Start A Petition

It's a Revenue Problem!

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Budget, GOP Lies, Schultz, Taxes, Video )

- 1883 days ago -
See 1st comment.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


TomCat S (129)
Friday February 22, 2013, 5:16 am
As we move inexorably toward the sequester, Republicans keep parroting the same lie that they have told so often and so long, that most of America has bought it. They say, “America has a spending problem.” The truth is that the problem is a revenue problem.

Gene J (290)
Friday February 22, 2013, 7:10 am
"Both are wrong. To reduce the deficit in a weak economy, new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class."

They are such hypocrites, the republican rabble that babble in public, or private. The chart is right. So is the comment, we are all going to have to accept higher taxes for some period of time to get rid of the deficit. To think we had a surplus when Bill Clinton left office and where we are now and NOT to notice that the only real difference is the Bush tax cuts and two unnecessary wars is worse than wearing blinders, it is walking around wearing ear plugs AND a blindfold. Recapture the cost of those wars and the Bush tax cuts and we are on our way to a saner economic model. In years past, a long time ago when politicians stood for the common good not special interests, MN had a budget problem, late 70's, the solution was a two year temporary surcharge on everyone. Solved the crisis and got our then Governor, Wendell Anderson on the cover of Time magazine. Temporary surcharges could help, but the rates, and I am far from wealthy, not a 6 figure guy here, need to go up a bit. We can all tighten our belts a bit and get out of this mess. The only way guaranteed to fail is pure political bullsquat and partisan ideology at the expense of the common good. A phrase, a concept with which most of this Congress is completely unfamiliar.

JL A (281)
Friday February 22, 2013, 7:41 am
You cannot currently send a star to Gene because you have done so within the last week.
Are we seeing the proof in Congress that the US has math skill deficits compared to the rest of the world?

David C (29)
Friday February 22, 2013, 8:17 am
Thank you Gene for you input on this -- As away J.L.A you make a good point --have a good weekend TC

pam w (139)
Friday February 22, 2013, 9:48 am
JL...I sent a green star to Gene for BOTH of us!

JL A (281)
Friday February 22, 2013, 10:07 am
Thanks Pam! (and David).

David C (133)
Friday February 22, 2013, 11:51 am
noted, thanks

Chris C (152)
Friday February 22, 2013, 12:15 pm
Thanks Gene J - couldn't have said it better!

Robert K (31)
Friday February 22, 2013, 5:48 pm
Absolutely the worst possible thing you caan di in times of economic downturn is to cut government spending.

The worst possible thing to do overall is cut taxes on the rich and corporations. When we had the strongest economy in opur history, the 40s through the 60s corporations paid 52% of the total rtaxes, now it's about 8%. The top marginal rate was 91%, but included tons of loopholes, so when Kennedy cut it to 70% and eliminated the loopholes the collections increased. That's the source of the conservative lie about tax cuts creating higher revenues. The Kennedy action was, in fact, a tax increase.

The only thing conservatives know about economics is how to steal.

Mary T (178)
Friday February 22, 2013, 6:01 pm
Thanks Tom I am so sick of hearing the word entitlements the tax payers have paid into Social Security and Medicare so yes this money belongs to the tax payers and it is not an entitlement, The republicans have been trying to get rid of both of these programs for years when all the time they cater to the rich and the big corporations, 10% for entitlements what a bunch of disgraceful morons that they want to hold this country hostage.

Lynn Squance (235)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 12:55 am
“Spending is the problem,” declared the House speaker, John Boehner. “Spending must be the focus.”

What Boehner is really saying is "Spending on social programmes that serve the middle income earners and the poor is the problem. Spending on these social programmes must be the focus."

Bull shit! Wake up Johnny boy. Don't fall in your cups!

If I recall correctly, Mr Obama had the lowest increase in spending of the most recent presidents at 1.46% a while back, and currently is at about a -5% (a 5% decrease). Measure that against Baby Bush who was anything but a spendthrift when it came to illegal wars, putting 2 wars on the national credit card. The only reason that spending is a problem for Republican/Teabaggers is because they only support spending for the rich and corporate welfare.

When 0.1% are receiving 47% of all capital gains and it is taxed at a significantly lower rate, that is a golden egg that needs to be fried. Boehner has already said that he got 98% of what he wanted in a previous deal. Well Johnny boy, it is time to let the American people, the vast majority of the American people, have what they need and it is time that the wealthy pay their fair share.

Diane O (194)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 4:03 am
And one day you'll run out of rich people to pay the taxes. So....then who do you turn to? Anyone have an answer to that question? It's a very good question!

John B (185)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 5:16 am
Thanks Cal for the post and Gene is right on target (You cannot currently send a star to Gene because you have done so within the last week.). Revenue!
Read and noted.

John B (185)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 5:25 am
Sorry Tom. I'm up but my mind is still asleep Thanks for the post.

Diane O (194)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 5:48 am
WHO do you turn to when you run out of rich people?

Diane O (194)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 5:53 am
There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.” . . .

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it. Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

Read the whole thing. Including this: “So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.”

J. William Hays (1)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 11:25 am
Congress voted it through, and it is the Republicans that are being obstructionist. Remember Boehner walked out of talks, remember McConnell filibustered himself? 30+ years of trickle down economics hasn't worked and has created the largest income disparity we've ever seen, and that's what's destroying the middle class.

Dianna M (16)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:18 pm
It was the White House's hope that the sequester would be so bad that even Republicans would be unable to ignore the devastating effects on the economy. And the Republicans are trying to blame it all on Obama, when it was they who've refused to compromise, even when the compromise was suggested by them in the first place.

