My feelings exactly...

I agree when people voted obama back in office they voted for no leadership in Washington DC. 2016 can't get here soon enough.

Roger,

Don't you get it ? Patch poles are for L.I.P.'s........ LOW INFORMATION PEOPLE.

I love observing this little club where you guys know everything and all of the rest are "low information people"!

L.I.P. is a new one for me. You guys are cracking me up!

why kick out the Republicans when the dumocrats created this mess.

Boy! All I can say is "Amen to That!" Right On!

You hit the nail on the head!

Absolutely James!

Yep! Everyone focuses on entitlements but not on the military industrial complex.

47%??? That's that twit Romney's hokum. That 47% he called 'moochers' are really the PROUD HARD WORKING Americans being taken for a ride by the obscenely rich who have for the last years since all the tax giveaways and humoungous salaries given them noone could possibly be worth been mooching their big bucks off the rest of ordinary PROUD AMERICANS by lower pay, jobs cut, higher charges for goods and services rendered in order to support their massive pay receipts. Talk about mooching! The moochers are the top 5%... and NEVER has giving them what they want and demand EVER raised the number of jobs available. Stats from past history prove that fact.

Talk about wasteful spending. How about Obama's $500 million "investment" (actually a political payoff) in bankrupt Solendra? And the failed battery company. If he was Republican, all you would hear about is how these were a waste of taxpayers' money and the Dems would be crying for an investigation which would, of course, last until the next Congressional election period. But Democrats are allowed and even encouraged to waste tax money. And, the media sweeps Obama's failed "investments" under the rug.

I didn't call the 47% moochers I live on social security but it was money I paided into all my life and what kind of cost of living raise do SS get 1.7 at the same time raising the medicare so some will be making less, if people don't work SS doesn't get paid into.. A large portion of this 47% would be glad to have a job and what is our country doing to get them work nothing lets just tax the 1% who can create jobs or the small businesses making $250,000. Look at the states who are doing well they are giving breaks for companies to come to their states who hire middle class workers who pay taxes and buy homes, cars, etc.. What can put this country back on its feet our own resources and what does our government do give money to Brazil to drill in the gulf or failing solar companies at the same time taxing and regulating the coal ,gas and oil companies to the point where a lot are closing taking away more jobs. If we would just embrace the resources in our own country then we can stop the wars to protect our foreign oil supplers. COMMOM SENSE stop the wasteful spending, stop giving money to countries who hate us for resources we have right here, and get Americans back to work you can't spend and tax your way out of debt and that goes for both parties.

. How long can the one percent keep the 47% of the people who can't find jobs or just sit back and wait for the government to send them checks.>>>

Where did you get that number?

AMEN to that Ralph!

I called Rep. Kelly's office and asked if he had identified wasteful spending to be cut. He has not, except for cutting Obamacare, which the House voted 33 times to repeal. Talk about insanity - doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. And comparing a family budget with the US economy is not the correct thing to do. They are as different as a mustard seed and Jupiter. Our economy would be moving along at a faster pace if it was not for the dysfunction, incompetence, negligence Republicans have brought to DC. This signing of pledges to Grover Norquist really take the cake. Are they there to serve the people or the lobbyists?

So, Maria, it is OK to just keep on spending like drunken sailors which is the mantra of the Democratic Party. Thank God the Republicans are there to act as the adults. Without huge spending cuts on the entitlement programs, no Democratic Party plan will solve the fiscal problems of this country. If you ran your home like this federal government with its' deficit spending, you would have been kicked out onto the street by now.

David - Domestic spending as a political favor is criminal or would be if Obama was Republican. Oil is here to stay for long, long time unless you can figure out a way to give every American an equally reliable and equally "refuel-able" alternative. I'll wait until 2016 when Hillary announces that if she is elected, she will buy (with our tax dollars or just print more) a new, alternative energy car (make that 2 because we all have more than one in most families) for everyone. More "domestic investment" by Democrats.

Just a couple items for clarification, mr GetRid:
YOU said:
They have what they want. They live well. They eat well. They have cars on our dime. And second homes in DC on our dime.

Second houses on our dime? You mean they pay the rent on their DC dwellings out of their paycheck, right? You certainly were not insinuating that they get a free house in DC, were you?
FYI some members sleep in their offices to save spending rent on the residence they need in DC.
Now, as to the Obama family going to Hawaii, nice of you to suggest that our President should spend Christmas at the job site, rather than do what millions of Americans do--visit their FAMILY!

