KEEP THE VETO PEN HANDY!
KEEP THE VETO PEN HANDY!
I am banking on President Obama having really studied our US History with special attention to the experience of President Clinton in 1995 when he used the PRESIDENTIAL VETO PEN to stop the 1996 federal budget sent to him by Speaker Gingrich and the GOP controlled congress. I hope Clinton is communicating NOW with Obama providing healthy advice for NOW. Obama MUST demand a REASONABLE compromise NOW! Do YOU agree?
Let's review the situation in 1995: President used his PRESIDENTIAL VETO PEN in 1995 to stop the 1996 federal budget sent to him by Speaker Gingrich and the GOP controlled congress. That courageous VETO led to the “shutdown” of “non-essential services” of our US government for a total of 28 days.
While President Clinton lost public popularity immediately, long-term he gained significant increased popularity as WE THE PEOPLE of the US realized what he had REALLY ACHIEVED! I hope Clinton is communicating NOW with Obama providing healthy advice for NOW.
While there is a lot of talk about the GOP accepting a compromise which they do NOT want, I am concerned that OBAMA would accept a compromise that HE DOES NOT WANT and which contradicts his 2012 CAMPAIGN PROMISE to middle-class US citizens. Just say, “NO!” IF the GOP forces a compromise which again provides for the WEALTHY CITIZENS, I hope President Obama will VETO the bill.
While the immediate fall-out will be a loss of popularity for President Obama, I am convinced he will gain support long-term for showing COURAGE! He could become what John F. Kennedy called, “a profile of courage.” Time will tell.
If you need to be reminded about the situation when Clinton vetoed the GOP 1996 federal budget, you can use this link to access Wikipedia’s article, “United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996.” I encourage YOU to review our history so YOU are able to help us avoid bad public policy. I am hopeful. Are YOU?
I see a key learning from the CLINTON VETO of the 1996 federal budget that the VETO PEN of our US President MUST be used strategically for the benefit of WE THE PEOPLE of the US. WE THE PEOPLE are astute and able to identify who is to blame and charge them. President Clinton ultimately got deserved CREDIT! The GOP paid the price. Live and learn!
Reading the Washington Post’s feature article this morning, “Senators trade proposals into night to avoid ‘fiscal cliff’,” I felt more and more concern as to what the GOP leadership is demanding. I would VETO the GOP compromise IF it were to be passed by Congress.
TODAY at 3 pm, Senators Reid and McConnell have set a deadline for cinching a deal. That’s when they’re planning to convene caucus meetings of their respective members in separate rooms just off the Senate floor. At that point, the leaders will brief their rank and file on whether there has been significant progress and will determine whether there is enough support to press ahead with a proposal.
The Post continues to report, “If all goes according to plan, the leaders would roll out the legislation Sunday night and hold a vote by at least midday Monday, giving the House the rest of New Year’s Eve to consider the measure.
“In the House, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) huddled Saturday with his senior staff for two hours but remained on the periphery of the negotiations. Passage in the unpredictable chamber is anything but certain. Boehner told President Obama and congressional leaders Friday that he could commit only to considering a Senate-passed bill and suggested that the House may amend that bill and send it back to the Senate.
“House consideration of the measure could become another white-knuckle moment. Boehner would like the eventual deal to be passed by a bipartisan coalition that is roughly equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, GOP aides said. Republicans have not supported tax increases since 1990, and conservative activists were already criticizing any deal to raise taxes on the wealthy.”
There is the HAUNTING ECHO from former House speaker Newt Gingrich, “There is no agreement worthy of the American people to be found in the current Washington charade. Better if everyone went home immediately.” Do YOU want Boehner and the house to take Gingrich’s advice? I do NOT!
President Obama continued to articulate optimism in his weekly radio address yesterday, “Leaders in Congress are working on a way to prevent this tax hike on the middle class, and I believe we may be able to reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time.”
The article alerts us to the fact that President Obama will appear on today’s “Meet the Press” with the goal of keeping pressure on Congress to act. The significance of this appearance is underscored by the fact that this appearance on the NBC News show is just his second as president. The Post reports that the first came in 2009 at the height of the debate over Obama’s initiative to expand health coverage for the uninsured.
