[Hoot Gibson]

The top earners paid a higher share of federal income taxes for the last year of Clinton's presidency than they did under George W. Bush. You might also want to compare the average unemployment rate during those 20 years to what we have now under President Carter II and to what we had in 1980 during the Carter I administration.

Unemployment is rising, inflation is rising, and if Democrats get their way, taxes will also soon rise. Interest rates will soon follow suit. We will soon start seeing periodic comparisons between the misery indexes during the Jimmy Carter years to now. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

This should have read:

The top earners paid a lower share of federal income taxes for the last year of Clinton's presidency than they did under George W. Bush. You might also want to compare the average unemployment rate during those 20 years to what we have now under President Carter II and to what we had in 1980 during the Carter I administration.

Unemployment is rising, inflation is rising, and if Democrats get their way, taxes will also soon rise. Interest rates will soon follow suit. We will soon start seeing periodic comparisons between the misery indexes during the Jimmy Carter years to now. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

[Bob Seger]

Yes, and I pay tons of tax.

Then the guy working for minimum wage at McDonalds should have the right to demand that you be taxed at a rate that would put you at a net salary equal to of what he takes home each week. By the way you are thinking, you certainly should have no problem sending the surplus to the government. Matter of fact, by the way you talk you should be "elated" to have that opportunity. What is the difference?...... There is no difference RV. What you advocate is called Maxism, socialism, Communism. Want to dispute that?

You claim you are well off financially. If your convictions are so great, how come you dont just send the government a signed blank check and say" here Uncle Sam, you fill this out and take what you think you need. Heck I've worked my tail off to earn this money, but I feel terrible that that dopehead who wouldn't strike a lick at a snake doesn't have as much as I do. Here take mine. That's the American thing to do." Man up here and share the wealth here RV. You take that first step, and show the rest of us how you're willing to live in a basic lifestyle like you say others should do. Dont just talk the talk RV, show us how you are happy to walk the walk. Can you envision yourself doing that?

I doubt it!!!!

[LWC]

With the flat/fair tax would that be a blanket percentage like 8% or something like that? Wouldn't that further hurt the economy? If I am making sense of it, that is like saying 100,000 per year Bob and 10,000 per year Jeff buy a $100 chair. Both pay $108 on that chair.

However Jeff just spent 1% of his income, and Bob spent .01% of his income. We all know the flat tax would be higher than that KY gets 6% already, so what is more realistic 10%? 12%?

I see how that is fair, but at the same time, you would go back to the company town days, etc... Very quickly with that system, Bob would get richer and Jeff would eventually go broke.

If I remember correctly disability checks for people that were born disabled (not workers disability) is about $650 per month, which is about $7800 per year. If there is a 12% tax on everything they buy, they wont even be able to keep the lights on and pay rent. I am guessing the tax would be on bills as well, right? School taxes, etc... are on them, why not the flat tax?

If there was a hitch in the flat tax to where disabled, etc... could be exempt, I think it would be a great idea. However, what I gain from all the talks is that EVERYONE pays the same rate. Bad idea.

[Hoot Gibson]

With the flat/fair tax would that be a blanket percentage like 8% or something like that? Wouldn't that further hurt the economy? If I am making sense of it, that is like saying 100,000 per year Bob and 10,000 per year Jeff buy a $100 chair. Both pay $108 on that chair.

However Jeff just spent 1% of his income, and Bob spent .01% of his income. We all know the flat tax would be higher than that KY gets 6% already, so what is more realistic 10%? 12%?

I see how that is fair, but at the same time, you would go back to the company town days, etc... Very quickly with that system, Bob would get richer and Jeff would eventually go broke.

If I remember correctly disability checks for people that were born disabled (not workers disability) is about $650 per month, which is about $7800 per year. If there is a 12% tax on everything they buy, they wont even be able to keep the lights on and pay rent. I am guessing the tax would be on bills as well, right? School taxes, etc... are on them, why not the flat tax?

