Believe me I know, RAF, but when you post links like that it looks like you're right there on the verge of drinking. Cheers!

You can lead a horse to water...

And as for your op-ed about dependency on aid, who knew that you, RAF, would praise increasing or redirecting taxes for more education spending as the author of that column does:
"Bravo to Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio for backing a landmark initiative to add one-eighth of 1 percent to the local sales tax to finance a prekindergarten program. Early interventions are not a silver bullet, and even programs that succeed as experiments often fall short when scaled up. But we end up paying for poverty one way or another, and early childhood education is far cheaper than adult incarceration. I hope that the budget negotiations in Washington may offer us a chance to take money from S.S.I. and invest in early childhood initiatives instead."
Gee, that sounds like something I've said many times. Spend heavily on people when they're young to avoid spending even more on them for the rest of their lives.
It's just interesting to see you backing these ideas, RAF. After all, you were the one that posted this article. Good for you! There might be hope for you yet.

What do you mean I stopped? I made a point that you have yet to refute, but that's cool. Keep patting yourself on the back for doing nothing just like the rich do when they call themselves job creators.
Also, the study you posted proved nothing. That economist didn't even touch on the fact that this recession was bigger and more far reaching than any other he has studied before. He failed to mention the many jobs that would be lost without the influx of cash into the economy everytime a claimant receives an unemployment check. His Pittsburgh example is far too small a sample size not to mention that that recession wasn't big enough to necessitate a large scale federal extension to state benefits. He also failed to mention that by the time those folks from Pittsburgh saw their benefits running out the reason they started working so soon is because there were jobs to work at. Such has not been the case during this recession until recently. The author of that study you posted was in over his head when he tried to counter the claims of the stimulative effects of unemployment benefits. You can tell by the way he was already walking it back by the end of the article:
"The real question is whether, and for how long, this price is worth paying to continue a just and compassionate program."
Doesn't sound like even he is buying into his own BS.

"I guess taking money and putting it back into the economy is helpful after all. What a concept!"
.
The big problem is that it's not real $$ that is being 'poured back in'. It's simply $$ that is borrowed, and that is literally being created from thin air to pay back. The DOLLAR BUBBLE we are now in is just yet ANOTHER big economic bubble waiting to burst. The reality is we could rid the $16+ trillion in debt tomorrow. Just simply have King ben create $16 trillion to pay it off. Obviously that would BUST the dollar bubble in an instant, so instead we do the far more devious path and do it by a fancy name; QE, and create the liquidity (create the $$'s) in small (quantitative) steps. And btw, there is ALL READY talk on the street of QE4 baby at todats fed meeting! Only been about 2 months since QE3. After QE4 is annouced, very soon later QE5 then 6,7,8,9......and on till total dollar implosion.

Walter try to educate yourself... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...

Walter where your faulty logic falls apart is assuming these same people will not find away to provide for themselves when the extended unemployment ends. Even open minded liberals are willing to admit how the failed safety hammock society has created a dependency trait in our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinio...

I see you stopped your red herring over your previous statement, imagine that.

Give it a rest, RAF. Everyone knows that's your standard answer when you can't argue your point any further. So let me pile on. The federal extension of unemployment benefits are about to expire. If our government allows that to happen, 400,000 jobs will be lost from the loss of money that gets pumped into the economy from those benefits being spent almost immediately by the recipients. I guess taking money and putting it back into the economy is helpful after all. What a concept!
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib346-lab...

More red herrings in your deflection arsenal walter...

RAF,
I guess you consider Social Security, Medicare, even military pension systems as "devoid of any fact or logic" then, correct?

"Leaving tax rates as they were would have helped the economy recover even faster as there would have been more revenue for the government to direct where it was truly needed."
-
This nonsense is the problem with today's left. They envision a utopia that doesn't exist. The government has spent more than it has collected for over 60 years. This "dream" that they would have had EVEN more money to spend, first taking it away from the economy taking handling costs off the top, then placing it back in the economy is in anyway helpful is devoid of any fact or logic.

If ordinary folks in the Rock County area can discuss and agree that the fiscal cliff could be avoided by using a sensible approach to raising revenues and cutting spending(some combination of defense and entitlements), why can't our elected representatives figure it out? For much too long our elected represtatives have dictated what we do and how we do it, but exclude themselves from the same scrunity. Time we place them in the same boat as ourselves. What they pass or don't pass applies to everyone, especially themselves with no exceptions including pensions, workhours, medical benefits,etc. That just may change the way they operate.

