Trickle down did not work for the retard-icans, just like spend your way out of recession isn't working for the dumb-rats.

@Willie - well, the Dumbo-crats tax and spend into oblivion did not work out too well for the rest of us either.

Sorry Jose I want to keep the money I've earned.
If you want to pay more you can make a gift to the US Government. Here's the address to mail your check.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

For me, that would be nearly $8000 more. I'm already heavily strapped - adding that more/yr would be very very very bad.

Really? More for the government to spend irresponsibly!!! Some fighter jets for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... Food stamps for drug dealers... the list goes on and on buddy!

I can't imagine our 'good friends'across the aisle would sell out 99% of us so they can satisfy their fat cat friends (who actually want a tax increase) and Grover Norquist. Maybe it's a nightmare and I'll wake up.

Your comments reveal far too much about yourself. Politics cloud your brain. Tell me, just how do tax increases on anyone help the 23 million unemployed, 1% GDP under this wizard of economics?

Mac, you're falling back into the Pre election malarkey.

49% of Americans don't pay income tax due to their income level and deductions which reduce their tax to 0. So who are the 99% when only 51% of Americans actually pay taxes?
By the way it's not just Republicans but this President knew 2 years ago that this day was coming. In 2010 the "Bush Era Tax Cuts" were extended and set to 12/31/2012 when they would revert to the 2003 tax rates. This is misconduct for both sides of the aisle.

Ever think that it's the Democrats refusing to cut spending too? Congress is to blame and the President even more for not being a LEADER. Pathetic.

Keep believing the lie - it was not just the 1%. Also, just raising taxes on the 1% while increasing spending (which is what Obama & the Democrats have proposed) just digs us deeper into a hole.

Really? Higher taxes only funds our government for a few days without spending cuts which are opposed by democrats. I find this a funny thing about people not looking holistically at this situation and only how this benefits them.

Funny how republicans never cared much about the debt ceiling until Obama got into office. Probably just a coincidence.

Reid called McConnells bluff. That's what that was about. It was always rubber stamped before Mr. Obama came to office. How do you think Bush was able to start two wars and a prescription drug program without a tax increase? Yep, that pesky debt ceiling that the Republicans are soooooo worried about now. Plus, it's for money that's already been appropriated. The dummies.

It's not a matter of caring or not caring about the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling is needed to make sure the US can pay it's existing debts. The concern is about the President wanting to remove Congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling. There is a separation of power in our government for a reason.

Sully and the rest of the Rich should have taxes doubled

@millie - take 100% of "the rich's" income, and there still won't be enough to cover the Democrats handouts and spending. The Democrat's are finally running out of other people's money, just as Thatcher said.

Don't worry Millie. I'll be paying my fair share. All of it too. I don't hide my money in offshore accounts. That wouldn't be very patriotic, would it?

Eliminate the military - wah-la! Trillions back. The fIng wars that bushie got us into is the primary source for the $.

I blame the voters. Period. Look at the demographic and think HARD about that.

@Brad - the thing is, military items are some of those that we still actually manufacture HERE. That money spent truly flows to create multiple jobs, unlike handing out free Obama phones.

What's the demographic, Anthony? Obama won most of the upper income areas of the country. Now what were you saying?

I disagree mostly. Raising taxes on the wealthy will bring in a lot of revenue ( if they actually pay it, that is). This country has to do away with all the loopholes that allow multimillionaires to hide their money or invest the money in ways that are not taxed. Conservatives cry about being patriots. Where is the patriotism when those who can afford to help their country most, don't?

Sully - you really don't know what you are talking about. Did you actually LOOK at the IRS data. The "rich" already pay a large share of the taxes and even if you took 100% (that is all) of their income, it still would not cover the Democrats increased spending. Math trumps what you "believe".

Where are you getting all this increased spending, Rational, that you say the democrats want? You mean because they still want to find a way for those below the poverty line to not die when they can't pay heating bills? You mean things like that? You guys have been so snickered by talking heads. Really compassionate. Short sightedness must be a republican criterion. You buy into the "our grandchildren will have to pay, blah, blah, blah". How about our grandchildren will pay for climate change, for literally falling apart cities, highways, roadways, and bridges, for an uneducated workforce, for overcrowded prisons, etc, etc. Care to think about that at all?

