Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

CBO: Federal deficit projected at $1.35T

Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:03 AM EST
business, politics, us, capitol-hill, obama, barack-obama, john-mccain, budget, white-house-backed
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 4 photos
<p>In this Sunday Jan. 24, 2010, photo provided by Face the Nation Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is interviewed in CBS's Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation at their studio in Washington.  McCain said the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead, and that the Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of political contributions by corporations. (AP Photo/Face the Nation, Chris Usher)  </p>

In this Sunday Jan. 24, 2010, photo provided by Face the Nation Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is interviewed in CBS's Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation at their studio in Washington. McCain said the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead, and that the Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of political contributions by corporations. (AP Photo/Face the Nation, Chris Usher)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the federal deficit this year, despite glaring new figures showing the enormity of the red-ink threat.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax increases and spending curbs to be voted on after the November elections. The measure went down because anti-tax Republicans joined in opposition with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare.

With Congress unwilling to go along, Obama will announce during Wednesday's State of the Union address that he is establishing a similar panel by executive order, The New York Times reported late Tuesday on its Web site.

The alternative panel will also come up with recommendations by December to reduce annual budget deficits and slow or reverse the growth of the national debt, the Times said. But unlike the commission proposal killed by the Senate, the executive order could not force Congress to vote on a commissions suggestions.

Asked earlier Tuesday by reporters whether the president was considering a presidential commission of his own, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I think that is certainly one of the things that is being talked about."

The vote to kill the deficit task force came hours after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted a $1.35 trillion deficit — $4,500 for every American — for this year as the economy continues to slowly recover from the recession.

"Yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a sponsor of the plan.

The budget deficits facing Obama and Congress are large and intractable, and the CBO's new deficit prediction is roughly equal to last year's record $1.4 trillion ocean of red ink. That means the government is borrowing to cover 40 percent of the cost of its programs.

Economists say sustained high deficits would force interest rates higher and "crowd out" private investment — and could have severe implications for the value of the dollar.

The report predicts a sluggish economic recovery and continued high unemployment — which presages big political problems for Obama and his Democratic allies heading into the midterm elections.

The report sees unemployment averaging 10.1 percent this year as the economy grows by slightly more than 2 percent. It would grow only a little more next year with an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent.

"CBO expects that the pace of economic recovery will be slow," said agency chief Douglas Elmendorf.

The latest estimates also project that the deficit will drop to $980 billion next year and $480 billion in five years — but only if a host of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush are allowed to expire. Most budget experts see deficits nearing or exceeding $1 trillion each year over the next decade once tax cuts and other policies are factored in.

It's a sobering reminder of the fundamental imbalance of the federal government's budget that comes just days before Obama's Feb. 1 budget submission. The White House says Obama will propose a three-year freeze on domestic agency spending. It hasn't said whether Obama will propose tax hikes or benefit cuts to spiraling programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Obama's budget also includes deficit-boosting ideas such as an increase in the child care tax credit for families making less than $85,000 a year. Administration officials won't say what it would cost, but the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says credit would cost up to $40 billion over the next 10 years.

The 2010 deficit figure is in line with previous estimates, but plans afoot on Capitol Hill for a new jobs bill and a coming Obama request for war funds would add to the total.

The spending freeze, expected to be proposed by Obama in his State of the Union address, would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, while others would have to face cuts; such programs got an increase of almost 10 percent this year in the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

Also Tuesday, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said support was building for a plan to impose binding "caps" on spending similar to Obama's. It would take 67 votes to bust through the spending limits.

The freeze on so-called discretionary programs would have only a modest impact on the deficit. The steps needed to tackle such huge deficits include tax increases and curbs on benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

That was the idea behind the Obama-backed plan to create a special task force to find a way to curb the spiraling budget deficit. Supporters garnered 53 votes for the plan, which was co-sponsored by Gregg and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. But 60 votes were required under procedural rules. Thirty-six Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for the plan, as did 16 Republicans.

Six Republicans who had co-sponsored the plan, including John McCain of Arizona, ended up opposing it.

The task force was rejected after the powerful seniors lobby, led by AARP, objected to a potential fast-track debate of cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Anti-tax activists and GOP-friendly editorial pages pressed Republicans to oppose it.

The plan was offered as an amendment to a deeply unpopular bill to permit the government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to finance its operations and prevent a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.

___

On the Net:

Congressional Budget Office: http://cbo.gov/

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Andrew Taylor's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (150)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
cried

Unfortunately much much more than this needs to be done. I only hope that those rascals in office have the B___s to do something about it instead of just talk. As to the POTUS saying this, either he knows nothing will be done (using it to boost his ratings with the people), or he's woken up to realize how bad off we, as a nation, really are.

    Reply#1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 AM EST
    * The Dead Head *

    Are there any pictures of POTUS , where he is not pointing at something or someone???

    What happened to the guaranteed vote on Health Care before Christmas?? What year Christmas 2020???

    • 4 votes
    #1.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:34 AM EST
    authorondo

    This is another easy task that Obama can't handle. He needs a task force to control spending. His problem is his personality. He want everyone to like him.

    Start being a leader, Obama, you're a wimp.

    Cut spending across the board. Agencies have to squeeze 4% out of spending. Remove one vacation day off the books. Shorten a lunch break, do something rather than kick the can down the road.

    I can think of some easy answers, but they'll be unpopular. If you're running a popularity contest it's a tough sell. Obama has a country to run, not a beauty pageant.

    • 4 votes
    #1.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:51 AM EST
    Feldspar

    Squeezing government employees doesn't cut a budget. Eliminating waste and making programs more efficient does. These are big issues that take the coordinated effort of politicians.

    The Senate is afraid of taking on the hard issues, because of this they will never be instramental in cutting the budget or reforming business in America. The Senate is a spineless collection of greedy old white men.

    You're talking about Obama running a popularity contest, that's hilarious. He's doing the hard things that should have been done a decade ago but the Republican's were too busy trying to be popular with their corporate sponsors.

    The spineless Senate are the ones too concerned with their popularity.

    • 3 votes
    #1.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:11 AM EST
    RiverDog-1572451

    cried:

    If those rascals that you speak of are the members of Congress, then the answer to your question is no.

    They're not even going to vote on it until after the November elections.

    • 1 vote
    #1.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:34 AM EST
    Nicey-1026620

    Discretionary Domestic...?

    • How about cutting the military budget which is ridiculous to say the least
    • If you really want to attack SS, Medicare, Medicade...just do it. Don't half arse it...figure out a way to scrap it or make it work. To make it work...benefits will have to be cut. That's just the way it is.
    • What about these freakin financial packages...let's end these things. End the stimulus tax cut, the first-time home buyers, end bank bail out.
      #1.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:55 AM EST
      Nicey-1026620

      Eliminating waste and making programs more efficient does

      Actually...fully eliminating programs would be much better.

      That's the problem. Once government programs start...they never end.

      We can't get anything right. Look at schools. We are spending so much more money now than we ever did before and it doesn't fix anything. If you have a bad program...don't throw more money at it. End that program, try something else.

      The MIC, which is gigantic.

      Automatic government spending increases.

      • 1 vote
      #1.6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:57 AM EST
      silver163

      in the most basic economics class what you learn is that cutting spending during times of recession is REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD. This was the same mistake the Japanese made and the same mistake President Hoover made that made the depression GREAT!

      • 2 votes
      #1.7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:07 AM EST
      authorondo

      He's stuck on stupid. Obama needs to appoint a president to run the country.

      • 3 votes
      #1.8 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:45 AM EST
      Nicey-1026620

      in the most basic economics class what you learn is that cutting spending during times of recession is REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD. This was the same mistake the Japanese made and the same mistake President Hoover made that made the depression GREAT!

      This all depends on focus.

      If you focus spending on the things that will impact the economy, and you cut out waste and things that shouldn't be increased.

      COLA increases should not happen ever in any recession. In reality, any budget spending increases for almost any program should be tied to inflation and not to automatic increases.