I noted the quote of Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn), “Instead of having the wind at our back and this in our rearview mirror going into this new year, it’s very apparent that’s not what’s going to happen. Due again to a lack of courage, we’re going to end up in a situation where our nation is hurt and all those who depend upon a good economy for jobs for their families are going to be damaged.”
Important to note that the Post asserts, “Negotiations were focused on whether the Bush tax cuts should be permitted to lapse on income over $250,000 a year, as Obama vowed during his campaign, or on income over $400,000, a threshold that would affect only the top tax bracket and many fewer households.
“Senate Republicans have signaled support in recent days for the higher threshold, which Obama endorsed in failed negotiations with Boehner earlier this month. Compared with GOP plans to extend the Bush reductions for all taxpayers, letting them lapse on income over $400,000 would raise about $600 billion over the next decade, according to White House estimates — barely a third of the $1.6 trillion Obama initially hoped to extract from high-income households to help reduce record budget deficits.”
Time will tell… I do HOPE President Obama keeps his presidential VETO PEN handy. Do YOU?
Here we go…
Mr. E.
John Eyster lives in the Edgerton area. He is an adjunct professor of political science at UW-Waukesha and an advocate for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff. His opinion is not necessarily that of the The Gazette staff or management.
Jan 2, 2013 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Long post but please take time to read and digest. 2011 Tax Facts: Personal exemption 3700. Standard Deduction if not able to itemize was 5800 for a single person and 11600 for a married couple. So 9500 deduction for single person and 19000 deduction for married couple. Page 98 of 2011 1040 instructions show that effective tax rate JUMPS from 15 to 25% for single taxable income of 34500 (total gross income of 34500 + 5800 = 40300. JUMPS from 15 to 25% for married couple taxable income of 69000 (total gross income of 69000 + 19000 = 88000). BTW. In both individual and married case the effective tax rate is nearly 13.8% on the income prior to the JUMP. Rate continues at this 25% up to 83600 for individual and 139350 for a married couple. Then gradually took additional steps of 28, 33, and 35%. MY POINT: People get your head out of the sand and realize that both parties in our government are heavily taxing the bulk of the middle class while hiding it with smoke and mirrors by creating this class warfare envy. I do not have the numbers but am guessing a good portion of this country that is not receiving government aid are gettting caught in this JUMP to 25%. And both sides claim they are trying to help the middle class ??? I am not buying it. They are helping the poor and the rich at the expense of the middle class. IMO
Jan 2, 2013 at 5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
There are 11 states in this country where there are more people receiving govt welfare than are working, not including social security recipients. Illinois and California are two of them. That is what this country is moving toward. And Obama just gave raises to congress, federal workers, and Biden, among others and included in the senate's bill is more unemployment, tax increases, and relatively hardly any spending cuts. Doncha love it!
Jan 1, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
poobah: McConnells statement was very helpful in getting Obama reelected. One of many stupid statements made by Republicans who were in a self destruct mode. None of the Republicans during a Republican debate would agree to take a dollar tax increase for a ten dollar spending decrease. Now we have a tentative deal that has about a Forty dollar tax increase for each dollar spending decrease. The Republicans are their own worst enemies. That said: I do not believe the President raised himself above the partisan pigpen of slop. I had hoped he would have. Think they all acted like a bunch of spoiled children with a main concern of getting reelected and should all be fired. Think Rand Paul may be right in his statement today that they(Democrats) got what they wanted of creating envy in this country and sticking it to the rich but they may find that there will not be a increase in revenue. People are moving out of California by the thousands because of the attempt there to tax their way out of their over spending. Millionairs and Billionairs certainly have the financial capacity to move to another country. Happening in France now. As I said elsewhere ... the middle class is where the money is and who will end up paying the bill in years to come
Dec 31, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, "Get into the present."
That's difficult to do when Maynard's comment that I was responding to was, "I personally think he did a poor job the last 4 years on his promise to bring a new tone to Washington." Did you pick up on that, wislady? "The last 4 years."
