Recent comments

"We cannot tax ourselves out of this problem. We must cut spending."

We can't do both? Reagan raised taxes several times while in office. I will not suport someone who takes half of the solution off the table.

The Republicans are--of course--always the first to attack their political opponents with accusations of being "anti-American" and of "putting politics first" and of being "divisive". The incontrovertible fact is that it is the *Republicans* who are anti-American, who put their craven polticial gain before the well-being of the nation, and who are grossly divisive.

They are liars, hypocrites, and would sooner destroy this country than compromise with their political oppponents.

It is good to see that Stan is finally wrapping his mind around this fact, and letting go of his delusion that the Republicans have good-faith policy differences with the Democrats, but that both side really want what is best for the country as a whole.

The Republicans are the exact political equivalent of a wife-beater whose wife finally builds up the courage to leave him, and who murders her, shrieking "If I can't have you, nobody can". It is sick despicable behavior, and the verdict of history is not going to be kind to these anti-American vicious scum who currently control the Republican Party.

Stan,

You must know by now, these people believe in mythology. Not hard facts. Mr Cox demonstrated this with his email explanation. The Media and the news isn't about facts anymore, its about entertainment.

Therefore my suggestion is for you to get rid of your cable all together. I cut the cable in January 2012, and haven't missed it at all. Decrease in viewers, equal decrease in ad dollars leads to decrease in bad reporters.

I'm surprised that you singled out CNBC. The B-S thing has been a part of the bushwah narrative for a couple of months now. Joe Scarborough has lied about it many times. One day he said the B-S report was delivered to Obama's desk and he failed to sign it.

Absolutely. Nothing more than a bait and switch by the wealthy to get out of their fair share of taxes.

Just about every Republican politician alleges that: "we do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem;" but this is a lie. Everyone knows that Ronald Reagan reduced income taxes (more than one half for the wealthy); what is less commonly understood is that he extensively offset this by raising payroll taxes(more than double for most self-employed). Today, most American families pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Between 1946 and 1981, income taxes averaged 12%(+/-1%) of normalized GDP. Reagan reduced income taxes to near 9%. Clinton increased them back to 12%; and Bush/Obama reduced them again to 9 %(and below). However, on budget expenses(which excludes Medicare,Social Security, Iraq war and stimulus) have remained 12%(+/-1%) of normalized GDP throughout. The deficit in income taxes has been financed by borrowing, largely from the Social Security trust fund. When Clinton raised income taxes back to 12%, this eliminated the on budget deficit. The CBO projected that this, plus the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, was enough to pay off the entire US debt by the time that the Social Security/Medicare trust funds would have to be amortized for beneficiary payments, all without having to raise taxes to pay for the amortization of those trust funds. Like Reagan before him, Bush took those excess payroll tax receipts and gave them “back” as income tax reductions, heavily weighted to the wealthy–who didn’t create those surpluses in the first place. By doing this, Bush guaranteed that income taxes would have to be raised in order to amortize the trust funds. The failure to do so simply permits the 1% to steal the money contributed by workers for their retirement. Everything about not raising taxes or limiting expenses, is about stealing the 99%'s money. The national debt has been caused primarily by income taxes which were reduced far below their historic 12%(+/-1%), not by on budget expenses, which have remained at their historic 12%(+/-1%) throughout. These taxing games have transferred $ trillions from the 99%'s payroll taxes to subsidize income taxes.

What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful world....

Interesting to see the divergence of political calculation between Boehner and Romney, for whom this brinksmanship is toxic.

We're treading a fine line with the budget deficit in this country and going to radical on any front may get us one step closer to a tipping point. Which is in nobody's interest. I hope the politicians on both sides of the fence will come to their senses before the whole thing spins out of control. I'm afraid we'll see this issue coming for for years to come and it's so frustrating the establishment will hold us at gunpoint over its resolution every time it pops up.

