Dems: Looks Like Republicans Are Declaring 'Game Over' For Super Committee

Democrats severely underestimate the seething hatred that Republicans have for President Obama... they are happy to let the committee fail, even if it means cuts to Defense, just so they can hand Obama another defeat.

"Our goal is to make Obama a 1 term President"... Nothing else matters to them - even the destruction of our country...

Mweaver

I don't know but I have a strange feeling things are about to change (I pray) for the GOP. Only idiots would not be able to see the ineptness of those running and those in office. I don't know exactly why I have that feeling but somehow those in office are starting to see through all the smoke they have created.

"thieves become rich as the rich become thieves"

democrat jr.

madvargr, I agree 100%. 50% cuts would fit right in with what the GOP has been asking for all along. I love your "Teahadists"...I suspect you weren't the first though.

MWeaver, Defense is a kink for them. But, I suspect it puts them in a great dilemma, because in order to satisfy their constituents in Defense they MUST compromise and raise taxes.

Interestingly, as I sit here watching TV another group of 1%ers are at the mike saying "We want to pay more taxes"!!! So you have 75% of Americans (both Dem and GOP) for raising taxes, you have 99%ers in the streets, and now more 1%ers saying "tax us"...and what say the GOP?

I, like many of you, am becoming VERY fearful about the longevity of America. Clearly, it seems to me this could ALL be resolved by identifying and pursuing NEW business opportunity, to increase jobs and tax revenue. But, big corps are sending more and more jobs overseas, they are so big it makes smaller concerns fearful of pursuing new opportunity due to lack of funds, our education system has failed us, most of us are only trained to work for others. We need NEW leadership, but it WILL NOT come from the Republicans.

I'm for OBAMA and Democrats...even though some Republican ideas have merit, they simply have NO concern for those who are beginning the journey of success. Then again, not EVERYBODY is after financial "success", most of us just want to "live comfortably" which is two different things.

madvargr "Kiss your Social Security and Medicare goodbye"

I never expected to see any benefits from the two in my lifetime, even though I have been involuntarily contributing for over 20 years now.

I completely expect to be working until the day I die (most likely dying from lack of health care coverage because I will not be able to afford it)...

unless my dream of living in a tropical forested country comes true in the not too distant future... South America is starting to look very good to my eyes... good thing my passport still has several years before it expires and I have found an easy path to dual citizenship...

Archaeus, I'm almost positive I'll be retiring in another country. I've lived overseas and the thought doesn't completely horrify me. I just find it sad.

Arch
Man are you kidding me? You are intittled to that money. WTF . I'm not going anywhere till I get my money SS and Medicare .
They want you to walk. They hope you give up. We can't give up on each others rights. If we do they win, we lose along with every other American. Our social security is not an entittlement it has been a taxpayer program to support us modestly in our retirement. If the government employees are going to get a retirement ,so I'm I.

I don't think you have to fight or risk your life, you just have to show soladarity. The congress will get th idea. Believ it..

Until we have a viable third party with enough seats that they have to be engaged to form a majority for either of the other two parties, we will be subject to ext ream positions and total partisan political gridlock. We desperately need a centrist third party to force moderation and compromise.

Then too, none of the 99ners are giving any lucid thought to the fact that Obama only continues the older NAFTA game by first, entering into a new free trade pact with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, but then doing the same thing with other-than -China Pacific Rim nations in yet another trade pact, which will continue the offshoring of American jobs.

Orly, you forgot to mention "which group of people are pushing it?". They said it would create jobs but they never say "where?".

Here are the clues:

"Republicans push for Columbia, Panama trade deals"

"Free trade agreements stuck in Obam-Republican impasse"

Democrats severely underestimate the seething hatred that Republicans have for President Obama... they are happy to let the committee fail, even if it means cuts to Defense, just so they can hand Obama another defeat.

"Our goal is to make Obama a 1 term President"... Nothing else matters to them - even the destruction of our country...

Bobby respectfully Obama has been his own worst enemy. If I may allow me to list a few reasons O has self destructed - His approval rating has dropped 30% since he was sworn in here’s a few from the GOP perspective: Rampant statements that failed to materialize, failed policies, the O administration said that if their first stimulus was passed unemployment would not exceed 8%; it's now at 9%, an apparent class warfare strategy by O, colossal deficits: The truth is O's annual deficits have greatly exceedd Bush's annual deficits. He also hurt himself and the country with his suggestion that the Israelis and Palestinians resort to the 1967 borders when beginning negotiations!

Evidence that Obama is out of touch with Congress is that his budget was astonishingly defeated 97-0 in the Democrat controlled Senate! (Almost unbelievable)

~ ~ O's primary problem with JOBS and the election is Obamacare ~ ~

His approval rating has dropped 30% since he was sworn in

First, you could at least get your facts straight. His approval rating is not 30% lower today than it was his first week in office.
Second, approval ratings are a symptom and not a cause, and a lot of the change is do to GOP myths and constant barrage of attacks.

O administration said that if their first stimulus was passed unemployment would not exceed 8%

Yet another example of a right wing myth. The Obama administration did NOT say this. Why is it that so many critics rely on false hoods and distortions. You can not quote the Obama administration making such a promise because they never did. Some analysts made an economic projection before Obama came into office that inherrently involved a lot of uncertainties and unknowns and made an estimate that given the uncertainty of economic projecttions isnt far off. It turned out that the economy was even worse in 2008 than had been initiallly reported with economic indicators revised downward after this preliminary projection.

it's now at 9%, an apparent class warfare strategy by O

Yet another example of compleltly absurdist thinking. Why is this apparent class warefare? It doesnt make any sense. Did you also conclude that when unemployment went over 10% during Reagans first term that this was "apparent classware strategy by R"? Try making a logical and coherent argument for this ridiculous assertion.

The truth is O's annual deficits have greatly exceedd Bush's annual deficits

So? Bush's deficits greatly exceeded Clinton and Bush broke his promise that the tax cuts would not add to the deficit. The truth is that Bush left the nation in the WORST economic crisis since the great depression. The truth is that revenue plummeted in this recession. The truth is that in the month Bush left office, the nation's unemployment was rising faster than anytime in history before or since. The truth is that the nation has a crisis in the financial sector with it collapsing. The truth is that nation has a crisis in the housing sector. The truth is that the nation had a crisis in the automobile manufacturing sector. The truth is that Bush left the nation in the middle of two of the longest wars in US history. The truth is that the foundation for the deficits in 2009 were in place before Obama was sworn in. The truth is that the Bush administration left the nation in far worse shape than they came in. The truth is that real GNP was droping when Obama came into office.

~ ~ O's primary problem with JOBS and the election is Obamacare ~ ~

This is complete and total rubbish. There is zero evidence that the healthcare reform bill has had any material negative impact on jobs. Putting it in all caps is no substitute for reasone and facts.