Ezoner,
You're just reenforcing my belief that the rich have far too much control over the economy. Clearly their priorties are making money and not being a good American. Good Americans do what is good for their country once they and their family are taken care of. The wealthy in this country are in no danger of going without yet all they do is threaten to take their money, investments, jobs, etc elsewhere. I say happy trails. Greed is not an American quality....at least it didn't used to be.

Ezoner,
You accuse me of handpicking data and then you pin the entire destruction of the middle class on less than 4 years of President Obama's policies? Just because you have no historical perspective doesn't mean I share in your deficiency. The bursting of the tech bubble was minor in comparison to the burst of the housing bubble. It was an overreach for President W Bush to slash taxes so deeply to try to compensate for the minimal damage caused in that recession. Leaving tax rates as they were would have helped the economy recover even faster as there would have been more revenue for the government to direct where it was truly needed. The housing bubble hit Americans so much harder because, for most, their home was the only investment they had. The fact that President W Bush never once cut spending to balance the lost revenue for the tax cuts combined with the rampant increases in spending during his Presidency left President Obama with no choice but to continue to borrow to try keep the economy out of a depression, put as many people back to work as he could and keep most everyone else from starving or going homeless. Now that the economy has its feet under it again its time to start slowly cutting spending and raising taxes to tackle the deficit/debt issue. Eliminating the Bush/Obama tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% should only be the start. Are they going to like it? No. What are they going to do about it, stop hiring? That might be a threat if they were actually the "job creators" they like to make themselves out to be. They've actually come out of the recession wealthier than before it, so they can be the first to see their tax cuts go away.

Walter -- You hand pick some of the data you use. This is what I would say -- It really doesnt matter who the president was -- Cliton or Bush -- both had Bubbles burst -- they both had segments of the economy in hyper mode, and then boom. Because of the Bubbles -- which were both artificicialy fed, they exploded. Obama is doing the same thing now. He refuses to let teh market work. This will get real ugly in 2013/2014 becuase we should have crashed further in the initial and because new bubbles are being created. Obama as well as the GOP is manipulating people -- more so Obama at this point.

We are seeing the destruction of the middle class by Obama and the admin. Thats where the highest concetration of tax dollars will come from because the rich will move their money -- they will never pay waht dems think they will collect -- it never happens. Look at France..

I have no delusions about the fact that raising taxes on the top 2% will not be enough to fix our deficit/debt issues. I'm all for cutting spending. Defense spending has bloated far beyond our needs. Entitlement reform is good if we're careful. Means testing for Medicare and Social Security benefits is a great idea. Once the economy gets back on with even more peopl working we should eliminate the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone else. Get them back up to the Clinton era levels so everyone is sharing in the sacrifice. This all has to be done slowly though. It's not a situation where ripping the bandaid off quickly is less painful.
I think the reason that we're seeing a shrinking workforce (the smallest since the Carter administration) is 4 fold. 1)The recession caused many to retire early. 2)The population is aging rapidly and the number of working age adults is declining naturally. 3)The recession led to companies forcing their employees to be more productive under the threat of unemployment. Just look at the numbers. Now fewer people are getting more work done than before. 4)That is also due in part to rapid advances in automation which heavily increases productivity while eliminating the need for flesh and blood employees.
Even with the baby boomers turning 65 at a rate of 10,000 people per day, the advances in automation are not going to stop. The lessons companies have learned about how to get more work from less people will not be forgotten. The fact is there's is just too many of us. This nation is going to have to get used to the idea that a larger and larger percentage of people will go from birth to the grave without working a day in their lives or perhaps a very limited amount.

RAF:
You are right on with most of your postings. The big problem is that people have this delusion that because the economy was in good shape under much of the Clinton years, many makes this ridiculous reasoning that it must have been because of the tax rates in place. Where the reality was the whole economy was completely different during that time, and indeed propped up by a tech bubble (Should be noted that much of the Bush economy was propped up by a real-estate housing bubble..Today it's all propped up by the DOLLAR, and bogus fed monetary creation of $$'s from thin air).
.
I personally don't have a huge issue with upping the upper rates back to those years, however; no one should be so delusional to believe it will make ANY difference in the deficit-debt problem that we now face. The extra revenue generated would run the government for like 3 days, and you'd still have deficits well over a trillion $'s annually. Make no doubt the upper income rate increase is just a 'feel good' solution. It's a great populist idea, that in reality will do NOTHING to address the problem. I will hand it to Obama for being a MASTER politician. He has created this belief with many in the public that if you just raise this upper income bracket up a few %, then all out debt-deficit problems will magically be fixed.