If there was a hitch in the flat tax to where disabled, etc... could be exempt, I think it would be a great idea. However, what I gain from all the talks is that EVERYONE pays the same rate. Bad idea.

Most flat tax proposals would still exempt people at the bottom end of the pay scale. So would the Fair Tax, which is not an income tax but a consumption tax. However, IMO, most people should be paying a federal income tax as long as anybody is paying such a tax. Currently 47% of all Americans pay zero in federal income taxes and that broad of a total exemption from taxes provides a big incentive to support tax hikes on the other 53% and to just stay home and enjoy the free ride.

I am in favor of lowering marginal tax rates and broadening the tax base by tapping into those 47% of non-federal income taxpayers so that they have skin in the games that are played in Washington. I am in favor of a progressive tax system but what we have today in this country is ridiculous.

A flat tax where people earning less than $20,000/yr. or so would be exempt would be a much more fair system than what is currently in place. I am also in favor of eliminating tax free investment vehicles like municipal bonds and tax-exempt trusts such as families like the Kennedys, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, et al have used for decades to shelter their wealth. No wonder limousine liberals like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and John Rockefeller support higher taxes on the so-called wealthiest among us - the wealthiest among us can afford experts to help them find safe places to stash their cash. They know that they will not be subject to the same tax hikes that they want to impose on small business owners.

[vector]

Apr 6, 2010

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.


the only fair tax system a flat rate for everbody no deductions
one sentence would be all you need

[vector]

With the flat/fair tax would that be a blanket percentage like 8% or something like that? Wouldn't that further hurt the economy? If I am making sense of it, that is like saying 100,000 per year Bob and 10,000 per year Jeff buy a $100 chair. Both pay $108 on that chair.

However Jeff just spent 1% of his income, and Bob spent .01% of his income. We all know the flat tax would be higher than that KY gets 6% already, so what is more realistic 10%? 12%?

I see how that is fair, but at the same time, you would go back to the company town days, etc... Very quickly with that system, Bob would get richer and Jeff would eventually go broke.

If I remember correctly disability checks for people that were born disabled (not workers disability) is about $650 per month, which is about $7800 per year. If there is a 12% tax on everything they buy, they wont even be able to keep the lights on and pay rent. I am guessing the tax would be on bills as well, right? School taxes, etc... are on them, why not the flat tax?

If there was a hitch in the flat tax to where disabled, etc... could be exempt, I think it would be a great idea. However, what I gain from all the talks is that EVERYONE pays the same rate. Bad idea.



i'm not talking about a sales tax talking about income tax that would

be the only fair tax system you could have theres to many deductions

and loop holes if you have the money you can hire all the tax

lawers and not pay no federal taxs its not fair

[Hoot Gibson]

Apr 6, 2010

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.


the only fair tax system a flat rate for everbody no deductions
one sentence would be all you need

From the same Forbes article, published on the CNN web site:

[INDENT]

That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years. Link

[/INDENT]Large multi-national oil companies pay more than their fair share of taxes. If you add taxes paid on dividends and federal income taxes paid by the thousands of Exxon-Mobil employees working in the United States, we should all be thanking God that the company has not shut down its operations in this country. Yet, liberal Democrats like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi portray big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil as greedy monsters to be brought to their knees with more taxes, more regulation, and more American oil reserves placed off limits for development.

If more domestic oil reserves were opened for development, tax receipts from oil companies would soar. They must buy oil where it is available and Democrats have made it abundantly clear that big oil companies are not welcome here while they are in charge. As for foreign investments, investments are being made where oil reserves are available to these companies and increasingly the United States is not a place requiring their investment.

[vector]

i like to see a flat federal income tax rate

everbody is going to have to sacrifice to

get us out of this mess

[Hoot Gibson]

i like to see a flat federal income tax rate

everbody is going to have to sacrifice to

get us out of this mess

No, everybody does not need to sacrifice to get us out of this mess. Some of us believe that we are already sacrificing enough. Sticking it to the shrinking number of large companies still trying to conduct business in this country is not the solution.