As for their insistence that "spending is the problem," well, I tend to agree. So, Mr. Boehner, why don't you quit spending MY tax dollars defending DOMA, giving subsidies (aka "corporate welfare") to Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma, NASCAR, and oh yes, let's not forget Mitch McConnell's "Bluegrass Boondoggle"--another subsidy, this time to the horse racing industry, snuck into the 2008 farm bill. And I almost forgot--two wars, one of which YOUR Republican president lied us into. And I didn't forget your damn salary, which you get even when you take vacations every other week--oh, I'm sorry, you "consult with your constituents." (Translation: wining and dining political donors.)

Dianna M (16)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:21 pm
I can't send a green star to Gene Jacobson either. I know, because I tried.

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:34 pm
We have a big spending problem, not a revenue problem. We are at 14 trillion dollars in debt, and before Obama we were about 1\3 of that debt. We have doubled the families needing food stamps and I do not disagree with needing the food stamps, I disagree that we have taken this country so far down the socialist road that private business is afraid to open up and start employing more people. Even those that are working today, are seeing a reduce pay check as the dumb Obama care kicks in and business are afraid of the effects in the near future. We have and I have lost count, but last count was over 30 CZARS that all make in excess of 100,000 dollars each year, we have a first lady that helped the president spend over ONE BILLION DOLLAR on vacations alone in 2012 and he is frugal? The Sequester was designed by Obama and now if it is no cleaned up, it will only remove 22 billion dollars from our spending and poor little Obama just cannot bare to not have 4 trillion to spend. America wake up it is not the fiscial Republicans or fiscial Democrats that you need to worry about it is the cry baby in the white house that is telling you lies as to what will happen if he does not get his way.

Mary Donnelly (47)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
Thanks TomCat. The truth is that the USA has both problems; it's spending on the wrong items e.g. defence, and not spending on the right items such as job creation; it's not taxing the right taxpayers, the rich.

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:40 pm
Diane O. Thank you for your comments as you may be the only other reasonable voice on this blog. I do not think anyone realizes how maipulative Mr. Obama is, he creates the challenge and then blames anyone but himself.
I am not sure but I am not sure if he has taken credit for any failure in these first 4 years, What a leader he is.

Bill Reese

Joanne Dixon (38)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 1:57 pm
Don't feed the troll. Trolls.

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 2:02 pm
When we overspend and then try to make up for our spending sprees by taxing the rich we are becoming idiots. The rich worked for their money just like you and I have worked for ours. It is the uninformed or uneducated that says Bill Clinton left a surplus, it was the Republican Congress that force Bill Clinton to stop spending and balance the budget. One thing I will agree with is tha Bill Clinton did submit a budet each year for the public to read and see where their money was going. That is more than we have seen in 4 years of Obama, where is the budget. Even the Democratic senate under Obama has been afraid to submit a budget. They should all be impeached and sent home before we the people of America are bankrupt by their irresponsible spending habits.

Lois Jordan (63)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 2:32 pm
Noted w/thanks, Tom.
Only 1%-ers and those who are unaware or uneducated are crying about the deficit. Big red herring for them to keep more and more tucked away in offshore accts.
An article on Alternet about the book, "How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour" by Les Leopold is about hedge funds. Quants high frequency trading is "picking our pockets." Overall they're extracting from $5 Billion to $20 Billion a yr. from the rest of us---our pension funds, retirement accts, 401(k)'s.....and in return they produce nothing of value at all. 50% to 80% of all trading on the stock mkt. is the result of high-speed trading.
The answers are imposing a Financial Transaction Tax, (or, RobinHood Tax)---that would end high speed trading, create millions in tax revenue, and make it much, much harder for hedge funds to game the system. Also, the "carried interest tax loophole" must be abolished....allows big corps. to offshore their billions of American profits. The stock market is badly broken--when you buy and sell in one day, it's not investing, it's gambling.
I'm absolutely disgusted that Banksters & CEO's get bonuses and huge salaries from ripping off seniors, working-class people's retirement & pension accts and state & local funds...including teachers.

Author Steven Brill was on The Daily Show discussing his recent Time magazine article regarding the health care industry in the U.S. today. He mentioned the biggest question that no one was either asking or answering was: "Why Are the Bills So High?" He blames it on the Chargemaster, who sets the price. People who run hospitals, make medical equipment, run the labs....are making a ton of money because they are "for profit." He says they live in a different universe that's untouched by a bad economy, and the health care industry is 20% of our economy. What he found is so distressing that he calls it "a "Silent Spring moment for health care."
I believe members of both parties are complicit in keeping the war machine alive as well. "No-Bid-Cost-Plus" contracts given to private corporations like Blackwater were initiated at the beginning of the Afghanistan invasion. Although some of these disgusting giveaways of our tax dollars have been lessened or eliminated, the Pentagon war machine and their private co-horts make the most money off sending our troops to wars, manufacturing drones, manufacturing guns, ammo and missiles....they call it "job security."

Birgit W (160)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 2:45 pm

Phil Hanson (21)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 3:31 pm
Too often, I fail to give you a green star, T.C. Not this time, though.

The mistake everyone makes is assuming that everything that worked for us so well in the past will continue to work just as well in the future (it can't and it won't). Capitalism is not a fail-safe economic system, and it's pretty much run its course. It would be prudent for us to ditch the profit motive, redefine the meaning of "economy," question all of our assumptions about jobs and work, reevaluate our values, and then get to work designing an all-inclusive economy from the ground up with a progressive flat tax (flat across brackets) to support it.

Robert K (31)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 4:02 pm
There can be no doubt at all, supporting Republicans is stupid and supporting teabaggers is moronic. Neither of them have a clue about rational thought.

And, for Diane, who never gets it right, when Ronald the oblivious cut the top marginal rate from 74% to 28% and raised taxes on the middle class 12 times to balance the cuts for the rich he doomed us to economic disaster. I still remember him asking "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" and the factual answer was, hell no! every economic indicator except interest rates were down seriously. They looked all over the world and out of hundreds of thousands of economists they found a grand total of 17 that agreed with trickle down. Even his budget director admitted some years ago that trickle down is a scam.

