Congress fiddles as crisis looms

"The Americans will always do the right thing," Winston Churchill reportedly said, "after they have exhausted all the alternatives."

We hope that's still true, but it seems increasingly doubtful.

A good argument can now be made that Congress is the biggest danger to our economy and our national security, and the low-key chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, told the House Financial Services Committee as much last week.

"Under current law, on January 1, 2013, there's going to be a massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases," he told committee members.

On that date, regardless of which man is elected president in November, the Bush tax cuts will expire and $1.2 billion in automatic spending cuts established in last year's debt-ceiling agreement will go into effect — automatically.

The cuts were intended as a sort of doomsday machine to force compromise. Instead, we appear ready to blow up the machine.

And that's about the last thing our fragile economy needs right now. Bernanke, and most economists, agree this is not the time for reckless, brainless, autopilot decision-making.

Reasonable people would not act this way, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people. Polls show they want Congress to compromise on a sensible package of slowly increasing spending cuts and tax hikes, and begin getting our fiscal house in order.

Instead, Democrats in Congress announced last week that they are perfectly willing to drive off the Jan. 1 cliff if Republicans won't agree to some revenue increases.

Republicans, meanwhile, say they are going to their graves with their no-tax pledge intact.

Both parties are operating under the delusion that if they can only win the next election they can jam whatever they want down the other guy's throat.

Here's the problem: In a nation divided 51-49 on everything, no one really deserves to get everything they want. No thin majority can simply lord it over a large minority, at least not for long.

They can jam away, but voters will go to the polls in two years and put a quick end to that.  Witness the huge victory Democrats and Barack Obama experienced in 2008, followed by the huge Congressional gains by Republicans in 2010.

The two political parties are playing like it's a winner-take-all game, which is clearly impossible in a nation as closely divided as this one.

With the serious problems we face, we need serious people willing to make meaningful, long-term compromises.

Instead, Congress is now spending its days passing pointless bills with no chance of passage designed only to embarrass the opposing presidential candidate and party.

In effect, they are killing time by playing politics.

In 2010, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, made up of Republicans and Democrats, came up with a blueprint for change.

The plan would have reduced budget deficits to 2.2 percent of GDP and cut the federal debt by $4 trillion over a decade.

A majority of the 18 commission members agreed progress could not be made without a combination of serious spending cuts and tax increases.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson said the plan "harpooned every whale in the ocean," meaning it spread the pain of entitlement cuts and tax increases far and wide.

It recognized that we were living in an era of unsustainable borrowing which must be followed by an era of reality and austerity.

Yet, two years later, the president and Congress have ignored the plan and we are on the lip of another cliff, and this whole drama is getting very stale.

The paralysis threatens our economy, security and sanity, and is giving a bad name to representative democracy as an effective form of governance.

As Winston Churchill would probably agree, we have exhausted all of the alternatives. It's now time to do something, preferably the right thing — compromise and move on with the nation's business.

rrhoades@sunjournal.com

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Comments

Claire2323's picture
verified

Taxation

I think the current Congress should return their salaries and the value of their government paid health insurance to the tax payers. They have 0 accomplishments to their credit and have done nothing but waste time posturing and blowing hot air. I, for one, want my money back.

hawaiian's picture
verified

Congress fiddles as crisis looms

ed, 20:50 est Tuesday
Still a good editorial √
The whole debate reminds us a bit of the old saw about . " The sky is falling ! The dky is falling ! "
You know what the farmer said ?
" Holy crap . A talking chicken ! "
Keep up the good works
Still much better than the Twin City Times . . .
/s , Steve

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Please check your numbers they appear wrong

1. Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements - I and millions more paid for them over 45 years. No change is either is in anyway acceptable. Unless the rich begin to pay their fair share and Federal Income Tax marginal rates return to what they were 30 years ago. I'll chip in if everyone chips in and that's not Simpson-Bowles.

mgr's picture
verified

I’ll agree to tax rates 30

I’ll agree to tax rates 30 years ago if you agree to reduce spending to a level equal to 30 years ago.

BTW, the top 10% of federal taxpayers contribute over 70% of the tax revenue; the bottom 50% contributes less than 2%. How is that fair?

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Is it fair?

Absolutely. The top 10% use the government almost exclusively. The bottom 50% have no wealth, no property. The vast majority of the government is to protect property. Those who benefit most should pay the most. 70-30 sounds like a pretty good and fair ratio although I'll bet a detailed analysis would should that 90-10 is fairer. But I'd accept 70-30.

mgr's picture
verified

Your perception of who uses

Your perception of who uses how much government is distorted. If the top 10% use government exclusively, I would like to get the bottom 90% get off my roads – I hate traffic.

I would like to get the bottom 90% out of the schools, so my kids have more instruction.

It sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, just as silly as saying top 10% use government exclusively.
Certainly the top 10% don’t own 70% of single family residences in the U.S.. Again, you’re painting an unrealistic picture.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Check the numbers

The banks own 70% (actually I think its more) of the single family homes and if you prorate by ownership share what corporations own and then graph it by income level of the owners. 90% of the wealth of this country is owned by 10% and since government is primarily responsibile for protecting property etc etc etc. The poor use a lot of stuff but they down't own it. Once agan the roads, schools, the infrastructure is primarily paid for by the poor and middle class.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

You've lost yourself...