The long term solution is to create a stable environment in which businesses can flourish here in the United States again and resume creating jobs. Higher taxes will move us further away from prosperity and a balanced budget.

This is the weakest recovery from a recession since before 1945 and the recovery is growing even slower. The blame needs to be laid at the feet of Barack Obama, who is adding to the national debt at a much faster rate than any president before him. I posted a graph in a previous post in this thread that clearly shows the negative impact on the economy that Obamacare has already had on jobs.

Obama is a job killer and so are his accomplices in Congress. It really is that simple.

[TheRealThing]

No, everybody does not need to sacrifice to get us out of this mess. Some of us believe that we are already sacrificing enough. Sticking it to the shrinking number of large companies still trying to conduct business in this country is not the solution.

The long term solution is to create a stable environment in which businesses can flourish here in the United States again and resume creating jobs. Higher taxes will move us further away from prosperity and a balanced budget.

This is the weakest recovery from a recession since before 1945 and the recovery is growing even slower. The blame needs to be laid at the feet of Barack Obama, who is adding to the national debt at a much faster rate than any president before him. I posted a graph in a previous post in this thread that clearly shows the negative impact on the economy that Obamacare has already had on jobs.

Obama is a job killer and so are his accomplices in Congress. It really is that simple.

Agree 100% and I don't see how there could be any argument about it. I would add this, a balanced budget amendment mandating we spend only what we have, would cure our ills in 1 year. We would again be on our prosperous way. Ironically, the very thing that would guarantee Obama a second term will never happen, that being the afore mentioned balanced budget amendment and, the appropriate spending cuts would ensure Obama's place in ledgend.

Even though I would like to see a conservative president come to office in 2012. I can discuss that guarantee freely here or, anywhere else, because I know Obama and his legion of liberal zombies could never betray their faith. Certainly, they could never accept advice from anywhere that doesn't have ivy growing up the walls.

[real_change]

With the flat/fair tax would that be a blanket percentage like 8% or something like that? Wouldn't that further hurt the economy? If I am making sense of it, that is like saying 100,000 per year Bob and 10,000 per year Jeff buy a $100 chair. Both pay $108 on that chair.

However Jeff just spent 1% of his income, and Bob spent .01% of his income. We all know the flat tax would be higher than that KY gets 6% already, so what is more realistic 10%? 12%?

I see how that is fair, but at the same time, you would go back to the company town days, etc... Very quickly with that system, Bob would get richer and Jeff would eventually go broke.

If I remember correctly disability checks for people that were born disabled (not workers disability) is about $650 per month, which is about $7800 per year. If there is a 12% tax on everything they buy, they wont even be able to keep the lights on and pay rent. I am guessing the tax would be on bills as well, right? School taxes, etc... are on them, why not the flat tax?

If there was a hitch in the flat tax to where disabled, etc... could be exempt, I think it would be a great idea. However, what I gain from all the talks is that EVERYONE pays the same rate. Bad idea.

Let me clear up the misconceptions for you...

The Fair Tax is the only plan in existence that eliminates ALL federal taxes for the poor. It does so, because it gets rid of the social security, payroll, hidden excise and corporate taxes that we all pay, income tax, estate, gift, etc. It replaces it with a 23% inclusive sales tax on all new products and services. Each month, each family or individual recieves a rebate check that covers the amount of taxes that you paid up to the poverty level. It varies by family size and possibly location. This allows those in poverty to pay $0 in federal taxes, compared to today's hundreds to thousands they pay in medicare, social security, hidden corporate tax, excise, estate, gift, interest, capital gains.