Walter revisionist delusions will not fix the problem. If you are going to look at a snap shot in history and ignore the whole picture, spending and revenue, you are no doubt going to be devoid of reason of your position. The tax rates of the famed Clinton years were offset by the tech boom, each having nothing to do with the other. As the tech boom burst, the Clinton tax rates proved too high for the economy to lift, resulting in a recession as he left office. This philosophy put forth by the socialist left that raising tax rates solves problems has never been shown to work at any time in our nation’s history. The late 50's are the epitome of this failed reasoning when the highest tax rates were above 90% and the nation still increased its debt level.

Spending has always been the problem with govt fiscal matters. There is not enough wealth to be taxed to provide all the money dems want to spend year after year. The current president is just another example of the tax and spend left wing. His ONLY plan for the fiscal cliff right in front of us; 1 Raise taxes 2 Raise the debt limit (he wants full authority on this) 3 Spend more money. Repeating these failed policies, AGAIN, expecting a different result is insanity.

For the uninformed out there over the employment picture the truly scary numbers are the labor pool size and what has happened to it since this president came into office. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS113000... the last time the numbers were this low Carter was in office...

As far as who gets the blame when it falls, and it will fall, who cares. The fact the two party system has created this mess I only hope the voters get smart and start demanding responsible people become elected and stop voting based on what the media and hollywood want.

Interesting that the people Obama claims that he wants to protect are going to be the ones hurt the most if we go over the "cliff". Unemployment benefits, higher tax rates, lower credit rating for the U.S., billions in entitlements and not raising the debt ceiling will bury many low - middle income families. A lot of speculation on who will be blamed for taking the country closer to a depression, but will that really matter to the families that have lost everything? When people are hungry, have no place live, no job and little hope for the future, they will hold accountable both parties on allowing this to happen. The parties will blame each other as they always do, but they will have to explain why they didn't compromise with the other party. Makes you wonder if we are not moving closer to a modern day "Civil War" where people will resort to violence in order to change the direction our country is heading. Sure hope this not the case, but we seem to be on a path where neither side will negotiate with the other.

Walter, I am attempting to call Guinness for your huge tale, you have set a record.

Hammer,
Bill Clinton pushed and got passed one of the biggest tax hikes in American history. The economy flourished. One can certainly argue that the deregulation and international free trade agreements that he pushed and got passed certainly did not provide long term strength to the economy, in fact quite the opposite. However, it was also George W Bush's historical tax cuts, out of control government spending on war & handouts to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and even more deregulation of the financil sector that proved to be almost deadly to the economy. President Obama is merely attempting to return the economy and government to a state where a measured level of success had been reached.

The economy can't improve much under government control and intrusion and wealth redistribution.

The crust of socialism needs to be broken.

RAF,
Again you over exaggerate because it's the only way to make your point. I never said nor do I believe that the President has full control over the federal government. The President has not said nor does he believe that either. What his reelection has given him is a strong position from which to negotiate. If all of this ends up in a stalemate, the Republicans will end up owning it. The biggest price they'll pay for it, besides the hurt put on their constituents of course, will be in the 2014 midterms. It seems like the GOP is most fearful of giving in to the President and having the economy continue to improve, perhaps even pick up more steam, and then they might face a rare situation in 2014 where the President's party would actually pick up seats in Congress. On the other side of that coin is the possibility that they give in to President Obama and the economy reverses. If that were to happen, even a slight downturn would swing the momentum all the way back in their favor and they could do very well in the mid terms. From they way they are unwilling to give ground it would seem that they are betting on President Obama's plan to do well for the economy and hamper their chances in 2014.

Gandalf an accurate description is hardly an insult, unless you are really that thin skinned. I never declared socialism, if you read my words I accurately declared his comments echoed that of the socialist party. As is a habit of yours you decided to jump in, uninformed (IGNORANT), and attempt to correct something you misunderstood from the beginning. Typical behavior from the left.

Hey lookie here, dont be surprised though, another example the lefts hypocrisy on taxes. Remember good ole Warren Buffett claiming he didn't pay enough taxes? Yeah, me too. Turns out his company, Berkshire Hathaway, is the largest shareholder in the Washington Post...big irony there. Anyway. The Washington Post has announced they are going to pay their dividend payments early, you know to beat the new tax increases coming the first of the year. No worry though I am sure Warren has morals and conviction and will freely step up to the plate to pay the NEW FULL RATE on his ~17 million dollar dividend payment from this single media company....yeah right, sure he will; hypocrite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/w...

Gandalf it seems you are IGNORANT on what the socialist party USA stands for in this country. I suggest you read their platform and ideals before trying to pass information you know nothing about. Or you could just read a union talking bulliten

http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles...

Walter and the other leftist seem to forget just because a person won election for president doesn't mean he has full control over all three branches of government; no matter what he ran on or wants. The fathers of this great nation ensured one person does not have full control...thankfully.