I agree! Get people in there that actually work for a living! I wish I could vote myself a $5 or $10 thousand dollar raise! I don't feel any of them deserve a raise! If they want a raise, Put it to a vote by the people they represent. Only one vote per person and no contributions. What have they done for our pockets? NOTHING but raise our taxes to help pay for their raises. They really want to help the budget? . .Cut their salaries in half! And NO bonus money to be paid to any company or their employees that we bail out. We have been bailing out the companies and they are taking the bail out money and paying BONUSES!! The poor are about 85% of the country, it is time we take our government back.

Quoting Debbie, "... Put it to a vote by the people they represent ..."

Debbie, the vote was on November 6. That event has already happened, and people did vote for those they wanted to hold the office, salary and all.

NE writes: "... Now, as to the Obama family going to Hawaii, nice of you to suggest that our President should spend Christmas at the job site, rather than do what millions of Americans do--visit their FAMILY! ...."

Sorry, the decision to leave Wash DC on Friday, Dec 21, spoke volumes about how they felt about their responsibilities. It matters not if it be the House, Senate, or the WH. They have had this problem sitting on their desks for 18 months. To take time off at a very critical time of negotiations was highly irresponsible. If they wishes to take a break over Christmas, they would have solved the issue before Dec 21. Lots of other people worked over Christmas holiday, those who hold positions with much, much less authority and power over the American citizens.

Yes, he is a joke and a bold faced liar! Just do and say what you are told. He is a "yes" man!

No it isn't George W Bush fault, Duke you need to go back and read about spending in Washington over the last 40-50 years. Another clueless democrat

Right on, Duke! That and his republican spendthrifts who don't mind subsidizing mega-profitable oil companies, big agriculture, and letting GE off the hook of paying any taxes despite mega-buck profits. I find it hilarious how republicans suffer gravely from massive memory loss. Obama inherited a mess and, despite republican attempts to keep the mess going, has had to fight uphill all the way just to safe the country from a 30s style depression by bailing out banks, the auto industry, and seeking to provide poor hard working Americans (sorry right wingers, the vast majority of Romney's 47% aren't moochers by any matter of means despite your propagandists' blather trying to paint them as such) some kind of health coverage in the face of opposition from obscenely overpaid health insurance executives, not to mention trying to bring down the number of troops in Bush's useless war in Iraq without having the whole place utterly go to the dogs. It's pretty clear that republicans have a bad case of amnesia when it comes to realizing what that party is all about and its harmfulness.

Ralph don't forget all the welfare that the the democrats love to hand out that is keeping our country broke. I get so sick and tired of hearing of 3rd, 4th, 5th generation of people who depend on our government to live. Even obummer aunts and uncles are living off the USA, and they aren't even citizens, yet were supporting them

re: don't forget all the welfare that the the democrats love to hand out that is keeping our country broke. I get so sick and tired of hearing of 3rd, 4th, 5th generation of people who depend on our government to live. >>

GOP tries to blame Democrats but it is the RED STATES who receive more federal dollars per dollar paid in tax.
Conservative lawmakers complain about deficit spending but their RED STATE constituents don’t want to give up the SS checks, Medicare, and EIT credits they get.

most red states have illegals that the moron we have as president won't deport. lets allow more illegals to collect welfare, free medicaid, food stamps and everything else for free. The joker in office has not done anything to create jobs in the last 4 years, and more jobs will be lost over the next 4 years.

As usual, blame illegals, as if you even know which immigrants are legal and which are not.
White People Within Republican States Receive More Welfare and Food-stamps Than the People in Democrat States
Read more at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

Obama's policies will lead to a deeper Recession in 2013. Just like FDR. For one thing, companies are still sitting on their money. See Forbes prediction:
"But the Fed’s efforts to flood the economy with money—$2.3 trillion since 2008—won’t save us from another recession, and may actually exacerbate the problem, if companies and entrepreneurs refuse to invest in new opportunities, equipment and people. That’s what happened in 1937 with Roosevelt’s reelection, and it will happen again if Obama is reelected."

He has kept republicans out of the white house!

Keeping the republicans out of the White House was indeed one of the best things he has done. And it's pretty clear we have here another republican suffering from massive amnesia. Let's see... Obama saved big banks from failing which would have really plunged the country into a 30s style depression. He's been trying to alleviate the costs of the stupid war 'Dubya' Bush useless got us into to benefit Cheney's Halliburton Oil Company that has been costing taxpayer billions by bringing as many troops home as possible without having the place go bottoms up. He's managed to get a universal health program into place that would have been a far better, cheaper program were it not for republicans and their big-money health insurance backers who saw their honey pit being closed if something go through to guarantee all Americans decent health care. He rescued the auto industry and, along with the banks, these financial institutions have been paying the government back for the funds expended to rescue them. So, republicans, if you don't like staying out of a 30s depression good, if you don't like all people having decent health care, if you prefer American auto companies failing, and soldiers coming home as much as possible,... then I guess President Obama hasn't done anything... but if that's the attitude, as it seems to be among mentally deficient republicans who think low or no taxes is a fetish worth having, I'd tend to say they really don't like civilization much.