Top 10% pay 70% of the taxes = Top10% pay the most for roads, schools, infrastructure.
The bottom 50% dont pay for s%$t. (yet they claim it as their own)
.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Guys, what planet do you live on

Republicans have taken the pledge. They will not raise revenues or taxes no matter what. They are prepared to see the country go bankrupt rather than break their pledge. They control Congress. Majority in the House and the filibuster in the Senate.
Fixing the deficit requires raising revenue. The size of the budget cuts ($1.2 TRILLION over 10 years) makes that very clear.
Democrats have said repeatedly that they want a compromise. The only way to get that compromise is to make it appear even though its not true that Republicans are voting to cut taxes. The only way to do that is to let the Bush tax cuts expire and then pass legislation that cuts taxes on everyone below $250,000 in family earning per year.
Republicans can say they voted for a tax cut. The country gets a real effort to reduce the deficit although not $1.2 Trillion.
Its the only way to get a compromise through the Congress that the President consistent with his responsibilities can sign.

mgr's picture
verified

According to your numbers,

According to your numbers, $120 Billion a year revenue increase will do little to stop the bleeding - $1.2Trillion, again, all using conservative deficit numbers.

I lost track of the number of times taxes were raised to reduce the budget deficit over the past 4 decades. We always get the tax increases, but never get deficit reduction.

It is time to say not to revenue increase and force spending reductions. The country will still go bankrupt even with tax increases; the only salvation is massive spending cuts. The truth is in the numbers.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Mark, Mark?

"I lost track of the number of times taxes were raised to reduce the budget deficit over the past 4 decades. We always get the tax increases, but never get deficit reduction." You lost track because the only taxes increases in the last three decades were the Reagan payroll tax increases not Federal Income Taxes and the George H. W. Bush 10% surtax on the top income bracket. So Federal Income Taxes have not been raised in a very long time. For example, for married couples in 1944 (a war year) making $60K, $100K, $250K+ the rates were 81%, 92%, and 94%. Today they are 15%, 25%, 33% (source: wikipedia). The Effectibe tax rate in 1956 for the top bracket was 52%; today its 20% and as we see with Romney 14%.

Now, I will agree that fuel taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes which primarily effect the middle class and the poor have been raised repeatedly over the last 30 years. Perhaps increasing taxes for the middle class and poor and the constant reductions in taxes for the rich might be one of a contributing factor of the empoverishment of the middle class that has been going on for the last 30 years.

Not only did you miss the constant Federal Income Tax cuts over the last 70 years; you missed the four years of budget surpluses and the reduction in the deficit under President Clinton during his second term.

What utter nonsense. Deficits can be reduced either by revenue increases or by spending cuts. That's a mathematical certainty. Spending cuts are your direct attack on the middle class and small business. We have just seen Romney put up an ad with Mr. Gilchrist in NH proclaiming how he built his business all by himself with no one elses help and certainly not the governments. But just like you have forgotten conveniently 70 years of tax cuts; he forgot the $800,000 government loan that saved his company and gave it the capital to grow.
If you want to cut the military by 75%, I support you; it is really waste anyway. If you want to eliminate all corporate subsidies and bailouts, I'll support you one hundred percent. Most of that is waste too i.e. businessman almost always fail in their promises so money that should have created jobs ends up in the bank accounts of the owners and no jobs created like Bain Capital and Mitt Romney prove every day. But a long term solution to the deficit can only be reached by a combination of revenue (tax) increases, economic growth, and spending cuts.

mgr's picture
verified

Note this back of the napkin

Note this back of the napkin calculation does not include the estimated $60.1 Trillion unfunded liabilities. There is not enough individual income, let alone from the rich, to even remotely pay that bill.

Absolutely, the numbers don’t add up.

Cut, Cut, Cut, …..

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Keep changing the subject don't you, but again on this

I agree.
I wish Washington would talk and do more about the unfunded liabilities. But the unfunded liabilities are estimates not what we in fact owe nor what we must pay NOW. So its not surprising that no one is willing to accept the pain NOW for a promise that doesn't have to be fulfilled until some vague time in the future for some vague amount of money.
But the unfunded liabilities are very manageable now. Problem is not their size but the lack of any interest in managing them. The longer Conress waits the less manageable the liabilities become.
But that's not your real reasoning is it? Cut, cut, cut means more for you and that's what motivates you not the finncial health of the country.

mgr's picture
verified

Cut, Cut, Cut, absolutely

Cut, Cut, Cut, absolutely means I get to keep more of the dollars that I earned. Spending above basic services, such as interstate roads, defense, a basic safety net, small investment in academic research, token foreign aid is excessive. Business subsidies, loan guarantees to green companies, GSA/CIA/NIST parties are all wasteful.

I’m not ashamed to say I, better than anyone else, know how to spend the money I bartered my time for.

You could double government revenue and short time the country would be back to deficit budgets. There is no willingness to constraint spending to revenue no matter what. The ill financial health of this country falls squarely in the politicians lap – R, D, etc.

mgr's picture
verified

Why do you always point to an

Why do you always point to an aberration, WWII, to reference tax rates? That time period does not reflect normality. Statisticians typically discount or apply weighting to aberrations as not to pervert results.