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 6:24 pm
Here is the truth about our President that always lies to protect himself. From the American thinker, and the sources are here for anyone to research.

President Obama has been making a big deal about blaming Congress for the sequester, even saying at one point during his debate with Romney last year, "The sequester is not something that I've proposed," Obama said. "It is something that Congress has proposed."

He either has a short memory or is a bald faced liar, as Bob Woodward points out:

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

"There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger," Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It "was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure."

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors -- probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, "We didn't actually think it would be that hard to convince them" -- Reid and the Republicans -- to adopt the sequester. "It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table."

The president's apologists like to point out that the GOP voted for it, and are therefore culpable. But no one is saying Republicans didn't support the idea of the sequester. The question is who made it up and who is responsible for pushing it?

This is the president's baby and now, he wants to run away from it by blaming it all on his opponents. Very few in the media have acknowledged the president's lies and simply don't report the fact that it was his OMB director who came up with the idea.

It's why the GOP will probably be blamed for any pain caused by the sequester

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday February 23, 2013, 6:30 pm
Capitalism does work when we have a populaton that wants to work and not take handouts. We are fast becoming the Socialistic country of the USA. We are becoming a country of big government, and yes the problem with capialism and a Constitutional government is that the give me's become 51 percent of the population and start voting for bigger government and of course there is not way to pay for the thousands of government employees so they want to take the money out of the private sector, and kill all the jobs.

Case in point look at Obama he has been in office for a little over 4 years and has not worked at all on job growth that feeds our govenment, all he wants to do is spend and tax. He is a true non-American Idiot.

Colleen L (3)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 12:11 am
Lot of good comments. It amazes me how the govenment can continue to spend spend spend, kinowing that they have major deficit problem. Yet they can't come up with a solution. Makes me thing of the good old nursery rhyme "Humpty Dumpty", where it said "All the king's horses and all the king's men. Couldn't put Humpty together again." Just replace"Humpty with budget", cause that seems to be in the problem they are stuck in. Thanks TomCat

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 3:06 am
How quickly some of the liberals have forgotten that Obama made a deal with Boehner about spending cuts and later told him that the deal was off because he wanted more spending and less cuts. Please remember the sequence of the events leading up to sequestration. Obama went back on his word. It was Obama's idea to have automatic spending cuts via sequestration. Of course the republicans voted for it! And so did the democrats! Now President Obama's incompetence is front and center and some of our liberals simply cannot bring themselves to criticize Obama. Instead of blaming Obama, they blame the republicans. Breathtaking....

Seems none of the liberals can answer my question: "What do you do when you run out of rich people to pay the lion's share of the taxes in our country?"

I'm not surprised that this question is being avoided. It touches on reality. Obviously the liberals can't bring themselves to face the future.

Obama has yet to get a budget passed. He made one attempt and his own democrats backed away from it. When will the liberals get a clue that you elected the worst president in our history?

From where I sit, Obama is playing right into the voter's living rooms and we will see another tsunami election in 2014 that can bring a republican congress that will shut Obama down for his final two years. It has to happen. No leadership in Washington for the past four years and it shows.

Bill Reese (138)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 11:00 am
AMEN Diane,

Very well put. Obama still has not taken responsibility for any of the major errors of his administration. Including Fast and Furious, Benghazi or the budget down fall or the millions of added food stamp needy people or the ultrahigh unemployment of Americans. He is more worries about a gun bill that is anti-constitutional that lack of jobs, he is one sice idiot.

Judith Hand (55)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 11:13 am
Noted. The argument is a good one and, frankly, I agree with it. Senator's aides in the home offices get the nitty-gritty of the people's issues. Unfortunately, most Senators act in what is like a bubble. This means that they are in a venue in which they aren't all that aware of what their constituents want. And from that bubble, they discuss and vote. The craziness of the Presidential campaign's resulting in the election of President Obama didn't seem to burst the Republican bubble. The fiscal cliff didn't. The gun crisis hasn't. Now we face the sequester. It appears that they've no real interest in hearing the people. (Nor do they seem to be aware of our reputation internationally due to their shenanigans). Now the sequester. What does a democracy do now?

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 12:35 pm
Keep in mind that as a "senator" Obama voted "present" over 100 about a deadbeat senator! I mean, do you know of any other senator who did that? Obama knew then that the democratic party was going to present him on a platter to the American people. He couldn't leave a voting record. Talk about lack of transparency and a contrived election!

What we do know is what we've been going as republicans. We stay with our core belief that smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military is, indeed, what America is all about. Obama has brought no growth to our country for the past four years and there's nothing to support that he'll be any different during the next four years. The American people have listened to Obama's lies, watched him thump his chess, and we should never forget that he spewed a great deal of fear if we didn't pass his $860 billion stimulus which he sold as a "Job's Bill." We can all have a good laugh now about that one. Big lie. Obama had it packed with private sector green companies at the taxpayer's expense and they've all gone backrupt.

Obama is NOT a smart man. His heightened narcissism over the past four years has prevented him from making close relationships in Washington DC other than Valerie Jarratt so he stands "alone." He has been called "a loner" and my guess is that he doesn't want anyone to find out how stupid he he hangs back and opts to do his "negotiating" in front of the TV monitors instead of sitting down and actually getting something done with "real" people.

Not to worry because the books about Obama from the insiders will be lining the book shelves and will be hitting our Kindles in due time. We'll read in detail what we already know today. History will put Obama in his place. He thinks he is a King. He believes he rules America. He also believes that he can get his way but, fortunately, the tide has turned. He'll end up being the most disrespected president to date due to his own arrogance. Obama doesn't "listen" to Americans. He only listens to himself. Power in the wrong hands looks like Obama's first term and it will get ugly during his second term.