Roger - This is a staged performance, whose intended consequence is to play to the base on each side of the divide. I selected 'Other' not because any of the items are not important, they are, - but they are just fodder for baiting the divide. Everything will be done just in time for the gang on both sides of the aisle to save the day as if they had saved their face. It's a ruse, a gimmick, a stratagem of shenanigans that we ought to be use to by now. It's a plantation farm where we minions slice the bacon for the masters of the big house, -- and best (or worse) of all we will get to do it again and again. The problem is that the leadership has us where they want us, and we with all gratuitous grovelling chip away through the same vendors who carry our same complaints to the same file that gets dumped into the same trash bucket at the end of the day. Our ship has hit a sandbar and is stuck, and no one has enough sense to get a tugboat or two or three and get us out. -- What I would suggest is for a farmer and a mechanic and a nurse go together to the white house and congress and give them a class on grassroots politics for working together as in serving the public for the public good. -- Mine and your politics are different, but we carry a lot of the same frustrations, no question.

James, I regret to inform you that you are part of the citizenry who does not follow, has not followed, and apparently is not following the matter.

You speak of this matter in future tense, just like the author of the titled article. Calling it a "staged performance," "ruse," "gimmick" or any other name is to deny the existence. There is NOBODY,on either side of the aisle, no economic perspective, that is calling the issue a ruse, or gimmick. The reality of it has been working for a few months. It is not just a Dec 31, midnight, matter. Those who manage their money, make investment decisions, make business decisions and plan, have been factoring the "cliff" in their work. Not to do so would have been foolish. Major plans do not turn on a dime, as in a yes/no vote in the chambers. There may be some part of the day to save, but a part of the day has already passed. We are already living with the impact of indecision in DC.

To think this will impact "the other guy" is silly. Payroll taxes impact everybody. Unemployment benefits impact everybody. Estate tax rates impact everybody. Dividend and capital gains tax rates impact everybody. If anybody fails to see this, then they are not understanding how our economic system works.

I will leave the political debates to others. Economic recession, higher tax rates, higher unemployment rates, less investing capital, ... all these factors impact EVERYBODY, directly, or indirectly.

OK, who else voted for "No worry" or "Other?" James took the step to defend his vote. Kudos to James. Obviously, there are more votes in these blocks besides James.

Some of you are discounting this as a charade, I think (by your comments). How do you vote? And, why?

Nobody else wants to justify their vote? Ralph, Debbie, others .... who want to degenerate the issue to a political one, please explain to us why this has no economic impact. Leave the political debates for elsewhere. Focus on the economic impact, the reality of changes in GDP, unemployment rates, etc.

Or, are some of you so tied up in ideological perspectives, the reality of the matter has gotten lost?

Roger, unfortunately some people are more worried about blaming the other guy or defending their party than acknowledging the truth. For pete's sake, you have the pseudo intellect "James Dale Barrington" saying that it doesn't exist! No wonder people aren't worried, not enough people are informed about what is about to happen. The absolutely ridiculous comment by "James" that it doesn't exist shows the extent people go to when they are mired in party politics and not truth. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying "I don't believe in gravity, so it doesn't exist." Keep putting your head in the sand. and "James", for those of us living in REALITY, your comments are laughable. When your taxes go up next year along with myriad other changes (a lot of which are mentioned above, I don't care where you read it, but it is right at the top of this page) then you can come back with your idealistic nonsense and tell us all how it doesn't exist. Like I said, a pseudo intellect with his head in the sand.

Amazing how many people choose to not read the facts, and rely on someone else's agenda or party to determine how they respond to something. What is about to happen is certainly not a matter of opinion or rhetoric, it is FACT, yet there are several posters here that blindly agree with a foolish OPINION. Too many uninformed sheep in the electorate and in the masses. When pseudo intellectuals with bloated opinions of themselves can sway the weak-minded who can't think for themselves, we have comments like "The fiscal cliff doesn't exist" and those who blindly agree with it, no matter how ridiculous or untrue the statement may be. Will the sheep be saying "Amen James" when their taxes go up next year? When REALITY sets in? Doubtful.
BAAAAAA! BAAAAAAAAAAA! I hear the bleating now...hurry sheep, defend him!

Yes we will all be impacted and I believe that all should have their taxes raised instead of ones making over 250,000. Everyone should be paying their fair share of taxes and they should have one rate for everyone. No tax breaks for the rich and no tax breaks for the poor. Then we need major tax cuts made in Washington, especially to all that want handouts from our government but never paid a dime in taxes in their lives.

