all the books in order.

458 billion for 2008 per cbo, projected to be 500+ billion in 2009

add in the 500+ in revenue lost in 2008 because of the Bush recession

add in the wars to the budget and we get a 1.42 trillion deficit.

Look it up tammy.

Ahhh, the last bastion of those who cannot explain away the indefensible....blame someone else.

That's the ticket.

Rather than holding someone accountable for the job they were hired to do, someone who should be making things better rather than worse, someone who should be righting the wrongs of the previous administration, his supporters let him do exactly the same things that his predecessor did ( along with more spending, much more spending) and make excuses for his actions.

That's a tried and true remedy for making things better, right? Don't hold the current president accountable for his actions, nope, lets make excuses. Let's not demand changes that are truly beneficial rather than campaigning rhetoric, nope, let's make excuses.

Blaming Bush continuously is like the alcoholic who blames anyone and anything for his drinking problem.

If only there hadn't been a Bush then Obama would be a much better president? Obama is weak because of Bush...Uh huh. Guess it helps if your supporters aren't capable of demanding better than same crap presented in a different package.

jimsepa

Tammy, and Teabaggers .... .... teabagging nutcases ....yelled, screamed, cried like a bunch of babies ..... those lunatics anymore. ... their nonsense .....

Careful jimsepa, your IQ is showing....

Which brown people? Bush bombed Mexico? Arabs are Caucasians. Leftist idiots

failed coloring in kindergarten.

Give Obama a freaking break. This financial mess took over a decade to build. Do you really think Obama should have fixed it in 3 years?

This, of course, is the Repub mantra, trying to get people to forget that this will take years to improve. We aren't stupid.

Leftsux: Caucasians can be brown--Arabs, Indians, Latinos--all brown and all caucasian.

I guess you failed anthropology...or didn't even get pass the 8th grade.

When will you people realize that the mess we are in has a two party cause? The whole lot of them are guilty as sin for this mess and they want to blame somebody else for it. Cowards. And you all let them manipulate you! As long as it's always the other party's fault, nothing will ever get fixed.

Ask yourself this: Would you ever let your household budget get this out of control? If the answer is no, you have to vote against the incumbent, period. Doesn't matter if they have a D or R next to their name. It's inconsequential, they screwed up, they deserve to lose their job.

It isn't what they hold now that we are concerned about. It is what they are going to hold in the future. The GOP is actually looking ahead to try to stop some problems in the future with SS & Medicare. SS has a surplus now, but medicare doesn't come close. By the time I retire they will be nearly $30 trillion in debt. By the time my kids will retire, it simply won't be around or it will have over $100 trillion. That is what we will get if we leave the programs alone. We will be like the people of Greece complaining that we are not getting what we were promised because there is no longer any money. Please educate yourself. Neither party disagrees with the numbers, but the democrats simply prey on those that are uninformed.

I kind of think when the baby boomers die off, this will right itself. I come from a family of five kids, I have two. It should be just for those who pay into it.

But PutAmericaFirst, if SS and Medicare are going broke in 5 to 10 years or even two years. Why are the GOP so worry right now? Can't we work on the problems at hand? Fix the economy, fix the employment problem, fix the housing problems. Lets tackle these problems first, then see if SS and Medicare needs help later. If the employment gets better and more people have jobs and pay into SS and Medicare it may fix it's self's. Why do we need to worry about the future, if we can't fix our present day problems?

Simple. They're focused on those programs because they want to dole them out to private business to trade on the market, and reduce benefits to vouchers that won't cover people fully. In short they want to raid that money for their corporate benefactors' personal profit. Morons don't realize this country rejects efforts to dismantle SS and MC by an overwhelming majority. If they keep pushing idiot plans like Ryan's their careers will be cut short. Whether they're based in conservative districts at home or not.

sheila, but they are paying out more than they have taken in and there are other expenditures the federal govt is not addressing. It is unsustainable.

Sheila, you want to blame the Republicans. Read the shortcut on the internet.

http://pearlriverpatriots.com/SocialSecurityFacts/index.html

The democrats have abused it for years. Where do you think the payroll taxcut comes out of? The SSI fund which will be insolvent by 2036, before the payroll taxcut.

We can not spend our way in to prosperity, either. We tried that with an almost $1 trillion stimulus that did almost nothing. obama with the democrats want to spend and tax us in to Greece. I can't wait for some years down the road, where just like Greece they are cutting the entitlements that they had for decades. Wait until the federal government is on the verge of bankruptcy and they have to come back and cut what we get. That is what your democrats are doing for you. Ignoring our spending problem.

I agree and a story you wont find here is the he has totally lost the catholic vote now with the total rejection of his attempt to compromise on yet another intrusion into peoples life's with mandated health-care ... This morning our priest explained to the congregation why the compromise was rejected and also to vote someone with true american values ... hmmmm ... going to get interesting now !!!

Pyro...sounds like your priest doesn't believe in separation of church and state. He's using his pulpit to expound on his views politically. Funny how the same party that is against intrusion in private lives is so intent on regulating behavior in the bedroom and refusing women's right to their own body. I used to be a registered GOP voter but went Democrat when I saw the Republican hypocrisy. I seriously doubt that all Catholics are in agreement with your priest.