First, you could at least get your facts straight. His approval rating is not 30% lower today than it was his first week in office.

Sorry, Wrong again Coral. Very respectfully here are supporting polling results that demonstrate O’s approval has indeed “dropped 30%" since he was sworn in:

- - - -ON:

"Wednesday, November 02, 2011 - - - When tracking President Obama’s job approval on a daily basis, people sometimes get so caught up in the day-to-day fluctuations that they miss the bigger picture. To look at the longer-term trends, Rasmussen Reports compiles the numbers on a full-month basis, and the results can be seen in the graphics below. In October, 20% of voters Strongly Approved of the president’s job performance. That’s the lowest level found during the Obama presidency to date and the second time in the last three months that the finding has fallen to a record low. Prior to last month, the number who Strongly Approved of the president’s performance ranged from a low of 21% to a high of 31% since July 2009. By comparison, 43% Strongly Approved of Obama's performance when he assumed office in January 2009."

- - - -OFF

43% x .30 = 12.9 points

43 - 12.9 = 30.1 points

Clearly Obama's approval rating has dropped at least 30% Source: Rasmussen - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

With respect, eca

Clearly Obama's approval rating has dropped at least 30%

First, You wrote approval rating and not "strongly approval" rating.

Second, According to Rasmussen there has been a variance of 30% in their strongly approve rating, which is pretty meaningless.
Third, we should care why? Ronald Reagans approval ratings varried from the high to his low during to the first two years of his term

First, You wrote approval rating and not "strongly approval" rating.

Sorry Coral, with all due respect you are wrong again. GALLUP POLL (January 26, 2009)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113968/obama-initial-approval-ratings-historical-context.aspx

69% approval rating

(Nov 14-20,2011)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

43% approval rating

69% x .30 = 20.7 points

69 - 20.7 = 48.3 points

Using Rasmussen or Gallup Polls Obama has still lost at least 30% - Respectfully, eca

Sorry Coral

Thats the second time you have written the wrong name. Any point in that? Your repeat of the word respect appears to be without substance.

You still have failed to provide any reason why we should particularly care. Polls dont decide elections, changes in popularity certainly dont. As I pointed out above, Ronald Reagans polls changed more than 30% in his first two years in office.

By the way you should take a look at these facts:

Extending all the Bush tax cuts, including provisions to spare millions of middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax, would add $3.9 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office....

At one point, supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., proposed a tax overhaul package that Republicans said would raise about $290 billion in additional revenue over the next decade but lock in all of the Bush tax cuts.

The Super Committees failure to come to agreement is a lot better for those who want a lower deficit than accepting the GOP demands.

"you could at least get your facts straight. His approval rating is not 30% lower today than it was his first week in office."

Sorry Catch22 but you are wrong again. Respectfully you mistakenly said, "you could at least get your facts straight. His approval rating is not 30% lower today than it was his first week in office."

No offense Catch22, but if you make a reckless and bogus claim it will often be brought to your attention. Further when you are corrected that your claim was false it is seldom a good idea in life or in the courtroom to re-visit the issue.

I wonder just how many members of congress are in the so-called 1%. Bet it's a bunch.....

Seven of the ten richest lawmakers in Congress are Democrats.

www.opensecrets.org The Center for Responsive Politics.

CBS NEWS Nov.13,2011: ''60 Minutes: Congress: Engaging In Insider Information''? [ watch closely Pelosi getting her hat handed to her complete with deer-in-headlights look upon being asked by a 60 Minutes reporter sitting in the press pool how well she made out on her VISA scam and her lies in defending her latest travesty which were already exposed in FOIA even before the press conferance]. Boehner, Kerry, Schumer, Baucus [ Spencer], Feinstein, Reid, and fmr. House Speaker Hastert are up to their eyeballs in this garbage.

Ironically, it becomes a contributor from BREITBART, the liberals most hated source, which has thrown the light on this ongoing scandal.

''Throw Them All Out: How Politicians And Their Friends Get Rich Off Of Insider Stock Tips'' Schweitzer, Peter. Houghton Miffin, Harcourt and Brace Publishers Nov.2011.

CBS NEWS Nov.13,2011: ''60 Minutes: Congress: Engaging In Insider Information''? [ watch closely Pelosi getting her hat handed to her complete with deer-in-headlights look upon being asked by a 60 Minutes reporter sitting in the press pool how well she made out on her VISA scam and her lies in defending her latest travesty which were already exposed in FOIA even before the press conferance]. Boehner, Kerry, Schumer, Baucus [ Spencer], Feinstein, Reid, and fmr. House Speaker Hastert are up to their eyeballs in this garbage. Ironically, it becomes a contributor from BREITBART, the liberals most hated source, which has thrown the light on this ongoing scandal.

Another great post Orly - Keep 'em coming. eca

Wow, it seems we're ALL on the same page about the Republicans! And what's also telling is that I don't see any GOP supporters railing against us! I just hope our collective memories don't fail us in the future, and OUST those bastards from EVERY office they hold!

Very respectfully Playtoe the reason you "don't see any GOP supporters railing against us" is because this is one of the 2 most leftist forums online - - The SC will likely fail but it’s a team effort and a team failure - With all due respect, our problem is not revenue, it's spending. ...And now we are running out of chances. The kick-the-cost-can down the road policy that both parties have engaged in failed miserably. We now spend $1.4 trillion a yr more than we take in and to make matters worse we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. A decades long drunk has left our children and grandchildren in a dreadful situation - We voted in these short sighted incompetents that made rosy promises they couldn't keep then recklessly passed them on to the next generations and the next politicians. . But no one person is more responsible for this spending frenzy and this historic fiscal crisis than, Barrack Obama.

Obama will likely lose in 2012 because he let this country and especially the next 2 generations down.

With all due respect, our problem is not revenue, it's spending.

With all due respect the vast majority of Americans do not agree with you or the GOP and believe that our problems include Spending AND Revenue AND the economy.

But no one person is more responsible for this spending frenzy and this historic fiscal crisis than, Barrack Obama.

Complete and total BS. Which President saw the biggest change in deficits during his President? Reagan. Which President say the biggest reversal in fiscal fortunes in US history from surplus to deficit? George W. Bush.

The so called spending freenzy is a myth based in ideological freenzy. The spending measures of the current President have been temporary, the fiscal problems the nation faces have been a very long time coming. The leading causes of deficits being so much higher now than it was in 2000 mostly because of (1) the bush tax cuts (2) the increase military costs and 2 long wars, and (3) the worst economic recession in history which began in 2007. and ended in 2009 and

hilarious

In the end the corps and the banks want all countries to fail and they can impose corporate control over all. (#9)

Ed honestly no offense - But do you have a source for this rather bold semi nutty claim?