Obama has no where to turn now. Finally, he'll have to face the criticism from his own democrats.

Charlene Rush (79)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:11 pm
No doubt, we do have a revenue problem.
President Clinton proved that (In the event no one noticed).

For those who don't read their history books, remember one thing.
Clinton's tax raises did not show themselves, completely, until the next President took office. We all know who that was. Bush used that money to lower taxes for the wealthy and those effects came into fruition when President Obama took office. That's the way it works.
You don't see immediate results from decisions. I thought everyone knew that.

Now, as far as spending goes, legislators must (ha, ha, ha) set a good example.
I guess that means, getting rid of P-O-R-K. That's P-O-R-K.
Add to that, PERKS. Legislators fly, eat, party and who knows what else, on our tax dollars. It has gotten way of hand. They believe they are entitled to _OUR_ money.

What is our recourse?
Term limits, oh yeah, that will work!
Term limits only work, if the voters enforce them.
Why do voters think that their particular legislator needs to be re-elected, when the one who could replace him/her would act just as furiously to support their constituents?

Government positions were not meant to be life-long jobs. No matter their financial situation when entering government service(?), they all retire or leave wealthy.

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:14 pm
You would be absolutely wrong! President Clinton showed a surplus because he TOOK THE MONEY OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY and left IOU's in its place. Do your research.

Charlene Rush (79)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:26 pm
Oh, Diane O.: Think and say what you want, but when you say 'Obama is not a smart man', you have made an UNSMART statement. Not only is he extremely intelligent, he has and will achieve most of the policies he set out to achieve, in the first place. You don't have to believe me, just _watch and listen_.

This business of conservative Republicans wanting less government is a fallacy and doesn't hold any water. The only small government Republicans want is smaller liberal government.
The fact is, they want increasingly larger conservative government, that delves into our private lives. They want to force religion down our throats, of course, only, their type of religion. They want to define MORALS. Now, that's priceless, since morals (knowing right from wrong) is a question of individual choice.

If anyone thought they were a king, as President, that would be Bush, who started a totally unnecessary war, for personal and financial reasons. 'The poor got poorer and the rich got richer.'
Now, that's CLASS.

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:41 pm
A smart man or woman never needs to lie. When you take the time to look over the past four years and the colossal failures of Obama's attempt to address a deep recession, high unemployment and never the escalating debt you find a president who simply knows nothing about economics. His Cash for Clunkers was a huge failure and the only one who benefited from that was Toyota. His $860 billion failed stimulus was packed with private sector green companies all of which have gone bankrupt. Now, I don't know about you and how you think but I do know that Obama isn't smart. He can't possibly be smart and have the poor record he has after four years of living in the White House. The only clear achievement he has is that he is now a better golfer. I recently read that he paid a golf instructor $1,000 an hour and used up eight hours. Now, how dumb is that?

No need to bring up George W. Bush as your worn and tattered "ace card" because it no longer plays to intelligent people. Both democrats and republicans know that Obama is directly responsible for his own bad decisions.

Obama hasn't done anything to help the poor or the middle class. Perhaps you should direct that question to Obama and ask him why food stamps have quadrupled on his watch and businesses are once again laying off employees. Send him an email. Liberals should be asking Obama many questions because he is directly responsible for no growth, high unemployment, a weakened military and a disasterous foreign affairs situation.

No one wants to force religion down your throat. You live in a country where 80% of Americans identify as Christians. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with republicans. Both parties identify as Christians.

Don't get me started on morals. President Bill Clinton had sex with a young woman in your Oval Office....then lied about it under oath and was impeached. Yes, let's talk morals, shall we?

Charlene Rush (79)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:50 pm
Oh, Diane O.: Obviously, you don't comprehend how Social Security works.
All congresses have used Social Security funds, since LBJ. Social Security is solvent for 30-75 years depending on circumstances, aplenty.

The cost of the Iraq War has cost us $811.5 billion and rising daily.
The cost of the Afghanistan War has cost us $615.4 billion and rising daily.
We are making more enemies than friends.
It's far easier to enter a war, than to exit. The complications are enormous.

Past Member (0)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 2:10 pm
For a revenue solution, please sign;

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 2:27 pm
I'm very much aware of the fact that social security is a ponzi scheme and always has been. There's no such thing as a "social security fund." Presidents have been fluid in taking our payments off the top and using it for other things.

And, yes, the Iraq war cost us billions but Obama's failed $860 bllion stimulus sold to us under false pretenses as a Job's bill when the few jobs it created cost the taxpayers $350,000 per job all went belly up with Obama's "pie in the sky" green companies. So, hate to say it but it's "tit for tat." All are "guilty as charged." So, when you bring George W. Bush into the equation be ready for what Obama has and hasn't done for our country. Factor in Obama's obsession with drones and you might be surprised at what that cost the taxpayers.

At least we got rid of Iraq's dictator who was raping, gassing, mutilating and murdering his own people...thousands of them....simply because they disagreed with him. Women are voting in Iraq today and we have brought some semblance of democracy to them. By pulling out of there "too soon" we will more than likely watch them be overrun by the radicals ala Iran. There's not much we can do about that but at least we tried to help them.

Obama has weakened our presence around the world by our enormous debt and by drawing down our military forces. You should be more concerned about that as it will impact our children and grandchildren. A strong America in every way especially militarily is a must. As soon as a republican wins in 2016 we will see a resurgence in building our military. We will also see cutting spending across the board and social security and medicare reform in order that it will be solvent when our children need it. Everything Obama has touched .... failed. I hope our country has learned a valuable lesson. Obama never should've been elected to the highest office in our country. He may have a Harvard degree but based on the past four years it has not served him well.