      Our problem is we only spend. We never bank when the economy comes back. We just spend even more.

        #1.9 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:02 PM EST
        Pacific Northwest Blogger

        Subtract $1 trillion from the deficit as having come from the previous administration on war spending.

        Now add in $708 billion for the Pentagon requests for current wars.

        We're back up to ~ $1.13 trillion

        Wars - what are they good for?

        Tell you congressional reps not to support the "wars" and instead invest in America.

        • 1 vote
        #1.10 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:25 PM EST
        Reply
        The Spirit

        Yet another scam. Obama knows Congress won't have the courage to cut back spending on programs that are wanted in their districts. Obama is just hiding the fact that HE doesn't have the courage to make even easy choices, such as ending foreign aid to countries that hate us. And what's this about the task force not going into effect until AFTER the November elections? I thought everything Obama does has to be done NOW, NOW, NOW!

        • 9 votes
        Reply#2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:32 AM EST
        Ben-1268009

        So let's see your budget... cause I don't think cutting foreign aid alone will cut the mustard either. What would your budget look like? Gimme real figures.

        • 2 votes
        #2.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:46 AM EST
        The Spirit

        What is this, "Dave?" If I had a copy of the federal budget -- which Obama DOES -- I could find plenty to cut. I would also cut taxes. No, cutting foreign aid alone won't cut the mustard. Cutting congressional excpenditures would help. How about that recent junket to Copenhagen that cost a million bucks? How about John Murtha's airport to nowhere? There are tens of thousands of such government booddoggles that could be slashed.

        • 10 votes
        #2.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:08 AM EST
        jackjack-712749

        I remember the campaign promise that,

        "I am going to go "Line-By-Line" through the federal budget to eliminate excess waste and pork".

        The Spirit,

        You are soooooo correct. The waste is truely amazing.

        • 5 votes
        #2.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:56 AM EST
        Jack TX

        We are concentrating on minutia. Congressional junkets are a waste, but in the overall scheme of things they amount to one square foot of Texas.

        It's like lowering health care costs by cutting insurance company profits, which account for less than 0.5% of healthcare expenses.

        How does one keep a straight face talking about budget cuts while exempting defense?

          #2.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:26 AM EST
          vol fan in chatt, tn

          Maybe if we hadn't have had the "friends and family plan" on the take for the stimulus and omnibus totaling over 17,000 earmarks and over a trillion dollars in waste just from that, we'd be better off. But hey, what does a dumb average citizen like me know, right?

          • 3 votes
          #2.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:12 AM EST
          Reply
          UNA_Lion

          Getting national-level politicians together to decide which pork projects to cut? Sounds like a non-starter to me - they've all got their fingers in various pies, and they are all for cutting pork ... so long as it isn't their pork.

          • 7 votes
          Reply#3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:32 AM EST
          California Militia

          what gets me is that 2 weeks ago he wanted to spend 1/6 of the national budget and today he wants to cut all spending.

          Hey Obama, there is no reason to flip flop.... your already in office

          • 2 votes
          #3.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:11 PM EST
          vol fan in chatt, tn

          Cal Malitia -

          I was wondering the same thing! Maybe he's a schizo.

          • 3 votes
          #3.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:52 PM EST
          Reply
          Julian Sandoval

          "The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze".

          Interesting? The Pentagon announces to the nation that it has lost Three Trillion dollars the day before nine eleven and the just dunno where it went? They still have no idea and are exempt from all questioning and investigation.

          Pentagon employee salaries continue to increase and the lil servants of America continue paying them while they vacation around the world and laugh at your dinner tables. Who is going to stop all this unaccountability?

          Just for the record? Does anyone know who is really in charge. I believe most of us know it isn't Mr. Obama. So, then who is running the show?

          • 1 vote
          Reply#4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:35 AM EST
          Ben-1268009

          They still have no idea and are exempt from all questioning and investigation.

          No, they are exempt from this budget freeze... not from questioning and investigation. Pay attention to the words in the article please.

          Just for the record? Does anyone know who is really in charge. I believe most of us know it isn't Mr. Obama. So, then who is running the show?

          Surprisingly, we actually have some checks and ballances right now so that no one leader is running the show. Democrats have a tendancy to act independantly and not goose-step like the RNC does, which is kinda balancing everything. I realize that must come as a shock after the last 8 years of near dictatorship in this country, but this is actually how it's supposed to be.

          • 2 votes
          #4.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:54 AM EST
          * The Dead Head *

          Just for the record? Does anyone know who is really in charge. I believe most of us know it isn't Mr. Obama. So, then who is running the show?

          Here is my guess in order who is running the show : China, Russsia, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France .....................and second from last place is the USA.........

          • 1 vote
          #4.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:01 AM EST
          Steve Olver Sheridan Wyoming

          its ok.wheeew Obama is going to go through the budget line by line,with his pen to fix everything

          • 1 vote
          #4.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:05 AM EST
          Reply
          Julian Sandoval

          Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
          '
          I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...'

          • 6 votes
          Reply#5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:51 AM EST
          * The Dead Head *

          See, he was right...........

          • 4 votes
          #5.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:36 AM EST
          Reply
          Julian Sandoval

          So what do we do now?

          • 1 vote
          Reply#6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:52 AM EST
          Ben-1268009

          Perservere as we always have.

          • 2 votes
          #6.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:56 AM EST
          Reply
          Plain Sick O taxes

          " Putting together a task force to study etc. " If Barack Hussein Obama and Pelosi and Reid had concentrated on the loss of jobs and the continued loss of jobs instead of wasting millions trying to create a legacy for Barack , then they might be well on their way to curing the problem of Unemployment. They'll take another year to study all this . All the money wasted on trying to push through a Socialized Med plan, and the buyouts of Auto Firms and payoffs to the UAW and the banks and Lobbyists had just been given to the Unemployed, they would probably have been able to live on the sum for a year.

          What the Hell is there for them to work on ? Why not take the money the banks paid back and make them give out loans to small businesses , then you would see the people getting jobs. Everyone has heard that small businesses make up most of the work force in America . And get all this tax and spend out of your insane minds. Taxing small business on Carbon consumption is a sure fire way to bankrupt them, while China and Japan goes it's merry way burning whatever they can to produce whatever they want. This administration just doesn't get it. Taxation isn't the answer . And we don't have that many millionairres to tax. And since when are they the bad guys ? At least they , most of them, earned what they have , started businesses to get their wealth. Most in Washington never even had a paper route, or caddied , but have tried everything they can to get by without working for a living. I laughed when they used the slogan ; " Shovels in the Ground ".. Those idiots don't know which end of the shovel goes into the ground . Hussein bashes the banks, borrows from them for campaigns, then bashes them again . Buys out GM , buys out the UAW, and then trys to shortchange them and off they go to cry on his shoulders for another handout. He hands out our money like it was his . Wait until Wed. night . You'll hear more spin than is on a Merry-go-Round . He'll talk about everything and anything and his poll numbers and how he only cares about the American Middle Class, and he's only going to tax the rich. A Modern day Robin Hood. Well Hussein, Green isn't your color and you're lost in Washington, so just imagine how bad off you'd be in Sherwood Forest .

          • 2 votes
          Reply#7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:15 AM EST
          btco

          And we don't have that many millionairres to tax. And since when are they the bad guys ? At least they , most of them, earned what they have

          NOT.....

          Are these people worth the hundreds of million they were paid....now really....are these salaries outta line?