You do know that fuel taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes are pay by upper middle class and wealthy too. Moreover, they tent do consume more of the resources; therefore, the pay more in both absolute dollars and as a percentage of their income.

Let’s look if you can close the budget deficit with tax increase. The assumption here is that you only want to tax the rich.

According to 2009 Tax Foundation data, the top 5% have an after tax income of 1.9T. The budget deficit this year will be about 1.6T. You should notice that is pretty near 100% of their income.

Now who in their right mind would work for nearly free, not I.

Cut, Cut, Cut….and keep private capital private. That is, don't raise taxes.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

I knew someone would play that game

Look at the year by year figures. WWII was not a aberration just the earliest peak rate. There was another peak 4 years later and another a few years after that. They weren't as high as 1944 but you could use any of them. Because Federal Income Tax rates have fallen in every year since 1944. Look at Corporate taxc rates. Same thing. In the 50's Corporations paid 40% now the pay 8%. In Maine when I first started to look into the issue corporations paid 27% of income taxes today they pay 2-4% depending on the year you pick out. This fact is indisputable Federal Income Taxes have come down radically in the last 30 years and a good argument can be made for the last 70 years.
The Tax Foundation is a right wing biased organization which uses hidden criterion to draw its conclusions. The rated Maine 15th highest tax burden one year and then re-calculated it to 33rd. They rated Maine 2nd one year and then said excuse us we made a mistake it was really 15th and if you take out the Alaskan extraction tax on oil 27th. Their numbers are always questionable.
Private capital isn't private. As Romney and Obama both have said - business is a social enterprise not private. Business must admit its social responsibilities and stop perpetuating these myts of rugged individualism.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Hey your pants are on fire!

"constant federal tax cuts over the last 70 years"????
Look at the top marginal rate over the time period and the truth will wipe the smug off your mug:
1925-'31 = 25%
1931-'35 = 63% / 1936-'39 = 79% (how'd that work out for us?)
1940-'45 = up, up, then up some more to 94% in 1945 (blame it on the war if you must)
1946-'49 = down to 82%
1950-'63 = 91% on avg.
1964-'67 = down to 70%
1968-'69 = 77%
1970-'80 = 70% (where did that get us?)
1981-'86 = 50% (by '86 the economy was booming)
1986-'89 = down to 28% (economy still booming)
1990-'92 = 31% (recession here we come)
1993-'00 = 39.6% (read my lips, no new taxes**.. woops!.... coincided with dot-com bubble, however)
2001-'02 = 38.6% (anly small decrease, coincided with dot-com burst)
2003-'12 = 35% (the dreaded "bush tax cuts for the rich)

The fact are the facts. Taxes have been jacked around up and down for more than 70 years. The historical results speak volumes when coupled with the data. Tax cut for the rich?

**Remember; GHWB "compromised" and what happened to him?

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Excuse me!

The top rate is 35% now . The only rates lower were 1990-92 at 31%, 86-89 28%, and 25-31 at 25% and I don't count anything prior to the depression and I think you can discount anything before 1946 because those were very different economies. That's 14 years (including '25-31) with lower top tax brackets out of 87. So the facts do speak volumes. The top bracket pays at a lower rate now than in 67 of the last 87 years. I call that a huge tax cut. And that doesn't look at the effective rate; doesn't take into account the deductions and special tax breaks which in modern time have increased almost every year reducing the tax burden on the top tax payers. None more than capital gains which is now 15% (previous to 1972 because of excusions its not possible to compare rates but since 1972 they have been reduced from 35% to 15% for top earners) . In no year in the last 87 has the tax rate been lower for people like Romney who live off capital gains.
The two periods where tax rates were lower were boom times as the author says which meant growth increased revenues and taxes could be cut, but what did those boom times produce - the worst depression in US history and a significant recession. Maybe just maybe the short-term boom was based on unsubstainable policies.

So give me a break. You own numbers shows your conclusion is false.

The lesson from GHWB is don't break promise not don't raise taxes on the rich.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

About that "breaking promises"....

I guess Chairman Obama is the exception.
Your darling Man-Child in-Chief has broken more promises than any President on-record, and in less time.
Shall we itemize?

jalbrecht's picture
verified

If you wish

But everyone who read this knows "any President on-record" is a wild unsupportable exaggeration. So list all your Fox News spin you want.
He's not my darling, I changed parties because of his governing positions wich are moderate republican positions like Romneycare

mgr's picture
verified

Sounds like you’re swayed

Sounds like you’re swayed with the lure of free lunches, which don’t exist by the way.

The government is already trying to do more than it can manage or afford.

Until government cleans up its act (i.e. balance the budget), they should not start any new program.

Better living through smaller government!

jalbrecht's picture
verified

As a tone that's good but that doesn't support smaller governmen

t. Balancing the budget is bad government policy. The government's fiscal policy should be increasing the deficit in times where consumer confidence and spending are low and decreasing the deficit in times when they are high. But if you mean the government should maintain a small (50% of GDP) surplus. Then I agree.
New government programs are always disasters. I am not aware of a single systems analyst in Congress yet all their new programs at completely computer dependent. Its very likely that a few man-years of real analysis spent before writing the bill could eliminate a significant part of the setup and maintenance costs of any new program and radically reduce the complexity of the overall system. But there are far to many lawyers and businessmen in Congress for effective planning.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Too Many Lawyers: Yes Too

Too Many Lawyers: Yes
Too mnay Businessmen: No....