I ♥ Sadam Hussein Obama! He is the greatest President this country has ever had!

we returned him to office because the economy is getting better. the stock market was up 13% and he brought reason to the table. what did the gop bring to the table. no hispanics, no gays, keep women in their place. It really was not hard to vote for him.

Satin is a beautiful fabric. Did you know it was originally made only from silk, and as such too expensive for most, but satin now is made from acetate, nylon, rayon, etc.
I don't know what satin has to do with the fiscal cliff, but it's still a luxurous fabric, even chosen by some brides.

These comments are sad as you wanted a Socialist in office and we got the Lucifer in office for another 4 years.

The legislation passed at 2:00 a.m. this morning has $41 of new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

This information should help you find your way to the "cliff."

No, this is not "the way it has always been." The fiscal house was in order in the '90s. With the huge rate of deficit increases the past couple of years, the present situation is not "the way it has always been."

Once again, "James", you are showing that you have absolutely NO GRASP of what is going on. You mockingly say "Let me get my head of the sand" yet you still deny what is going on! You like to come across as some great intellect, and talk about narcissism but you sure do love to hear yourself blather on, don't you? As far as the pseudo intellectual comment, I certainly stand by my assertion. You think you're a lot smarter than you really are. Keep mocking reality you clown. I shouldn't be surprised that you ignore facts, based on the posts you have made in past, defending child rape, mocking anyone with a belief system and the disdain you clearly have for America and the Constitution. So by all means, make fun of me calling you out, but you are nowhere near the "smart guy" that you try to come across as. I can say that I doubt that anyone is in love with your words as much as you.

This disrespect is nothing compared to what was going on with President Bush. They even made a movie, while he was still in office, about him being assassinated.

Roger, thank you for your realism and for the sobering picture of this debacle you have laid out. Anyone that is breaking out champagne bottles is naive, and surely the members of Congress and the president know how deeply flawed this legislation is. The Congressional Budget Office said a mouthful in noting that the national debt is forecast to increase $4 trillion over the next nine years as a result of the bill, and that is before the members of both parties find new ways to increase the debt! This is the best we could do after all of the time the members had to formulate a real solution?

A real solution to the debt problem will never be realized until Obama and the Democratic Party stop the stonewalling on reducing entitlements. ALL spending has to be on the table including the huge, new entitlement of the ACA, commonly know as Obamacare. Until the Democratic Party stops playing politics and becomes statesmen, the debt and deficit will continue to rise until we get to the endgame. That is when the country runs out of other people's money to spend.

Roger you are always right on you do a better job then the people who represent us. Until they face the fact this wasteful spending is the real reason this country is in big trouble nothing is going to change. Roger if you would ever run for political office I would vote for you if I could.

Roger, you are dead on with this matter. I work in the financial industry, so the impact of the "cliff" that others claim doesn't exist is painfully obvious to me every day, and even shapes policies at financial institutions. That's why I am taken aback that people either deny that it exists or deride the importance of it. What has been agreed upon is like putting a band aid on a hemhorraging wound. Maybe it's because people don't care to know the gravity of the situation, but it's scary to think that because people don't want to know about it they deny it exists. We are in very real trouble, even if they do come to a real agreement, not just a stopgap measure like the one they've agreed to. In three weeks there will be more hand-wringing and teeth gnashing about increasing the debt ceiling. One after another, the things that make up the "cliff" will present themselves again. I wish more people were as informed on this subject as you are. I, for one, applaud you for knowing and stating facts. Too many people have turned this into a liberal / conservative argument without looking at the facts. Its AMERICA'S problem (and by association, the WORLD'S problem), not just one party. Denying facts that are clear to defend a political party is ridiculous. We are all in deep.

I agree with your analysis as well. I find it amazing when I talk to people at work, they are just happy their taxes aren't going up. They don't even realize that this didn't cover the payroll deduction for SS. They expect their pay check this Friday to be the same. As far as the debt goes, I guess they think as long as the Feds keep printing money we will be ok. People are just blind as to what the endless spending is doing to this country.

Yes, SUE T our taxes payroll / social security taxes ARE going up. I heard it will be approximately $100.00/month. Like most people can afford to live with $100 less a month.

Sandra, you missed my point entirely. I know they are going up by 2 percent. But most people I talked to did not know that. They heard Obama say, no tax increase for the middle class and they believed that. In fact, there is a 2 percent increase in the SS contribution. That''s1,000 a year for someone making $50K, or $2,000 a year for someone making $100K. My whole point was, that based on the statements of our politicans and the press reporting, not a lot of people understaood that. I'm glad that you did.

Funny how about the fiscal cliff you are raving about how we should respect the clear evidence, but then you bring up your belief in God, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I just found that interesting, it shows a fundamental part of your character is overestimating your own beliefs and dismissing those of others.