          RankNameCompanyPay ($mil)5-Yr Pay ($mil)Shares Owned ($mil)AgeEfficiency
          1 Lawrence J EllisonOracle 556.98 944.45 21,987.4 64 103
          2 Ray R IraniOccidental Petroleum 222.64 743.55 394.3 74 106
          3 John B HessHess 154.58 234.83 2,016.8 55 115
          4 Michael D WatfordUltra Petroleum 116.93 174.17 104.1 55 28
          5 Mark G PapaEOG Resources 90.47 170.69 51.7 62 92
          6 William R BerkleyWR Berkley 87.485178.29 627.4 63 67
          7 Matthew K RoseBurlington Santa Fe 68.62 140.73 39.8 50 40
          8 Paul J EvansonAllegheny Energy 67.26 143.54 33.1 67 NA
          9 Hugh GrantMonsanto 64.60 135.30 28.0 51 NA
          10 Robert W LaneDeere & Co 61.30 142.40 11.8 59 109
          11 Keith A HuttonXTO Energy 54.786NA 96.4 50 NA
          12 Mark V HurdHewlett-Packard 51.93 114.40217.9 52 NA
          13 John H HammergrenMcKesson 51.29 137.78 9.4 50 124
          14 Bradbury H AndersonBest Buy 49.26580.63 92.9 59 68
          15 David J O'ReillyChevron 47.56 121.62 15.8 62 119
          16 Frederick W SmithFedEx 44.49 131.10 1,001.9 64 165
          17 Robert J StevensLockheed Martin 42.68 101.39 26.3 57 NA
          18 Ronald E Hermance JrHudson City Bancorp 42.27 65.89 42.8 61 13
          19 Brian L RobertsComcast 39.26 159.70 283.5 49 137
          20 John W RoweExelon 39.22 155.13 20.9 63 83

          From Forbes.........http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/12/best-boss-09_CEO-Compensation_Rank.html

          • 3 votes
          #7.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:23 AM EST
          Jay Butler

          For one, Larry Ellison is worth whatever he chooses to pay himself. He founded Oracle and built it into the company it is today. Why don't you ask some of the company's 72,000 tax-paying employees if he is worth that kind of money?

          • 4 votes
          #7.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:36 AM EST
          btco

          But is he worth a billion dollars over 5 years?

          Is it fair that CEO's now earn 428 times the average workers wage, compared to 21 times in 1980?

          • 1 vote
          #7.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:15 AM EST
          Jay Butler

          But is he worth a billion dollars over 5 years?

          If he created a company that employs that many people and continues to earn money for his stockholders, yes. But, ultimately, that decision falls on the stockholders themselves. Ellison should be paid whatever they think he is worth. After all, they (not you, me or the feds) own the company.

          • 3 votes
          #7.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:25 AM EST
          Steve Olver Sheridan Wyoming

          WOW!!!!! if this "guy" were heading up a church he would be god by now...missed his intended calling by the universe

          • 1 vote
          #7.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:09 AM EST
          Jay Butler

          BTW, his 2009 salary was $4.5 million. The rest of his compensation is exercised stock options. Is that a reasonable salary figure for a CEO heading a profitable company with $24 billion in revenue?

          • 3 votes
          #7.6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:29 AM EST
          btco

          BTW, his 2009 salary was $4.5 million. The rest of his compensation is exercised stock options. Is that a reasonable salary figure for a CEO heading a profitable company with $24 billion in revenue?

          So what, who cares. I my opinion, too damn much. What should be worship at his feet for doing a decent job? NO ...nor should he make that outlandish amount of money stock or salary. It's insane.

          He may be better than sliced bread, so what about Ken Lay of Enron fame? Or AIG's CEO? Or the bridge playing idiot at Bear Stearns? Were they not worthy as well in your opinion?

          At what point is enough ? A billion over 5 years exceeds this by well....... in my mind .....995 Million.

          • 1 vote
          #7.7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:52 PM EST
          Jay Butler

          At what point is enough ?

          Who makes the call what is "enough"? You? Obama? Some pay czar?

          How about the owners of these companies? Isn't it their call as to how the employees are to be compensated?

          • 4 votes
          #7.8 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:47 PM EST
          GoDux08

          I don't think the plumber that came out to fix my clogged drain was worth $200 for 1/2 and hour work...That's 1/2 my monthly health insurance premium.

            #7.9 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:49 AM EST
            Reply
            btco

            In truth, a big part of McConnell's political calculation is the underlying debt bill. He's made clear that he doesn't want such a large increase now and would prefer to bleed the Democrats politically by forcing regular votes on successive smaller increases between now and November's elections.

            If the commission were to pass, it would make it easier for Democrats to pull together their forces and some moderate Republicans and pass a long-term debt ceiling bill. It is in McConnell's interest, therefore, to defeat the idea, quite apart from the whole question of spending vs. taxes.

            From.... http://btco.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/25/3805904-scott-brown-on-same-page-as-president-obama-on-fiscal-commission-david-rogers-politicocom

            This is why the Repukes are against this. They are trying to make the incredible legacy of Bush, Obama's latest "Waterloo".

            And Julian, what we do is put this panel in place. Politicians in the middle like it, the extremes in both parties hate it. The choice is very clear, put it in place.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#8 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:16 AM EST
            1623 yankee

            There is no doubt that government needs to be reined in. It needs to be more closely watched, administered and controlled. Our country is large, with a growing population and tremendous wealth (for the moment).

            Our government MUST be able to be productive and utilize its resources with thrift, efficiency and WITHOUT innate corruption or corruptive forces at work.

            A freeze on the budget is ESSENTIAL to getting our house in order. If your own household faces shortfalls in cash flow, the very first thing you do is stop all spending until the problems are found and corrected. This is NO different!

            The problems facing the nation are large and complex but their source always seem to be eerily similar...MONEY! The corrections must be multifaceted and sometimes seemingly irrelevant to each other but always with the same goal...to get the budget and the MONEY under control.

            What I have seen discussed just here on NV tells me that WE know what needs to be done; it's just a matter of getting our servants to do what we tell them to do.

            1. This is by far THE most important. Support and insist on a Constitutional Amendment demanding that the status and rights of "person" be removed from the legal definition of a corporation and redefined as a "thing" of business.

            2. Disallow individual, group and corporate contributions to political campaigns. Make political campaigns EXCLUSIVELY public funded and overseen by both the FEC and GAO. Facilitate the participation of citizens of "avereage" means in National Government.

            3. Establish term limits for ALL members of Congress AND for the Supreme Court.

            4. Abolish the Electoral College and establish Popular Vote as our sole means of elections.

            5. Establish a popular vote referendum process facilitating the impeachment and replacing of ALL government employees for just cause, including members of Congress.

            6. Establish "Public Trust" Corporations that are privately owned but that are recognized as forming vital necessities and performing vital services for the welfare of the nation that can not be lost, misused or breached without threat of Nationalized replacement or dissolution. [examples: large financial institutions, energy suppliers, food and water suppliers, military infrastructure suppliers, transportation, etc].

            7. Completely overhaul the National Tax Code to reflect fairness and equity regardless of income or "station" in life. Establish DISTINCT and SEPARATE National Tax Codes and enforcement agencies to handle the affairs of business and corporations separate from private, human citizens.

            Well, there you have it, a beginning. There may be other ideas. There most certainly will be objections, but until and unless we strive to get out from under this monster of a "BLOB" government that has been distorted, skewed, corrupted and made so complex that NO ONE can understand it, all we will be doing is placing pinky bandages to stanch the slices in our arteries. Freezing it, then standing back and looking at it closely is an essential start.

              Reply#9 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:35 AM EST
              UNA_Lion

              IMO, #4 on your list would quite possibly lead to civil war. It would effectively disenfranchise all but the few most populous states from determining who became President, and Presidential candidates would all but ignore the less-populous "fly-over" states, concentrating their campaigning in only the states with the most population. Eliminate the Electoral College, and you'll alienate the nation's bread-basket and accelerate our disintegration.

              I would replace #7with an outright elimination of Federal income tax and implementation of a national sales tax. Less expensive stuff would be lightly-taxed, and more expensive stuff would be more heavily-taxed. Buy expensive stuff, and you'll pay more in taxes, so those can afford expensive stuff pay the most in taxes.

              Cannot support #6, but like the rest of your list. I would also add partial legalization of marijuana (add similar controls to those currently for alcohol, including operating or working while drunk/stoned), and tax the crap out of it.

