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

Obama budget offers $1.1 trillion in deficit trims

Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:38 PM EST
business, politics, us, obama, barack-obama, budget
Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
In his weekly address President Barack Obama says the budget he's about to introduce will cut spending.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 8 photos
<p>In this photo released by NBC House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks about the 2012 budget on NBC's "Meet the Press" in Washington Sunday, Feb. 13, 2011. Boehner said he wants President Barack Obama to support Republican efforts to make deep cuts in this year's budget as a down payment in the effort to attack soaring deficits. He sent a letter to the President saying the path to prosperity for the country means "liberating our economy from the shackles of out-of-control government spending and big government."  (AP Photo/NBC, William B. Plowman)  NO ARCHIVES. NO SALES.</p>

In this photo released by NBC House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks about the 2012 budget on NBC's "Meet the Press" in Washington Sunday, Feb. 13, 2011. Boehner said he wants President Barack Obama to support Republican efforts to make deep cuts in this year's budget as a down payment in the effort to attack soaring deficits. He sent a letter to the President saying the path to prosperity for the country means "liberating our economy from the shackles of out-of-control government spending and big government." (AP Photo/NBC, William B. Plowman) NO ARCHIVES. NO SALES.

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, facing a determined effort by Republicans to attack soaring deficits, is putting forward his own plan that offers $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. One-third of the savings would come from higher taxes, including a revived effort to limit tax deductions for wealthy Americans.

But even before Obama's new budget for 2012 was unveiled on Monday, Republicans were complaining that it did not go far enough. They branded Obama's budget solutions as far too timid for a country facing an unprecedented flood of red ink that has pushed annual deficits to all-time highs above $1 trillion.

"We're broke," House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He was defending a Republican effort not only to squeeze more savings out of Obama's 2012 budget but also to seek $61 billion in cuts for the current budget year.

House Republicans, many of whom were elected on an anti-deficit pledge, forced their own leaders to nearly double the savings they will seek in the seven months left in the 2011 budget year. Congress has been unable to pass a budget for the current year, and the government has been operating on a stopgap spending bill that expires on March 11.

Jacob Lew, the president's budget director, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," refused to say what size cuts for 2011 would be acceptable to the administration. He stressed a desire to find a compromise that would avoid a government shutdown, something that last occurred during a protracted budget battle between Congress and the Clinton administration.

Obama's new budget will put forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Two-thirds of those savings would come from spending reductions including $400 billion in savings from a five-year freeze on spending in many domestic government agencies.

The other one-third of savings would come from tax increases. The biggest tax hike would come from a proposal to trim the deductions the wealthiest Americans can claim for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local tax payments. The administration proposed this tax hike last year but it never advanced because of widespread congressional opposition.

In addition to cutting deficits, Obama's new budget would increase spending in selected areas such as education, infrastructure spending and research and development — areas where the administration believes spending must be boosted for the country to remain competitive in the global economy.

Republicans have called these proposals nonstarters, saying the government can't afford spending increases and should only be debating how much to cut. They have also challenged Obama's five-year freeze on many domestic programs, saying that the president wants to freeze spending at 2010 levels, after two years of sizable spending gains. They are pushing to take spending back to 2008 levels, before spending ballooned in response to a deep recession.

"Americans don't want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. "They want cuts, dramatic cuts."

Boehner said that Obama's budget "will continue to destroy jobs by spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much."

Lew rejected criticism that the $1.1 trillion deficit-cutting goal fell far short of the $4 trillion in deficit cuts outlined by the president's own deficit commission in a plan unveiled last December. The commission urged an attack on the biggest causes of the deficits — spending on the benefit programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and defense spending.

Obama's budget avoided painful choices in those areas although it does call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle.

Administration officials said that the savings from limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers would be used to pay for keeping the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting more middle-class families over the next two years.

Another $62 billion in savings would be devoted to preventing cuts in payments to doctors in the Medicare program over the next two years. Congress has for several years blocked the cuts from taking effect, but the effort drove the deficits higher because lawmakers did not find offsetting savings.

While the administration's budget will propose freezing domestic programs that account for about one-tenth of the total budget, some programs in this category will also see sizable declines in spending.

Community development block grants would be trimmed by $300 million, the government's program to help low-income people pay their heating bills would be cut in half for a savings of $2.5 billion and a Great Lakes environmental restoration program would be cut by 25 percent to save $125 million.