Members of the committee from each party are trying to play the normal smoke and mirror games to cook the numbers, "Let's count the money we weren't going to spend on iraq and afghanistan as savings","Let's change the assumptions on how the economy is going to perform","Let's count revenue from more years than costs" There has already been a plan proposed by a bipartisan committee that Obama said he would support no matter how much it would upset his base and party(hmm he has ignored the report) Here comes another plan doomed for failure #10

Good post Bob - Btw on a related topic: What happened to Obama's claim that his Jobs Bill was (Insert large grain of salt) was "already paid for?"

you trying to rid the dems of the brightest stars of their party?

you forgot to add they also want to oppress the poor on other worlds

Alan

"Some conservatives have made comments such as they want to reduce the size of government to a thimble and then drown it in the bathtub."

You know I hear this constantly from GOPers and particularly Libertarians. It's hard to imagine someone who's paid by the People, to work on behave OF THE PEOPLE, to go around saying "Let's do away with Government"! That's like an element of the executive staff of an automaker advocating doing away with cars! If our government was a "Corporation" as Mitt claims, the GOP would be sued/fired for breach of their fiduciary responsibility.

Yes if they could find people on other worlds they sure would find a way to exploit and oppress them like they do the poor here and the third world.

What is strange is that these programs are going broke without the help of the GOP. The vast predominance of liberals are too obtuse in their partisanship to see that at the end, it is merely simple math. To wit:

Number of employees supporting one Social Security Retiree in 1955: 18 to 1.

in 2011: 3 to 1.

www.ssa.gov The Social Security Administration.

How about "Keep the government away from my Medicare", "Get the government out of public education", "Stop taxing the people" and other such gems from the right wingers. The GOP is hoping the country goes bankrupt and starve the government for revenue for so long and so severely that all the social spending will disappear. They want the super committee and the government to fail.

All the Super committee has to do to save social security is get rid of the cap on income that can be taxed for the wealthy and make them pay the Social Security rate on all their income like everyone else and doing this while keeping the befit cap in place. Bernie Sanders suggested this a while back and the media like usual payed no attention. This is the least painful way to deal with Social Security and no one in either party is touching it.

This too is illogical. The Democrats run the Senate. [ which is the upper house of Congress]. Not the GOP. Obama is president. Not a Republican. As it now stands, the danger to these programs stems exclusively from Democrat overspending. Not the reverse. As we readily see from the White Houses own Office for Management and Budget, the Social Security Administration, the Congressional Budget Office [ whose most recent budgetary outlook is the more damning to Democrats and Obama], and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, it becomes spending which is by far the greater of the two evils.

Worse, that the Democrats for years have promised oversight, but have failed to deliver. It should not be neccesary for a Republican senator [Tom Coburn, Oklahoma] to demand from the Social Security Administration why a 36-year old man in California is being paid taxpayer SS benefits for his playacting as a baby, with a crib, diapers, and a man-sized stroller but with no evidence of mental or physical disability.

What other madness is being cultivated by the use of our money can only be guessed. But when FANNIE and FREDDIE CEO bigshots are raking in millions in loot from us. When millions more are spent on further ''to nowhere'' infrastructure schemes. When OXYCONTIN graft involving Medicare payments to quack doctors by the millions and more are occuring with this drug, moving to the top of the heap in the most-abused in America today,and when this nations lawmakers of both parties are enriching themselves off of practices that would see you or I inside of a prison cell, then it becomes rather incumbant upon individuals to quit whining over the non-existant influence of the ''teabagger fascists'' and begin waking the hell up.

Some conservatives have made comments such as they want to reduce the size of government to a thimble and then drown it in the bathtub. That is why they are against revenue increases so the government social programs can go away. They want Social Security and Medicare to go bankrupt because they secretly and sometimes not so secretly want to end both. They only want a government to build infrastructure, police, and defense everything else they want to privatize and many want to privatize even those three things. In other words they only believe the government should be to maintain their lavish lifestyles and oppress the poor here and around the world. They have become fascist and they are taking us in a very dark direction. (#12)

Alan with all due respect and no offense intended: whar dew ya git dis sTuf?

What is strange is that these programs are going broke without the help of the GOP. The vast predominance of liberals are too obtuse in their partisanship to see that at the end, it is merely simple math. To wit: Number of employees supporting one Social Security Retiree in 1955: 18 to 1. in 2011: 3 to 1. www.ssa.gov The Social Security Administration.

. A++ Orly! - - Here's hoping Alan will understand this.

Respectfully, eca

All the Super committee has to do to save social security is get rid of the cap on income that can be taxed for the wealthy and make them pay the Social Security rate on all their income like everyone else and doing this while keeping the befit cap in place. Bernie Sanders suggested this a while back and the media like usual payed no attention. This is the least painful way to deal with Social Security and no one in either party is touching it. 12.6

Alan with all due respect and no offense intended because I think you actually believe this yarn by Bernie Sanders. This plan from outter space won't even begin to come close to working. Ask yourself why as you say, the "media paid no attention" to it - Ask yourself why "no one in either party will touch it."

>>>>>>>IT WON'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING!!!!!<<<<<<<<

Could it be they put the pencil to this zany fairy tale?

Respectfully, eca

Well put radar

Vote up

Naughtia..."starve the beast program", makes sense. The logic that a "fiscal straightjacket for Congress" would be "good for taxpayers" is insane. What American taxpayer thinks all their tax dollars should go to paying past due bills? To "intentionally" run up your credit card so that you either have to spend all your earnings to pay it off, or let it default and go bankrupt? That is INSANE! The GOP is NOT competent to run this great nation. And in the words of Rick Perry and others, that is tantamont to "TREASON".

Wouldn't any sane person realize, if you have LESS income coming in....you SHOULD start spending LESS as a result?

Our government really is that stupid.

A majority of our citizens are also.

Nonsense. The sunset provision was deliberately set for 2012. Hence, this negates your ''never let them expire'' position.

Then too, it [again], does not occur to liberals that the middle class, upon the sunset of these tax cuts, gets nailed with the AMT at precisely the time when this nation has a 9% unemployment rate as well as a rapidly rising CPI. This does occur to an alliance of Republicans and Obama however, with an handful of blue dogs who are warning liberals that they had best be careful of what they wish for. [ Obama, already in the tank for his handling of the economy, sees no reason to anger the middle class further].

Jan. 2012. [ which will trigger tax increases on the middle class].

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for 2 yrs in December 2010 - However since O extended this program it would not be unfair to now call it the "Obama Tax Cuts." - Obama's extension expires in December 2012; right after the election.

it would not be unfair to now call it the "Obama Tax Cuts"

First, whether you believe it fair or not, its kind of silly and misleading to name tax cuts after the President who opposed them but sighned as part of a compromise to get other things he wanted for the good of the nation.

Bush supported the tax cuts so did the GOP, hence the name.
Obama opposed extending the tax cuts on wealthy Americans but went along with extendig them at the insistence of the GOP in order to get unemployment benefits.

Not every law signed by the President is named after the President, nor is it illuminating to say so.