                #9.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:17 AM EST
                mavrick03

                Or a flat tax instead of a national sales tax. Somehow i feel they will be able to double tax a sales tax

                Mav

                • 2 votes
                #9.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:41 AM EST
                Steve Olver Sheridan Wyoming

                Reined in to the glue factory

                  #9.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:11 AM EST
                  1623 yankee

                  UNA_Lion -

                  VERY good observations and points. I would heartily agree to a graduated sales tax but I wonder about its Contitutionality regarding gradation. I had run the course of a flat tax for a while but discovered that it would eventually lead to its own demise. An elimination of the income tax while instituting a sales tax would definitely be a better idea.

                  The Electoral College is a dilemma as far as I am concerned. The demonstrations that elections may be wrongly assigned or even stolen in advance (through redistricting shenanigans) really sets my teeth on edge. I'm not certain how we would set about improving the situation but I DO know that this system is antiquated, not entirely adequate and CAN be manipulated.

                  There are some vital organs to the well being and survival of the nation and viral corporations should never again be allowed to bring this country to the edge of the precipice for the sake of bonuses and greed. There MUST be a method of failsafe/assurance that the nation may utilize that will ensure that too big to fail or too important to fail is not left in the hands of thieves and miscreants.

                  Thanks for your response.

                    #9.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:55 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Johnny654

                    I didn't see nor hear of a freeze of giving the good ole taxpayer's money away to foreign countries, only "let's freeze domestic programs." What a crock, go away.....now

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#10 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:44 AM EST
                    Profchaos

                    i recall during one of the debates that he said foreign aid would be the one thing he would cut back if the economy forced him to cut his agenda in any way... guess not...

                    • 4 votes
                    #10.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:46 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Profchaos

                    didn't Obama say that a spending freeze was a bad thing during the debates (i believe it was the "town hall" one)? that he would go over the budget line by line instead of across the board freezes?

                    why not reduce the non-defense discretionary spending that he just increased this past year for starters?

                    • 4 votes
                    Reply#11 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:45 AM EST
                    btco

                    Why not set up a bipartisan panel to tackle the REALLY big issues we have with our spending, Social Security and Medicare?

                    Let them both sort it out, both parties.

                      #11.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:53 AM EST
                      vol fan in chatt, tn

                      isn't that what they are supposed to be doing anyway, btco?

                      • 3 votes
                      #11.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:59 PM EST
                      Andy-827327

                      Why not set up a bipartisan panel to tackle the REALLY big issues we have with our spending, Social Security and Medicare?

                      It's called the US Congress,

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:09 PM EST
                      btco

                      Vol and Andi - Neither party has the balls to tackle Social Security and Medicare. Neither. It will take taxes hikes and spending cuts, things that neither party can do without losing seats. It is too easy to be against reforms and WAY harder to be for them, especially if they are labeled as the Senator that raised taxes or the Representative that cut benefits back.

                      The idea behind the panel is to provide political cover for these tough decisions. Bipartisan panel making recommendations that both parties can agree on. It is a good idea whose time has come.

                      Right now, what would you do if a Democrat proposed increasing taxes to save Social Security for the next 100 years? Right now, what Republican will cut benefits to extend Medicare for another 100 years? Tell me.

                        #11.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:27 PM EST
                        Andy-827327

                        The idea behind the panel is to provide political cover for these tough decisions.

                        They are paid to make those tough decisions. It's more like political cover for Democrats to raise taxes...if they want to raise taxes, let them go on record with their vote!

                        • 3 votes
                        #11.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:31 PM EST
                        lisaed

                        It's more like political cover for Democrats to raise taxes

                        Andy---precisely.

                        • 4 votes
                        #11.6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:56 PM EST
                        btco

                        Andy - Think about it.

                        Answer these honestly.....

                        Right now, what would you do if a Democrat proposed increasing taxes to save Social Security for the next 100 years? Right now, what Republican will cut benefits to extend Medicare for another 100 years? Tell me.

                        How would we vote if these people did the above? I am of the opinion, that in order to fix these programs for the long haul, we will see some benefit cuts and some tax hikes. What about you? Think we will fix these without cuts and taxes?

                        And Lisaed - Still waiting on your answer below #19

                        This whole notion of a panel is a moderate approach. What is wrong with it?

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:12 PM EST
                        Andy-827327

                        I would cut the benefits or raise the retirement age before I raised taxes on SS or anything else.

                        • 4 votes
                        #11.8 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:38 PM EST
                        btco

                        Okay, now if a Republican or a Democrat did what you just said. Cut Benefits and or raise the retirement age, how would the other party react. What would their campaign machine do? What are the honest chances of that passing in Congress (no matter if it is Dems or Reps in control)?

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.9 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:45 PM EST
                        Andy-827327

                        I could care less what the other party said about them...they would have my vote.

                        • 3 votes
                        #11.10 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:47 PM EST
                        btco

                        Andy - Good for you..... Dem or Rep, they'd get my vote too.

                        But really look at what I am asking and answer.

                        • 2 votes
                        #11.11 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:56 PM EST
                        Andy-827327

                        btco-your supporting a commission, my answer is to demand the people we elect and pay to make those decisions, to do just that...if they can't handle it, don't run for office.

                        • 3 votes
                        #11.12 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:03 PM EST
                        GoDux08

                        "Vol and Andi - Neither party has the balls to tackle Social Security and Medicare"

                        Bush tried several times to work on privatization of Social Security. Overall, he spent too much money, and didn't do a damn thing about illegal immigration..my two biggest gripes with him,

                          #11.13 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:52 AM EST
                          Reply
                          RobPlumley

                          Here's some very simple facts.

                          This will be Obama's first budget.

                          Obama has included the emergency funding for these two wars now in the budget numbers.

                          Though having to take extraordinary measures (including public funds) to keep the economy from tail-spinning out of country, the monies thus far spent have been the prior budget - from the conservative and fiscal-wise policy President, George Bush.

                          The 10-year, 1 trillion dollar healthcare overhaul - which the CBO estimates will save just around 100 billion dollars per year during that 10 year period - has not been budgeted.

                          We intend to spend approximately 700 to 750 billion dollars on defense.

                          We intend to spend the bulk of it on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - as the article points out.

                          It shouldn't be surprising that Medicare and Medicaid are mentioned above being that the United States spends approximately 1/7 to 1/6 of our economy on health care, yet despise the highest per-capita for health care, we have mediocre outcomes for several health metrics.

                          So let's all take a deep breath, and exhale, and whatever anger you have toward our President - you see, he is our President, and I'm sure that all would like him to do well - and please calm ourselves.

                          So write your Senator or Congressman, and simply explain, you would prefer a balanced budget. That means all the special programs - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense - will be cut dramatically. Subsidies for industries - such as Energy and Argriculture - would be drastically cut or eliminated. Foreign aid - out!

                          Now, please list out those Senators and Congressmen (regardless of party affiliation) that would sign up for it. I have my doubts you would get only a handful, especially when elections are just around the corner.

                          Remember, every expenditure is an appropriation, which is law.

                          Granted, some discretionary spending is needed in a deep recession, but this spending has gotten out of hand due to lobbying - health care, energy, defense, senior citizens, unions, and etc.

                            Reply#12 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:17 AM EST
                            Brad_440

                            We also need to end our two wars or increase taxes to cover the costs. People forget that the previous administration kept those costs off the books to help the deficit numbers and had no way to fund them. I don't think other programs should take steep cuts to fund wars. I bet the government would find ways to end these wars pretty damn fast when they had to start raising taxes on their constituents to pay for them.

                            The military budget could easily be slashed by closing all the unnecessary bases we have around the world. Last time I checked it was somewhere around 700.

                            • 1 vote
                            #12.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:03 AM EST
                            Reply
                            Midwestlady

                            Mr. President -

                            Why are only the domestic budget up for a freeze? Why can we not freezing international budgets and government "pork" spending?