@Sully - how about Obama's most recent salary increases for the executive branch? The rest that you throw up are just straw arguments - do you DENY that the US is spending too much? There is not enough money to cover the ANNUAL overspending. You have to stop arguing with MATH.

Sully

You rich guys aren't the only ones doing TAX Free investing. Never noticed in IRS Publications where it say this is for extremely wealthy Sully only

One other point I forgot to make was that the estimate above covers the current level of spending. The estimate would be even less if the President's proposed new spendings are made part of any budget deal.

Greece is paying for the austerity of their government. The same austerity the republicans want here.

Greece was forced to accept austerity measures imposed by the EU in order to receive bailouts from Germany and other European countries. Greece failed to self-address its uncontrolled spending and borrowing (including a debt level of about 160% of GDP and spending about 12% of its GDP on welfare benefits such as universal healthcare and pensions, or about 40% of its annual government spending). When it was evident Greece was never going to dig itself out of debt, austerity was the only option to keep borrowed cash flowing into the country. Attempting to get control of spending in the budget process (as we are trying to do) is MUCH different than instituting austerity measures to preserve a diminished credit rating. And by the way, austerity measures seem to be working as Greece's credit rating was recently upgraded.

If you haven't already you mean.

Sully the only thing I get from what your type is your full of CRAP

Okay Millie, I'll defer to your expertise.

Sully

It's pleasing to see and extremely rich person admit that they are full of crap.

Because the Bush tax cuts, contrary to the liberal lies, were for every income level.

It has never been a secret that rates for everyone will go up if the morons in Washington don't do something.

Obama wants to keep the cuts for everyone making less than a million a year, but offered to move that to two million I think. The republicans were ready to compromise, but just couldn't do it. So if taxes go up for everyone, it's due to the unwillingness of the tea party republicans to make any kind of concession. They would rather everyone be made to pay rather than raising the taxes of the to one percent.

What lies are you referring to, McCloud? Nobody ever said the Bush tax cuts didn't apply to everyone. Oh, we'll maybe they did on Fox.

Sully Obama wants to keep cuts for those under $400,000. Obama, Nancy and Harry rejected the $1,000,000 proposal

Millie, how many people do you think earn $400,000 in this country? That is nowhere near the majority, so most would still get a break.

Sully

Millions make under $400,000. Read much?

Sully - when did Obama offer to keep rates lower on people making less than one million - are you getting confused because the Democrats keep referring to families that make over $250K as millionaires?

Millie- Obama wants to keep those cuts for those under $ 400,000.! I'm agreeing with you. Get it?

And when have democrats said those making over $250,000 are millionaires? That sounds more like Romney.

@Sully - the Democrats have CONSTANTLY said that only the millionaires will be affected, yet somehow all proposals seem to start at families making $250K/year.

These are Obamas tax cuts since he took ownership. Don't hear anyone talking about the 2% payroll tax for Social Security that kicks back in 1/1/2013

You must be mistaken, Obama takes ownership of nothing.

That's also been disproven over and over again (even the "job producers" know that).

When was this disproven, on The View or MSNBC? How is that done?

I watch neither, so I wouldn't have any idea what they say. I guess that's your defense for watching and believing Fox. Bruce Bartlett is a republican-

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/raising-taxes-on-the-rich-not-whether-but-how/

This is just one example.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

A couple of things, I don't subscribe to Fox, although they do have the best news guy in Bret Baier. Secondly, I'm not proposing a tax cut, I just want to understand how raising taxes helps grow our already weak economy. If the top 10% of earners account for nearly 40% of all domestic consumption (I'm leaving investment out of this one) how does taking away their money allow them to spend more? See, they buy more expensive homes, cars, planes, boats, and this means other people need to build, supply, sell, etc. Taking away their money means they spend less, no?

No McCloud. They don't spend the extra money they get. They invest it, taking more money out of the economy. That's the myth. Just because they HAVE more, it does not mean they SPEND more. When the less fortunate get more money, they are the ones who spend.