The budget will propose $1 billion in cuts in grants for large airports, almost $1 billion in reduced support to states for water treatment plants and other infrastructure programs and savings from consolidating public health programs run by the Center for Disease Control and various U.S. Forest Service programs.

The administration will also propose saving $100 billion over a decade from Pell Grants and other higher education programs through belt-tightening, with the savings used to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the budget's Monday release.

The $1.1 trillion in savings would reduce the deficit as a percentage of the total economy to close to 3 percent of GDP by the middle of this decade. The deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to surge to an all-time high of $1.5 trillion this year, which would be 9.8 percent of the economy and mark the third consecutive $1 trillion-plus budget gap.

The surging deficits reflect the deep 2007-2009 recession, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of work and prompted massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and stabilize the banking system.

While Republicans scored significant victories in the November elections by attacking the soaring deficits, the administration has argued that the spending was needed to keep the country from falling into an even deeper economic slump.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Darlene Superville and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

© 2011 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:

  • Martin Crutsinger's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (141)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
differnet

And let the whinning begin. Americans are all happy to cut the budget, as long as it doesn't impact them. But God forbid we actually discuss raising taxes too. We are at a 60 year low on income taxes, but we can't possible raise taxes and cut the budget at the same time. I'll tell you who is going to get hurt. Children and the ill, with the disproportional cuts going to programs that will effect the quality of lives for American children - because they don't vote.

  • 16 votes
#1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:57 PM EST
Shugga-Shugga

In other words, take from the people and the poor while he collects the taxpayers money to live off of, and then put America in front of the firing squad.

Cutting military defense is the same as handing over American people to terrorists in foreign lands.

Odumbo needs to go. Actually, 99.9% of all our politicians need to go!

  • 12 votes
#1.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:21 PM EST
Hayte

Hey, the children and the ill have to tighten their belts like the rest of us. Let them suffer. It's not like they can do anything about it.

/sarcasm

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:22 PM EST
differnet

Wow. I wonder if you go to church, Shugga - probably just on Christmas and Easter (if that). Well, I hope you are never so unfortunate as to get ill. I bet you would be one of those whiners.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:59 PM EST
Beckyal

Charities should be not be government funded. Churches and individuals give charity and charities are those that give to the poor, sick and children. The government needs to get out of the business of being a charity. Its business is to provide defense, border protection, and limited items that all people not special interest groups. Taxes are not suppose to be redistribution of wealth but for protection of americans.

  • 6 votes
#1.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:18 PM EST
Minan59

Cutting military defense is the same as handing over American people to terrorists in foreign lands.

Can you provide a legitimate piece of documentation to support your statement or are you just talking out your backside?

The country spend nearly the same amount of money on defense as the rest of the world's nations combined. Cutting defense spending is the very first thing that should be done. We need to close every American military base on foreign soil. Let the other coutries pay for the own defense.

  • 16 votes
#1.5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:44 PM EST
Max-1313

Beckyal... We should then cut tax deductions to the churches, correct.

  • 7 votes
#1.6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:58 PM EST
vol fan in chatt, tn

why, max?

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:12 PM EST
BLOGER-486140

One of the provisions of the Constitution is a guarantee of Life. Given that wouldn't you think the government might have the legal right to be involved is some aspects of general welfare.

We spend twice as much per solder as our allied given that do you really think a modest cut in defense spending would seriously degrade our defense. I would think 500 billion could still buy incredible defense saving us 100 billion. Why is defense the golden cow with conservatives. Many Republicans are from farm states why aren't these hypocrites demanding the repeal of Farm Subsidies, Farmers Welfare.

If Republicans are so free market oriented how can they justify farm subsidies socialism. Yet you never hear a peep about this form of government welfare.

Republicans are using the budget issues to dismantle social welfare programs. This has absolutely nothing to do with saving money.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:30 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

And let the whinning begin. Americans are all happy to cut the budget, as long as it doesn't impact them. But God forbid we actually discuss raising taxes too. We are at a 60 year low on income taxes, but we can't possible raise taxes and cut the budget at the same time. I'll tell you who is going to get hurt. Children and the ill, with the disproportional cuts going to programs that will effect the quality of lives for American children - because they don't vote.

differnet: Good post.

And because they don't vote, Boehner will be going after them for spending cuts after catering to the millionaires, billionaires, billionaire corporations and military industrial complex.