Second, whatever you call it, the truth is that the GOP insisted and held unemployment benefits hostage. These tax cuts were a centerpiece and priority of the Bush administrations policy and the GOP. They are not Obamas priority and were done as part of a compromise deal. In any case, such rhetoric is no substitute for anlysis.

No offense intended Catch22, but you miss the point.

Respectfully Catch, please keep in mind when Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered a plan to break the SC deadlock by lowering tax rates, eliminating tax loopholes, and reducing the deficit. The Dems did indeed reject it. But one more time please remember

**********************************************************************************************

AGAIN, Toomey's plan to break the deadlock also included ENDING the "Bush tax cuts."**

**********************************************************************************************

** Call them what you want it is a fact that Obama extended them for two yrs. They will expire a month after the election.

No offense intended Catch22, but you miss the point.

AGAIN, Toomey's plan to break the deadlock also included ENDING the "Bush tax cuts."**

Actually you continue to miss the point and instead rely on rhetoric in lieu of substance. The point isnt a slogan. The point isnt ENDING the "Bush tax cuts" You again totally fail to offer any reasoned response to any of the comments above. See, e.g. this comment

What is the point? Where does it leave us.
(1) What does the plan do to tax rates and what (2) does the plan offer to address the deficit with respect to spending and revenue?
ANSWER: It makes the tax rates very similar to the Bush tax cuts whether you want to refer to it as ending them or changing.
It takes tax cuts that are set to expire and makes them permanent.
(2) It sticks to rigid GOP ideology by lowering revenue and not increasing revenue. It relies totally upon spending cuts plus some vodoo wishful thinking economic fantasy.

It continues to ignore what the vast majority people agree with should be included in the approach and continues to offer nothing real in return except rhetoric.

These tax cuts will indeed expire! Thats why your claiming that the Toomey plan ends them is meaningless since it doesnt actually do anything except resurrect similar cuts and make them permanent instead of temporary.

If you are going to repeat your slogan again dont bother.

** Call them what you want it is a fact that Obama extended them for two yrs. They will expire a month after the election.

Once again do you have any response to the specific points?

Congress extended them. The GOP insisted that they be included and held unemployment benefits hostaage. Congress is the only entity that can. The President signed the legislation in order to get other important things for the nation.

Your rhetoric is meaningless and you even manage to contradict yourself. If you really believe these are Obamas tax cuts, then Toomeys plan doesnt eliminate the Bush tax cuts it eliminates the "Obama tax cuts". See how relying on rhetoric instead of substance cuts both ways and how you get tandled in your own rhetoric?

Catch22 RE: Toomey's plan to break the SC deadlock includes ENDING the "Bush tax cuts." (Obama extended this plan 2 more yrs so it would not be unfair to call it the "Obama Tax Cuts") - It now ends in Dec. 2012, a month after the election. Your response is:

It sticks to rigid GOP ideology by lowering revenue and not increasing revenue. It relies totally upon spending cuts plus some vodoo wishful thinking economic fantasy.

Catch22 - It does not "rely totally upon spending cuts" as you incorrectly assert. Here is a Toomey plan summary: 1) It would have Eliminated Tax Loopholes, 2) Lowered tax rates, 3) Eliminated the Bush Tax Cuts which Obama extended until Dec. 2012, 1 month after the election

********************************************************

We are in a historic financial crisis. We're borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend and we are experiencing $1.5 trillion annual deficits (shortfalls). We have just lost our AAA rating and we will likely be downgraded again in 45 days. **WE MUST FINALLY CUT SPENDING**

********************************************************

For a broad pro-con overview of the Sen. Toomey plan see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/politics/republicans-optimistic-on-a-deficit-proposal.html

But it matters not, Dems quickly rejected the plan.

MORE HOPEFUL INPUT ON SC PROGRESS; "It seems we had a breakthrough where the Republican negotiators did put new revenue on the table," "I think they deserve great credit for that, and it's my understanding that some but not all of the Democrats have put forth entitlement reforms, so that is certainly progress." ~ Senator Susan Collins

Catch22 - It does not "rely totally upon spending cuts" as you incorrectly assert. Here is a Toomey plan summary: 1) It would have Eliminated Tax Loopholes, 2) Lowered tax rates, 3) Eliminated the Bush Tax Cuts which Obama extended until Dec. 2012, 1 month after the election

You still refuse to provide a rational response.

Your summary includes NO revenue increases and only decreases, so yes it totally relies upon spending cuts.
Once again your point 3 is nonsense because as you have noted before those tax cuts ALREADY expire Dec. 2012. The GOP plan does nothing to change that, and seeks to replace those tax cuts with very similar cuts but make them permanent.

We are in a historic financial crisis. We're borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend and we are experiencing $1.5 trillion annual deficits (shortfalls). We have just lost our AAA rating and we will likely be downgraded again in 45 days. **WE MUST FINALLY CUT SPENDING**

Actually we were ALREADY in a worse historic financial crisis when Obama took office. We lost our AAA rating with some private agencies primarly because the GOP decided to take the debt ceiling politically hostage and publicly talked about default being ok. Meanwhile organizations with capital continue to line up to loan the United States money at historically low rates. The real key is what is the interest rates actually are. The primary reason we face further downgrades is the GOP obstructionism and insisting that their minority views are forced upon the nation.

WE MUST FINALLY CUT SPENDING**

First, ALL CAPS DOESNT MAKE YOU ANY MORE RATIONAL.
second, the Democrats and the President support cutting spending.
Third the GOP refuses to consider rasing revenue from its historic lows despite the vast majority of Americans believing they should - in fact they are insisting on lowering revenue in their plan.

When you are ready to do anything but repeat talking points, please post.

As for your link its a good example of the poor coverage and how media just reports what each side say.

House Republicans, back from a week of recess, met to discuss the Republican offer, which includes $300 billion in new tax revenue over 10 years and a rewriting of the tax code.

What it does not say that the $300 billinon in new tax revenue is largely based on gimicks and fantastic assumptions. Meanwhile this so called increase in conditioned upon DECREASING revenue by more than a trillion over the same period.

Thats kind of like saying I will give you 1 dollar if you give me 5 dollars and calling it a "compromise."

As for quoting a Republican Senator saying something vague about other Republican Senators, who cares?

It seems we had a breakthrough where the Republican negotiators did put new revenue on the table," "I think they deserve great credit for that, and it's my understanding that some but not all of the Democrats have put forth entitlement reforms, so that is certainly progress." ~ Senator Susan Collins

Yes thats like giving someone credit for putting 1 dollar on the table in exhange for 5 dollars. Its a shell game.

Your summary includes NO revenue increases and only decreases

Wrong again Catch22. Eliminating Tax Loopholes (A Significant GOP Concession) alone is a significant increase in revenue. Besides the Dems quickly stuffed Toomey's Plan. But as I previously pointed out some Dems are working on counter proposals.