Sorry, substitute Fox with any other right wing propaganda machine and you have the same thing.

"No McCloud. They don't spend the extra money they get. They invest it, taking more money out of the economy." DO you realize how stupid that sounds?

No McCloud, I don't know how stupid that sounds because that is fact. Not all the wealthy do that, but a great great many do. Shall I give you some personal proof of that?

You thinking is completely backwards. "They don't spend the extra money they get. " Nobody is giving them extra money, they get what they earn. Taxes remove the money from them. "They invest it, taking more money out of the economy" How does investing take money out of the economy? Does not investment, oh I get it, investment in the private sector is not what you guys are about. Why not just come out and say you are a Socialist?

Revisionist history strikes again. There was no Clinton budget surplus, it was typical Washington smoke and mirrors, relying on 10 year projections and intragovernmental transfers (i.e. robbing the SS trust fund). Google "clinton surplus myth" for plenty of interesting reading on the topic.

Let's also not forget that Bush inherited a declining economy himself (recall that whole dot-com bubble burst was in 2000, before he was elected), and things got even worse the following September. At least the Republicans in the Senate managed to pass a few budgets along the way, as unbalanced as they were.

The problem Republicans have (including Bush) is that they seldom act like conservatives, instead making a half-baked attempt to be Democrat Lite, and thinking they'll get credit for it from the agenda-driven media types. Stupid? Yes.

Do me a favor, without using Joy Behar talking points, please answer a simple question. Explain to us how increasing taxes will improve the economy.

Ummmmmm. If you want to get political, then why isn't everything better since the "libs" have been in control over the last 4 years? we're still fighting wars (and trying to build societies which is not the intent of the military), the prescription drug benefit still exists (obama could cancel), the tax cuts created additional govt revenue. I agree the republicans spent WAY too much $$$, but we cant even get a budget passed in the Dem congress (that's mandated in the constitution by the way).

John, it sounds like all the dems need to do is make things better! Simple! So why dont they? Cancel all wars, cancel medicare drugs and wahlah everything will be better.

The FACT is that this country is spending money it simply doesnt have. period. Every tax cut ever enacted has resulted in increased revenue to the government. Facts are neither liberal nor conservative.

When you are in an auto accident and your car is damaged, do you consider the insurance coverage you receive CHARITY? No? Well, I do not consider Social Security and Medicare charity, either!
Pat Thalman

Pat,
The Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security and Medicare payments are not legally binding contracts. You have no legal claim to those benefits. You own no assets, and payments are made at the discretion of Congress. They are NOT insurance programs.

In fact they are far worse than charity. The money you gave to the Federal Government was neither saved nor invested. There is no "lock box". The money was spent the next day to buy votes and pay off political friends. The only way the government can give us anything is to take it from our children.

Social Security and Medicare are in fact the world's largest Ponzi schemes where we made a deal with the devil to enslave our children to ensure ourselves a worry free retirement. Sick but true.

Pat:
What I said is that welfare (food stamps etc.) should be handled by charitable organizations, not through the government with our tax dollars. This government was not created by the people to be benevolent. with regard to social security, what business does the government have in providing retirement income for people? If the education system in this country actually promoted critical thought, people would realize that the social security is a scam and you need to plan for your own retirement which may mean having to deprive yourself of some immediate gratification to save for your future. (Socialism doesn't teach this)

Additionally, "falling off the cliff" wont mean a hill of beans to over half of the counry anyway (unless unless the government cuts payments to them a bit).

Gary:
Correctamundo on the social security and medicare comments! I would bet that 99.999% of the people in the country (including our lawmakers who created the systems but didn't read their legislation) believe that social security and medicare are guaranteed.

@Pat - in addition to all that Gary pointed out. Republicans TRIED to allow you to save HALF of what you put into SSI to be tied to YOU with YOUR name, but the Democrats and their friends in the media fought against that. You see, putting your name on it would be "privatizing" Social Security.