Sorry, Charlene, but as you can see, we don't agree. But that's okay. We, as adults, know there is great value in having a discussion. I might learn something from you and you might learn something from me.

jo M. (3)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 3:48 pm
There would not be a revenue problem if there were not a spending problem to begin with. Or is it the other way around, but that would make it the old chicken and egg question, huh? I think taxes could be raised somewhat, but mainly I'd like to see Obama take his spending problem seriously (a 12-step program perhaps?) and really work to find a solution instead of just blaming his predecessor. Obama may be smart, but he lacks greatly in wisdom. Was hoping the last 4 years might have helped him out there, but am rapidly losing HOPE for CHANGE.

Diane O (194)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 3:54 pm
Jo, good post. Excellent, in fact, from where I sit. The problem IMO is that Barack Hussein Obama never had a meaningful job in his entire life. He is out of touch due to zero experience. He never worked for a large company and was never responsible for a payroll. Even his "legal career" was extremely lackluster. As a supporter of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" he took Alinsky's "community organizer" role as key to radical change in America. Obama became a "community organizer." Obama has major flaws IMO.

I especially liked your comment "Obama may be smart but he lacks greatly in wisdom." Where have you been keeping yourself here on Care 2? You are a wise woman. Hope to read more of your comments soon.

Birgit W (160)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 4:27 pm

Robert K (31)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 8:09 pm
For the stupid amongst us, we have the second lowest spending in the free world. The problem is UNDERSPENDING and UNDERTAXATION of the rich. Reagan the oblivious cut the top marginal rate from 74 to 28% which caused an immediate recession which he fixed to an extent with 12 tax increases on the poor and middle class.

When the economy was healthy the rich paid over 70% and corporations paid 52% of all the taxes and still got rich. Now thr rich pay less than the middle class, the corporations pay 8% of the taxes and the Republicans have destroyed the economy and anyone who blames Obama is a moron. He's bent over backwards and allowed unjustifiable cuts to the safety net to try to get Republicans to quit damaging the economy and they continue to lie about it and continte to damage the country with their ignorance. Sadly there are idiots on this thread helping out with the lies.

There is no reason to ever back any current Republican idea other than a desire to destroy the country or downright stupidity.

Bill Reese (138)
Monday February 25, 2013, 10:16 am
Charlene wrote, "as far as spending goes, legislators must (ha, ha, ha) set a good example.
I guess that means, getting rid of P-O-R-K. That's P-O-R-K.
Add to that, PERKS. Legislators fly, eat, party and who knows what else, on our tax dollars. It has gotten way of hand. They believe they are entitled to _OUR_ money." - Very True Charlene!!

You are correct there is a lot of pork and it starts at the White House down. Michelle and the kids along with Hussein Obama have spent over 1.2 billion dollars in 2012 alone on vacations. How many middle class American have taken those kinds of vacations? I do not deny Presidents and families to have vacations, but they are not the elite and better than other Americans. Their vacations should only cost the added money that the presidential security cost with an upgrade in lodging and meals, nothing more.
We need to cut congress retirements to make no more off the government than you and I would receive from our Social Security and whatever they had invested on their own 401K's. We also need to limit all money bills to be limited to only necessary for accomplishing the fact it was designed to fund and or build.
There should never be a bill like "Obama care" passed where it is so complex that 4 years later we still do not understand what it will cost the middle class, the hurting class, and or the wealthy.
We need a congress working every day upon Jobs, Jobs, and more Jobs.


Diane O (194)
Monday February 25, 2013, 3:35 pm
Bill, let's talk about P O R K. Think back to Obama's $860 billion stimulus sold to the American people as an "urgent" job's bill. The few jobs that were created cost the taxpayer's $350,000 per job and then let's go to Obama's many private sector green companies and all of them have gone bankrupt taking the wasted taxpayer dollars of $350,000 per job with them. Money in the toilet.

The liberals are delusional. Faced with all of Obama's massive failures they are still kissing his feet. Slow learners.

Bill Reese (138)
Monday February 25, 2013, 9:27 pm
Thank you Diane. I agree the liberal do not want to see all the waste in this administration. They do not see him as a non leader at all, they do not see all of Obama's lies, and they do not see that he tries to hide his total errors. Such as Fast and Furious, and Benghazi to name only two.

His shovel ready jobs waiting for the 860 billion dollars got lost before he started spending the money. I am stil not sure if there is an accounting of where all that money went, just as the 20 Billion that BP gave Obama, where did it disappear too?
Have a nice day iti is enlightening to know there is a very intelligent lady on here to help keep the Libs on track.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 3:01 am
Obama was way out of his league to be elected POTUS. He never held a meaningful job in his entire life. Even his law degree was wasted on Obama's community organizer stint. By the way, the first mention of the importance of a community organizer was in Saul Alinksy's book "Rules for Radicals." Saul Alinsky stressed the importance of community organizers to fuel the black community into believing their government owed them much more and they needed to rise up and do something about it. Yes, that's the job Obama had before becoming a senator....a community "agitator." Our country made a huge mistake electing Obama and his second term will bring that fact to center stage. Obama never had leadership skills. In fact, the only skill he has is that he is a strong speaker and can deliver "lies" with a straight face.

The most important event that happened IMO was in November 2010 when the American people voted to unseat the spending democrats with the no spending republicans. That literally saved our country from Obama's goal of bankrupting our social programs and weakening our presence around the world. He is also changing our reputation for helping other countries under dictatorship to a country whose label today is "assassins." Obama appears fascinated with the drones. I recently saw "Zero Dark Thirty" and as I watched it I knew something was very wrong with it. Our highly specialized group of special ops were showcased as "in the dark of night assassins" for political reasons. Obama is dangerous and we need to get him out of the White House in 2016.