Reagan and the two Bushes account for $9.2 trillion of our current national debt, over $11 trillion with interest added in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA

The formula for these three presidents over five terms in office has been tax cuts to millionaires/billionaires and excessive military spending. Those are the two sacred cows of the Republicans. We currently account for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending, after decades of spending more than all other countries combined for decades. Our closest current rival is China at just 6.6 percent. We have over 737 military bases and facilities world wide. There is no other nation that is even remotely-remotely close to that number. In perspective, our military expenses are over the top excessive by all normal standards.

As for the rich, we are talking about a war for national survival. Eisenhower in his two terms in office taxed the rich at about double our current rate. Why? There was a common attitude that we all had to sacrifice for the war for national survival. No one was supposed to get rich during that war, and sacrificing money was thought to be a minimal sacrifice compared to all of the soldiers that lost their lives and vets with serious disabilities. Eisenhower paid down most of the war/national debt as president

We are now in a war for national survival, or to be more precies national solvency. Millionaires and billionaires are rich due to the American infrastructure upon which they depend to be rich. They need to pay taxes in proportion to their profits. A recent Moody's studies shows conclusively that the rich save the money they get by way of tax cuts. In other words, there is no trickle down stimulus to the economy or jobs.

This is the greater perspective on wealth. The richest two percent of the world own a majority of the financial wealth while the poorest 80 percent own just seven percent. Most of those top two percent live in North America. And the disparity in America is as extreme as it was in 1929, the start of the Great Depression between the super rich and the rest of us.

The bottom line: if Republicans want to protect tax cuts to the millionaires, billionaires and protect the military from spending cuts, they have absolutely NO credibility to talk about spending cuts at all.

Veteran Republican legislators in Congress were happy to vote for all of the Bush spending that nearly doubled the national debt and nearly tripled the long term unfunded fiscal commitments while growing government/the fed payroll to gargantuan size. What we are witnessing right now is Republicans suddenly strutting around like spending cut experts when their track record shows the exact opposite.

  • 10 votes
#1.9 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:15 PM EST
Take that back.

John Boehner is an embarrassment to all Ohioans. He may cry easily but he has been in bed with those big business men and foreign counties that gave anonymously to the Chamber Of Commerce. John Boehner needs to talk about creating jobs in Ohio instead of repealing DADT and Roe /Wade. I think Boehner cries so easily because he has stocks in an handkerchief company and he is promoting the product.

Ohio really got some duds this election. Besides Boehner, the governor is a Big Business alumni and we still have Robert Latta who continues to ignore finding and create jobs but hangs on to inane issues that most Ohioans consider less vital than promoting industry, rapid rail system, and JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

MR. BOEHNER WERE ARE THE JOBS?

  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:35 PM EST
vol fan in chatt, tn

Guess you didn't hear...three days after they came in office the unemployment rate went down.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:45 AM EST
tommymaybewrongmayberight

and that is why 1.1 it will be so hard to cut anything, most amercians are for cutting the budget if it's nothing that affects them. It's why the pensions and entitlement programs that are bankrupting us never get cut. Has for taxes it's not about raising them, but I say evenly distributing them. I say an easy to understand flat tax will help us with are revenues coming in.

    #1.12 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:06 AM EST
    demmalition1

    Eisenhower in his two terms in office taxed the rich at about double our current rate

    It's more than double, actually:

    Today: 35%
    Eisenhower from 1953-1961: 91%

    So Eisenhower taxed at 2.6x the current rate.
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    • 3 votes
    #1.13 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:57 AM EST
    Davy-755715

    You had me all the way until the "flat tax", tommy. The ink wouldn't be dry on it before Boehner and his ilk would cry to exempt capital gains, inheritance, and municipal bonds from the rate, and those three would only be the start. The Democrats would want to have exemptions for the number of dependents, which is at least far more justifiable than more giveaways to the Haves. The point is, that the concept sounds great but would never happen.

      #1.14 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:12 PM EST
      Leafydebater

      I'm an Obama supporter and a democrat. I don't think that these cuts are enough.

      If you want to look long term, the more we can cut now, the more we can adapt to working with less when times get tough again. And I don't want to be property of China in 30 years.

      • 2 votes
      #1.15 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:16 PM EST
      PalmettoArmadillo

      No reduction until after his term is over. (actually they used the very optimistic words "first term" in one article I read on the subject) Perhaps the handwriting is on the walls of the White House. Obama is passing the buck to his successor. Much like they have all done. And trying to pass it off in a positive image. No real tough decisions made by this guy. They all play the same old game. Look like I"m doing something and pass the buck.