Mark A. ... did the sun rise this morning?

Roger, do you consider the sun rising as proof of God? Sorry, i don;t, and neither does science. Not trying to hijack the thread, nor disrespect your faith, but faith is exactly that, faith. You shouldn't try to justify your faith by using laws of physics as proof, for then it negates your faith. Just have the faith.

You didn't type the word "God?" Go up about 4 posts where you say, and I quote you:

" Thank God (oh yeah, wait, in your world we can't have God, let me correct that) thank GOODNESS you rescued us all."

So there you mentioned God twice. You incorrectly represented James's beliefs and past comments from other threads in regards to God...brought up and typed by you...twice.

I always enjoy James's posts. He never attacks anyone...ever. He states his views concisely and simply. Because I have read his comments many times I can say with 100% certainty that your comment, and I quote you:

"I merely pointed out that "James Dale Barrington" has mocked others merely for having a belief system."

Is 100% not even a little bit true ever. James most certainly does follow a religious belief that accepts all religious beliefs and all people. I don't want to speak for him, but he has never mocked anyone. Ever. Especially not for their spiritual beliefs which I think that James seems to take very seriously as he approaches these subjects with heavy consideration and empathy.

Enough already. Take a note from James and find some inner peace and appreciation of your fellow human beings (hey, I struggle with this too, but I don't anonymously attack strangers over the internet) and by all means, if you have a specialized understanding of the "fiscal cliff" please share it.

Dude you are so snide and awful with everyone, I'm glad I don't have such a mean, sarcastic, intolerant view of humanity. It must be horrible living in such an angry world.

Geez, I was just meandering through the thread, and every single one of your posts attempts to be mean, belittling, or sarcastic. Not once are you able to get out of the post without throwing out insults.

I've come across your type before online, and such anger usually shows anger in real life. However, the people who are the real blowhards online are always meek and walked-over in real life. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in your life, I bet you get dominated at every turn in your home life and on the job. Whipped and no job satisfaction, no doubt.

My favorite Concerned Citizen line from this thread -
"You've shown that you don't want to live in reality with your absurd and childish comments. What a clown." - Way to keep everything adult, Concerned.

He also said-
"Okay "James". It doesn't exist in YOUR world. For those of us living in reality, it does. I really can't believe you would even post that nonsense. You not wanting to educate yourself about it or acknowledge its existence doesn't make it not true."
C.C. - there were many knowledgable people that denied the "fiscal cliff" - not that we don't have to do something about our deficit, but the whole "cliff" idea, that if something wasn't done by midnight the 31st that everything would fall apart. Many people, from the far left to the far right, from Paul Krugman to Newt Gingrich said it was a made-up event, and most negative effects would be gradual, that we actually had time to get a real deal done. Concerned obviously fell for the Chicken Little story that main stream media fed us - some were a little more, oh I don't know - realistic.

JS, I think you have upped the population in the denial pool to two (James beat you to the first position).

After a little more than one day, citizens, politicians, business leaders, and economists agree, the edge of the cliff was merely moved, not averted. The number of stories with people from all walks grows, "... this deal didn't accomplish very much." The debt celing issue remains outstanding. And, now we have some from the political arena in a position to do something saying "Not up for negotiation." The spending issues remain outstanding. The recent legislation, increases taxes by $41, for every $1 in spending cuts. Recall the discourse many months ago when these discussions started, "We need legislation to reduce the Federal deficit." This is how the initial framework was established. With a 41:1 ratio, the goal was lost in the rhetoric.

Economic growth is the only way out of the fiscal mess, not tax rate increases or even new taxes. We need more productive people paying taxes because of economic growth. What economist supports growth through raising taxes? Nobody. It has never worked, and there is no reason to think it will work this time. NOBODY favors taxing our way out.

Perspectives from those most able to help, the major business leaders, are being heard. This is only one, or many, stories:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-business-leaders/1805161/

There is not much encouraging news here.

Roger - didn't bother to look into Paul Krugman or Newt Gingrichs or Tom Harkin or articles in US News and World Report or the Washington Times or many others that said the cliff was a gradual slope? It's not a population of two, as I said in my post.

What I was saying, and what I believe James was saying was that the cliff was a media invention and was never a drop-dead date for the world to fall apart. That's it - I'm not arguing that this agreement does anything to help or not, or that the budget needs to be balanced or not, or that the rich will cut us all off if we raise their taxes by 3%. The original argument has been about the cliff. Many people say the cliff is a bunch of hype intended to frighten everyone

Roger, now don't jump up my bum about this, but I did just read an article correlating economic booms of recent history to tax raises. Reagan admin tax raise and boom of 1982 (?) and Clinton admin tax raise and boom of 1993. Correlation is not causation. I know this.