Even if Congress attempts to "fix" a possible SC failure later, we are still likely to receive yet another rating downgrade if we fail. (About $100 billion per year for each downgrade) ~Try to understand this is a team effort Catch22,,,

Wrong again Catch22. Eliminating Tax Loopholes (A Significant GOP Concession) alone is a significant increase in revenue.

Talk is cheap. Document it and prove it. If you take 100 billion increase and then include a one trillion decrease do you still call that a "significant increase in revenue" or a significant decrease in revenue?

It is a significant decrease in revenue and it is exactly what the GOP plan is. Even if you accept for the sake of argument and pretend that the Bush tax cuts are permanent already the GOP plan still includes less than 2% revenue vs. 98% in cuts. You yourself have said the tax cuts expire after the election yet you continue to include them in giving credit to the GOP for a plan that takes effect AFTER that.

we are still likely to receive yet another rating downgrade if we fail.

The first downgrade was primarily due to the GOP's decicion to politicize the debtceiling and calling default a viable option.
The ratings downgrade is more likely if the GOP plans to reverse the cuts to defence is successful.
Ratings by a private agency are far less important that actual market rates which remain near historic lows (ratings agencies make mistakes and are influence by a lot of things, meanwhile the actual loans remain at very low rates).

Your summary includes NO revenue increases and only decreases (16.7)

.Wrong again Catch22 - Your claim above in (#16.7) re the Toomey Plan is still false. I gave you an example from the Toomey Plan: The Toomey plan Eliminated Tax Loopholes to the tune of about $285 billion if memory serves.

Catch22, you are developing a pattern here of making reckless claims, being corrected, then ignoring the correction and bringing it back up again(!?) Again if you make a reckless and bogus claim it will often be brought to your attention. Further when you are corrected that your claim was false it is seldom a good idea in life or in the courtroom to re-visit the issue.

********************************************************

FACT: The Toomey Plan DID include tax revenue.

*********************************************************

Your summary includes NO revenue increases and only decreases (16.7)

Nice try to leap back three comments and try to confuse the issue between your summary and your confusion over the plan.

The Toomey plan Eliminated Tax Loopholes to the tune of about $285 billion if memory serves

First, this was an estimate based upon unjustified assumptions.
Second, the plan includes both Decresing revenue by 3.9billion and if you take them at their word increasing revenue by less than 300 billion.
FACT: 300 billion - 3.9 billion is NEGATIVE 3.6 billion.
FACT: A 3.6 trillion decrease is NOT an increase in revenue.

FACT: The Toomey Plan DID include tax revenue.

That does not change the conclusion that the plan includes a net decrease in revnue of 3.6 trillion!

Catch22, you are developing a pattern here of making reckless claims, being corrected, then ignoring the correction and bringing it back up again(!?)

You have a patern of making patronizing and misleading assertions.

Further when you are corrected that your claim was false it is seldom a good idea in life or in the courtroom to re-visit the issue.

Yes you should stop calling a net 3.6 trillion decrease in revenue an increase in revenue. Cant you see how ridiculous that is?

You seem to be forgetting what you yourself wrote repeatedly, the Bush tax cuts are ALREADY set to expire. The plan should be evaluated on what it actually does, and what it does is to put back a net decrease of 3.6 trillion dollars.

The GOP insistence that any plan to reduce the deficit must include a 3.6 trillion increase in the deficit first, is absurd and explains at least part of your confusion.

The democrats need to stand firm on eliminating tax loopholes (18)

Bradley very respectfully re your quote please keep in mind: Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered a plan to break the Super Committee deadlock by lowering tax rates, eliminating tax loopholes, and reducing the deficit. The Dems did indeed reject it. But one more time please remember *******************************************************************************

GOP Senator Pat Toomey's plan to break the deadlock also included ENDING the "Bush tax cuts and eliminating tax loopholes.

*******************************************************************************

The Democrats rejected this plan and earlier this year the Dem Senate defeated Obama's budget by an astonishing 97-0! - - - FACT: The Dem Senate has not passed a budget in 2 years.

I haven't heard of any plan to raise any revenue above the revenue that would already be raised by the Bush tax cuts expiring. So in effect there isn't any give on either side of significance. Because the Democrats are counting the savings of bringing troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan. So if Democrats stand firm then at least they won't be submitting to more cuts without revenue to counter the imbalance the GOP is suggesting. In my view both sides should be doing better at the Jobs that by the way they are being paid very well to do. Also by standing firm on new revenue would be in the best interests of the country and preserve some of the integrity of the Democratic Party. What both the GOP and the Democrats fail to realize is that both sides have legitimate points, But they are both failing to reach an rational conclusion to the issues at hand.

We still need revenues coming in at a substantial amount #19

sistagirl with all due respect we don't have a revenue problem.

What we have is a spending problem.

We have a drastic revenue problem in this country that is at least as bad as our spending problem, perhaps far worse.

We have a drastic revenue problem in this country that is at least as bad as our spending problem, perhaps far worse.

With all due respect Minan, our problem is not revenue, it's spending. ...And now we are running out of chances. The kick-the-cost-can down the road policy that both parties have engaged in failed miserably. We now spend $1.4 trillion a yr more than we take in and to make matters worse we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. A decades long drunk has left our children and grandchildren in a dreadful situation - We owe $15 trillion.

We voted in these rascals that made rosy promises they couldn't keep then recklessly passed them on to the next generations and the next politicians. . But no one person is more responsible for this historic fiscal crisis than one each, Barrack Obama.

Ronald Reagan's "cut taxes and borrow" policies started the country down the road to economic demise. He bears more responsibility for our problems than any other president, since everyone after him has followed his lead. The country needs to return to the pre-Reagan tax rates to return to economic stability.

Ronald Reagan's "cut taxes and borrow" policies started the country down the road to economic demise. He bears more responsibility for our problems than any other president, since everyone after him has followed his lead. The country needs to return to the pre-Reagan tax rates to return to economic stability.

Minan, you are mistaken. Although we all share some responsibility, no other person in American history is more responsible for what lies ahead for our children and grandchildren than Obama. We are now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend, we now spend $1.5 trillion more than we take in, we just lost our AAA rating, Welfare and food stamps have sky-rocketed under Oborrow, 9% unemployment, all stimulus plans failed* big-time, O’s approval has dropped 30%, a child born today already owes $46,000. We are out of money; bankrupt. (Overdrawn)

~ Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare then double-counted, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable.

* $270,000 per job created

And above all else a wonderland of bogus math and shameless self-serving "projections."

Don't feel bad, many of us were fooled. ~But ObamaCare is a primary reason O is ONE and DONE.~ In his last election Reagan won EVERY state but one; let's see how O does.

.

Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct.

The Wall Street Journal lost all of its credibility when it was bought by Rupert Murdoch. Noe it is merely another right wing propaganda outlet.