Also you state that if 100000 earner, and 10000 earner bought a 100 chair, it's be a higher tax on the lower income as a percentage of his earnings. Yet, the fact is, while he buys 1 chair, mr. 100,000 earner buys a chair, car, boat, and hires a financial advisor. All of which are subject to the tax. And as stated, the low income earner would pay $0, and actually recieve a credit after his rebate.

The fairtax is fair because it forces all to pay taxes at a reasonable level and according to their ability, including ILLEGAL immigrants, tourists, and those who would skirt the law by making 'cash under the table'.

Its revenue nuetral, eliminates the IRS, spurs economic growth, and helps state budgets. *(they recieve a portion of the revenue for being the collectors.)

[LWC]

So, now I am confused more. What I am hearing is the way to fix the economy is for the people paying taxes to pay no more in taxes than they already are.

If we cut spending, what would be cut, would be the real question. If we talking about trimming the fat, I am all for it. However, if we start cutting into the meat everyone is gonna bleed.

Cutting spending or higher taxes are the only way to get back in the black and out of the red. Nobody on this thread, I don't think, wants higher taxes. So what would be nice for economically ignorant people like me (I can balance budgets, etc... I am referring to political economy ignorance) is to see how much in excess the US is spending, and what could be cut or reduced.

When I hear talk of cutting spending I tend to always hear fights about that. It seems as if, and tell me if I am wrong, that the dems want to cut into the defense/military budget, and the reps want to cut into Social Security-like programs. I haven't heard any politician (that is taken seriously) talk about reducing salaries/bonuses/$300 dinners, etc... and we know those will never change, lol.

[real_change]

So, now I am confused more. What I am hearing is the way to fix the economy is for the people paying taxes to pay no more in taxes than they already are.

If we cut spending, what would be cut, would be the real question. If we talking about trimming the fat, I am all for it. However, if we start cutting into the meat everyone is gonna bleed.

Cutting spending or higher taxes are the only way to get back in the black and out of the red. Nobody on this thread, I don't think, wants higher taxes. So what would be nice for economically ignorant people like me (I can balance budgets, etc... I am referring to political economy ignorance) is to see how much in excess the US is spending, and what could be cut or reduced.

When I hear talk of cutting spending I tend to always hear fights about that. It seems as if, and tell me if I am wrong, that the dems want to cut into the defense/military budget, and the reps want to cut into Social Security-like programs. I haven't heard any politician (that is taken seriously) talk about reducing salaries/bonuses/$300 dinners, etc... and we know those will never change, lol.

Let me say again...

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) reports that neither budget CUTS or tax hikes are needed to balance the budget. In fact, we can grow the budget by 1% a year, keep the bush tax cuts and balance it this decade.

I work for the federal government, and would gladly accept a cut in my pay to help out. I have advocated on behalf of this issue, and continue to do so. I believe the military budget could cut $100 plus billion a year out. I also believe that entitlement spending must be reformed, cutting $100-200 billion a year.

-Means testing to eliminate upper income recipients.
-Privatization through vouchers for medicare.
-Raising the age of retirement and eligibility to 70 over the next 50 years.
-Reducing the rate of growth to a better guage of inflation instead of employer wage indexes.

We need real change, and policitians not afraid of losing the next election. Bold, fearless leadership... not politics as usual.

Vote for the Young guns.

[Hoot Gibson]

Can you find one single instance since WWII where an increase in tax rates has resulted in a lowering of the annual budget deficit? I don't think that it has ever happened and I am certain that raising taxes will not work now either.

House Republicans (but not all of them) are the only politicians who have a credible plan to bring spending and the budget deficits under control. A higher tax rate has never spurred economic growth in this country and it never will. It defies common sense for people to support higher taxes being imposed on anyone when the official unemployment rate is already 9.2 percent and increasing.