Keep it comin' BenghaziBob. That stuff is like gold. The Republican party gets closer to becoming a historical footnote every time you post. Nothing gets people on your side faster than telling them how worthless they are for not taking personal responsibility for their own lives. Sure worked for that other historical footnote, Mitt Romney.

Yes, I would have because I believe that a partnership between the US & Myanmar (Burma) to promote democracy, peace & prosperity is well worth .0005% of US GDP. After 2 years the partnership should be reviewed. If progress is being made, the partnership should continue. If not, the funding should be reduced or stopped completely.

WalterReuther, would you have given Myanmar 170 million dollars, if so why?

It's going to be a long 4 more years for some of you isn't it? We're still over a month away from inauguration day. I love it. "Illinois Kenyan". That's my new favorite. You know, the more you guys rant & rave, the happier you make a lot of Americans. The Republican party is notorious for outrageous government spending. See the last 3 Republicans administrations for countless examples. Yet, here you are crying your eyes out because a Democratic President spent a large amount of money. I guess your issue is that President Obama spent money to keep us out of a depression while the past 3 Republican Presidents spent money on comparing the size of America's metaphorical manhood with Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan and keeping our combat boot heel on the neck of a bunch of other little countries that represented little to no threat (Grenada anyone?). Just be honest with yourselves. It's not government spending that you're against. It's Democrats deciding how the money is spent that bothers you. Where were all the Republicans harping about deficits and debt when George W Bush was borrowing money from China to go to war and fund Medicare Part D? It didn't happen because you're hypocrites.

Someone call Tom Brokaw! Obama ran on a platform of raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans! A majority of Americans voted for his ideas and now Republicans are "shocked" that his plan asks for those very taxes! Oh, the teeth gnashing and feigned outrage is absurd.

You know you live in a Country run by IDIOTS if... Your Government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of the taxpayers money...!

Walter, Let's be just a tad bit more honest and tell more of what he said or didn't say. Obama did say he was wanted to raise the taxes on the wealthiest 1%, but he did not comment or run on his past record and most of his campaign dealt with lies such as Romney would overturn Roe vs. Wade (obviously several women fell for this lie), Romney would outsource jobs, Ryan would destroy SS as it currently is (again, several seniors fell for this lie) and a host of other "untruths" to distract people from reality. I saw a couple of consistencies in Obama; one he keeps spending future generations money and he continues to blame Bush. I think it is high time the mortgage transferred to the person living in the house and not the past resident paying the price. Obama did win, not overwhelmingly, but he won through some very deceptive ways. I don't have a problem raising taxes as long as some of the entitlements are cut equally. If we go over the "cliff" the lower and middle income will pay a very severe price, but in your words "That is what he ran on", so the people that supported his wealth distribution policy should have been smart enough to know that 49% of the people disagree with Obama and the direction he is taking our country. Most of us can and will survive either way, but all I can say is it is going to be a buyer's market come January 1. Very few wish to pay higher taxes, but it is made worse when our tax dollars are wasted and the taxpayers are forced to cut back just to support run away programs.

Walter, Elimination of the tax cuts as they seem to be known is like a pimple on a whale, learn more at I.O.U.S.A.

You are aware of the results of the Presidential election, right RAF? President Obama ran on the elimination of tax cuts for the rich. He won.

"I think it's time that the most fortunate finally feel just a little taste of what the middle and lower classes have been going through"
-
The same old tired class warfare the socialist party has been peddling for decades. Bring everyone down to the same level. That way its fair and we are all the same.

Ezoner,
Obama didn't coin the term. It's been around for a long time. You're right we should all feel the same pain. That's why the rich should see their taxes go up. Throughout this recession (and really over the last 30 years) the middle class and poor have seen their wages stagnate and their purchasing power dry up. Meanwhile, the very wealthy have prospered and corporate profits are at historic highs. So yeah, I think it's time that the most fortunate finally feel just a little taste of what the middle and lower classes have been going through for the better part of the last 3 decades.

Walter -- either all of us should feel the pain or none of should. We should place a disproportionate portion of the pain on one class, one race , etc... Its the same as dicrimination. We should all feel the pain and then its fair. Fair -- isnt that a term Onama coined.... Fair Share.

Walter -- you could correct -- but I would rather that the GOP took the right action opposed to giving in. This iwhat Obama wants anyways. The results wont be any worse, regardless of the direction. In one instance there will be a recession as employers reduce investments, in the other disposable income will drop and there will be a recession. Its coming no matter how you dice it up. It will not be avoided either way -- but at least there will be cuts in spending.