Bill, I'm here to bring the truth as I research it. The biased left wing media has duped the lberals to such an extent that they actually believe that Obama cares about America. He is, in fact, anti-American. He is also a legend in his own mind and that is extremely dangerous IMO.

John Boehner said yesterday, "Well, Mr. President, you already got your tax hike." Stay the course, republicans, just stay the course. Obama never intended to cut spending. He lied to the American people and he lied to the republicans that he would cut spending. He wants to continue to raise taxes on the job engines in our country. His vision for America is dark. My hope today is that we once again have a tsunami vote in November 2014. That will completely shut Obama down. We have a first lady who is more interested in the glamerous life in Hollywood than being a First Lady. I'm hoping that once we get them both out in 2016 that she and Barack can have their own reality show. They think they are "stars" and the two most important people in our country. They would be wrong.

JL A (281)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 10:43 am
Facts on sequestration impact:

On March 1, the federal budget cuts known as “sequestration” are scheduled to take effect, forcing nearly $85 billion in drastic, immediate budget cuts to programs Americans rely on daily.

But don't be fooled—Congress has a choice. These cuts are easily preventable, but too many politicians in Washington are more concerned about protecting tax loopholes for the wealthy and large corporations than they are about the 1 million jobs that will vanish if sequestration goes into effect.

This is completely unacceptable. Here is just a sampling of what these cuts will mean:

2,100 fewer food inspections, stopping production at plants that require an inspector to operate
2,600 fewer criminal and civil cases would be handled by federal prosecutors
4,000 workers would be furloughed at the FAA, causing flight back-ups and longer airport lines
49,000 jobs would be lost due to across-the-board cuts in public education
70,000 children would lose Head Start funding along with 14,000 teachers and school employees
125,000 families would be put at risk of homelessness because their rental assistance would end
251,000 civilian employees of the military could be furloughed for up to 22 days
373,000 mentally ill adults and emotionally disturbed children may lose their treatments
600,000 women, infants and children would lose nutritional aid
1,000 less federal agents or the equivalent, significantly hindering our ability to combat violent crime, secure our borders and protect national security
150,000 veterans seeking help with their transition from active duty to civilian life would be affected as the Department of Labor's Veterans Transition Assistance Program would have to reduce operations

Congress is willing to cut these programs and services to the bone—and for what? To protect loopholes and tax breaks like these:

Extra tax breaks enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans — $520 BILLION
Tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas — $168 BILLION
Special tax breaks for the largest oil companies — $25 BILLION
A loophole that lets millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-class workers — $21 BILLION
Tax deductions for vacation homes and yachts — $10 BILLION
The corporate jet loophole — $3 BILLION
Special write-offs for horse breeders (aka the "Bluegrass Boondoggle") — $126 MILLION

For more facts on viable ways to address the unsupportable confirmed as reliable data by all who know how to do valid research reductions in revenues:

Diane O (194)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 1:05 pm
Oh, my JLA, still obsessing over the rich who have made more money than you have, pay the lion's share of the taxes in our country, small businesses provide 53% of the jobs for Americans and large corporations provide a large need to get over your obsession with the rich having to share what they've earned with you.

Why don't you share 50% of your income with your next door neighbor? Go ahead....get a feel for it and get back to us.

I could never be a liberal. I'd hate to have to give up my common sense.

JL A (281)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 4:45 pm
Personal attacks violate code of conduct and apparently are what happens when someone cannot cope with or respond to facts with anything that is not based in myths and wishful thinking.

Bill Reese (138)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 8:30 pm
J.L.A that is not a personal attack, you should read what the liberal call me and I might add many of those names are not printable.
But Obama has never cut one dime in taxes, and he has never met a new expense that he did not love and want to spend yours and my dollar on. He is currently taxing the middle class like never before and no one from the Democratic side is saying a word. Have all the liberal Democrats gone insane to the point that they no longer can realize Obama is spending the US into a third world country. He has to go, and hope fully after we get answers to Benghazi, and fast and furious to name a couple. He is the most secretive president in last 100 years. Why is the main stream media letting him get away with never telling the truth and always blaming the other person instead of taking a leadership role for at least one time.

JL A (281)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 10:15 pm
Correction: Obama cut SS taxes for individuals for 2012 along with many others fine tuned for economic recovery. That is a personal attack (and not the first by any means--many of her personal attacks have been so severe C2 had to remove them).
However, Obama inherited fiscally irresponsbile tax reductions from the prior administration--which the data in this article shows for any that understand data, numbers and budgets. He has done more in budget and deficit reduction than any other president since WWII (data readily avbleailable for anyone interested in factual accuracy). He is so much better than what he replaced on answers and budget and has shown world leadership that all countries recognize in redeeming the US's reputation after the disastrous last administration. He only lays blame on Congress for them not doing their Constitutional responsibilities and the past administration for what the record shows they were factually responsible -or do you not care for facts, evidence or anything real for forming your opinions either?

Shirley B (5)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 12:47 pm
Good ol' Bush, The gift that keeps on giving!

Diane O (194)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 2:43 pm
George W. Bush is a saint next to Barack Obama. At least Bush had leadership skills. Obama "avoids" sitting down with anyone to negotiate. There's something very wrong with Obama and perhaps we can blame it on his narcissism. He doesn't like to be told "no." After all, he feels like he is the smartest man in every room he enters. Bad juju for our country. Now he has released illegal criminals BEFORE the sequestor. Can anyone tell me why? I call it Obama's "vindictive" side. Imagine releasing known criminals out into society. Imagine that. It's all Obama.