Obama has already shown that he has no clue what to do turn the economy around (assuming that he really wants to do so). He spent nearly $1 trillion on a stimulus plan, which according to his own panel of experts created few jobs at a cost of more than $280,000 each. Obama said that the passage of the stimulus spending bill was crucial to prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

After yet another round of demonizing the Bush tax cuts, Obama and the Democrats finally agreed to extend them - but only on a temporary basis. Now a year later, Obama is back to demonizing the Bush tax rates and demanding higher rates on the wealthiest 1 percent - those people who ride around in corporate jets to conduct business. (Most probably do not use those jets to fly around the world on vacations or golf outings.)

Senate Democrats have defied federal law by refusing to pass a budget because they believe that ignoring the law is safer politically than doing the job that they were elected to do. The last budget that Obama sent to the Senate was voted down 97-0.

Now, Obama is blaming Republicans, who have been in control of the House for less than a year for the sudden debt ceiling crisis.

Come on, people, don't fall for the same old lies by liberal Democrats. If you were not paying attention to this issue until Obama declared it a crisis, do some Googling and judge for yourself where the fault belongs. Search for specific cuts that Obama and the Democrats have proposed and if you find any, please post them here with the specifics, including the year in which those cuts will occur.

Liberals like to tax the rich and blame them for the nation's problems. They play the class warfare card to get what they want and when that does not work, then they throw a race card onto the table. They are as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. They have no interest whatsoever in cutting spending on a single social welfare program.

[TheRealVille]

Can you find one single instance since WWII where an increase in tax rates has resulted in a lowering of the annual budget deficit? I don't think that it has ever happened and I am certain that raising taxes will not work now either.

House Republicans (but not all of them) are the only politicians who have a credible plan to bring spending and the budget deficits under control. A higher tax rate has never spurred economic growth in this country and it never will. It defies common sense for people to support higher taxes being imposed on anyone when the official unemployment rate is already 9.2 percent and increasing.

Obama has already shown that he has no clue what to do turn the economy around (assuming that he really wants to do so). He spent nearly $1 trillion on a stimulus plan, which according to his own panel of experts created few jobs at a cost of more than $280,000 each. Obama said that the passage of the stimulus spending bill was crucial to prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

After yet another round of demonizing the Bush tax cuts, Obama and the Democrats finally agreed to extend them - but only on a temporary basis. Now a year later, Obama is back to demonizing the Bush tax rates and demanding higher rates on the wealthiest 1 percent - those people who ride around in corporate jets to conduct business. (Most probably do not use those jets to fly around the world on vacations or golf outings.)

Senate Democrats have defied federal law by refusing to pass a budget because they believe that ignoring the law is safer politically than doing the job that they were elected to do. The last budget that Obama sent to the Senate was voted down 97-0.

Now, Obama is blaming Republicans, who have been in control of the House for less than a year for the sudden debt ceiling crisis.

Come on, people, don't fall for the same old lies by liberal Democrats. If you were not paying attention to this issue until Obama declared it a crisis, do some Googling and judge for yourself where the fault belongs. Search for specific cuts that Obama and the Democrats have proposed and if you find any, please post them here with the specifics, including the year in which those cuts will occur.

Liberals like to tax the rich and blame them for the nation's problems. They play the class warfare card to get what they want and when that does not work, then they throw a race card onto the table. They are as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. They have no interest whatsoever in cutting spending on a single social welfare program.

Are Republicans not breaking that very same law? Are you not as predictable as the Democrats?

[Hoot Gibson]

Are Republicans not breaking that very same law? Are you not as predictable as the Democrats?

No they are not. Republicans have controlled the house less than a year and I believe that the Republican budget resolution did pass the House on April 15 with no help from the Democrats. The Senate has gone more than 815 days without passing an annual budget. Look it up.

[TheRealVille]

No they are not. Republicans have controlled the house less than a year and I believe that the Republican budget resolution did pass the House on April 15 with no help from the Democrats. The Senate has gone more than 815 days without passing an annual budget. Look it up.

But, Boner and his guys are refusing to pass a budget right now.

[TheRealThing]

But, Boner and his guys are refusing to pass a budget right now.