All I know is that I PAY for my social security package. It is not an entitlement, it is my money that the government has in a savings account for me. Yes there userd to be a trust fund that was separate, but one of the presidents rolled it into the total package to make the budget look good.

If people looked and were educated they would see the data on the debtclock website and the conclusion of any intelligent citizen should be no improvement in America’s situation has transpired over the last four years under Obama control, thus the democrats should be seen for what they are, authors of big government and taxes. Small government & the return of freedom should be the recipe, worked in the past.

Ezoner,
Many people like you will hold President Obama accountable, but the election just one month ago and every poll regarding the favorability of Congress, specifically the Republicans in Congress, tell a different story about who most American voters will hold accountable. The majority, not all but a majority, of people look at the whole situation like this:
President Obama is trying to fix things but the Republicans are obstructing him at every turn because they are in the pocket of the very wealthiest American individuals and corporations. Whether that's right or wrong is a separate debate, but that is how the electorate is currently viewing the situation. That could bode very poorly for the GOP in the 2014 election depending on how all this turns out.

Obama doesn't care about any cliff. He has threatened to veto his own plan if the GOP doesn't grant him full control of the purse strings with no debt ceiling. It's just a power grab. I agree with Rand Paul. GOP should walk away and let Obama own it.

Walter is completly delusional -- I say lets go off the Obama cliff. This is his economy now and he approved and wanted this cliff in place. Lets go... Whatever happens -- he will then be held accountable.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio...

Cheers, RAF

Rhetoric:

1

: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as

a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times

b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

2

a: skill in the effective use of speech

b: a type or mode of language or speech; also: insincere or grandiloquent language

3

: verbal communication : discourse
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

Escape the nightmare: move to Canada. Oh, I forgot, they're socialists.

This is America. You may not like the POTUS and it's ok to disagree with his policies, but to say that you are waking up in a 'nightmare', or worse that 'we all' are is simply delusional and shows that you have no perspective. If this is a 'nightmare' to you then you should be THANKFUL that who the POTUS is is your biggest worry in life. Nightmare. Sheesh.

dustyd, we know, we all wake up each day with the nightmare.

Hey Krauthammer, you jerk, it's PRESIDENT Obama.

Ret, people voted for Santa...

As I suspected, skip right passed the facts spelled out as you twist in the wind posting more rhetoric.

Seems as though Congress is only good at voting down a budget but can't work together to pass one either, but is that any surprise, really, considering Senator McConnell has now resorted to filibustering his own bill? Much like anything else in Washington, the President can't get a budget done when a large percentage of Congress has only one priority: being uncooperative with the President and Democrats. That's what happens when the business of the people in our nation's capital is being dictated by the GOP politicians' fear of being primaried in their newly redrawn, deeply, deeply conservative districts.
Popularity contests may not fix problems, but in order for someone to get into a position to fix problems, the voters have to like them. Perhaps that's why the Republican party so strongly supports legislation that makes it harder and harder for people to vote.

http://gazettextra.com/photos/2012/dec/0...

"(raising taxes on the wealthy is a popular idea)"
-
Great class warfare is popular. So? You could take all the money from the wealthy, 100%, and not pay off the deficit just for this year.

Popularity contests won't fix the problem this administration has with spending.

Walter you have drank the propaganda without looking at the facts.

1st, there has not been a national budget for over three years. During that time the increased spending from his first and only budget has been put into the baseline budget "scheme" and never reduced---only increased more each year. His leadership (sic) has ensured this spending increased, resulting in 4 years of over a trillion dollars in deficits each year; a new ugly record.

2nd, his proposed budgets for the last two years have been rejected by every member of the house and senate in floor votes, his own party members ALL voted against them.

3rd, Harry Reid, the dem leader of the US Senate, refuses to let the presidents most recent fiscal cliff proposal come up for a vote.

Pretending this president’s fiscal policy has been held up by members of the opposite party is an utter joke. He can't even get people from his own party to vote for them.

There's really very little in the way of economic policy that Obama can really cop to. Yes, the economic impact of the ACA will be on his head, but the more people it helps the more the political liability is offset by the political capital he would gain. As for most of President Obama's economic policy agenda, it's been stymied in Congress. It's hard to blame the President for something that never passed. He has a plan and he was solidly reelected. If the GOP in Congress stands in the way again and their only excuse is we can't allow this because we don't like it, the unpassed policy can't be blamed for economic difficulty that follows. Sure you can try to pin it on the President for not negotiating, but why should he. Again, he has a plan and the will of the people behind him (raising taxes on the wealthy is a popular idea), topped off with the fact that the Republican idea of negotiation with him was McConnell's sole priority of making him a one term President. Those are not people I'd negotiate with either. I mean the things the GOP are tossing around are pretty ridiculous when you consider what just happened in the last election. Republicans are talking about raising the eligibility age of Medicare. That's a non-starter because the American people, not Democrats in Congress, have made it a non-starter. That program is wildly popular just the way it is as is Social Security. The American people have made it clear that entitlement programs are high priority. Fix things without hurting SS and Medicare. That means raising taxes. It starts with the wealthy and should move on down from there once more people start working again.