                            .....Oh thats right, because the American people, still in a recession, need to tighten the belts even more. <sarcasm>

                            What an idiot!

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#13 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:27 AM EST
                            btco

                            Why is this idiocy? What is wrong with freezing spending? Is is because the GOP didn't do it?

                              #13.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:54 AM EST
                              Midwestlady

                              The idiocy is that it is the domestic budget only. Why are they not looking at spending in the foriegn spending budget. I know they need to cut spending, and as an INDEPENDANT, I am all for it. The idiocy is where they are looking to cut, not that they are wanting to cut.

                              • 2 votes
                              #13.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:00 AM EST
                              mountainmike-1199289

                              Yes, brace yourself for the Republican attack on Democratic spending. They are hoping that we all had lobotomies to forget the horrific Bush fiscal track record, including the Medicare Drug Benefits at $13 trillion longterm and the Iraq War at $3 trillion. When it comes to spending, that is business as usual inside the beltway for both parties. It is extremely naive to make this yet more ammo to fire at the other party in our national partisan divide.

                              • 2 votes
                              #13.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 AM EST
                              Midwestlady

                              Democrats and Republicans both need a swift kick in the rear and stop attacking each other and GET TO WORK!

                              Listening to the parties bicker is worse than listening to my teenage girls snip at each other over makeup and clothes!

                              Politicians need to grow up and think for a change.

                              • 2 votes
                              #13.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:59 AM EST
                              GoDux08

                              "Why is this idiocy? What is wrong with freezing spending? Is is because the GOP didn't do it?"

                              Over the years, especially when Newt Gingrich was in office, the Repubs have tried to freeze spending, but the Dems call that a "cut" and won't do it.

                                #13.5 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:54 AM EST
                                Andy-827327

                                Why is this idiocy? What is wrong with freezing spending? Is is because the GOP didn't do it?"

                                This is is just more smoke & mirrors by Obama. Discretionary spending has gone up 24% on his watch and now he wants to freeze some but not all departments at that inflated level...it's a joke.

                                • 2 votes
                                #13.6 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:18 AM EST
                                lisaed

                                Andy---yes, freezing for 3 years after in one year's time he jacked it up over 20% is just window dressing---PR attempt a la David Plouffe to appear fiscally responsible in some lame attempt to woo independent voters. How bout some cuts?

                                • 3 votes
                                #13.7 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:34 PM EST
                                Reply
                                cwyatt-989470

                                I'm not an Obama fan and I confess that the details are a bit sketchy; meaning I'm not sure what he's cutting, but Obama is finally listening. All anyone can do in life is try, so I'm glad the effort on his part is being made to curtail the runaway spending.

                                Hopefully, this is the begining and not just the final solution.

                                  Reply#14 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:58 AM EST
                                  RobPlumley

                                  The gist of the article is that Republicans don't want to participate - especially on reigning in on costs. They (GOP) talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

                                  I find their resistance to by hypocritical to their party beliefs, as well as bad for this country.

                                  I know there is not a lot of love for this President at the moment, but it is essential for the populous as well as our own Legislative branch of government to realize he is our President. I find that the opposition party does not have the best interest of our country.

                                    #14.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:11 AM EST
                                    cwyatt-989470

                                    Why are the Republicans against reducing government spending after requesting it for such a long time?

                                    And please, I truly want the facts, not some contribed party smear.

                                      #14.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:11 AM EST
                                      btco

                                      And please, I truly want the facts, not some contribed party smear.

                                      There is NO other reason than to make Obama fail........remember "Waterloo".

                                        #14.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:55 AM EST
                                        cwyatt-989470

                                        btco,

                                        Your reply offers no facts, just an opinion, which is what I didn't want.

                                        Republicans say the panel — it would try to develop a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections for a vote before the new Congress convenes — would lead to big tax hikes. Democratic opponents say they don't want to vote on proposals to cut benefit programs like Social Security without being able to shape the plan

                                        This excerpt makes it sound like both Democrats and Republicans disapprove.

                                        And then this statement makes me scratch my head:

                                        It hasn't said whether Obama will proposes tax hikes or cuts to spiraling benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

                                        There is no detail that I can see. What does he intend to cut to make his savings? For me, with the little info that this seed offers, its hard to say if I'm for or against the cuts.

                                          #14.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:50 AM EST
                                          btco

                                          Your reply offers no facts, just an opinion, which is what I didn't want.

                                          True.
                                          But I have a feeling that is all there is on this. Opinions. I think the Dems will get behind it, for the most part. They are not all that cohesive on things as people assume - some of the middle of the road moderates are on board with this plan. The Right has already talked this down on the Sunday shows. And their opposition is in my opinion is all about - "Waterloo".

                                          The detail is not there because there is none yet out there.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:42 PM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          That Waterloo comment was a stupid one. That said, we don't need a task force to do this. This is what they are supposed to be doing as leaders anyway. It is silly.

                                          I don't think most moderate dems or rep are going to walk the plank for Obama on ANY of his initiatives after seeing how ineffective as a leader he is, who is only enamored with himself, especially if there is a tax hike somewhere down the road.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #14.6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:09 PM EST
                                          btco

                                          That Waterloo comment was a stupid one.

                                          DeMint pretty much inserted his foot. I agree.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #14.7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:29 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          ScottM8

                                          I thought this was very interesting and thought more people needed to see it.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#15 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:23 AM EST
                                          ScottM8

                                          Thought that he made very good points in his idea, I believe that it should all happen

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#16 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:24 AM EST
                                          SC Smitty

                                          as lawmakers digest the news that President Barack Obama wants a three-year freeze in the domestic budgets they control

                                          Apparently the scalpal isn't working Mr. Obama. Sounded good when you kept saying it during the debates though.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          Reply#17 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:26 AM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          The deficits will never be cut until spending is tied directly to taxes. Currently there is no consequence to passing a spending bill but massive negative political consequences to cutting spending. If spending immediately raised taxes, spending bills would become harder to pass.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:31 AM EST
                                          cwyatt-989470

                                          Agreed!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:13 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          whatever happened to the pay go plan Obama proposed?

                                          Link:

                                          http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html?iref=24hours

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #18.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:17 PM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Pay as you go means new spending is paid for with new revenue. So far its stimulus and bail outs or 25% unemployment instead of 17%. Which do you prefer?

                                          HHS budget is 879 billion for 2010

                                          http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbrief.pdf.

                                          The cost of war will be about a 1.05 trillion dollars next year.

                                          http://www.nationalpriorities.org/2009/1/11/Cost-of-war-tallies-through-FY2010

                                          Interest on our national debt will be in the 260-300 billion range in 2010

                                          http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

                                          Federal Revenue is only projected at 2.3 trillion next year. We've busted the bank with only those to expenditures. How do you pay as you go?

                                          http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:32 PM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Is that why they didn't make it law, then? Because nobody wants to be associated with new taxes? Although, the way it was presented, if I remember right, it was not necessarily just new revenue (taxes), it could also be a cut somewhere else to add new spending.

                                          Frankly, I would have preferred no stimulus that did nothing for the economy and added almost a trillion dollars to our debt, and who knows how much of wasted money from the 9000+ earmarks.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #18.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:10 PM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          So you have no problem with putting tens of thousands of people out of work.

                                          Cutting unemployment benefits for those already out of work.

                                          Increasing the cost of COBRA benefits for those who lost their jobs and health insurance.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:32 PM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          So you have no problem with putting tens of thousands of people out of work.

                                          Well the government didn't do that, and as much as any government may want to pretend they can fix that, they can't.

                                          CNN reports the initial stimulus figure at 787 billion. Now, that's over $50k for every unemployed American. If they'd have put a $40k tax credit in place for every new hire....well I'd have probably added 2 people at that price, maybe as many as 8..... and a lot of other businesses would have also. You would have seen a monumental drop in unemployment. The beauty is, they would have recouped $100 billion in payroll taxes easily.