As for the rest of your post......

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

It's Official.

Jonny has left the galaxy.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Fox ???

Get a clue Jonny.
I havn't watched Fox anything in 10 years.
But do keep posting; every time you do you expose yourself even more.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

I think everyone can see what's going on here

Change the subject, make personal attacks, no facts, and the facts that are presented mean the very opposite of what they are represented to mean. Classic conservative propaganda game. When you can't srgue the facts, distract.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Speaking of...

Speaking of changing the topic and adding personal attacks...
Fox News?...

As far as changing the subject... I identified you as a Socialist. And I while I might find that an insult, from everything youve posted here I would be led to believe you'd take it as a compliment.

(And personally, I have no idea what network you might watch)

I've given you countless facts. Youve chosen to interpret them in a shallow mypoic way to suit your POV. When you couple the numbers Ive supplied (which are not "made up" but are very accurate) with the GDP and economic health of the US along with who controlled the purse strings and the WH, you'll get the big picture.

So far your economic analysis has been stuffed with Keynesian academics which have been proven to be unsound.
Disagree all you want, it wont change the reality of it all.

I do believe the "Fox News" thing was a clear effort by you to go personal and distract. Kudos to you for taking the first place ribbon.

Keep on tryin'... It's fun to see you so compelled to put forth such effort in idealistic futility.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Nothing so warped as the personal drive to power

eynesian economics has been proven sound, accurate, and effective in every theoretical and every practical application for over 70 years. Never has Keynesian policy recommendations been found wrong. And no where is that better demonstrated that our experience this century. Supply side economics used from 2001 to 2008 results slowest economic growth since the depression, lowest employment growth since the depression, and the worst recession since the depression. What started during the depression - the application of Keynesian economic principles. And we will ignore the fact that the only Presidency that has seen record growth and a balanced budget and the largest reduction of the deficit was Bill Clinton's following Keynesia economics.
You have provided a few facts in a sea of misconstrued conclusions and the facts are admirable.
As to Socialist, I would take the criticism if I thought it was based on any reality. Its not. I'm a real conservative Constitutionalist (I want to protect and defend the Constitution as it is not as I want it to be) meaning that I support a strong National government that can defend the country and provide the infrastructure necessary for economic growth (the two responsibilities of Congress as outlined in the Constitution) which means I support wars conducted consistent with National interests oppose wars that are unnecessary and support a nationally regulated economic system benefitting all citizens equally where the Federal government is responsible for internal improvements (infrastructure necessary for economic activity - transportation of good, services, and ideas), control of the money supply and value and therefore a banking system, weights & measures, and the life (health and safety) of its citizens. If that's what you choice to call socialist you are going to whatever I say or what is right. The Founding Fathers called it freedom.

mgr's picture
verified

Okay, so all that Keynesian

Okay, so all that Keynesian stimulus spending worked fine and our economy is humming along.
BS.

A conservative constitutionalist would not register as a green party member. The green party adopts very socialist concepts.

Another BS.

Lastly, freedom does not mean being controlled by a big central government - read Thomas Jefferson. Government has expanded way past its indented scope.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

So much for wild guesses

Yes, all keynesian stimuluses which is a part but not nearly all of Keynesian economics have worked. When not used, Japan 1990's, US 2001-2011, the economies have languished. Keynesian economists attacked the 2009 stimulus as too little which it proved t be. It stopped the recession but did not increase demand enough to grow the economy sufficiently. See Collins newsletters from 2009 she expains clearly her efforts to sabotage the recovery.
Green Party is the only INDEPENDENT party in Maine. Your choices are Green Independent, Democratic, Republican, and unenrolled. Unenrolled is not an independent. There is no Green Party in Oxford County. Therefore, it accomplished my purpose- protest Obama's right-wing tilt and not require me to agree to any party's political position. When we have an independent party like we had with King. I register as that.
Excuse me, but I have read Jefferson, one of Americas leading dispicable characters and defenders of Slavery hardly qualified to speak about freedom. Also obsoleted by the Civil War amendments.

mgr's picture
verified

How well did Keynesian

How well did Keynesian economics work to pay down the national debt during times of prosperity – it failed?

All economic theory fails because it cannot predict human behavior which is the real driver of economic activity.

You’re starting to show your true colors. If Obama is right-wing, where does that put you?

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson.

Better living through smaller government.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

It didn't fail, it was never used

If the economy is growing keynesian economics would expected that 5-10% of the growth would go to deficit reduction. No one has ever done that. Instead they reduced Federal Income Tax rates which is politically more popular but bad policy.
Point. No. human behavior even irrational behavior at the macroeconomic level is at least managable. This is an assumption not borne out by experience.
Makes me Right. Obama has do be practical, I don't. I don't have to make deals with right-wing fanatics bent on overthrowing the Constitution with either religious fundamentalism or radical capitalism.

Fredom and liberty through the Constition.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Unravelling much?