Well it's nice to see he's putting principal over position. Apparently Boehner being the speaker of the house is so very important that the country can fall into fiscal crisis as long as he gets to keep his job. I'm so very thankful that we have such principaled men and women in Congress. We all know the truly important things going forward are not the US losing it's place as the world's reserve currency, or fixing our structural deficits, or trying to close the gap on income inequality, the most important thing is that John Boehner gets to put "Speaker of the United States House of Representatives" on his letterhead, and gets to have a seal on his podium. I can't wait to tell my grandchildren that Grandpa is still working at 85 because the United States had to end Social Security and Medicare in 2035 and the continued weekness in the economy made your Grampy's retirement savings actually lose money after inflation over the last twenty years - but all is not lost kids. The late Speaker Boehner got to keep making an extra $49,500 a year for those extra couple of years, before the Tea Party voted him out anyway because he refused to bring the $5,000 a pill contraception tax to a floor vote.

Political Advantage will always be with those who preach the evils of DEFICIT SPENDING to mortgaged, credit-card using, not-saving-enough-for-retirement voters.

SFW?

If you judged solely by employment and deficit gains, no one in their right mind would have voted for W in 2004. After all, he increased the Federal deficit by more than $540MM in the three years known at the time of the election. (Obama, by contrast, will have =reduced= the deficit by around $400MM from W's last year.)

Counting only from the end of the recession for both, W's Administration had produced just under 1.4MM jobs (Dec 2001-Oct 2004). The Obama Administration has produced more than twice that (2.825MM, Sep 2009-April 2012) in a slightly smaller period of time. And that's WITH cutting Government workers across the board, as opposed to the heavy hiring in that sector under W.

If this Administration is afraid to run on its gains because there is less "political advantage" in highlighting the improvements your Administration has produced than in getting bashed for something for which you will perpetually get bashed, then the country is truly lost.

"You remember "Seinfeld," the hit NBC show that proudly was about nothing?"

Yes, I do.

Try this. It is about something.

Article

Section 1. The National Debt is the sum of the outstanding balances of all financial debt instruments issued by the United States Government and backed by its full faith and credit. The Debt Ceiling is the amount which limits the size of the National Debt. Except as provided for in subsequent sections of this article, Congress shall make no law authorizing, and the Treasury shall not issue or sell, any such instruments while the Debt Ceiling is equal to or less than the National Debt.
Section 2. Coincident with regular elections of the House of Representatives, the following question will be placed on each ballot:
“Shall the Debt Ceiling be Increased (Yea) or Decreased (Nay)?”
A majority of votes cast shall set the direction in which the Debt Ceiling may then be changed and this will remain binding until the next regular elections of the House of Representatives.
Section 3. During the Calendar Year following regular elections of the House, Congress may, by a bill for that purpose which becomes law, determine the amount of increase or decrease, dependent on the result set by the section 2 vote, to be applied to the Debt Ceiling, provided that the resulting Debt Ceiling amount shall not be less than the National Debt.
Section 4. During the Calendar Year following regular elections of the House, Congress may, by a bill for that purpose passed by a majority, proportionately larger than the majority in the Section 2 vote by the People, of the whole number of members of each House which becomes law, set the Debt Ceiling to any amount greater than the National Debt.
Section 5. While a Declaration of War against another Nation-State by Congress is in effect, Congress may, by a bill for that purpose which becomes law, set the Debt Ceiling to any amount greater than the National Debt.
Section 6. Congress may, by a bill for that purpose passed by three fifths of the whole number of members of each House which becomes law, set the Debt Ceiling to any amount greater than the National Debt.
Section 7. The repayment of principle when due shall have first priority on Government receipts.
Section 8. The initial amount of the Debt Ceiling shall be set at 150 percent of the National Debt of the last full calendar year US National Gross Domestic Product, on the occasion of the first session of the House of Representatives following the ratification of this amendment by the necessary number of the several States.