And then, to cap it off, you refer to two comments from the past. An incredible display of practicing what you preach.
Dec 31, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
poobah
Get into the present. How long ago was that comment? Was it before the comment by Pelosi that republicans are terrorists? Or was it after the one that Obama said when he referred to republicans as holding Americans hostage?
It had to have been before the wonderful Steny Hoyer and his comment..."It's somewhat like taking your child hostage and saying to somebody else, 'I'm going to shoot my child if you don't do what I want done.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/steny-hoyer/20...
Dec 31, 2012 at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Maynard, do you think it was helpful to the "tone" in Washington D.C. for Senate Minority Leader McConnell to say, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president?"
Dec 31, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
poobah: I guess we will agree to disagree. Obama is THE President. Never questioned that. I personally think he did a poor job the last 4 years on his promise to bring a new tone to Washington. I had hoped that he would take a more bipartisan approach now that he does not have to run for reelection. However, the far right and the far left in our 2 party system control Washington and their own parties so the moderates on either side get nowhere. Our only hope, imo, is a 3rd party and term limits but all the cards and the self serving politicians in both parties are stacked against it.
Dec 31, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Like it or not, Maynard, Obama is a true President and the very uncomfortable negotiating position the Republicans now find themselves in was their own making when they supported the fiscal cliff legislation. The thing that really bothers conservatives is that Republicans finally got caught in their own web of obstructionism and they can't stand watching them writhe as their web agonizingly closes around them.
Dec 31, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just watched the Obama speech. It is obvious to me that he does not want an agreement. His way or no way. Why would you tape an interview for Meet The Press slamming Republicans while Reid and McConnell are trying to negoitiate an agreement? Why would you come out this afternoon and give a speech while delicate negotiations are taking place and basically dare the Republicans to try to do spending control in the future without more tax hikes? I think he is trying to sabotage the prospective deal. That way taxes go up for everyone. He blames the Republicans. In a few months, they lower taxes for some and he takes credit. He uses the extra taxes from those few months to fund his pet projects. I had really hoped for some change after the election from his my way or the highway. Sadly I do not see it. And for those avid supporters of him, are you aware that the Alternative Minimum Tax will now hit any family that is over 45000 income for 2012. He is not taking care of the middle class. He can not get enough money from the rich to fund his projects let alone address the deficit. So the middle class is where the money is to be found. He said he was going to let Congress take care of the issue. So either get behind closed doors and negotiate like a true President would do or keep your mouth shut. Stay off your bully pulpit. IMHO
Dec 31, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
You noticed that these bills do not have detail. Republicans are masters of the message. For instance, if you want a bill to do away with all clean air regulations, you would name it something like "Saving our Skys for the next generation" bill. And then of course you would make getting rid of ObamaCares as part of it also. Most of these are just political posturing or have a portion of the bill that would be able to be used as a politcal weapon against a representative that would vote against it. All games and NO leaderhip from the house.
Dec 31, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fordfan...so Cantor says there are 40 bills sitting on Reid's desk. Are you saying the house passed bills are not sitting on Reid's desk? Who is the party of no again?
Dec 31, 2012 at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw - I guess you can go here for an "unbiased" look. We all know how bipartisan Eric Cantor is.
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/
Dec 31, 2012 at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
The more some people post, the "loonier" they become.
Dec 31, 2012 at 6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
fordfan...any idea how many bills are sitting on Reid's desk that were passed and sent by the House that he won't even bring up for a vote? Yeah, I thought so.
Dec 31, 2012 at 2:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ford ever notice how in most cases if the right is in power the left then say's no??? This is not left or right, it is business as usual in DC, nothing more.
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said "I didn't make that rule, I only stated the fact that the democrats want to change it." The changes are generally to make a fillibuster be a real fillibuster to allow the whole nation to see what the bozos on the right are doing to block any and all legislation. Let them stand there and blather on and on instead of doing the business of the US that they were sent there to do.