"Keynesian economics work"
"Mitt Romney is bad"
"Republicans have evil ideas to overthrow the Govt"
"RomneyCare was good"
"ObamaCare is RomneyCare"
"Obama is good"
"Obama is right wing"
"I am a Constitutional Conservative"
"Fredom[sic] and libery through the Constition[sic]"

Take a breather Jon. You're becoming Piglet.

mgr's picture
verified

At a 10K foot level, it is

At a 10K foot level, it is all about Jon thinking he knows what is best for everyone and central decisions produce the best results – typical liberal view point.

He also lives in a textbook and does not understand how human emotion perverts textbook idealism.

For example, Jon does not understand how human greed in our political system perverts what his Keynesian theories dictate.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Small Government

Small goverment (Federal Government) is emasculated government, powerless, dysfunctional, weak, failed, failing, and doomed. Limited government is one where the Federal Government has controlling power over limited areas of social action - national defense, the economy. Real Constitutional conservatives support limited Federal power. Capitalist conservatives aren't real conservatives at all they support small government so that the ruling elite capitalists make all the decisions and accummulate all the wealth that they and others have produced (upward re-distribution).
Greed does not contradict Keynesian economics; it confirms the need for Keynesian economics. By cutting taxes rather than addressing the debt thus shifting wealth from the middle class to the rich consumption decreases reducing economic growth requiring government invention. The solution is to reverse the re-distribution of wealth to the rich. Henry Ford knew this when he increased his workers wages to $5 a day allowing this workers to buy his cars and increasing demand.
When the capitalist conservatives have lost the argument as they must they resort to invention, delusion, and misdirection.

mgr's picture
verified

People do fail to see clues

People do fail to see clues of bad behavior when they are in love.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

When you can't argue the facts, change the subject

why am I not surprised.

mgr's picture
verified

People do fail to see clues

People do fail to see clues of bad behavior when they are in love.

mgr's picture
verified

what did those boom times

what did those boom times produce.”

Boom times always encouraged government to ingress spending adding to its financial problem.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

government spending solved the problem

which is of course that unfetterred capitalism, concentrated wealth, and the Republican Presidental campaign are a threat to our Constitutional government.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Consumer confidence

Consumer confidence. Which is non-existent right now, just as it was non existent in the Carter years. It boomed under Reagan and under Clinton, (although the dot-coms helped greatly in that)

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

"Congress" = Democrats

"Congress" is used widely to insinuate Republicans. However, the Republicans only control the House. The current Senate is still controlled by Democrats, and has been since 2006. The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years. Even when Democrats had overwhelming control of both the House AND the Senate, they did not pass a budget. With "leaders" like this it's no wonder we are in the mess we're in.

The House has been passing Bills left and right and they all go to the Senate to die. Even the President cannot get his own Democrat Senators to vote for his wreckless spending bills.

ObamaCare was the pinnacle of wreckless spending and it is owned by the Democrats. How many Republicans voted for it?

As far as the nation being 51/49, that is a lie beyond reason.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates...

jalbrecht's picture
verified

So, what's your point or should I say your RNC talking point

1. Republicans control the Congress. They have a majority in the House and the filibuster in the Senate.
2. So what that the Senate has not passed a budget in three years. They have passed the appropriations bills and thats what pays the bills. Do you want a plan or do you want action. The Senate has given you action.
3. True the House has been passing bill left and right - 32 jobs bills that create no jobs; health bill that deny health care; extrmist legislation of the most radical kind indented to divide the country while bankrupting it.
4. Obamacare is paided for. I know that fiscal responsibility and paying for new programs are neww concepts that the Republicans don't understand after 8 years of rule but it really is the responsible thing to do unlike - Medicare Part D not paid for, $2 trillion in Bush tax cuts not paid for, two wars not paid for, on and on and on. $6 trillion added to the deficit in 8 years under the Republicans.
5. Conservatives never tell the truth; they edit video so that it says the opposite of what the speaker meant. You have no honor.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Wow....

Where to start???
1) deluded lie.
2) weak excuses! - Dems racking up Credit Card debt is not "action" it is foolishness. Living within a budget is what Americans want.
3) of course an obstructionist Dem Senate means 32 HR bills never see the light of day. Show me anyone in America (legal, resident or other) who is being denied healthcare, with or without Insurance. This is one of the biggest lies in the US today. ObamaCare is far more "extremist" and far more radical than anything ever propsed by Republicans. As far as diving the nation, the US was for more united under Bush, than under the current occupant of the WH. Obama and the Dems have done more to bankrupt this nation in 3½ years than any other administration in the history of the US.
4) not only a lie, a foolish lie. Show me anything put forth by the Dems or Obama that could even come close to being titled as "fiscal responsibility". Republicans are calling for cutting spending. Dems want to spend more on money that doesnt exist. Why, under nearly 8 years of DEM control and neary 4 years of Obama, has the US credit rating been lowered so drastically? Blame it on Bush still? Compare deficits under Presidents: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html Sorry, you've been caught again.
5. Who's "not telling the truth"?

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Since 1 is a well known fact

Obviously nothing in this comment is worth a reply because the author obviously can't tell the difference between real and unreal.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Apparently killing (R) Bills

Apparently killing (R) Bills in teh Senate does not indicate complete and final "control"?
Who's kidding who.
An (R) filibuster cannot pass nor kill any Bill.
A (D) voting majority in lock-step CAN pass or kill any Bill.

Several are heading to the Senate as we speak.