Just because the media and left are ignoring his culpability doesn't mean his current policy should be allowed without question. Reality is his "plan" wants to raise taxes as a fix. But his fix, over a decade will still add 10 trillion to the debt. Currently he is borrowing over a trillion a year to run the government, he has decided not to address this at all.

Kiow has a hypothesis. Kiow can't be right about something that hasn't happened yet. As with most things associated with the current administration, the events are unprecedented. What's interesting is that nearly all polling suggests that Americans place more blame on President W Bush for our to the minute economic problems than President Obama. That is why there is such disdain among Americans for the GOP in Congress. They're still being lumped in with the previous administration. It seems that either way, President Obama has avoided blame. If that changes over time is irrelevant to the shaping of policy in the here and now.

Walter your memory is short. The approval rating of the dem controlled congress during the last 2 years of GWB was also very low, yet all the political fallout for the economic crush from the housing bubble is placed at the feet of GWB...Kiow has it right.

kiwo,
Ignore the poll all you like. The GOP spent a lot of time ignoring polls during the Presidential election and look where it got them. The US just reelected President Obama. It's Congress that has an approval rating that often runs in the single digits, and in pretty much any poll taken, it is the GOP that is blamed by the American people for the gridlock in Congress. Regardless of how you as an individual look at the problem and who holds the cards and blah blah blah, it appears the voting public will be blaming the Republican party if we go over the edge.

I beg to differ with Mr. Krauthammer. SS does not contribute to the deficit. The fact that politicians from both parties have raided the SS Trust Fund is what contributes to the deficit.

". A new Pew/Washington Post poll shows that Americans would blame the GOP by more than a 2-to-1 margin if we go over the fiscal cliff, so bark all you want. Nobody's listening."
.
A poll that is MEANINGLESS!
Anyone who understands LEVERAGE, and shroud business tactics, knows that the ultimate blame ALWAYS, as in 100%; falls to the President. Look back on ANY disaster or big event of the past two centuries. History NEVER said: "boy the congress did a great job handling that war, financial mess, economy...(fill in the blank.....)". It is ALWAYS the President who takes historic blame and or credit for any event which happens, good or bad. Sure the GOP will take the SHORT TERM blame, but in the end it is the President who ALWAYS is held accountable. The GOP holds ALL the cards. Now whether the morons realize it or not, is the real question. Keep in mind this is the same party of clowns, who thought Stiff Rommney was a sure fire winning candidate.

Ezoner,
You poor thing. Grapes that sour will never be sweet again. A new Pew/Washington Post poll shows that Americans would blame the GOP by more than a 2-to-1 margin if we go over the fiscal cliff, so bark all you want. Nobody's listening.

Walter -- so you are saying that Obama is a liar. That he lied to the American public when he said that we would not make the defense cust, that we would experience sequestration? Its was lies and he really does want it. He lied to congress when he said he would work with them and negotiate. He should therefore not be trusted by congress nor the American people.

HERE HERE RAF!
Fire up the Van Halen music, and lets all JUMP, JUMP, MIGHT AS WELL JUMP!! I really hope some of these spineless little pukes in the GOP don't fold on this one. They have ALL the leverage. History always will in the end blame the President. No matter how much Obama tries to put the blame on congress, it will ultimately be him held accountable, as the President ALWAYS is in the eyes of history. This is one of those situation where any gambler, or shroud business person will see the complete obvious, in that you hold ALL the cards in your favor.

If the only way to get any spending cuts now, is to go off the cliff. I say JUMP.

wislady, you are right, the Republicans are not negotiating.

Congress which includes the Republican led House voted this fiscal cliff in to place. Now they want to run away from it. To do that they'll have to go through President Obama who was just reelected by running on the exact policy that he's proposing to replace the fiscal cliff with. This is not a negotiation. Congress, which includes many Republicans, should do as the President proposes or learn to live with the massive spending cuts and tax increases that they put in place. I think voters are starting to realize a few things. When Democrats control the government, things get done. When the power is divided, nothing gets done. When Republicans control the government, the economy falls apart and we start unnecessary wars.

pharm
Negotiation involves both parties, not just one party telling the other how it is going to be.