                                          Recessions are never as much about cash as they are about risk. There is always capital around somewhere. The difficulty is getting people to part with it.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #18.6 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:02 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          What can I say? I have been out of work for a year and it ain't looking good anytime soon. No unemployment - too much red tape from state to state stuff, and paying insurance out of the three part time jobs I have.You don;t need to tell me times are tough.

                                          Specifically,I was talking about the stimulus - you know the spending bill that cost nearly a trillion dollars and have 9000 earmarks for stupid pet projects and the "friends and family plan" of targeted money - is that what you are talking about? How did the stimulus accomplish all that you claim?

                                          As far as the other, the majority of America didn't want TARP, the bailouts, or the stimulus - so why did they do it? And what good did it really do? 4 million + people have lost their jobs, the economy is still in the toilet, people are NOT hiring because they are concerned about if their company can even make it right now and for how long before they decide to squeeze more blood from the turnip in the form of taxes, and the crisis will be even longer now because of the ridiculous spending in the midst of and on top of the current situation.

                                          So you have no problem with putting tens of thousands of people out of work.

                                          The numbnuts leading our country apparently didn't!

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #18.7 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:04 AM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          I have been out of work for a year and it ain't looking good anytime soon.

                                          I'm sorry to hear that. I agree with your assessment about the near future. I'm also sorry about that. I did not mean to be argumentative, BTW....just pointing out that employment is something the US govt cannot solve without re-instituting the draft.

                                          I really feel like I'm watching a train wreck in slow motion. One one side, there are conservatives who seem so engrossed in themselves that they need an earthquake to care about their fellow man. On the other side, there are liberals who care passionately about important issues and are less capable of coming up with good solutions than my 11 year old son. Mandatory health insurance? Really? Have you lost your f***ing mind??

                                          It's discouraging, really.

                                          On a brighter note, I would encourage you to focus on what you love to do and figure out a way to sell it. I consult with small businesses, and every successful client I have has that methodology in common. I know 3 multi-millionaires who at one point were each living in their cars. You really can make it, and it doesn't take massive capital or amazing expertise.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #18.8 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:46 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Thanks, Jack. Right now I am just in survival mode - I really can't change my situation while I take care of my elderly mom, just work what works around that schedule. When things are different, I would really like to go back to what I was doing, or start my own business ( I wouldn't dream of it right now even if I could, which is probably the same thing a lot of others are thinking- and a reason people aren't hiring).

                                          It is discouraging, but we have been through hard times before, and when I consider what others are suffering through - like in Haiti- it makes my problems seem small.

                                          Actually I agree with most of what you said about our country... it doesn't take a college education (which I have) to see that you can't spend money you don't have. Why is that so hard to see?

                                          Anyway, thanks for your kind word and I apologize for being so sensitive - apparently I missed the direction you were going with your comments.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #18.9 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:04 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Jack, I see the problem, I was responding to Man of Knowledge post...apparently yours came up as I was posting mine which happens sometimes. Anyway...

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.10 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:15 AM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          Well, hang in there. I've seen dumber people than you make millions.

                                          You will never regret the time spent with your mom. Some other time I can bore you with the stories about losing my father, and the things the Lord taught me through it.

                                          I'm 100 times the man I was, and still not 1/100th the man he was. It's amazing how adversity can make you a better person.

                                          I sent a friend request, BTW. I'd be honored.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.11 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:21 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          ditto, Jack. Yes, I already lost my father almost two years ago ( has it been that long?). I knew they needed help, so I left my job and moved here to be with them - my dad had cancer, but I was able to spend quite a it of time with him those last 9 months. It is never easy, but I know where he is and that I will see him again. What is horrible is now watching my mom progress through the same stages my dad passed through toward the last six months.

                                          I have no regrets other than at times I was frustrated and in a hurry - not taking the time like I should have...but there is nothing I can do about it. The main thing was I was here, and was with him to the end. One day, actually I should do it now while I have time, I'd love to write a story about my dad's last days and the man he was and the service he gave to this country.

                                          In the meantime, if you'd like to see more about his life you can go here to this link: http://www.elderhope.com , go to downloads - dad's eulogy.

                                          Please send me a note on the contact page with your email and I'll be in touch. Friend request accepted and one sent! Have a great evening and God bless.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.12 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:17 AM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          I have to disagree with you. If GM, Chrysler, AIG, BOF and CitiBank had shut their doors and laid off all their employees the situation would be much worse in this country and around the world. That's what too big to fail means. It should never have happened but at the point that it did there was no choice.

                                          The idea that tax credits for new hires would have done more is just speculation. Businesses don't hire when they don't need people. We were entering a recession and most businesses were losing revenue.

                                          Tax credits would in fact have depleted revenue at the worst possible time. That is a play right out of the supply side economics myth. It doesn't work. Supply is no good without demand. Just because you build it doesn't mean someone will buy it.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.13 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:32 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Look at Ford, they didn't take the bait and they seem to be doing well. GM on the other hand....

                                          Are we going to bail out every company that is "too big to fail"? Who determines that?

                                          It is a poor idea, and frankly, it hasn't worked becasue on top of the bailout they did the cash for clunkers program too that cost the taxpayers 200+ million dollars and it really didn't help the struggling auto industry more than a couple of months, as sales are back in the toilet. They have had to ask for more cash. Ford, on the other hand, who took no money, is doing better - maybe as a backlash to the deaf ears of Congress who forced it this massive taxpayer bailout upon us against the will of the people.

                                          I don't think I said anything about tax credits for new hires.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.14 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:05 AM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          GM, Chrysler, AIG, BOA, and Citibank are still in business and employing tens thousands. What you propose is that all of those people be jobless on top of those that are already not to mention the cascading affect that mulitple corporate failures at the same time would have had across the world.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.15 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:05 AM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          I have to disagree with you. If GM, Chrysler, AIG, BOF and CitiBank had shut their doors and laid off all their employees the situation would be much worse in this country and around the world.

                                          You're not disagreeing with me. The $787 billion was (at least according to the CNN graph) in addition to the bailouts, which I agree were necessary.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #18.16 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:34 AM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          Hey Jack, Should I be offended at this statement you made:

                                          I've seen dumber people than you make millions.

                                          Actually, when I went back and read it, I had to laugh. You calling me dumb?? Fuax pas maybe?

                                          Man of Knowledge, why couldn't they file for bankruptcy and restructure - lots of businesses do that, not that it's a great thing, but better than bailout after bailout. And please answer the question - where do you draw the line - or are you going to bail out everybody?

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.17 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:33 PM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          Vol,

                                          That doesn't sound very good, does it? Wow. Sorry about that, I'd had a bit too much wine. Maybe it should read "I've seen dumber people than me.."

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #18.18 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:46 PM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          I don't like bail outs but it depends on the circumstances. These corporations had no way to restructure without capital infusions. There was no capital available at the time. The entire banking industry seized up. What made it worse was that they were inbred. They depended on each other and they were all sinking at once. There was no opportunity to restructure.

                                          I was in Houston when Enron failed. I used to work at their corporate headquarters as a contract worker. It was ugly. Thousands of people not only lost their jobs but their entire retirement, some in the millions, because they foolishly had it all invested in Enron whose stock rose steadily right up until the collapse. Who would think that the entire corporate leadership was corrupt but it was. But Houston is a huge thriving economy. It could absorb the labor force easily into other jobs. Detroit, on the other hand, was a disaster before the GM and Chrysler crisis. They need to change their economy, but it takes time and the bail out helps a lot. I read recently GM was going to start building electric motors. That is the right sort of thing to do. As long as they don't outsource the manufacturing to Vietnam.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.19 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:12 PM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          that's okay, Jack, I thought it was funny.

                                          Thanks for the response, MoK. I remember that as well, terrible. As far as the bailouts, I am going to post something for your consideration... a story that got next to zero publicity, but very important nonetheless and it may be the reason the banking system "seized up". Shortly after that we had the TARP bill. Interesting to note anyway and speculate.