Wake up.
Put the Kool-Aid down please.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

The smoke is rising

Takes 41 votes in the Senate to kill any bill. Currently the Republicans hold 47. More than enough to kill any bill. The Republicans have voted at least 97 times on procedural motions to kill bills and they have succeeded. If the bill can not be debated or voted on in the Senate it can not be passed and can not be signed into law.
Sorry, you do understand Senate rules.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Well here's a fan...

Hope it clears your smoke (smells like "funny" smoke, i might add...)
What happened to the economy from 2006 - 2010 when the Dems had complete control of the purse strings.
or is that another blame Bush nugget?

The Dems had it all. for 4 years, and they still have over half of it all.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

If you beliee that

(and I don't believe you do then you must think you're in England because that's not who the US government works.

sandrajeanford's picture
verified

Congress

Please, when the Democrats "controlled" the houses there was a record number of fillibusters! More fillibusters than there have ever been in 200 years of government! The Republicans intentionally put things in bills they know have no chance of passing just so they won't pass and they can blame the Democrats.

It wasn't the Democrats who provided massive tax cuts while declaring 2 wars (unheard of fiscal policy!)

Obamacare reckless spending??? We are the only civilized nation that doesn't offer basic health care to its citizens. I'm willing to bet that every single person that claims Obamacare is reckless spending already has health insurance. What are the millions of people without healthcare supposed to do when they get ill. I would like someone, anyone to answer that question. Your neighbor gets laid-off and gets so sick he ends up in the emergency room where he is diagnosed with cancer. Should he just go home, take 2 aspirins and DON'T call me in the morning?!

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Seriously... enough with the BS

There isnt a person in the US, legal, illegal, employed, unemployed, with insurance or without insurance, who will not be attended to ON THE SPOT in any US hospital if the REAL need arises. Walk into any ER and check out the folks waiting. I'll bet you 70% of them have no "insurance" but will still be attended to and even if there is no actual emergency.

If you think ObamaCare will make healthcare costs go down youve been hoodwinked and used. Every competent study outside the WH circle of Czars shows costs will increase.

mgr's picture
verified

Illegal immigrants, the

Illegal immigrants, the largest segment of the US population using ER services in Border States, do not fall under OBC, so they will continue to use the ER as they do today.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Once again exaggeration with no support

Obamacare (Romneycare) is health insurance reform not health care reform. Has nothing really to do with people getting care in ER's. Has to do only with who pays. Ending pre-conditions like being a woman is insurance reform. Ending lifetime caps is insurance reform. Extending to 26 the age children can stay on their parents' insurance is insurance reform. Establishing exchanges where anyone that needs to can buy insurance is insurance reform. Obamacare's only error is to continue with a private insurance system that demonstrates to everyone the defects of poorly regulated capitalism instead of going to a completely public insurance system. Insurance not health care.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

RomneyCare was bad, and I am

RomneyCare was bad, and I am against it, but it was State legislation, and therefore allowable.
ObamaCare is RomneyCare on crack at a Federal level and far more insidious.

Comparing the two is pretty much simplistic and ignorant.

And since when is a 26 year old a "child".

Your post is rather illuminating.Socialist much?

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Pretty lame reply

Bad legislation is bad legislation where ever its passed. Romneycare was not great legislation but it was very good. People of Massachusetts think iits very good and they are right.
I didn't say a 26 year old was a child. And who cares what they are called as long as they have insurance.
Actually, I think Mark, replies have been really very important, much more illuminating in reality than your deluded discoveries in mine. I don't know anyone who has laid out the evil soul of conservatism with such honesty before.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

You seem to be debating yourself

"Bad Legislation is bad legislation" (referring to RomneyCare?) but you state RomneyCare was very good? So if Romney was a pioneer in what you see as good you should vote for him, as youve stated you are anything but happy with Chairman Obama.

So which is it? RomneyCare was good or RomneyCare was bad?
Which is it? Obama is your man or Obama is failing. You've stated every possible position in these regards on this thread.

mgr's picture
verified

Even with ObummerCare, the

Even with ObummerCare, the U.S. spends vastly more per capita than other countries with national healthcare. To that end, ObummerCare is reckless - Q.E.D.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

We pay more than twice the next most expensive system

and we get less than half of the expected results ranking between 15th and 33rd among developed countries of the world.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

The study cited was conducted

The study cited was conducted by 'The Commonwealth Fund' a huge bankroller of Obama and his minions and lackies. The Commonwealth Fund Chairman is former Obama adviser David Blumenthal. Whats more, this guy is pushing heavily along with the Obama Administration for the CHIP program. If that isnt enough to make anyone squirm than I dont know what is.

Agenda? Clearly.
Tool of the left? No doubt.
Democratic Political donor? Verified.

Frostproof's picture
verified

You lose the bet.

Sandra: I'm willing to bet that every single person that claims Obamacare is reckless spending already has health insurance.

By "has" you mean that someone else (employer, government, ...) is "giving" you health insurance. Not me. Oh, I have insurance, because I pay 100% of the premium. For a nice, affordable $700 per month, I'm covered for everything, after a nice, low $10,000 deductible. As a self-employed person of 64 years, that's all I can afford after my income taxes, much of which goes to provide comprehensive insurance to those less fortunate who never miss an opportunity to blast me for not paying my "fair share". Their fair share is, of course, ZERO.