"Obama proposed more than $2 in cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases ($2.8 trillion in cuts, $1.2 trillion in increased tax revenues). However, the talks broke down due to opposition to any tax increases among House Republicans"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/leaked-gran...
I would guess that if Republicans offered 1 for 1 as you suggest honor,, the Dems would jump at it.

Well said Honorfirst.

The only thing they should agree to is a revenue increase with at least equal spending cuts. If either side refuses to bring something to the table, then let's go off "the cliff". The side refusing to budge will be the side that will pay the price in 2014. The revenue that will be generated along with the automatic cuts in defense and entitlements, end to extended unemployement compensation and not raising the debt ceiling will start reducing the deficit. It will certainly ruin alot of low and mid income people that are living on the edge, but it will create some pretty good bargains with people selling anything they can sell. Charles is right, the Repubicans need to let Obama take the country off the edge unless the Democrats offer equal spending cuts to the resolution. These promises of spending cuts can not be in the form of future discussions, but rather in context of immediate cuts. If there is no resolution, people should be clear that the Democrats refused to meet halfway.

Nobody said do nothing. Raise the tax cap back to 90% like it originally was would put SS in the black for 75 years.

" Conclusion
(even they suggest action)
Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

The Trustees.....some of the biggest crooks in the Obama regime.

Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds.
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee.
Charles P. Blahous III, Public Trustee.
Robert D. Reischauer, Public Trustee.
Marilyn B. Tavenner, Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Secretary, Boards of Trustees.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2011/
Refute the Social security trustees report.

"Not exactly unbiased information." The information is from the SS trustees, it is not from EPI. Read what is cited and learn.

pharm

Your link....The Economic Policy Institute, do you know who the Chairman for the Board of Directors is?

Richard Trumpka
http://www.epi.org/about/board/

And, the Center for Economic and Policy Research....

Support in 2012 includes:
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Arca Foundation
Atlantic Philanthropies
Ford Foundation
Moriah Foundation
National Association of Letter Carriers
National Bankers Foundation
Public Welfare Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Russell Sage Foundation
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Sloan Foundation
Streisand Foundation
The Advocacy Fund
United Steelworkers

The group to "strengthen" Social Security Steering Committee:

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
AFL-CIO
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
Campaign for America's Future
Center for Community Change
Center for Medicare Advocacy
Democracy For America
Economic Policy Institute
Food Research Action Center
Generations United
Latinos for a Secure Retirement
Medicare Rights Center
MoveOn.org Political Action
NAACP
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Nurses United
National Organization for Women
National Senior Citizens Law Center
National Women's Law Center
OWL - The Voice of Midlife and Older Women
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Social Security Works
Sojourners
The Arc
United Cerebral Palsy
USAction
Voices for America’s Children

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/...

Not exactly unbiased information.

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/...

justchillin
Thanks for the correction....million....billion

To spend 4 million on vacation (TAXPAYER FUNDED) is repulsive when the hurricane victims are still living in shambles. Shame on Obama.

"Social Security does not contribute to the budget deficit. That is the law."
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr...

http://www.epi.org/blog/2012-social-secu...

"It is true—but of no consequence—that the $738.4 billion in benefits paid and administrative costs estimated for 2011 exceed the amount of payroll tax contributions. But that is not surprising, especially in an economic slump. It has happened 17 times between 1958 and 2011, according to the Social Security Administration. More important, the program continues to have a large annual surplus even during a major economic downturn when more than 13.7 million Americans are officially unemployed and countless more were forced to retire early and begin collecting Social Security benefits due to the lack of job opportunities during the Great Recession"
http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/...
Krauthammer prevaricates again. SS surplus in 2012 will be over $50 billion.
SS, by law, cannot borrow. The government must borrow to pay the interest owed to SS, but that is not the fault of SS.
As for his statement about Reagan and Congress having an agreement to cut spending, Congress passed 8 budgets when he was President, and they equaled LESS than what Reagan requested. Where were Reagan`s spending cuts?

George Bush spent 20 mil just on flights to his ranch. He used airforce 1 more than any other president. He also went on vacation more than any other president. What do you suppose that cost all of us taxpayers? And what does a hurricane have to do with with anything? Don't these states have elected officials to take care of what needs to been from this point on? Do you really think the president turns his phone off because he and his family are on vacation? Just one more thing- It's 4 million not 4 billion.

You might want to watch a little more Fox News.

Obama does not care about the average citizen, his pending vacation to Hawaii (20 days and 4 Billion Dollar cost) proves that. Law enforcement for the people in Hawaii is projected to be about a quarter of a million dollars for the police services for the visit.