JL A (281)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 4:01 pm
Presidential Pardons data: George W. Bush (2001 to 2009) 176
Barack Obama (2009 to 2017) 23

Read more: Presidential Pardons |

JL A (281)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 4:12 pm
To help get comments back on focus, here is a key quote from the article on the topic of this thread (which conforms to the data and economic experts' opinions):

"Both are wrong. To reduce the deficit in a weak economy, new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class. Contrary to Mr. Boehner’s “spending problem” claim, much of the deficit in the next 10 years can be chalked up to chronic revenue shortfalls from the Bush-era tax cuts, which were only partly undone in the fiscal-cliff deal earlier this year. (Wars and a recession also contributed.) It stands to reason that a deficit caused partly by inadequate revenue must be corrected in part by new taxes. And the only way to raise taxes now without harming the recovery is to impose them on high-income filers, for whom a tax increase is unlikely to cut into spending.

As it happens, those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks and who continue to pay low taxes. Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low; investment income is still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory"

Bill Reese (138)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 5:08 pm
I can understand that many have never had to meet a payroll in their life or understood that the first place middle America has to balance a budget is by cutting back on the "wants" and holding to the needs as much as possible. Obama has not and I repeat has Not cut one tax. He has reduce the payment on the SS. Took several billion from the Medicare to help pay for his expensive Obama Care. Now the middle class this last month or two has been getting a smaller check, thank you Obama and Obama care. He is hurting the middle class right where it hurts the most. I assume some people have never realized that it is cash flow that keeps small business alive and once we take cash out of the private sector, we lose employment.
I just received this information on the Sequester. Federal spending has now increased $2,437.64 per house hold between 2008-2012. Then we read about the IRS spending $4 million for its own T.V. studio and the $ 100 million a year being spent by the EPA on grants to foreign countries. That is above the foreign aid we hand out free gratis to other countries.
The sequester only amounts to $85 billion and to hear Obama cry about it one would think the country is coming to an end, but Obama does not mention the $115 billion our government made in improper payments when? in 2011.
The GAO reported that Obama administration spent $ 51.6 billion last year in promoting, yes you guess it the failed Obama Care and yet Mr. Obama is crying we may not be able to pay the air controllers. There is another $26 billon that could be saved just by requiring food stamp recipients to prove their eligibility in 2011.
Did you notice most of this waste was in 2011, I wonder how bad 2012 will look when it is worked up. Our government is currently $ 16 trillion in debt and no sign of relief in sight. Just borrow more to waste more.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office. This was a CBS report. A very liberal network.
Bill Reese a past owner of a small business that started with 2 emloyees and 150 employees 10 years later.

JL A (281)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 6:22 pm
The actual deficit data by President:
Analyses by President

I then grouped the data by Presidential administration. I wasn't certain how to count those years in which there's a change of administration, but it seemed to me that the budget in the fiscal year that spans a Presidential election and inauguration is mostly under the control of the previous President and Congress, so I count that fiscal year as the last year of the previous administration. This is usually a fair assumption, because most government programs take a while to start, and last for multiple years. Fiscal 2008-2009 is perhaps an exception: both the outgoing and incoming Presidents enacted expensive economic-stimulus programs that were written to take effect immediately. Accordingly, in the following tables, I've given George W. Bush two rows in the table: one consistent with my treatment of all other Presidents, and one counting only his first seven years, ending with the figures of September 2008, by which time a recession had started but the government measures to deal with it hadn't been enacted yet.

After deciding on those conventions, there were still several different reasonable ways to look at the data.
How much did the annual deficit shrink or grow?

I subtract the deficit in a President's first year from the deficit in the year after that President stepped down (or, in the case of the current President, from the most recent deficit figures I have). This change in deficit is then divided by the number of years it took to achieve it.
Table 3: Average change in annual deficit
President political party change in deficit years in office avg. change in deficit avg. change in deficit ($ = 2billion)
B.H.Obama Democrat -$343,491,183,091 3 -$114,497,061,030 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Table 4: Average annual deficit
President political party total accumulated debt years in office average annual deficit avg. deficit ($ = 10billion)
B.H.Obama Democrat $1,842,418,045,799 3 $614,139,348,600 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush Republican $3,011,831,280,329 8 $376,478,910,041 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
first 7 years
(see comment above) Republican $2,133,146,435,012 7 $304,735,205,00
G.W.Bush Republican $803,424,990,821 8 $100,428,123,853 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
first 7 years Republican $397,130,927,169 7 $56,732,989,596 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
W.J.Clinton Democrat -$164,787,361,848 8 -$20,598,420,231 $$$$$$$$$$
G.H.W.Bush Republican $34,326,854,936 4 $8,581,713,734 $$$$
R.Reagan Republican $106,541,043,476 8 $13,317,630,435 $$$$$$$
J.Carter Democrat -$4,328,272,827 4 -$1,082,068,207

How does the accumulated debt compare with what it would have been with no change?

Since many of the items in the budget are multi-year commitments with considerable inertia (most obviously, interest on the national debt!), I recomputed the previous numbers, subtracting the annual deficit in each President's first year. In other words, this table compares how much debt was actually accumulated with how much would have been accumulated if deficits had continued as they were when the President took office.
Table 5: Average deficit minus first-year deficit
President political party average deficit
(from prev. table) deficit in first year relative average deficit relative avg. deficit ($ = 10billion)
B.H.Obama Democrat $614,139,348,600 $878,684,845,318 -$264,545,496,718 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush Republican $376,478,910,041 $75,259,854,496 $301,219,055,545 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
first 7 years Republican $304,735,205,002 $75,259,854,496 $229,475,350,505

Likewise, Obama took office in the middle of, by far, the biggest-deficit year in history, dealing with two wars and the most severe recession since the 1930's; it would have been remarkable if the deficit hadn't decreased during his term. In Obama's case, the deficit decreased dramatically in his first two years, but was almost unchanged in his third.