In his last election Reagan won EVERY state but one; let's see how O does.

That doesn't mean Reagan's image shouldn't be on every urinal cake to remind Americans how much he pissed on the country.

Minan be advised Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his last election. Methinks your view is somewhat isolated but your vote still counts as much as the President's vote.

Respectfully, eca

ecagetx & Minan you 2 seem to be doing exactly what Congress and The House of Representatives are doing, Bickering about spending and revenue without factoring in Causation of the problems. If the USA could subtract the cost of Illegal Aliens - Lost revenue for cheaper wages and benefits paid to them plus the Cost of the wars that has been and are being fought I doubt the USA would be facing the predicament we are in. And Neither side has done much in the way of resolving these 2 critical problems. I will have to give congrats to Pres. Obama for drawing down troops and eliminating the Top Al queda leaders though.

These RePublican crooks should be jailed for even suggesting this insulting crap. How much more out of touch with reality could they be? Does anything at all get through to them? Their policies have failed and their new proposals are an even bigger disaster!

James respectfully:

We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend, we now spend $1.5 trillion more than we take in, we just lost our AAA rating, Welfare and food stamps have sky-rocketed under Oborrow, 9% unemployment, Obama stimulus plan failed* big-time, O’s approval has dropped 30%, a child born today already owes $46,000. We are out of money; bankrupt. (Overdrawn) - - The Wall Street Journal calls Obamacare “The Worst Bill in History.”

~ Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare then double-counted, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable.

* $270,000 per job created

And above all else a wonderland of Obama's bogus math and shameless self-serving "projections."

Don't feel bad, many of us were fooled. ~But ObamaCare is a primary reason O is ONE and DONE.~

With all due respect, cutting and pasting from other debunked comments isnt productive discussion.

cutting and pasting from other debunked comments isnt productive discussion.

Sorry Catch22 wrong again, these are all my own comments; the responses are often similar if the issue is similar.

Most importantly just for the fun of it try to debunk some of my points above in 22.1 - I am honestly unaware of you or anyone for that matter "debunking" any of these points. Respectfully, eca

Sorry Catch22 wrong again, these are all my own comments; the responses are often similar if the issue is similar.

Sorry indeed, I stand by cut and paste. E.g.

~ Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare then double-counted, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable.

* $270,000 per job created

This is third instance of EXACTLY the same paragraph as your prior comments in 19.5 AND 23.1 which was debunked in 23.5.

Not just "similar" but CUT AND PASTED down to the tilda ~ with a few sentences thrown in.

Don't feel bad, many of us were fooled. ~But ObamaCare is a primary reason O is ONE and DONE.~

That must be the third time you have written exactly the same talking point.

These tea party republican radicals have one thing in mind, how to cut SS, Medicare Medicade and starve children of food programs #23

Fronco you are mistaken. Actually although we all share some responsibility, no other person in American history is more responsible for what lies ahead for our children and grandchildren than Obama. We are now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend, we now spend $1.5 trillion more than we take in, we just lost our AAA rating, Welfare and food stamps have sky-rocketed under Oborrow, 9% unemployment, all stimulus plans failed* big-time, O’s approval has dropped 30%, a child born today already owes $46,000. We are out of money; bankrupt. (Overdrawn)

~ Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare then double-counted, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable.

* $270,000 per job created

And above all else a wonderland of bogus math and shameless self-serving "projections."

Don't feel bad, many of us were fooled. ~But ObamaCare is a primary reason O is ONE and DONE.~

no other person in American history is more responsible for what lies ahead for our children and grandchildren than Obama Reagan.

Now it makes sense. Reagan's voodoo economics combined with his "free trade" outsourcing of jobs is the very reason this country is in such bad shape. The man's image belongs on urinal cakes to remind us how much he pissed on the country.

Now it makes sense. Reagan's voodoo economics combined with his "free trade" outsourcing of jobs is the very reason this country is in such bad shape. The man's image belongs on urinal cakes to remind us how much he pissed on the country.

With all due respect Minan we all share the blame directly or indirectly but no one single individual is more responsible for the kick-the-cost- can-down-the-road mess we have left future generations than Obama.

ecagetx, Do you know why we are the way we are, one statement from one ignorant senator; Our agenda is to make President Obama a one term president, these republican tea party congress people never lifted a finger to help out on the economy and jobs, look at the facts, republicans only were out to make the rich richer and not tax them enough, because if they taxed the rich from the get go, we wouldn't be in this position and no dept, remember the dept ceiling what these tea party members did, they destroyed our credit ratting and it costed millions, and another thing,Why this president on the dept ceiling vote from the republicans, it all goes back to that hateful comment from Mich McConell, Our agenda is to make Obama a one term president.

Fronco no offense but many like me were supportive of Obama 3 yrs ago when his approval was 30% higher. What happened since then was primarily O's own fault. He failed mightily so many different ways and blamed everyone but himself.

~His biggest problem is Obamacare which was laced with stealth hidden costs intentionally kept from the public. ObamaCare is also the reason employers are hesitant to hire.~

With all due respect Minan we all share the blame directly or indirectly but no one single individual is more responsible for the kick-the-cost- can-down-the-road mess we have left future generations than Obama.

With all due respect, repeating it doesnt make it so. Your claim simply does not bear up to scrutiny. What is the single biggest cause of the fiscal reversal of fortune in America from 2000 surplus to today? The Bush GOP tax cuts of 2001 and 2002. Second? Massive increases in defence spending with two long drawn out wars.

The nation was in the middle of the WORST recession in history when Obama came into office. Unemployment was rising faster than any time before or sense. The nation was in the middle of a housing crisis. The nation was in the middle of a financial insitution crisis. The nation was in the middle of an automobile manufacturing crisis. The globe has an internation financial crisis. All of these have been years in the making.

Another great depresssion was seen as a real possibility - Obama helped steer the country out of recession - not the other way around.

Your claims about the health care reform bill are not bourne out in reality.

Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients

Those are not new non paying patients - those people existed and needed healthcare. Many were getting uncompensated care in the Emergency rooms which is hugely expensive. Pretending that the law created these people is total nonsense.
"500 billion heisted from Medicare" This it total rubbish. The plan does try to limit the skyrocketing growth of Medicare. Calling it a heist is empty since there is zero evidence that even a penny is being taken from Medicare by the plan. Did you get this from GOP talking points, who actuall made these savings part of their own plan?

now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever"

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has zero credibility and is widely known for its extreme partisanship and ideology. Its not a cornerstone in any case.

Don't feel bad, many of us were fooled. ~But ObamaCare is a primary reason O is ONE and DONE.~

There are many false statements about the Health Care Reform bill that have people fooled. If the President loses his reelection campaign, the primary reason will be the state of the economy - fair or not.