                                          Could it have been someone who wanted to influence the election? Yes. Here's an excerpt, but you have to do some real digging to find the story because the mainstream media, did not even barely cover this story.

                                          Electronic Run On Banks - $550 Billion Withdrawn In 1 Hour, Federal Reserve Halts Withdrawls - US Economy Would Have Collapsed

                                          Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains what former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. During the first third of the video an enraged caller is ranting to Rep. Kanjorski about how wasteful the first $700 billion bailout was. The best part is 2 minutes and 15 seconds into the tape where Rep. Kanjorski reveals what Paulson and Bernanke told congress that shocked them into supporting the first $700 billion bailout.

                                          On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

                                          The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $105 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

                                          Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

                                          Link: Among others -

                                          http://www.capitalismgonewild.com/2009/02/electronic-run-on-banks-550-billion.html

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #18.20 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:31 AM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          I'm familiar with this article. It is interesting, but I'm not sure what to make of it. To be a conspiracy, it would have to be incredibly widespread. Money market accounts are primarily controlled by banks, large securities traders and mutual funds. They aren't federally insured but they can't lose their value as they are interest yielding accounts not investment accounts. I guess its possible that a few individuals may have been rich enough to create the run but I'm not sure how it would work. Many transactions are computer generated programmatically these days. It may have been certain financial conditions triggered a widespread computer generated draw down. It will be interesting to see if the cause of this ever sees the light of day.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #18.21 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:23 AM EST
                                          Jack TX

                                          Money market accounts are primarily controlled by banks, large securities traders and mutual funds. They aren't federally insured but they can't lose their value as they are interest yielding accounts not investment accounts.

                                          Whoa. Not so.

                                          Money market accounts come in 2 varieties. The ones you get at your bank ARE federally insured, the ones you get at your stockbroker are not.

                                          Also, the brokerage ones absolutely CAN lose value, although it is highly, highly unlikely. They invest in commercial paper, which is large, very short term debt between huge institutions. Usually it's overnight loans between banks to help them meet reserve requirements or to big corporations to help with momentary cash flow. The loans are seen as extremely low risk, but default is a possibility.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #18.22 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:46 AM EST
                                          Man of Knowledge

                                          In either case the accounts as I understand them are usually used to hold cash that will be or has been invested until it is used in other ways. What I don't understand is how they can be drawn down in mass unless there were relatively few of them holding huge sums of money that were suddenly drained. It seems illogical to me to have a run on that type of account.

                                            #18.23 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:44 PM EST
                                            Jack TX

                                            What I don't understand is how they can be drawn down in mass unless there were relatively few of them holding huge sums of money that were suddenly drained. It seems illogical to me to have a run on that type of account.

                                            Yeah, I don't get that either.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #18.24 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:49 PM EST
                                            Reply
                                            US Citizen-658112

                                            I notice that "foreign aid" is exempted on the list of spending freeze candidates....

                                            How long can the USA continue to "give away" money and resources it does not have to give, while creating debt for itself that it is increasingly unable to pay?

                                            I predict this will go nowhere if and until a changing-of-the-power structure happens this October and there is no longer a party monopoly that can virtually "dictate" how the government is run. Instead, some form of "checks-and-balances" needs to be restored in the federal government, I think.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #19 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:15 AM EST
                                            trex-138069

                                            We can afford that better than we can afford a spending freeze in the middle of a recession. FDR made that same mistake in 1937, to appease Republicans (surprise!) and it set back the nation's recovery, although other than that one year, FDR's programs produced steady economic improvement on all fronts, while the Hooverites screamed that he was spending the country to ruin. No, actually, he was reversing the damage they'd done.

                                            The best I can say about Obama's "freeze" is that it's probably cosmetic, and probably done as a cynical gesture to make the hysterics on the right calm down a bit. I hope he'll continue to do what needs to be done. The stimulus bill was too small, and what the country needs now, desperately needs, is more government spending, not less.

                                              #19.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:59 AM EST
                                              btco

                                              Forgien Aid is a Red Herring.......... it is less than seven tenths of One percent of GDP.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #19.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:20 AM EST
                                              lisaed

                                              trex---it is cosmetic and it won't make us "calm down."

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #19.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:31 AM EST
                                              btco

                                              lisaed - And what is the Party of NO solution? Please share...

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #19.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:59 AM EST
                                              lisaed

                                              btco---here are some excellent suggestions to the President from this morning's Hertitage Foundation:

                                              http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/26/morning-bell-the-state-of-our-union/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #19.5 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:05 AM EST
                                              Man of Knowledge

                                              lisaed

                                              That article contains not one specific suggestion for changing anything. In fact the conservative talking points it espouses are ones the conservatives in government were not willing to undertake themselves while in power so epousing them now is a matter of political expediency not any commitment to an ideal.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #19.6 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:11 AM EST
                                              btco

                                              btco---here are some excellent suggestions to the President from this morning's Hertitage Foundation:

                                              Try again. That has NOTHING, just as Man of Knowledge pointed out, NOTHING that even suggests a policy or well thought out agenda. Again, other than bashing, like your article does so very well, what are the solutions?

                                              Health care - Across state lines? That was shot down by Republicans already once - even including NO votes by the same Congressman supporting it on the right today.

                                              Individual Mandate for insurance coverage - The Republicans supported this under Bush and now are against it. What gives? Is it the whole "Waterloo" syndrome?

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #19.7 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:47 AM EST
                                              cwyatt-989470

                                              Does it really matter who or when something was suggested? All that should matter is if an idea will work!

                                              I'm an Independent voter who is tired of politics - Democrats and Republicans. It seems that the two parties are constantly trying to one-up each other than working together like US citizens trying to solve true problems.

                                              It's time to give up the finger pointing, and make things right for the citizens of the US.

                                                #19.8 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:57 AM EST
                                                btco

                                                cwyatt - Setting up a bipartisan panel to work on the deficit and make the tough choices on the tough issues is a great way to avoid this bickering in my opinion. But we will see if it passes.

                                                And Lisaed, answer the question already. Real policies and programs from the NO's? Anything?

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #19.9 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:32 PM EST
                                                vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                Here's some ideas:

                                                1. As you stated in your campaign and didn't do - no spending on pork, veto all legislation with pork -over 20,000 earmarks in bills last year - purely wasteful

                                                2. Eliminate wasteful programs (for instance, 18 million dollars to create and maintain the recovery.org site is ridiculous).

                                                3. End the bailouts - no more bailouts - including the TARP slush fund. Congress needs to reform the bankruptcy laws so that supposedly “too big to fail” companies can be restructured in an orderly way rather than bailed out or regulated to a slow death. Industries and companies that have been taken over need to fish or cut bait.

                                                4. Stop the stimulus and TARP - it hasn't worked (except in a very few instances), is not working and it is just money committed to spending that we can't afford with nothing to really show for it. It was an ill conceived idea to trickle out the money over a few years if it was suppose to help create jobs. Repay any that hasn't been spent to the deficit.

                                                4. As far a medicare and SS - give people options - put it on a 25-30 year budget that give older people the security that it will be there for them, and give the younger ones other options for their own financial security later on.

                                                5. Let the states have more of a say so in how they set up programs for health insurance programs and distribute the federal funds. Health insurance shouldn't be carte blanche for everyone - a sliding scale would be good and states need greater freedom and flexibility in implementing it.

                                                6. People ought to be able to buy insurance anywhere from state to state to get the best rates, and it should follow them. That would reduce rates

                                                7. Hiring freeze and pay freeze for government employees. Everybody else in our country is having to make due with less, so can they - and that goes for the White House, our Congress, and staff people as well. No more flying around on the taxpayer's dime for "fact finding" missions and junkets - like the 1 million + dollars that was spent in Copenhagen for 20 + members of Congress and their families ( 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each) Link - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/25/cbsnews_investigates/main6140406.shtml. It's just common sense.