Also, the difference between Social Security and your auto insurance example is that the auto insurance would be priced accordingly. Social Security was designed as a fall back measure to keep people being destitute in their very old age. The 65 age limit was set when the average age people lived till was in the mid-50's. You know have the AVERAGE person living into their high-70's, yet the retirement age has just been inched up to 67, and only for younger people like me.

Social security as implemented now is nothing more than a ponzi scheme, and as such they eventually fail with those getting in later left holding the bag. I know that boomers are trying to squeak out theirs and leave Gen Y and later holding the bag, and they might just do it.

I do not consider SS an entitlement. I paid in to it for years and now count on it in my retirement. The government didn't put that money away for retirees. Workers did. Do you think people should work til they drop dead? There are people in this country who never worked a day in their life but collect SS. Some of them aren't even US citizens. I think one of the problems is that attorneys advertise on TV that if you are injured or unable to work, you may be eligible to collect SS. Why are they advertising that when SS is close to not being in existence? There are people collecting it who should not be. All they have to do is get a judge to declare that they can't work and then they collect SS. The attorney makes money because they represent the person who wants to collect. What a farce.

@Lois - the problem is, you did not pay into it nearly enough to cover what you will probably take out. They would have needed to raise the contribution levels greatly to cover most people.

Lots of laws, regulations and taxes/fees in obamacare kicking off next year that few people are aware of too.
Get your parachutes on!

Do we have a budget now?

It was Newt and the republican congress that forced Cliinton to be somewhat responsible. He vetoed welfare reform 3 times before coming around. And that has been undone by the current occupant of the white house. Clinton got the credit (and deserves it) but the fiscal responsibility came from the repubs in congress. We're spending / promising money that we dont have.

So you are telling us that the national debt was zero after Clinton? You and Joy need some book learnin.

Where did I say the debt was zero? What we had was the meagerest start toward fiscal responsibility.
To date, since the community organizer-in-chief has been running the show, only the republicans have passed any kind of budget. in fact, the plan the president wanted garnered zero votes in congerss from Democrats! We have a serious spending problem in this country, it's not you, or me or our kids, but our grandkids who will have to pay it off. We need to cut out all govt unions and pensions immediately and reduce spending on social programs (SS, Medicare, medicaid, govt housing etc.)

Additionally, all govt subsidies to farming, energy, higher education, transportation, etc. EVERYTHING needs to get chopped SUBSTANTIALLY. The government has no business picking winners and losers.

Until politicians stop worrying about their own jobs / pensions and how many votes they can buy with tax money spending promises, all this posturing is just a show.

John
You left this out:
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

If you liked the tax rates, budget and deficit under Clinton, lets go back to that budget TODAY! I'm game.

So G.G., your solution is for America's infrastructure and human resources to be made as weak as possible then? How will that help the future?

Sully:
Where did you get that from? Ithink a strong infrastructure is essential as to the human resources comment, I'm not sure what you mean. I think that Anyone who wants a job should be able to get one and achieve as much as they can, and anyone who doesnt want a job that could hold one should be cut off from government programs. Sounds pretty strong to me and would make for a GREAT future!

G.G., where does the money come from to fix the infrastructure? Human resources refers to workers. Without an education, the American workforce will get much smaller. Both white collar and blue. College has gotten beyond the point where most kids are able to afford it unless they go to community college or can get a scholarship somehow. Why is this country trying to price out the future? Why is this country trying to keep access for medical care available to so few? Uneducated and sick people do not make a very strong workforce. Taxpayers pay for the emergency room, so why not focus on preventative care to keep people from needing it? Look at the whole picture, not just the little window you see out of. That's a rhetorical 'you'.

Who do you think is pricing college out of reach? Could it be the elites and their unions? get rid of government subsidies and the price will plummet. the government is keeping the cost of education high..

Medical care is available to anyone who needs it in this country. If you are referring to lack of insurance, we could buy policies for anyone who doesnt have one on the free market for less than a tenth of what obamacare will cost.

Sounds like you are looking for "fairness", the country, the world, is not fair. trying to force fairness is socialism. I'll take a pass and provide for myself and my family. That's what created this country.

You really haven't a clue, do you, Double G?