Forgive me as I am getting caught up here, but didn't Obama just make the Bush tax cuts permanent? So who is getting taxes raised now? Where is the 41 dollar increase coming from? An article would be great.

It is definitely not true to say that nobody is favoring a tax increase. Here is an article that I was just reading by Jeffrey Sachs, a very well known liberal economist.

(article to follow)

"Here are the simple facts. Government spending today is around 23 percent of Gross Domestic Product, including 13 percent for mandatory transfer programs (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, veterans benefits, military retirement, and others), 2 percent for interest, 4.5 percent for the military, and 3.5 for civilian programs. Taxes are around 16 percent of GDP, but would probably produce around 17-18 percent of GDP in a more robust economy.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire today would have raised tax collections by around 2.5 percent of GDP, to around 21 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, thereby allowing the government to pay its bills assuming that the useless wars are ended and the bloated Pentagon budget is brought under control. The Obama-Senate plan will instead keep taxes at around 18 percent of GDP. The CBO will soon "score" the new tax plan; Democrats will be shocked at what the White House and Senate have given away."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/reject-the-deal_b_2392654.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

Now Roger, I would really appreciate you responding without the typical "you are a child" and me having to once again remind you that I am quickly approaching 30 years old, have gone back to school as an adult, have been in the grown up world of employment for 10+ years now, and deserve as much respect as any other adult woman.

If you cannot handle communicating civilly and resort to Concerned's methods up there, then I am simply going to look for my information elsewhere, and you will have communicated your ideas ineffectually therefore wasting your own time at a loss to nobody but yourself.

Concerned, you make a very valid point about remaining anonymous. How do we know people that use Names on here like Erin Connors or James Dale Barrington are their true names? For all we know Erin's real name could be Philly and James real name could be Ralph

Who cares who is doing the complaining about Deficit Spending???? EVERYONE should be complaining about it!!! Quit politicizing it!!!!!

Well, at this point we do not even have a projected deficit for 2013 because we do not have a budget yet, right? Last years deficit would now be debt....somewhere in the trillions...And we cannot pay it back.

We are in a hole that we cannot climb out of.
When was the last year that we did not have a deficit?

Where I am going with this is that you cannot help politicizing the deficit because that is all that it is anymore. The fiscal cliff (whatever it happens to mean to the media at the time), the deficit, and the debt is all just political fodder at this point. The government has this ingenious system where they borrow printed money from the FED, our money continues to lose value, and we all go down the toilet.

This has been going on forever. Our nation's leaders are well aware. Until we do something about the FED our monetary system will continue to decline until we are totally dependent on what is granted to us from the government which will be value out of thin air I suppose. (I hope that this does not happen). As long as we continue overseas escapades/wars in the name of "terror," we will continue to print money unchecked. That has all become "politicized" as well. ie: complaining about deficit spending _is_ reacting to an already politicized symptom that barely has an identifiable disease (root problem) anymore let alone a cure (solution).

You've got that right Erinie. Both parties have contributed to over spending, and continuing to make this a political issue just makes the problem worse. The politicans just use that as a wedge to continue to divide the people so they don't have to answer to anyone. It is all of our problem, democrats, republicans, libratarians, independents, etc. And the sooner we all realize that and demand action from our politicans or replace them all, the sooner we will get out of this mess.

You call for us to stop thinking along party lines. Sorry, there are basic idealistic lines that are drawn out there, not necessarily by party but by ideology.

A perfect example is your post -
You seem to think a balanced budget is the end all, be all of our economy. Read this from Forbes magazine - it's called "How to Destroy the US Economy? Balance the Budget"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/06/05/how-to-destroy-the-us-economy/

Austerity budgets are failing all over the world right now. I'm not sure why so many think they will work here. At a time when the world's economy is teetering - taking money out of the market is not the best plan.

As far as higher taxes on the rich - take a look at when our economy has been at it's best. The highest tax rates were much, much higher than they are now. How the idea that higher taxes on the upper earners will somehow collapse the economy is still out there despite all historic evidence to the contrary is beyond me.

You see, you want everyone to stop thinking along party lines, yet you parrot the right wing party line on everything. Sorry, just wishing that everyone will think like you won't make it happen. Some of us have basic disagreements with your thinking. What is and what will forever be.

@JS

A few comments on your post:

1. While I agree that a balanced budget is not always necessarily a good thing, at this particular point in time, it is the only thing that can help. At this point in time, our debt is equal to our GDP. That is unprecedented in modern times, and cannot be sustained. In reality, no one is projecting a budget even close to balanced for the next decade, and therefore, the debt will soon be BIGGER than the entire economy of the US. The only way to reduce the debt is to have a balanced fiscal year budget with debt service payments included. Period, end of story.