This position of course, is false. Liberals would wish to continue to blame all on Bush, but this no longer holds water. We have already seen where the CBO has charted the 2009 ''Stimulus'' as ineffective, and contributing to a larger deficit as regards debt-to-GDP ratio [ at 100% by the end of this year]. And we have seen where the Bureau of Labor Statstics places unemployment at a 9% average for every year since Obama took office. We have equally seen where Obama takes responsibility for the largest deficits since 1947. [ in years 2009,2010,2011].

Pass to the use of the Wall St. Journal in passing judgement upon the administation with regards to op-ed, and we will recall that liberals on these very VINE seeds dependably use source from THINKPROGRESS, SALON, MSNBC, DNC, DAILY KOS, DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND, TRUTHOUT, The Center for American Progress, and others which have been routinely exposed as charlatans, provacateurs, or out and out liars when engaged in the discussion or dissemination of various issues of the day. Obviously, the merits or deficits of Obamacare are now to the Supremes to decide...

www.cbo.gov

Well said Orly.

We have already seen where the CBO has charted the 2009 ''Stimulus'' as ineffective, and contributing to a larger deficit as regards debt-to-GDP ratio [ at 100% by the end of this year].

Prove it. Quote the CBO describing the CBO is "ineffective." Your seizing one piece is not the total impact of the stimulus and pretending it is is ridiculous. His statement no more proves the stimulous was inneffective as it proves that tax cuts was inneffective, since it was ONLY about the impact of the deficit on the economy and not at all about the other impacts of those policies.

I notice you failed to explain why you contradict the CBO scoring of the helath care reform bill.

CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1).

There in black and white is the CBO opinion on the health care reform bill. Your opinion about the stimulous as being ineffective is yours only.

Pass to the use of the Wall St. Journal in passing judgement upon the administation with regards to op-ed, and we will recall that liberals on these very VINE seeds dependably use source from THINKPROGRESS, SALON, MSNBC, DNC, DAILY KOS, DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND, TRUTHOUT, The Center for American Progress, and others which have been routinely exposed as charlatans, provacateurs, or out and out liars when engaged in the discussion or dissemination of various issues of the day.

Excellent example of irrelevant response. Your feelings about other seeds have no bearing on the credibility of the WSJ editorial page, nor does your opinion that other unspecified seeds might have poor documentation in any way justify your using poor documentation. There are some poorly documented seeds, that doesnt justify you doing so. Thats even more childish than "He did it first!" you are not even pointing to any specific individual even if tit for tat was relevant to credibility.

Obviously, the merits or deficits of Obamacare are now to the Supremes to decide...

Another example of apparent ignorance. The Supreme Court neither considers the merits or the deficits of the Affordable Care Act. They will consider whether it is consistent with the Constitution. Whether it is a good idea or causes deficits is irrelevant. The CBO reports on the impact on the deficit and as quoted verbatim above they concluded it reduces the deficit.

Catch22, Sorry to butt-in on a post you made to Orly but RE your 23.8 post above,,,

1) Obama's stimulus which the O administration said would keep unemployment from exceeding 8% was indeed a failure. Unemployment is now at 9% and each new job created cost a quarter million dollars.

2) Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable. 26 states have sued to get out of OCare btw,,,

Respectfully, eca

1) Obama's stimulus which the O administration said would keep unemployment from exceeding 8% was indeed a failure. Unemployment is now at 9% and each new job created cost a quarter million dollars.

Aleady addressed in detail here.

Obamacare has introduced us to 30 million new non paying patients, $500 billion heisted from Medicare, the infamous $247 billion "Doc fix" scam, 1,700 entities and corporations already "exempt" from Ocare, and now a corner stone of what the Wall Street Journal called, "The Worst Bill Ever" is defunct. (Not enough money for Kennedy's Long Term Care Provision, CLASS) * Citing cost concerns, the Obama administration said Friday it has halted a long-term care insurance program that was part of the massive health care law passed in 2010. It was called the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports), the program was canceled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after a 19-month effort to find a way to make it financially viable

This it the third or fourth time you cut and pasted essentially the same paragraph. Already addressed here.

.

Sorry 2 spamsters [borang & jameslester] may have had an affect on posting.

.

Since all GOP candidates for president would walk away from a 10-1 spending compromise. How then is the super committee going to get a deal?

geebee the proposition was if they would walk away from a spending compromise of 10-1 if it meant raising taxes during a historic recession and 9% unemployment. >>>>>You left that last crucial phrase out<<<<<

We can no longer kick-the-cost-can down the road for future generations to pay; that's what got us in this mess. This fiscal crisis is one which we all share the blame for directly or indirectly but no one single individual in American history is more responsible for our children already owing $46,000 each and our government owing $15T and each new job under the O stimulus costing $270,000 each than Barrack Oborrow. ...Not to mention a 9% unemployment rate that the O administration pledged would not exceed 8% if O's stimulus was passed. geebee this is not a Dem or Rep problem, this is an American problem.

~Would the Dems on the SC accept a deal that specified dropping Obamacare? Answer: No - And that's why we don't even ask~

What is the Democrats end game strategy? Any one with a modicum of intelligence knows that the debt cannot be paid off by using tax increases. They just plain cannot raise taxes that high. It would completely destroy the economy.

So, what is the Democrats plan to pay off the debt? In a word, inflation. The dollar will be worth much, much less so the real debt is drastically reduced. With increases in wages to cover the cost of living increases, you move into a higher income tax bracket and pay higher taxes. Stealth tax increase. It's the Democrats dream come true.

geebee the proposition was if they would walk away from a spending compromise of 10-1 if it meant raising taxes during a historic recession and 9% unemployment. >>>>>You left that last crucial phrase out<<<<<

Your point assumes that only tax increases can hurt the economy and not spending cuts. This is not supported by real world data.

Actually those changes in tax policy are delayed.
You also fail to notice that reducing government spending during a "historic recession" hurts the economy at least as much as increasing taxes. The historic recession is technically over, although we are at risk of going back into recession.

The economy is hurt by reduced spending whether via tax increases or spending cuts. The effect of tax increases is indirect while the cut in government spending is immediate and direct.

What is the Democrats end game strategy? Any one with a modicum of intelligence knows that the debt cannot be paid off by using tax increases. They just plain cannot raise taxes that high. It would completely destroy the economy.

Your depiction is of a strawman.

The Democrats like the vast majority of Americans believe that the best approach is to BOTH (1) cut spending and (2) increase revenue. It is also a long term problem and not subject to a quick fix. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that any quick and easy solutions will "destroy the economy."

The GOP plan is to (1) cut spending and (2) decrease revenue.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that decreasing spending will make the deficit problem more difficult not harder.

So, what is the Democrats plan to pay off the debt? In a word, inflation. The dollar will be worth much, much less so the real debt is drastically reduced.

In a word, gibberish. Do you enjoy just making stuff up like that?

You also fail to notice that reducing government spending during a "historic recession" hurts the economy at least as much as increasing taxes.