Sully,
Where do you think $40K+ / year goes when you pay college tuition? The reason it's that high is because the government "grants" money to students to pay the institution. If there were no grants, nobody could afford college at the current rates and tuition would come down to a reasonable level. The politicians get the "grant" money back in the form of kickbacks from the unions and the colleges. The government needs to get out of 90% of what it's involved in.

Not gonna happen. Executive Order issued by the President yesterday increased pay (or more accurately suspended the pay freeze) of almost all government employees from the VP down. Haven't seen an estimate of the economic impact yet, probably offsets the increased tax liability for most of them though. Some may see this as a payback for political support by government employee unions - it certainly does not provide and indication the executive branch is serious about a balanced approcah to the budget crisis.

He previously extended the freeze until Spring. This step makes that deadline official. Federal employees have been under a pay freeze for quite a while.

John,
Yes, unemployment checks for 99 weeks is rediculous. The money has to come out of the economy to go back in because the individual isn't producing anything. Where do you think it comes from? So the government collects taxes on whatever the unemployment checks are spent on, and the company doesnt have the money anymore to pay new employees or to invest in the company. I have no idea where you come up with a 14% increase in spending on the benefit. (Please let me know so I can make the investment).
As to college costs, i would bet that students leave with WAY more than 20k in loans, do a little research and see where the tuition money goes and where it comes from. The government is artificially keeping tuition inflated by providing "grants".

Where can I grab the 14% return? I've got my entire life savings ready.

Oh yea. The gravy train! I do want to be paid that wage vs. my normal working wage.

People ***WANT*** to be on unemployment? unemployment is the luxury train? Really?

It's because Boehner won't let it come to a vote. Some Republican support is all that's needed and he's afraid they might vote for it. It's a power thing. People are waiting in the wings to grab his spot as speaker with Cantor probably chomping at the bits. 400k, estate tax extension, unemployment and extend farm bill....done. Took 3 minutes.

Sure, kick the can again. The issue is not really the tax rates, although that's the banner the President wants the press to carry avoiding the fact that there are no balanced proposals on the table. Not one proposal from the administration or Senate leadership has addressed one cent of spending reductions. We do not have a tax rate problem. We have a spending problem.

Sure, I understand, it's tough when your opinions get destroyed every time.

LOL McClown...Funny you ,of all people ,should say that! I remember all your election stands and predictions. Talk about destroyed. LOL. But...I guess that's what clowns do best...make people laugh.

No the raise is a result of an Executive Order issues by the President himself. Facts are important.

Boy do you have some odd spins on reality. Oh wait - you believe Fox News is 100% accurate.

Way to go you Republi-CON.

Take your pills, Vicky.

Rigged? Really? Are you feeling ok? Can you honestly look deep in the mirror and truly honestly believe that is true?

Oh, and watch the language.

Rigged in the sense that voters are bought and paid for via unions, welfare, food stamps, green energy, bail outs, etc. It's a virtual candy store for some, they pay with their votes and the rest of us pay with our sweat.

You have got very deep rooted issues.

"Flag as inappropriate" pushed on every one of your insane posts.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."

Ezekiel 25:17.

That's an insult to chicks and other young poultry everywhere. Especially the sick ones.

Hello all,

I guess i shouldn't post something like this without providing more details.

The idea for this blog, which i've run by the local Patch editor, is to have a small group of people who either lean left or lean right and to be part of a small 'debate' team.

We would pick a hot topic each week (maybe pulling from a Brian Slupski news item, etc) on e.g., Monday, and would select one person from each group to submit an initial stance on the subject, and these would be posted at the same time.

So we would have opposing viewpoints to consider on a given subject.

We would then chime in with thoughts about what was said on each side, and then two other team members would submit a rebuttal, which would also be posted at the same time, probably on Wednesday.

On Friday, somebody would submit a closing statement from each team.. hopefully there would have been some give and take during the course of the week where we learned something from the other group, etc.

Let me know if you are interested in being a contributor. My role would simply be to organize, be a contributor and keep things moving. I would also strive for civility. Name calling can be fun, but it's not constructive. We would have to keep each other in check and pretend that we were all in the same room together.