2. Your theory about higher taxes on the rich and a good economy are interesting, but thoroughly unrelated. If you do some research on Hauser's Law, you will discover that throughout modern history, the Tax Revenues in to the US treasury have ranged between 18-20% of GDP irregardless of the Income Tax Brackets (which were as high as 70%) in some of those periods. If we were to tax all the "rich" at 100%, we would collect enough revenue today to run the government for about 8 days (at current spending levels).

As has been said over and over, we don't have a Tax Revenue Problem, we have a Tax Revenu Spending Problem.

Taxing all income equally would destroy the working poor while giving the wealthy even more expendable income.

Now, I stole this comment in my more random reading for the day, but I could not say it better, so I will just copy/paste:

"A flat tax is one of the most regressive tax systems there is. The working poor (not the "non tax paying parasites" as you call them) would pay taxes on income before expenses and end up with little or no expendable income (e.g., money that can be used for non-essential purchases or savings for retirement). The middle class would probably pay about the same. The upper class (top 2%) would see dramatic increases in wealth because they pay fewer taxes and have more expendable income than ever before. Regardless, a flat tax rate that would be needed to generate the same revenue as the current tax code would have to be around 30%. Flat taxes are simple but they are far from fair. It makes perfect sense to make the working poor scrimp and save even harder to make ends meet while giving the rich an extra trip to Hawaii for the holidays doesn't it?"

Hold on Erin...

A couple of points to consider:

1. A flat tax can be set up as a progressive tax, simply by extablishing the income level it kicks in at, so don't dismiss it as non-progressive. The intent of a Flat Tax is not to necessarily tax everyone, it is to simplify the tax Code, and eliminate deductions.

2. As to your premise that a Flat Tax would need to be 30%, all I can say is that you are absolutely wrong on that theory. If you just looked at it logically, you would deduce that it would be somewhere in the middle of the current tax brackets. Perhaps you are confusing a Flat Tax with a Consumption Tax, which would be somewhere around 23% or so if ever used.

3. As has been said over and over again, America does not have a Tax Revenue problem, we have a Tax Revenue Spending Problem.

Currently considering those points Ernie.

I was also responding to comments above concerning the flat tax in which one poster clearly said that the poor would be taxed at the same rate as the wealthy meaning that person was not taking into consideration tax brackets in a new flat income tax, therefore I was not.

I know the topic of this thread is personal income tax, but I also would like to see a flat corporate income tax. If you have ever looked at the list of companies that pay ZERO income tax, you know it's most of the big players. The interesting thing is, with all the throwing about oil companies for not paying taxes, none of the fall on the list for paying Zero taxes for at least 3 years, while 30 other companies did. Exxon-mobile did make the last of 78 companies that paid zeo taxes for one year. Now, the oil and gas average effective tax rate is about 15%, much lower then the tax rate of 35%, but close to the actual average for all industries of 18 percent.

@Sue T

While I understand your sentiment regarding Corporate Taxes, you are forgetting one very simple, yet fundamental FACT about corporate taxes. While corporations may or may not show paying taxes on their financial statements, they do NOT pay them out of their profits...those tax payments (when applicable) are passed on to the consumer through their product/service pricing.

So, while it sounds great to tax the "corporations", all that is, is simply a consumption tax...the most regressive tax possible...

I do understand that tax is passed on the to consumer Ernie. I'm sorry, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that while some corporations pay zero federal taxes, others pay close to the full 35%. I think if you had a flat tax, say at 15 or 20 percent (using that based on the average of 18%) it would al come out it the wash. Besides, GE pays zero tax, are their applicances lower in cost the say Whirlpool or Maytag? Same with gas. Is Exxon charging less because they paid 0 federal tax then say Chevron?

The fact remains that the RED STATES collect more than they contribute
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Not true,
States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:

1. New Mexico: $2.63
2. West Virginia: $2.57
3. Mississippi: $2.47
4. District of Colombia: $2.41
5. Hawaii: $2.38
6. Alabama: $2.03
7. Alaska: $1.93
8. Montana: $1.92
9. South Carolina: $1.92
10. Maine: $1.78

Five of those states are red states, and five are blue states. I read the same article.

but there are a lot of ways to play with numbers. Here is by percent of population receiving welfare.
State——-% of Pop on Welfare—–Spending on Welfare—-Total on Welfare—–Unemp