Actually, they are trying to pass a budget. They're just trying to pass one that doesn't include an increase in spending. Borrowing money so that we can give it away seems a little rediculous to republicans. I mean, would the world stop spinning if we didn't increase spending for a year or so? When the dems were running roughshod over the republicans passing any legislation they wanted to including ObamaCare, they had a clear majority in both houses of Congress. They enjoyed that majority until the congressional mid term elections two years into president Obama's term. They dorked around with junk legislation such as don't ask don't tell, rather than a budget (which they are required to do by law), and of course the bill to end all bills, ObamaCare, for nearly 730 days.

During that 730 day period they could have passed any budget they wanted to but, they chose not to act on any budget. Now we are like 815-ish days without a budget and the dems are blaming the republicans. I mean how could anybody believe that? If Richard Nixon could be accused of treason against this country for conversation/s he may have had with Hanoi, what would the punishment be for destroying America's economy either by design or inept policy by inept politicians? If it had been the republicans breaking the law by not passing a budget while they were in control of the congress, we would probably have seen them being led away in handcuffs on the liberal main stream media channels. Being in control means just that, the dems had a strangle hold on the legislative branch of the federal govenment, absolutely nothing happened they didn't want to happen. Thus, they are to blame, not the other way around as they keep saying. Reality is on it's head these days, lies have become the liberal safe haven.

You do know that if we bankrupt as a nation that will include democrats too, right?

[TheRealThing]

So, now I am confused more. What I am hearing is the way to fix the economy is for the people paying taxes to pay no more in taxes than they already are.

If we cut spending, what would be cut, would be the real question. If we talking about trimming the fat, I am all for it. However, if we start cutting into the meat everyone is gonna bleed.

Cutting spending or higher taxes are the only way to get back in the black and out of the red. Nobody on this thread, I don't think, wants higher taxes. So what would be nice for economically ignorant people like me (I can balance budgets, etc... I am referring to political economy ignorance) is to see how much in excess the US is spending, and what could be cut or reduced.

When I hear talk of cutting spending I tend to always hear fights about that. It seems as if, and tell me if I am wrong, that the dems want to cut into the defense/military budget, and the reps want to cut into Social Security-like programs. I haven't heard any politician (that is taken seriously) talk about reducing salaries/bonuses/$300 dinners, etc... and we know those will never change, lol.

If you can balance a budget you are much smarter than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the president of the United States. The concept is exactly the same. You still have to have a roof over your head, feed your family, keep the lights on, maintain your home, help the needy (in this case forcable extortion by the federal government and to some extent your state government, in the form of taxation), medical expenses, etc. There are more items on the federal budget (if we ever get one) but, basically no more complex in concept. Added to that is the fact that we have over 200 years of impeccable record keeping, accounting, to guide us.

That is unless you are Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke. Two popsicle sticks awash on a tsunami wave of misinformation and faulty reasoning. They just go with the flow baby!

[TheRealThing]

So, now I am confused more. What I am hearing is the way to fix the economy is for the people paying taxes to pay no more in taxes than they already are.

If we cut spending, what would be cut, would be the real question. If we talking about trimming the fat, I am all for it. However, if we start cutting into the meat everyone is gonna bleed.

Cutting spending or higher taxes are the only way to get back in the black and out of the red. Nobody on this thread, I don't think, wants higher taxes. So what would be nice for economically ignorant people like me (I can balance budgets, etc... I am referring to political economy ignorance) is to see how much in excess the US is spending, and what could be cut or reduced.

When I hear talk of cutting spending I tend to always hear fights about that. It seems as if, and tell me if I am wrong, that the dems want to cut into the defense/military budget, and the reps want to cut into Social Security-like programs. I haven't heard any politician (that is taken seriously) talk about reducing salaries/bonuses/$300 dinners, etc... and we know those will never change, lol.