Earth to Catch22: We are out of money. $15 trillion in the red. Bankrupt. We simply can't afford the same "Spend our way to prosperity" plan.

Respectfully Catch22, we just can't continue to spend, kick=the=cost=can=down=the=road once again then pretend higher taxes during a deep recession is the answer. I owned a small business for 33 yrs. The truth is business owners are currently hesitant to hire because of the onerous and extraordinarily costly Obamacare law. They are also waiting to see if this failed President will be replaced with someone with views more conducive to business and economic growth as opposed to promises and programs that consistently fail, bogus math and self serving projections, higher taxes and sky rocketing** welfare and food stamp programs.

**Increases in welfare and food stamps were unprecedented records. (Obama sees them as voters.)

~More spending is not the answer~

Earth to Catch22: We are out of money. $15 trillion in the red. Bankrupt.

The United States is not "out of money." The United States is not "bankrupt." These are just facts based upon reality and the meaning of these phrases in English language. We do have a lot less revenue and a lot higher deficit due to the reckless tax cuts passed by Bush and the GOP that they promised would not add to the deficit.

Respectfully Catch22, we just can't continue to spend, kick=the=cost=can=down=the=road once again then pretend higher taxes during a deep recession is the answer.

Respectfully, you continue to refuse to acknowledge the reality as pointed out above that reducing spending hurts the economy at least as much as raising taxes. Repeating the same conclusions isnt engaging in rational discusion. Now if you want to make a rational argument as to why you believe that the economy is more directly impacted by taxes than spending or provide another rational objection to what I wrote, please do so, but shouting conclusions isnt a way of engaging in rational discussion.

YOu fail to notice that the tax cuts are the biggest reason for our current deficits and part of the problem.

**Increases in welfare and food stamps were unprecedented records. (Obama sees them as voters.)

Yet another example of irrational thinking. Why were there increases in welfare and food stamps? BECAUSE OF THE WORST RECESSION IN HISTORY WHICH STARTED BEFORE THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. Your "Obama sees them as voters," is just irrelevant partisan nonsense. The welfare and food stamp laws have not been changed since Obama became President. In any case, is it your position that somehow they are not voters?

They are also waiting to see if this failed President will be replaced with someone with views more conducive to business and economic growth as opposed to promises and programs that consistently fail, bogus math and self serving projections, higher taxes and sky rocketing

Are they really?
FACT: GNP growth when Obama came into office was negative. Now it is positive.
FACT: Unemployment was rising faster than anytime in history when Obama came into office, now it is rising albeit slowly.

How does the business see the country one measure is the stock market.
QUESTION: How has the stock market done in this adminstration compared to the last administration? HINT: A lot better especially if your realize that it takes more than a few months for an administration to effect the economy.

If Obama was nearly the failure as you imagine, then why are we not in another great depression? Many saw the nation headed towards a possible second depression before Obama took office.

~More spending is not the answer~

There are no simple recipees or answers. More of the same policies that got here such as tax cuts are not the answer, yet the GOP insists on them. We already have some of the lowest taxes in generations. By your logic we must conclude that they failed. So why is the GOP insisting on more.

The United States is not "out of money." The United States is not "bankrupt." These are just facts based upon reality and the meaning of these phrases in English language. We do have a lot less revenue and a lot higher deficit due to the reckless tax cuts passed by Bush and the GOP that they promised would not add to the deficit.

Respectfully, but Wrong again Catch22, we are indeed out of money - FACT 1: We now spend $1.4 trillion a yr more than we take in. FACT2: Each new American child born already owes $46,000. FACT3: We borrow 42 cents on every dollar we spend.

Catch22 I have no desire to upset you but respectfully Obama's annual deficit (shortfall) average is a great deal higher than Bush's annual deficit average.

***********************
The time has finally arrived that we must ( ::gULp:: ) cut spending in a more meaningful fashion. Indeed our primary problem is spending rather than revenue.
***********************

Respectfully, eca

this is one of the biggest bull@!$%# dem talking points ever.

so, you're trying to say that if there were a GOP in the white house right now that the dems main purpose in life wouldn't be to get them out of there?

yeah sure, i know. all the dems would be saying "yes, for the good of the president let's all pass legislation we can't stomach and give those gop'ers everything they want so that the gop in the white house can be re-elected and we can deal with him for another 4 years".

here's a hint. you know why we have elections every 4 years? it's so that we can get rid the sitting @!$%# if he's a POS president

so, you're trying to say that if there were a GOP in the white house right now that the dems main purpose in life wouldn't be to get them out of there?

Absolutely. Do you actually have evidence to the contrary? The main purpose of congressmen is to improve the nation and not wreck the nation because the other side happens to hold the white house. sure they want a better President, but that doesnt make destroying the current President to be their main purpose in life.

Dont assume that everyone else puts the party of the White House before the nation and assumes that the voters will not see through such partisan attempts to get the white house.

yeah sure, i know. all the dems would be saying "yes, for the good of the president let's all pass legislation we can't stomach and give those gop'ers everything they want so that the gop in the white house can be re-elected and we can deal with him for another 4 years".

You have confused the difference betweeen compromise and passing legislation we cant stomach. The GOP has become so polarized that it cant stomach anything that doesnt meet many rigid checklists and promises.

You seem to assume that the opposition party has always been as obstructive as the current GOP - its simply not the case.

You have confused the difference betweeen compromise and passing legislation we cant stomachThe GOP has become so polarized that it cant stomach anything that doesnt meet many rigid checklists and promises

Do you actually have evidence to the contrary?

what was the passage of the obamacare? remind me of the vote count again even though 62% of the people are still against it?

they are both guilty of party line voting. to attach it to just the gop is disingenuous, at best. if what you are saying is true then how come there are no democratic contenders for the 2012 election running against obama. you actually have the nerve to say that there are no other democrats that can do a better job than obama, or is it that they don't want to split the democratic vote? personally, i'd vote bill clinton back in over any of the gop candidates if i could

in the 2008 election i didn't hear any democrat say that they were voting for mc cain and he was a better choice than obama. you'd have me then believe that every single democrat was supporting obama because of his outstanding record (oh, that's right. he didn't have one). all i heard was let's get the gop out so WE can have the congress and the white house and pass anything WE want, ala pelosi and reid so spare me your righteous indignation

No offense Catch22: We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend, we now spend $1.5 trillion more than we take in, we just lost our AAA rating, Welfare and food stamps have sky-rocketed under Oborrow, 9% unemployment, O's stimulus plans failed* big-time, O’s approval has dropped 30%, a child born today already owes $46,000. Obama's budget was defeated 97-0 by his own Dem. Senate! - - We are out of money; bankrupt. (Overdrawn) - - The Wall Street Journal calls Obamacare “The Worst Bill in History.”

Catch22 the reason Obama is now resorting to class warfare and supporting OWS is because he knows he can’t run on his record.