Bill Reese (138)
Wednesday February 27, 2013, 9:11 pm
I could not have built my company from 2 to 150 employees in 10 years under Obama and all his taxes, and regulation. As it was I had court fights with 9 agencies from the IRS down to the county and won all but one just by standing up for what was right.

We have yet to see the full damage of the Obama Care program that will devastate the middle class, and it looks like the black person will get the brunt of it with the illegals being favored.

donald Baumgartner (6)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 7:56 am

donald Baumgartner (6)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 7:58 am
Vote Democrat 2014 & 2016!!!!

JL A (281)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 9:14 am
Restoring capital gains tax rate to 30% from current 15%, adding a financial transactions tax, treating hedgefund earnings like comparable incomes, and eliminating write-offs for CEO jets should not have had nor have any affect on the type of business Bill describes. He apparently has not been paying attention to the taxes in question and is blindly following inapplicable guidance for himself.

Diane O (194)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 11:05 am
LOL : )

JL A (281)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 11:59 am
The ignorance of those who do not understand budgets, valid use of data that resembles reality, etc, and thus presume all taxes hurt businesses and individuals in error, like some prior comments, is indeed a joke not to be taken as a serious position much like a monkey slipping on a banana peel is a joke--except for the sad fact that what both are unaware of will actually be what hurts them.

Bill Reese (138)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 2:49 pm
I would love to see a Democrat budget in the last four years from the Senate or the administration. I certainly could never have run my business without a budget every quarter. Yes, all taxes hurt when they come out of the private sector.

The stupid government employment is assinine also and it add nothing to our economy. When a person runs his own business there needs to be capital in the banks that they can loan to the small business to keep the Cash flow in the black.
Obama is the most stupid President in the history of the US. He is certainly hell bent upon destroying the US Constitution and our economic system.
We need everyone to write their Congressinal representative and them to stop funding the Obama Care, and put that money back into the American Business sector. Lets get American working inspite of Obama and his anti-American ideas.
He is just sending another 80 million dollars to al Quaida in Syria. What are we even doing in Syria except getting or letting Americans be killed by the rebels. We need out of Syria and sooner not later.

JL A (281)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 3:09 pm
The ACA actually saves money rather than costing money of the taxpayers--the rest has similarly sandy foundations instead of the rocks of facts and thus no further response is deserved. The banks got what they said they needed to loan--if there were stronger government oversight instead of it having been gutted by past administrations small businesses would be getting their loans.

donald Baumgartner (6)
Thursday February 28, 2013, 3:29 pm
LONG live the " Affordable Health Care Act"!!!!!

Diane O (194)
Friday March 1, 2013, 8:39 am
Bill, the problem with Obama is that he believes that he is the smartest man in every room he enters. People like Obama are very dangerous because they aren't open to new ideas....they feel that their ideas are the only good ideas. Obama distanced himself from just about everyone in the White House over the past four years and now he has no "friends." Obama feels that he is above everyone else and this is why he cannot bring himself to sit down and negotiate whether it's a budget, sequestration, you name it....and Obama will be campaigning instead of leading our country.

We shouldn't be in Syria just like releasing illegals detained in our country with serious criminal backgrounds should not have been released into our society this week. Obama blames everyone but himself and this time he blames ICE for releasing the criminals but we all know it was "vindictive" Obama.

Finally, the onion is beginning to peel on Obama. Finally because it has been a very long four years of pure chaos.

Bill Reese (138)
Friday March 1, 2013, 8:11 pm
Obama Care is not an affordable Health Care Act, it is a government act all of its own, I am not sure if Congress today knows all the associated cost with it. The middle class are starting to feel the increase in their medical payments to the IRS, it is one on the dumbest acts this country has ever psssed, and it will hurt the very people Obama said it was designed to help.
As to the Sec. of Homeland Security she should be locked in jail for releasing those prisioner, even though we know she did it at the request or command of his majesty the king of the White House.

Bill Reese (138)
Saturday March 2, 2013, 12:50 pm
For those of you that think Geore Bush was the spender in the White House, look at this: The national debt has increased by more than $6 trillion since President Barack Obama took office, marking the largest increase under any president in history.

The Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt on Friday published its daily debt report, showing the government's total debt topped $16.687 trillion, CBS News reports. On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office, the debt was $10.626 trillion."

Under George Bush the debt only grew 4.6 trillion dollars in 8 years. God help us unless congress takes control of the spending in this country instead of Obama that waste millions just on his wife and all his CZAR's. Sounds to me a good place to start cutting, not so much with the military.


Bill Reese (138)
Saturday March 2, 2013, 12:55 pm
Oops, sorry the spender President Bush spent 4.9 trillion in 8 years not the 4.6 that I said above. My apology. That is still a lot less that our sweet Obama has spent in 4 years at over 6 trillion.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 2, 2013, 3:09 pm
Bill, thank you for posting actual facts for our liberals to ponder. Also, remember that TARP was under GWB's deficit and most of it has been repaid so we need to deduct that amount. I've said it often and I'll say it again...I would take GWB's deficit back in a hearbeat. Today, Obama stands before America as a liar and a president who spreads fear where fear is not warranted. The republicans are going to hold him to the sequestration that he, himself, pledged in order that he could raise taxes. Now Obama, once again, wants to back out of his promises.

The most troubling aspect of Obama in my opinion is that he simply is not trustworthy. I hope and pray our liberals will blink their eyes to clear them of the "aura" of Obama. He has fallen from grace. The republicans never trusted me and we were right. Obama stands before the American people mouthing one lie after another. This is about his arrogance and pure narcissism.

I hope the election in 2014 will be another tsunami vote by the American people to unseat more democrats. We must stop this madness in Washington DC. Is it any wonder that Obama is a loner in the White House?
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.