The dems would whittle down our defenses until it would be touch and go if we could even mount a decent defense if it were up to them. Some of that, if not most if it, is because as French psychologist Emile Coue suggested, they believe that "every day in every way man is getting better and better." In other words the liberals sort of talk themselves into a state of self imposed euphoria. (REALITY NOT WITHSTANDING) It's still a bad world out there and getting more bad by the day. I HOPE we keep our military strong for our own sakes but, it is a worry. So long as the folks in charge think it's more important to dole out the entitlements than to ensure safety within our own shores.

With regard to social security and medicade. The way I have heard it over and over is this; people above 55 years old, no change for perpetuity except cost of living increases, people under 55 get a graduated scale of adjustments where you would be grandfathered in based on your age until deep into the 21st century say, 2050 folks would still get social security and medicare but, they would start at the age of 70 rather than the present retirement age of 67. People live much longer these days on average. By 2050 people will have to wait 3 years longer. The government will keep tinkering with it as they always have There have been a number of changes in the social security and medicare programs over the years. It's just that now the dems try to villanize the republicans with the perpetual smear campaign they wage so well. They try to scare people away from voting for republicans by indicating that only the dems will watch out for them. A few years ago politicians didn't wage war with words like they do these days. I think that war is decimating our country.

[Hoot Gibson]

But, Boner and his guys are refusing to pass a budget right now.

It appears that you are not following this issue very closely. I am torn between ridiculing you for your ignorance and giving you a straight response.

As I have already pointed out, Republicans in the House passed a budget on April 15. What is being debated is whether to raise the debt limit, which allows Obama to borrow money to meet the government's obligations.

Given the extremely wasteful spending that Democrats have done since Obama took office and the resulting soaring budget deficits, Republicans have taken the position that federal spending must be cut in exchange for them authorizing more borrowing. They passed such a resolution last week but it was tabled by the Senate.

As Boehner explained to our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief, it is Congress's job to pass legislation and his job to decide what to sign. The House of Representatives has done its Constitutionally mandated job but the Senate is stonewalling on this issue.

All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. What is currently being debated is not spending, it is borrowing money to pay for spending that has been previously authorized. Congress must approve borrowing money, and Republicans are insisting that Obama and the Democrats agree to cut future spending in exchange for their authorization to increase the national debt. Democrats do not have the votes to authorize increasing the national debt and when they did have the votes, they did nothing but bust budgets and shatter spending records.

In other words, you are mixing apples with oranges again. The US Senate continues to be in violation of the law requiring it to pass an annual budget resolution and they are violating the law for what Harry Reid has admitted to be purely political reasons.

[Hoot Gibson]

RV, in simple layman's terms, Obama is wanting Republicans to raise the limit on his credit card but Republicans are insisting that he stop squandering money foolishly and they are threatening to take his keys away if he does not agree to be more responsible. They are doing what they were elected to do.

By failing to pass its own budget resolution for more than 815 days, the Senate just wants to continue to spend money while not being held accountable by voters in 2012. The Senate is willfully breaking US law in the process.

[TheRealThing]

While the president is getting on TV to slam republicans yet again there were a few thoughts that struck me as pertinent.

First, one of the main democratic talking points lately to emerge is that we have to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money because we are paying for things we did as long as 25 years ago. Hello, we borrow 2 MILLION dollars a minute, in fact so far during the time it has taken to type this post we have borrowed 20 million dollars. 25 years ago the federal deficit was 216 billion, compared to over 14 trillion today and Obama is pushing for another trillion and a half as we speak. Put it like this, the amount of money we borrow right now for only 75 calendar days is equal to our year's deficit spending 25 years ago in 1986, that number of course is the already mentioned 216 billion.