                                                Just for starters. There is so much more that could be done.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #19.10 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:06 PM EST
                                                lisaed

                                                Vol--all good idears---is their a retiring dem in your district whose seat is up for grabs?

                                                • 4 votes
                                                #19.11 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:14 PM EST
                                                vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                I will respond to your post later, so check back, there may be a surprise in store for you...but right now, I've got some dogs that need to go out and dinner to fix.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #19.12 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:57 PM EST
                                                vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                I'm still waiting...there are some ideas and I am waiting for those who said we didn't have any answers to respond.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #19.13 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:41 PM EST
                                                US Citizen-658112

                                                I do not see anything even remotely similar to an "answer" being proposed here. The problems are on such an enormous scale, that there are going to be a LOT of answers, to a LOT of problems, long before anything like real improvement becomes apparent to the "real people" out here living in the mess. One area of the country may be helped by one answer, and another area needs a different one. I think the real answers will be coming up from below this time, not down from above......

                                                But we can continue to discuss it, so at more local levels, perhaps we can throw our votes behind whatever turns up that is reasonable, and possible, and have thought about it together beforehand due to discussions like these.....

                                                In my own opinion......

                                                  #19.14 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:32 PM EST
                                                  vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                  Yes, but you have to start somewhere. Giving states more freedom to implement things that work for them seems reasonable than saying one size fits all. Stopping the financial bleeding is one of the first things we ought to do, along with a hiring and pay freeze immediately...that is what we everyday people do: we look for ways to cut out waste and we quit spending so much and are more judicious about what we spend and where. Why can't our government do this? It really isn't rocket science.

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                  #19.15 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:09 AM EST
                                                  GoDux08

                                                  I say get rid of the foreign aid. How much of it is just wasted by the countries we give it to? It doesn't seem to help our reputation in the world much, anyway. We have enough people here that could use the money. Plus, we give billions in "foreign aid" to all the illegals living right here.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #19.16 - Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:00 AM EST
                                                  vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                  nope, it's not gonna happen like I thought Lisaed. Sorry.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #19.17 - Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:32 AM EST
                                                  Reply
                                                  scoggin

                                                  If Obama really needs a panel to confirm the deficit is way too big and needs to be addressed, then we're in big trouble. First the jobs summit, now this? Can this guy come up with an original thought? IMHO, the reason he's proposed doing this is to give himself political cover, so when everybody starts screaming about their ox getting gored, he'll be able to do what he does best - blame somebody else.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  Reply#20 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:46 AM EST
                                                  btco

                                                  If Obama really needs a panel to confirm the deficit is way too big and needs to be addressed, then we're in big trouble

                                                  If this is what the American people think after reading an article that clearly states otherwise, then we are in trouble.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #20.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:21 AM EST
                                                  Reply
                                                  trex-138069

                                                  Gee, what a great big surprise, the party of "no" and "can't" and "don't want anything except for you to fail" will reject a bipartisan task force? Having demonstrated for 8 years that they can't lead a country anywhere except straight over the nearest cliff, the Republicans are now doing what they do best -- sabotaging any attempts by anyone else to govern it. Clean up the mess they made? Sacrilege! That mess is their glorious monument.

                                                  The only thing that's a bigger surprise than that is seeing John McCain's lumpy face on a Sunday morning news show for what, the 20th time since he lost his race for the Presidency by a substantial margin? Remind me again what this guy has ever accomplished to merit so much attention to his opinions? Is he part of the Republican leadership? An expert on anything? Does he even seem to know what's going on most of the time.

                                                  Time to get rid of the filibuster, stop pretending that there's any possibility of bipartisanship with a party that obviously never intends to negotiate in good faith and just get done what needs to be done.

                                                    Reply#21 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:55 AM EST
                                                    scoggin

                                                    Trex - Not everybody agrees with you and the dems about "what needs to be done". I'm thankful the R's have said "no" to the healthcare takeover by government and the idiotic cap 'n trade idea. And don't come back with the R's have no ideas of their own. That's a load of crap the D's have been feeding to their sheep.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #21.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:04 AM EST
                                                    scoggin

                                                    And I'm not a McCain fan either. I hope he loses the R primary in Arizona this year, but I don't want him replaced by another democrat.

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #21.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:16 AM EST
                                                    ObamaTheLoser2012

                                                    This LOSER of a President Obama is doing a GREAT job of killing the economy and the country all by himself, he doesn't need any help from the Republicans?

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #21.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:32 AM EST
                                                    Reply
                                                    scoggin

                                                    Man of Knowledge

                                                    The deficits will never be cut until spending is tied directly to taxes. Currently there is no consequence to passing a spending bill but massive negative political consequences to cutting spending. If spending immediately raised taxes, spending bills would become harder to pass.

                                                    Man - You're onto something there. Can't argue with prospectively not spending what you don't have. The bigger problem, though, is how to fill in the deficit hole dug by Bush and getting deeper under BO. Do you think the country might be in the mood for a constitutional amendment limiting what congress can do with taxes and spending? Could be.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    Reply#22 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:58 AM EST
                                                    Man of Knowledge

                                                    gbail122

                                                    I don't think we need a constitutional ammendment. That is a very long drawn out process that has built in resistance to passing. Besides that, we have to maintain flexibility to do what needs to be done. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor we couldn't get the money together to mount a war effort or we couldn't fund some of the social programs that dragged us out of the Great Depression.

                                                    What we need is a clearly defined spending policy that ties taxes to spending. It has to start small because it could negatively affect the economy but over time its influence should increase. I suggest we start with the interest we pay on the national debt. If that increases then we increase taxes according to some proportional formula.

                                                    A big part of the huge deficits are the result of a depressed economy. Budgets and spending are based on expected revenue. If the economy bounces back and revenue increases a lot of the deficit predictions change. With a thriving economy and prudent spending policy the deficits can be repaid in a few years (maybe a decade).

                                                    War is very expensive, as is nation building. During WWII people were asked to sacrifice to get the job done. Taxes for the wealthy went up to the 90% range. We can't continue to nation build unless the citizens are committed enough to fork over the cash to do it.

                                                      #22.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:03 AM EST
                                                      Reply
                                                      Krankee

                                                      Isn't that about what we had in 2008?

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      Reply#23 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:22 AM EST
                                                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                                                      In 2008, we were losing about 70,000 jobs per month from the economy under GW and the Democratic controlled Congress!

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #23.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:34 AM EST
                                                      Reply
                                                      Midwestlady

                                                      How about killing pork spending in the legislation?

                                                      Example:

                                                      $2.7 Billion a year to the University of Nebraska Medical Center for studying surgery in space.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      Reply#24 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:06 AM EST
                                                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                                                      Not Ben Nelson? Oh my goodness!

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #24.1 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:33 AM EST
                                                      mountainmike-1199289

                                                      Yes, eliminating pork would be a very important gesture by our elected legislators to show they are tightening their belts along with the rest of the country. They could also forego their own "automatic" cost of living increase while in process in eliminating the "automatic" cost of living increase for social security recipients. However, it is a very small percent of the problem.

                                                      The bottom line: we need to think about MAJOR steps in the right direction, such as selling off most of our 750 military bases world wide.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #24.2 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:43 AM EST
                                                      Midwestlady

                                                      That little "pork" was in the stimulus bill. Along with Millions to individual states for rodent and weed (not marajuana) control.

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #24.3 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:55 AM EST
                                                      vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                      Over 20,000 earmarks in the spending bills last year - despicable!

                                                      • 3 votes
                                                      #24.4 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:09 PM EST
                                                      Reply
                                                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                                                      Slow recovery? You mean NO recovery under this LOSER of a President Obama and his administration!

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      Reply#25 - Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:29 AM EST
                                                      Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                      Leave a Comment:
                                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                      FUN STUFF:
                                                      • Leaderboard |
                                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                                      • The Greenhouse
                                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                                      • Code of Honor |
                                                      • Company Info |
                                                      • Contact Us |
                                                      • Jobs |
                                                      • User Agreement |
                                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                                      • About our ads
                                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com