Regarding a budget, do you honestly think that any budget that would be presented would ever be allowed to pass? When we have McConnell fillibustering his own bill, nothing will pass. At least we know that the right will not have another generation since they always say "no" to every request.
Dec 30, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
That has to be one of the shortest autobiographies in history, RAF. Has it made the NY Times bestseller list or Oprah's book club?
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't feed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Inte...)
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw
Agree.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw said, "wislady...don't suggest to poo to do any discussion of topic at hand. He likes to go back 30-40 years. What the current admin does is of no importance to him. They are his Messiah, master and holy leader. They can do no wrong."
That's interesting, donnaw. First you blame me for taking the discussion off-topic when it was wislady who did that. Now, you blame me for not discussing the topic at hand (which I was doing when responding to wislady's posts). In fact, you now have three comments in this thread, including the one above that does nothing to further the discussion on the topic at hand. And the two following comments you made earlier, which again add nothing to the discussion about the subject matter.
donnaw said, "Attention poo....we are discussing Obama and the veto pen and his lousy record of admitting to any failures. How far back should we go? How about LBJ failures in the Viet Nam fiasco? Obama is the president, no one else. Why don't you address the current situation instead of diverting? You sound like a second grader."
donnaw said, "Obama used up all his signature ink writing the executive order giving congress, federal workers and his staff raises, including Biden. After all we have so much money in surplus funds. Oh yeah, and he has a few more spending ideas for those new taxes. What an idiot!"
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady...don't suggest to poo to do any discussion of topic at hand. He likes to go back 30-40 years. What the current admin does is of no importance to him. They are his Messiah, master and holy leader. They can do no wrong.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, "It might help for clarity, if you would go watch some of the video of this morning, or read the transcript."
I watched the entire show, but that has nothing to do with this discussion about going off-topic in this discussion. I'm responding to donnaw's comment holding me responsible for going off-topic on embassy security and arms for terrorists when it was you who introduced those topics into this discussion. The issue is not one of who introduced what on Meet The Press, but in this discussion.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, "Obama brought up Benghazi during the Kiss the Press interview this morning."
And who introduced the issues of embassy security and arms for terrorists into this discussion, wislady? Yes, of course, you did.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
poobah
It might help for clarity, if you would go watch some of the video of this morning, or read the transcript.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
"so wislady believes that it should take 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything?"
I didn't make that rule, I only stated the fact that the democrats want to change it.
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama brought up Benghazi during the Kiss the Press interview this morning. He referred to it as "sloppiness", instead of what it really was...his lack of leadership.
Will Obama respond to this...
SANAA, Yemen — Al-Qaida's branch in Yemen has announced that it will pay tens of thousands of dollars to anyone who kills the U.S. ambassador in Sanaa or an American soldier in the country.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/int...
Dec 30, 2012 at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
so wislady believes that it should take 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything? I do not believe that is what the founding fathers had in mind. I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Think about it.......
Dec 30, 2012 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, "THAT is how the guns got into the conversation."
That's how the issue of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was introduced in the discussion. Now, wislady, please do tell us, particularly donnaw, how the issue of embassy security and providing weapons to terrorists got into the conversation.
Could it have been your 1:01pm comment that, "He [Obama] sells arms to terrorists, but doesn't arm the security people to protect the Ambassador?"
Dec 30, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
JE wrote....
"The article alerts us to the fact that President Obama will appear on today’s “Meet the Press”"
Today, on "Meet the Press", Obama pledged to "put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013."
THAT is how the guns got into the conversation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/...
Dec 30, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw said, "We are discussing Obama and the veto pen and his lousy record of admitting to any failures."
"We?" donnaw, when your comrade in conservatism, wislady, FIRST expanded the scope of John's blog to include providing arms to terrorists and failing to protect against attacks on embassies, she opened up the discussion to those matters. If you had any intentions about being fair about this, you would have directed your rant about going off-topic to wislady.
Dec 30, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Once again the failure of leadership in the senate, the same leadership that has not passed a budget in over 3 years, has failed to move in the fiscal cliff negotiations.