I could buy comprehensive insurance from Anthem for a nice, affordable $2300 per month. If you don't believe that or the earlier figures, you are very young OR on MaineCare OR on a generous employer plan - including public sector groups and TriCare - OR a combination of those.

Those millions have health-care. They go to the ER and get great care paid for by the rest of us. They don't have insurance and they still won't have under ACA - unless they go to work and pay the "mandate" or the tax penalty. If you believe that will happen, I have a nice bridge for sale down in Brooklyn.

I don't care who you call in the morning as long as it's not me, to tell me to cough up even more.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Nice low $10,000 deductible what an oxymoron

or a very affordable $2300/month. That's that's over $27000 a year more than 40% of Maine's population earns in a year. Again healthn care is not the issue insurance is.
And yes if you earn or steal $200,000/year I'm pretty sure you can get pretty good and expensive insurance. We want everyone to have good insurance and an affordable price.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Remember the Tea Party motto:

Don't touch my medicare!

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Remember the O-bot motto:

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc

hawaiian's picture
verified

Congress fiddles as crisis looms

lsj ® ed monday 09:50 est
We will John Ω
Republicans aren't clever enough to learn how to fiddle
They do nothing •
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Republican inaction √
Learn from this everyone
Doing no thing is not an option ME Republican Senators
Step down
Stop fence sitting
Good editorial
" Obama is ohana and ohana means family and family means never being left alone or forgotten . " - Lilo /s Steve , Hawai'i

mgr's picture
verified

Blocking increased spending

Blocking increased spending is certainly doing something. My wallet loves political gridlock.

Frostproof's picture
verified

Fiddlesticks!

Which family? The current one or the family he grew up in that he wants everyone to leave alone and forget about?

Republicans don't need to learn how to fiddle because Democrats have raised it to an art form.

Jgod149948's picture
verified

The Tea Party's GOP will

The Tea Party's GOP will never compromise on taxes. They all signed the Grover Norquist pledge. Protecting the 1%. Mitch Mconnell is also watching his and all his backers agenda unfolding. Blocking anything the President pledges, to worsen the economy, and his chances of re-election, with hopes to take over the Senate and keep majority in the House.

If the GOP lets the current tax structure expire, it will raise taxes on all of us. In their own words. Breaching the Norquist pledge. When the Dems compromise with the Gop, the Dems always lose.

The best option for the Dems is fall off the cliff. The Bush era taxes will end for all. Reintroduce the same tax plan, with the top 1% excluded. The 1% will pay tax from the Clinton era. The GOP will be forced to vote in favor it, since their oath to Grover Norquist says so. Peculiar how the GOP are afraid of one Grover Norquist, and the 1%, but could care less about the rest of us.

I admit the Dems have a great plan, if they unite and stand strong. We can only hope they do...

sandrajeanford's picture
verified

Unfair taxes

I agree with that comment 100%. Let's just hope the Dems can stay strong. Why shouldn't those that have benefitted the most pay their fair share???

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

I would say those who are

I would say those who are paying no taxes yet recieving "free money" from the Feds and States (in truth, from the taxpayers) are actually the ones "benefitting the most".... and many of these are getting paid for not working a single day, or hour in a given year.

Whats that about "paying their fair share?"

Unbelievable.

Tax everyone and pay no one a IRS "rebate" if they dont earn a penny. Thats "FAIR"... and in doing so the "rich" (over $200k) will no longer pay >90% of all taxes.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Hey John, how many Democrats

Hey John, how many Democrats voted for the Presidents last budget?
Sounds like a great plan.

hawaiian's picture
verified

Get more involved

Get more involved John
http://www.occupytogether.org/spreadtheword/
When the Dems compromise with the Gop, America always loses and we all end up cleaning up after the elephants :)
Happy 51st Mr. President
/s , your supporters

Pirate's picture
verified

"When the Dems compromise

"When the Dems compromise with the Gop, America always loses".....
How can you say that? When the republicans 'compromise' with the dems it's because the republicans gave them everything they wanted. That's the only version of compromise the dems recognize.

sweetfern's picture
verified

Dear John,

Your research and comments are spot on. Come November if Obama is elected we better have a whole bunch of democratic senators and congressmen elected as well. If this current situation continues, 2016 will find us in the same dreadful situation the Bush administration left us with.. If Romney is elected and democrats have control of the house and senate we could continue to have a stalled economy. What I'm saying, is there is no more compromising in DC. Our representatives no longer cast votes that will help America, they only cast votes that will help their party. Democracy at it'd worst!

mgr's picture
verified

You don’t have to be a Tea

You don’t have to be a Tea Party supporter to agree and support the no new tax pledge.

For decades many Americans knew the day of reckoning would arrive. A nation cannot spend beyond it means forever.
Many Americans, like me, wrote to our representatives begging them to control spending; they did nothing to stop it.

Many Americans feel the same way as I do. This is not my debt, and I’m not responsible for paying off the debt.

NO NEW TAXES

It is time for Government to cut spending. Will that slow the economy? Absolutely, the answer is ostensible and forseeable; our trusted representatives have been living a lie for decades using borrowed money, our money.

sandrajeanford's picture
verified

Taxes

You CANNOT slow the economy during a recession. It would throw us into a full-blown DEpression. Cutting spending alone will not reduce the deficit. You have to have tax revenue. Why is it always acceptable to put more burden on the middle class and working poor but not those who have profitted the most in this society?

mgr's picture
verified

Technically, the economy is

Technically, the economy is no longer in a recession albeit growth is very slow.