Meanwhile, the people from Hurricane Sandy still sit without help and many of them still have no power. The response to Sandy is 10 times worse than the Katrina storm.
Just think how much could be done for the storm victims if that 4 Billion of TAXPAYER money went to help the storm victims, instead of shuttling his family around on an extravagant vacation.
Obama should be ashamed, but he lacks the moral fiber to experience shame for any of his wrongs.

It's difficult to read some of these right-wing rants when the state of Wisconsin voted for President Obama and didn't support Paul Ryan. It's time to move forward. We all should respect the office of the country's President, whether we agree with the policies or not. Face the facts...this Republican congress has not accomplished anything and it appears their good old boy club is headed down the same path again. The real losers are the hard-working middle class.

joker...that's why he is out speaking to the masses, getting his adulation. That's what kings do. He hasn't done a lick of work in his life. That's what he has lackeys for. He is narcissistic and arrogant.

Does noone else see what Obama is doing is almost as bad as what is happening in Egypt. He is claiming absolute power. Judges and congress be damned.

Let it fall!

Why is this clown still writing? Everything he's written over the past year has been wrong.

poorrichard, Can you say "healthcare" TAX?

Who cares? Most of us who have been unemployed for the last 4 years have already lost most of everything we can. Now 4 more years with the the grand campaigner should do in most of the rest of the country. I guess that's what we voted for so here it comes.

Red.......Calm down there tough guy! So if the Republican policies and the tax cuts that came out of them were so bad, then you advocate letting them all expire....correct?

Its time for Republicans to be held responsible for their inept governance. It was Republicans who insisted on cutting taxes while not providing ANY funding for 2, COUNT THEM, 2 expensive wars. Did Republicans insist on spending cuts after calling for tax cuts? Heck no they INCREASED spending. Republican economic policies have devastated the middle class to the extent that a sitting President with the highest unemployment percentage since the Great Depression WON re-election. The wealthy could only afford to spend several hundred million dollars in a losing effort to keep their tax cut while the middle-class has seen their wealth decline. Its beginning to appear that Republicans are too stupid to grasp the intent of what actions a majority of voters wanted to see out of Congress.

I keep hearing that the Republicans have more to lose.... BS .. the American people have more to lose and a change in the tax codes is required, a change in entitlements is required. The president is just kicking the can and is willing to screw us all. -- top and bottom.

Right on, supportlocalracing!

Republicans want to balance the budget and redo the tax structure. That would be fair.

916WI, we are a middle class family that, thankfully, could afford the tax hike (aka: elimination of Bush/Obama tax cuts). However, it would also mean $2k that won't be going straight back into the local economy. Many families can't afford the $2k loss right now.
.
The middle class doesn't, typically, sit on their income. It gets spent. It keeps the economy moving.

Krauthammer is right! Go off the cliff, and we'll see who is left standing. People are arguing over 3% increase on the first 10K below 250K. 98% vs. 2%. The Pres is jumping with a parachute, but Republicans are forgetting to put there's on as they step off.

+1 janesvillean........There should be revenue increases. We should let all of the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire. There also needs to be spending cuts. Reign in the entitlements and shutter the programs that Obama has proposed such as giving free money to people who are defaulting on their mortgages...........We're dealing with $16 trillion in debt and trillion dollar deficits here.

Progressives have had the Congress since 2006.
Both parties are to blame.
But we pay the bills.
The potus could NEVER handle an attack on our country. This is our reality.

Debt raises with NO vote.
Stimulus every year.
Obama won.
Unions & media & move on.org got him in.
THIS is our new life.
NO cuts. THIS is leadership?

You want this deal?
GEITHNER PROPOSAL

Increase top marginal rates, capitol gains & dividends.

Additional tax increases=$600 Billion

2009-level estate tax

Multi-year(every year)stimulus package, at LEAST $50 billion in FY 2013

Permanent increase in Debt limit.

Even Republicans are saying that Republicans have more to lose on this. They're the ones that invented the word "fiscal cliff" just to create a crisis, but you can't do brinksmanship on a created crisis if the other side won't play. Face it, there is going to be an agreement and it is going to involve revenue increases, no matter what Chuckles the Clown pretends.

Obama just wants to make proclamations from his self-perceived exalted throne, and let others do his bidding.Traveling around letting the masses bask in his glory and adore him better suites his style.

Chuckie must not have drank as much as he's used to this morning, he sounds partly lucid.

I fail to understand why Obama can't stay in DC. Why is he still campaigning? Doesn't he know he got the gig for another 4 years? Obama: stay in DC, show leadership with Congress to a compromise and sign a blessed bill!!!! Why is it so difficult for this president to do his job? He needs to stick around and deal with important issues that face this country.