Senate dem leader Harry Reid, "This morning, we have been trying to come up with some counteroffer to my friend's proposal. We have been unable to do that." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...
Dec 30, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The Senate -- under rules that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to change -- needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass anything, which means the majority Democrats have to woo some GOP support to get anything done."
Dems always want to change the rules to suit their agenda.
"Is this good for democracy and bipartisanship?"
Dec 30, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
So do the Tea Party members out here support the Hastert rule that Boehner appears to be following? "Under the "Hastert Rule," in order for a measure to advance, it must have the support of the majority of the majority of the members of the House." Is this good for democracy and bipartisanship?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/...
Dec 30, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Attention poo....we are discussing Obama and the veto pen and his lousy record of admitting to any failures. How far back should we go? How about LBJ failures in the Viet Nam fiasco? Obama is the president, no one else. Why don't you address the current situation instead of diverting? You sound like a second grader.
Dec 30, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Raffi, there you go (projecting) again.
Dec 30, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady, I forgot to add that Reagan arming the terrorists (Saddam Hussein and the Mujahedin) came just eight months after Reagan failed to protect our embassy in Beirut, resulting in the deaths of 63 people, 17 of which were Americans.
"The April 18, 1983 United States embassy bombing was a suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, mostly embassy and CIA staff members, several soldiers and one Marine. 17 of the dead were Americans." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_... ]
Dec 30, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, " He sells arms to terrorists, but doesn't arm the security people to protect the Ambassador."
No, Reagan didn't sell arms to terrorists. He gave them away -- along with tons of cash. Watch this video of his special enovy -- Donald Rumsfeld -- sealing the deal with Saddam Hussein. This was about the same time Reagan gave the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan tons of weapons and cash. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42oejmpk... ]
By the way, wislady, these gifts from Reagan to Saddam Hussein came just 15 months AFTER the massacre in Du'jail for which Saddam was eventually hanged in 2006.
Dec 30, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama still refuses to take the blame for Ambassador Stevens death....instead, he called it "sloppiness" (from Meet the Press today). He sells arms to terrorists, but doesn't arm the security people to protect the Ambassador. One of his priorities for the coming year...gun control.
Al Qaeda's Yemen branch offers bounty for killing US ambassador, troops
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/30/...
What is Obama's response to this?
The democrats have been in power since 2007, yet Obama refuses to take responsibility for any of the mess we are in now. There is blame on both sides, but as president, he has done nothing to make it better.
Dec 30, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just watched Meet The Press which I had recorded. The top items the President gave as part of his 2nd term agenda DID NOT include fixing Social Security and Medicare. He insisted that, during his first term, the Democrats and he were always there to negotiate but the Republicans were not. He took no personal accountability for the lack of accomplishment of the last 4 years. Surprisingly, more than one of the liberal individuals that were on the Round Table after the interview stated that Obama had only negoitiated sparingly with Boehner and had failed to work with other Republicans. I personally think this has been his biggest failure. He seems to think that he can simply take the bully pulpit, proclaim his beliefs and desires good or bad, and expect Congress to fall lock step behind him without him having to do any of the hard behind the scenes work of forging compromise. And Yes, I agree with the poster that said you have really changed your tune John E. from a work together after the election to get out the veto pen. If a deal is worked out ... it will be a compromise between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. An actual compromise for a change. Why would you support a veto? Are you comfortable with the Altenative Minimum Tax hitting any family making over 45,000 a year? I am not.
Dec 30, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
President Obama has offered compromises.
Boehner has been unable to negotiate.
Congress voted for it's own pay raises.
Promoting labor unions in Haiti and Peru
helps to promote human rights and protect workers from abuse.
Republicans yearning for Clinton is both shameless and hilarious!
Dec 30, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you are referring to wishing you a "Merry Christmas (or not)"
(or not)..meaning....in the event that you do NOT celebrate Christmas.
Happy New Year to you!
Dec 30, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Badgerlvr
"Contrary to your unscrupulous Christmas wish"
What in the world are you talking about?????
I had a wonderful Christmas, thank you.