Pyro, every election every minister in the country is telling the congregation to go out and vote their conscience, usually pointed in the republican way. We all go out and make up our own minds and leave individuals to make their own decisions on those things the republican party is against, mainly abortion and homosexual anything.

Sheila

How many different Churches have you been to in the last year??

Actually, one. But I still hold the argument to be true. I have friends from different churches and it seems to be the case.

Slodon, pyro, I am a Catholic, and I have no problem with contraception, abortion when necessary, or gay marriage. In fact, I support all three. And while I may have some reservations on shifting the burden to the insurance companies (then again, I am not very much informed on areas of insurance company policy...), I have no problem with the law as a Catholic. Yes, the Catholic Church officially is against contraception, but then again the church receives millions in tax breaks from the government. So if the government gives them tax breaks, then it seems fair that they offer contraceptives to their workers. And let me give you a question. You are an employer, and you are against medicine (Christian Scientist). But one day one of your employees comes in with leprosy (a treatable disease with medicine) and wonders if your insurance policy covers leprosy. Tell me; would you go against your religious beliefs to help that employee with the insurance policy and allow them to get the medicine, or would you stick to your guns and say no, I don't believe in medicine, and so you can't use it. It is one thing for an institution to oppose something; it's quite another to deny their employees or believers the right to do that thing.

FYI, I got this from the most recent Family Guy episode. Guess there are some things in modern television that can be seriously applied into real-life problems. THANK YOU SETH MCFARLANE!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

There is no separation of church and state. The state is supposed to stay out of the church but there's nothing about the church staying out of state. That's just an atheist socialist myth trying to neutralize their traditional enemy.

peanutGalleryTheater: The church is no more than a big bank and has biggest pimp system the world has ever seen, it is just sad that there are so many people who refuse to use their own minds, look at reality and think for themselfves.

Freshieee. You're right. I say employers should also be forced to pay for our food too. Everyone has the right to have food.

hawk-2946882. Try the largest charity the world has ever seen.

Amen to that.

Stats show Catholics actually AGREE with Obama on birth control! The Catholic vote is staying with Obama. Catholics in America have never listened to the old bishops.

Bart, You are truely naive.

The best way to deal with our current economic crisis is for everyone to quit working and go on the dole. Just think, there won't be a need for employers to do anything since the only source of money will come from the Federal Government. Everyone will be equal, they will have their every need met by the largesse of the Federal Government. There will be no need for student loans since no one will need to think or better themselves. All will be equal and no one will suffer.

Bart, you cannot be a true practicing Catholic if you support abortion. Therefore you are against the faith's creed. That is your right, but stop being a hypocrite.

Paul is just trying to pave the way for his son.

Or as the KGB used to call you liberals, "a dup".

BULL@!$%# Freshieee, there is no such thing as a rational liberal.

Freshieee - since when does BIG mean strong? You need to realize that BIG is synonymous with ineffective. EVERYTHING that has been run by government has been a fiscal disaster. EVERYTHING it controls is bankrupt. WHY would you want the government running anything it doesn't need to? People like you are the reason why we are so out of control...you trust our government to do everything for you. It seems the more the government oversteps is Constitutional purpose, the more you like it. I hate to tell you buddy...That is Marxism. Plain and simple.

why are you lending such credence to the KGB???

Then again, since when does a freedom mean small government??? Since when does big government mean less freedom???

"Everything that has been run by government has been a fiscal disaster."

Not true, Wall Street isn't run by the government, and they cost the taxpayer $700 billion....

I don't trust the government to do everything, but I do not believe that government is always the problem. And the Constitution is 200 years old; anyone that follows a 200-year old document to the word is an idiot. Now, more than ever, people need to be PRAGMATIC. Not ideological, but PRAGMATIC. I keep saying that we have to have a FLEXIBLE interpretation of the Constitution in order to survive in this world.

And Jeff W., what about Thomas Jefferson??? He was a liberal in his days; sure he advocated for a small government, but he also called for liberal ideas like equality and government by the common people. Apparently he is an idiot....

Oh and elk, I have always wondered why conservatives bring up the term "Big Brother," even though it was thought up by a liberal social democrat named George Orwell....

Freshee, since the roman days, big government means less individual freedom.

Freeshie: Orwell's Big Brother government was a Marxist government. Orwell also wrote Animal Farm if you recall. Seems Big Brother can be ANY government that grows to the point where it becomes the all-powerful, all-controlling, all-knowing, and all-wise omniscent presence that controls every aspect of every life.

Now, interesting that you toss Jefferson into the mix. He was a liberal when being a liberal meant being autonomous and free of an intrusive and all powerful monarchy that allowed no opportunity for the common people to have any say in the laws of the land or how they were taxed or governed. Back then, that was a being a liberal.

Nowdays liberal is synonymous with Marxist collectivism.

These are the same people who wouldn't accept a 75/25 spending reduction to tax increase scenario. Not the brightest bulbs in the pack.

The White House's budget projections earlier this year suggested that cumulative annual federal deficits over the next 10 years (to 2021) would amount to $7.2 trillion! So his plan is to reduce that amount by $4 trillion but we will still add $3.2 trillion to the deficit. Liberal math amazes me! So tell us again why did he ignore his budget committee he assembled in 2011 to reduce the budget deficit? You remember the time he went on vacation