Second, Obama likens himself to Ronald Reagan a lot. Here is a link to a study done for Reagan era republicans talking about the relationship between tax increases and the federal deficit http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/federal...291987.pdf

Third, the president likes to paint American businessmen as being somewhat reluctant to pay their fair share of taxes. I thought this arrticle and link about some of his more famous cabinet members was entertaining and accurate. http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-04-2...-tax-day/2

[real_change]

Why is it that Democrats oppose a balanced budget amendment? Why do they support and fight until the last breath for tax increases on just a few americans (which raise about 70 billion a year)? 70 billion a year? haha!!! the deficit is more than 20 times that size! they cant be serious.... but alas, they are. sadly.

[Hoot Gibson]

Why is it that Democrats oppose a balanced budget amendment? Why do they support and fight until the last breath for tax increases on just a few americans (which raise about 70 billion a year)? 70 billion a year? haha!!! the deficit is more than 20 times that size! they cant be serious.... but alas, they are. sadly.

Excellent question and one that has an obvious answer. Democrats do not want to cut spending, they just want independent voters to believe that they are in favor of balancing the budget during the few months leading up to the election. An honest balanced budget amendment would expose them for the liars that they are to people whose votes they need.

You are also correct about the tax increases on those evil rich being inconsequential in balancing the budget. Democrats urging tax increases is mostly about convincing poor people in this country that the wealthy are responsible for their misery. It helps keep those voters from wondering why they are unemployed or underemployed despite their blind allegiance to liberal Democratic politicians.

[TheRealThing]

Congressional leaders have agreed in principle to finally bring legislation to the floor in both houses for ratification into law. The agreement provides for 7 trillion dollars in spending increases over the course of the coming decade, on top of the 14.5 trillion spending debt we own already. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and many other liberal legislators are dismayed and angry because the deficit spending is not 9 trillion! Rank and file members of the liberal democratic caucus are threatening to vote it down because they feel the spending increases are too small and republican legislators are tempted to vote against it because the spending cuts are to few. Meanwhile S&P and Moody's warn of loss of triple a rating because congress did not show enough willingness to deal with the debt crisis (not the debt ceiling) by the neccessary cuts and decreased spending measures. Liberals will have to launch an attack on the credibility of these two agencies to discredit the validity of their assessments if they follow their playbook.

It's hard to wrap one's head around how much a trillion dollars really is.
there are 12 zeros in a trillion


this is how one would write the # of seconds from the start of man's recorded history--- 189,216,000,000
this is how 1 trilliion is written--- $1,000,000,000,000

Only 189 billion, 216 million seconds have elapsed in man's recorded history. I appologize for not lining up the decimal places in column, further, just for the sake of demonstration, recorded history is rounded off to 6000 years.

[BillyB]

This is how $3 trillion is written ---- Afghanistan & Iraq

[TheRealThing]

This is how $3 trillion is written ---- Afghanistan & Iraq

And this is who appropriated the money for Afghanistan and Iraq. Senate Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The resolution supporting the war in Iraq cleared the House 297/133 and the Senate 77/23. The dems that supported their leadership in both US Congressional Houses had this to say immediately after the vote, "yeah I voted for it but, the devil, (George W) made me do It":igiveup:

[TheRealThing]

This is how $3 trillion is written ---- Afghanistan & Iraq

Math not your strong suit? The TOTAL cost of war to the US since 2001 is 1.2 trillion. You're only exaggerating by a mere 1.8 trillion. Here's the link you obviously can use it. http://costofwar.com/en/

No, no, don't thank me.

[Hoot Gibson]

It looks like all of Obama's talk about tax hikes and new spending since the debt ceiling was raised is having an impact. The Dow has been headed south since the deal was announced. As I write this, the Dow average is down 304.44 points (2.56%).

The vote on the debt ceiling agreement is more proof about what I have been saying about fiscal conservatism. The only fiscal conservatives in Congress are in the Republican Party but they are outnumbered by the tax-and-spenders - in their own party. That includes supporting fiscal conservatives running in Republican primaries against the big spending Republicans who now hold seats in Congress.

If we do not elect some fiscally responsible people to Congress in 2012 and sweep Obama out of the White House, life as we know it will soon end.