Both consumers and business are not spending for a number of reasons, uncertainty in government tax and spending policies is one of those reasons.

You can in fact zero the deficit with spending cuts alone. There may not be the will to do so, but it is a simple accounting problem (i.e. revenue == expenditures).

The burden always falls on the middle class because that is where the largest number of people is located. The working poor pay virtually no federal income taxes as it stands today.

Those who profit the most, say the top 10%, already pay about 70% of the overall federal tax revenues today and the bottom 50% pay only about 2% of the tax revenues.

One just has to look at the numbers to see spending cuts is the only path to salvation. For example, the Bush tax cuts decrease yearly revenue by about $110 Billion a year. The budget deficit is at $1.6 Trillion a year and growing; which is the ant and which is the elephant?

Lastly, taxes, like spending cuts, will slow economic activity. Raising taxes will simply move money from one part of the economy to another, so the work that money would have done if not taxed is gone. Taxing, reduced spending, printing money, all will slow economic activity. The only solution is to cut spending and deal with the pain, so capital can be applied in efficient ways to grow the economy.

There is no way to hide the blemishes called deficit and debt.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

Spot-On

And what was the largest spending Bill ever in the 200 years of this once great nation?
Take all the Republican Presidents and all the Republican controlled Congresses in the last 100 years and their spending Bill will still be dwarfed by the 2010 Monster passed by the Dems.

The Ostriches screaming "*%&RAISE TAXES&%!!" and "&%*BUSH'S FAULT&*#!" are still ostriches and continue to miss the point.

mgr's picture
verified

What is never motioned either

What is never motioned either is the $60.1 Trillion in unfunded liabilities that need to be paid.

A decade from now as we look back on the Obama administration, we’ll still be hearing that it is Bushes fault off in the distance.

Funny that I don’t recall once Bush blaming Clinton for the dot-com bubble and ensuring stock market crash. Blaming someone else is not a leader attribute.

mgr's picture
verified

Bushes --> Bush's

Bushes --> Bush's

hawaiian's picture
verified

Mark, . .Google ® " tea

Mark,
. .Google ® " tea bagger . " Clinton had the last balanced US Federal Budget
. .† y v m and apro po of nothing in particular
/s , Steve :D

preaves's picture

Admin warning

Please do not use that term on this forum.

mgr's picture
verified

You’re missing the bigger

You’re missing the bigger picture. The Clinton administration was flush with revenue due to the dot-com bubble. Clinton could have not balanced the budget if it were not for the excess revenue due to the dot-com bubble.
I find it funny how partisanship has the ability to filter the truth.

Mike Lachance's picture
verified

And...

whats more, the "Clinton" budgets were largely hammered out and passed by a Republican controlled senate.
Doh!

fixit001's picture
verified

Entitlements....

These politicians choose the word entitlements instead of owed payments we worked all our lives and contribute all our lives so scum buckets can squnder our retirement money while all the while these scum bags retirement are protected. These yoyos wont accept the real fact that wages have increased greatly yet the ceiling for social security has not increased likewise the ss deductions have not decreased either, the social security system Is a just system it does work however because of the scum in washington it has been picpocketed clean filled with IOU's and when the IOU's are comming to term they are called entitlements so as to cast a cloud of welfare to the word social security. At one time I had respect for our leaders and our judges NOW they have proven that they are lower than cockroaches and deserve the sentiment they recieve.

hawaiian's picture
verified

Dan , 10:00 am - ish est ≠

Dan , 10:00 am - ish est ≠
Who e l e c t s the Judges in your State or are they a p p o i n t e d ? ( i do not know :)
Either way , you stand where you sit . Run for dog catcher or something . ..
It's E Z to complain , sit there and simply do nothing
Just a suggestion
h t h ∞ /s Dr. Dosh

mgr's picture
verified

You drank the kool-aid

First you’re a sucker for turning over control of your destiny to someone else, especially the government.

Second, where was your righteous indignation decades ago when most Americans new what the come would be if things remain unchanged?

You drank the kool-aid, now live with the consequences.

hawaiian's picture
verified

Mark , 10 am est Kool - Aid

Mark , 10 am est
Kool - Aid ? Someone else ¿ US ?¿ The only thing certain ia change we can believe in • ( Read the book :) clue :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_we_can_believe_in
b t w - Remember Columbine ? We support the right to arm bears and the Jim Brady bill . The British are not coming any more
London 2 0 1 2 ∞ Go Team USA √ /s Steve

mgr's picture
verified

Let me say if you believe any

Let me say if you believe any presidential candidate’s campaign promises, you need another refill, try the berry-berry flavor.

Ernest's picture
verified

I would take

I would take it to the next step and say any candidates promises of anything except for death, yours at which time you will be taxed for the last time.

mgr's picture
verified

Upon my death, I will not

Upon my death, I will not file my last tax return in protest. IRS can come get me if they wish.

veritas's picture
verified

This 80-hour a week job you have......

Is it posting on the internet????

mgr's picture
verified

the [out]come

the [out]come

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...