Dec 30, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
wislady: Contrary to your unscrupulous Christmas wish, I did have a nice holiday. I hope you did too.
Dec 30, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
KilgoreTrout and Northman you have made very good posts.
Dec 30, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
KilgoreTrout: Old numbers or new, you point is very succinctly made. You’ve expressed it in a way that any adult with a job should be able to understand, yet the liberals insist on spending more and more every year, with no regard for the consequences.
Dec 30, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF sorry I used old numbers. It is even more out of whack today.
Dec 30, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
I would like Obama administration to explain WHY American taxpayers are funding the organizing of unions in Haiti and Peru, spending $2.2 Million Dollars.
Another example of the fact, that Obama is clearly out of touch with reality, and not working in the best interests of the American people.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/labor-de...
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Badgerlvr
I'd rather be a "loon" than a donkey (or the other name which refers to a donkey).
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Funny how when the facts are brought up the left fringe goes alinsky.
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
It appears that there is consistency here. All the posts so far are from Tea Party Loons.
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
KilgoreTrout
Current national debt to the penny:
12/27/2012 16,338,243,391,747.08
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi...
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
US Budget for Dummies
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $3.85
Make sense now?
Dec 30, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
What most people fail to recognize is that tax breaks mean the following:
If you are working - some relief from the tax burden you must shoulder
If you are NOT working - sigh of relief that you don't have to go back to work, and you can stay on break.
It doesn't matter if you are middle class or "rich", or a social program player. A tax break is a tax break.
Dec 30, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Clinton was forced to work with the republicans, something Obama needs to learn.
No matter what happens with the fiscal cliff vote...Americans get hit with the ObamaCare Tax hike...
"Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1. In total, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
http://www.atr.org/trillion-obamacare-ta...
Happy New Year!
Dec 30, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
The incredible scope of today’s non sequitur shows you really don’t understand how our government works. In 1995, the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. The budget they sent to Clinton was a Republican budget, and there was little incentive to compromise in either chamber or with the President. Clinton’s only leverage was a veto. Today, we have that divided government you’re so enamoured with. Harry Reid has proven to be little more than a lap dog for Obama, so you can be sure that any budget that passes Senate already has Obama’s approval. There is absolutely no need for a veto pen when you have the game rigged.
The other reason your comparison is so far off track is because in 1995, Clinton showed he was very willing to compromise. Today, Obama has shown absolutely no intention to compromise. Much as I don’t care for Clinton, if he was President today, I don’t think we’d have this scope of a problem.
At this point, driving off the cliff is probably the best option, despite the harm it will do to the economy and most middle class families. Any legislation that comes out in the next 24 hours over such a heated and complex issue is bound to be badly flawed and even more harmful than doing nothing. Entitlement spending is out of control and eventually has to be reined in, and Obama’s solution is to spend even more. Today’s Chicago Tribune has a nice article on the Illinois “Pension Mess”, which is very comparable to our federal budget mess. They compare the problem to a leaky roof. “At first, it may cost a little to fix. But ignoring the problem by simply shuffling around pots and pans to catch the drips only invites an expensive gusher of a home repair down the road.” As in Illinois, both parties helped create this mess, but in the last four years, the Democrats have done their best to make things worse. It’s no longer important or even pertinent to point fingers, what’s vitally important is to drastically cut spending.
Dec 30, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
John why does your position constantly change?
After the November elections you stated "Take a big bite, Mr. President and Congress. Swallow hard. Do what's best for the country, not your endless campaigns.” I agree! Do YOU agree that NOW is the time to “take a big bite” to do what’s best for the country"
Yet today you stance has changed to "While there is a lot of talk about the GOP accepting a compromise which they do NOT want, I am concerned that OBAMA would accept a compromise that HE DOES NOT WANT"
So much for consistency of position.
Dec 30, 2012 at 7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama used up all his signature ink writing the executive order giving congress, federal workers and his staff raises, including Biden. After all we have so much money in surplus funds. Oh yeah, and he has a few more spending ideas for those new taxes. What an idiot!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.