#1. California 3.30% $3.28 BILLION 1,212,893 11.5%

#2. Maine 2.37% $61.73 MILLION 31,148 .8.3%

#3. Tennessee 2.15% $91.28 MILLION 133,505 10.7%

#4. Massachusetts 2.09% $295.29 MILLION 136,033 8.2%

#5. Vermont 2.02% $30.92 MILLION 12,543 7.3%

#6. Wash DC 1.99% $18.67 MILLION 11,806 10.7%

#7. New York 1.92% $1.47 BILLION 373,305 8.2%

#8. Minnesota 1.88% $106.29 MILLION 98,028 8.2%

#9. Washington 1.86% $265.88 MILLION 121,864 .9.4%

#10. New Mexico 1.83% $58.87 MILLION 36,322 6.5%

#11. Indiana 1.83% $102.27 MILLION 116,430 10.6%

#12. Rhode Island 1.79% $57.4 MILLION 18,839 12.1%

#13. Michigan 1.60% $380.93 MILLION 164,589 14.1%

Almost all blue states. you can play with numbers to show whatever you want. In the first list, looking at $ contributed, the states that fall in the top are typically low average income states, so as a result they will contribute less even though they don't fall in the list of the top states receiving welfare by population. And does it really matter? I would think the goal is to get people working whether they are republicans, democrates, a-political

Don't know your source, SueT, since you didn't give it, but....

This is from Business Insider:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-18/politics/30039546_1_blue-states-federal-taxes-red-states

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state.
We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes.
A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government.
Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Sue T,
as figures do change, from year to year, there are variations in my list and your shorter list.
But your shorter list still has 6 of the biggest 'takers" being RED states in the 2012 election. 60% of YOUR list.
On the list of 20, every one of the takers voted RED except NM, VA, HI, and ME.
16/20.

Sue T
11:37 am on Friday, January 4, 2013but there are a lot of ways to play with numbers. Here is by percent of population receiving welfare.

% of population on welfare doesn't really address who is paying more into the federal government and who is taking more out.
The list I provided above does.

Again you miss my point NE12Ukid. My point was using statistics is a game. You can find a statistical test to support just about any postion. That's the problem presenting just one set. You need to look at the whole picture not just a snap shot. And I will repeat, trying to make this a democrat/republic issue is very short sided. The point is, we need to get those that have the ability to work off welfare and working where there are dem, repubic, independent, greeen.....

Employment Statistics are always a blast to deal with. I will use some numbers from the BLS.gov website for the official reported employment numbers produced each month, just to be sure to use the raw data, and not someones interpretation of the data.

The Total Civilian Employment figure is always the baseline comparison. It is the raw number of civilians employed, without regard to underemployment, etc. It is just the number of civilians working during the month.

The TCE number had historically gone up every month in modern history until 2006-2007 when some fluctuations began. In November, 2007 the TCE peaked at 146,647,000 employed civilian americans. For a trend line, the TCE in January 1999 was 133,225,000 employed civilian americans. As of the end of 2012, there are 143,305,000 employed civilian americans.

The Total Civilian Non-Institutionalized working age population in america has also increased every month in moder history, trending from about 207 million in 1999 to just over 244 million today.

So, using 1999 as a baseline, the working age population has grown 37 million and the number of civilians employed has grown 10 million. Serious problem.

As to the 2011 numbers you cited, the BLS reports that in 2011 we added 1,726,000 employed americans and in 2012, we did better adding 2,515,000 civilian jobs. However, in 2009-2010 we lost 6,298,000 civilian jobs....We are not even keeping up with the working age population.

Why do you think the only purpose to discussions is to change someone's mind? There is enjoyment to be had by hearing any and all points of view on most topics.

It seems very odd that you would prefer that people just "stop posting" since they don't seem to measure up to your desired outcome.

Well, I read and participate in the political articles and my mind _has_ been changed by other posters (at least to the point that I am considering other avenues of thought), and I have certainly been pointed towards some valuable information by other participants.

eg: I am reconsidering a flat tax because of Ernie's posts as he corrected other posts that claimed that the flat tax would be executed regardless of tax brackets (or without). Also, I have quoted articles that claim that Red states typically use the most government money, but Sue T. is reminding me that these numbers are so unreliable and perhaps whether or not a state is democratic or republican has very little to do with how much government assistance that state needs. (dissolving static political lines).

This belief that people's politics are as sacred and stationary as one's religion (which is primarily faith and not fact based) is part of what polarizes people so indefinitely, and those people who remain 100% static in their political beliefs are typically the very same people who are the least informed and the least capable of independent thought.

Political beliefs have to be malleable as government is a legislated compromise.

I must admit a small bit of enjoyment to read the misspelled ramblings of some folks.

Or just be a jerk. That's cool too. I now realize that I have fed a troll. Ah well. At least my response to Mike gave me a chance to tell Ernie and Sue T. that I appreciate their comments whether or not I agree.

Mike, with all DUE respect, its not up to you to tell others what they can post or not post.
Or when.
If you don't want to read it, don't read it.