      Same for his health-care program, it doesn't even start saving money for a couple of years. So they say! (After the con man is long gone with his loot)

      The only thing they know how to do is spend next weeks paycheck before they have even made it. The car (Economy) is broken down in the driveway (America) with no way to get to work (Jobs). They just keep hitching a ride with the Chinese. The Chino's want some gas money! Or the equivalent! They just can't grasp the concept of a "Balanced Budget".

      • 1 vote
      #1.16 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:09 PM EST
      Pacific Northwest Blogger

      The Defense Department won the future, or at least the budget

      If this is a fiscally responsible budget, then cutting $500 billion -- forget $800 billion -- from the Defense Department would've opened room for much more domestic investment. It also could've gone to pay down the debt. As it is, we're pumping that money into sustaining a fighting force that's orders of magnitude larger than anything retained by any other country.

      • 3 votes
      #1.17 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:17 PM EST
      Reply
      Jobe-Deleted
      Buckeye Voter

      Cutting Pell Grants more than military spending? WTF? Neither party is actually taking this seriously, are they?

      • 12 votes
      Reply#3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:08 PM EST
      Skup

      The whole discussion is nothing more than campaign bullet points for future elections. Propose something you know will never happen just to make the other side say no.

      • 3 votes
      #3.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 PM EST
      Beckyal

      Pell grants need to go, we have spending money on education for 50 years and have only gone down in education compared to rest of the world. You need to earn something to appreciate it. If you are given something you don't appreciate it which is what has happened with education, houses, etc.

      • 7 votes
      #3.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:37 PM EST
      Buckeye Voter

      Pell grants need to go, we have spending money on education for 50 years and have only gone down in education compared to rest of the world.

      Cutting access to higher education will improve our relative scholastic standing? How's that work?

      • 11 votes
      #3.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:23 PM EST
      Max-1313

      Because republican governors take the federal education money to balance their budgets to pay for more tax cuts.

      • 5 votes
      #3.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:04 PM EST
      Brian White

      Cutting access to higher education will improve our relative scholastic standing? How's that work?

      Right now the US university system has astronomical prices because more and more of the cost is third party payers in the form of student loans. That allows them to divorce their prices from the market. Remove the third party payment piece and maybe colleges can return to their core job of education, and cut costs.

      • 4 votes
      #3.5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:50 PM EST
      Over Seas

      I sort of thought the tuition prices were increasing because they needed to find new and exciting ways to build fancier and larger football stadiums, basketball arenas, etc. ;)

      When I went to college, they had a fairly significant cost increase in 2 of the 4 years and the 2nd one, not suprisingly, was coupled with the announcement that they were going to expand/upgrade the football stadium. Coincidence?

      • 6 votes
      #3.6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:03 PM EST
      RcR-2828649

      Well Becky, I am so glad even the dumbest of Politicians would never do this.

      If you remember education was one of the first Socialist policies our forefathers introduced and in the beginning education was financed by the wealthy as were almost all programs when our Country was young. Kinda funny that in the beginning only the wealthy paid taxes and soon, if the T-baggpublicans get their way will pay nothing!

      We need educated Americans no matter what many numbers crunchers say, it may be hard to put numbers to education but it is not hard to see what no education does...

      • 5 votes
      #3.7 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:13 PM EST
      vol fan in chatt, tn

      Because republican governors take the federal education money to balance their budgets to pay for more tax cuts.

      Uh, really? None of that EVEN makes sense.

      • 1 vote
      #3.8 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:15 PM EST
      RcR-2828649

      overseas;

      Sorry you were not physically able to be a jock but my son was and was able to go to college on a football scholarship but make no mistake, you didn't pay for a pencil for a jock, the Football programs are self supporting except for the new programs but Football generates at least as much money as tuition does in most schools and far more then some programs.

      The student athlete is self supporting so maybe you could just get off their backs and do a little research before opening your Gator...

        #3.9 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:19 PM EST
        wjm5-0

        'Uh really? None of that EVEN makes sense.'

        This statement shows just how successful the Republicans are in controlling the will of their supporters. Imagine, they actually campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs. How soon we forget, unless wanting to make Obama a one term persident is more important than the needs of the majority of americans.

        The Republicans know that they will need to find something to cut to answer for that big tax cut for the wealthy. Duh.

        It ain't rocket science.

        To attack education spending is a cowardly way to answer for that giveaway.

        Who in this country wants and needs a dumbed-down electorate who cannot understand even the most menial ways in which their government is legislating against the will of the people?

        I'll give you one guess. Fox New is good at what they do to keep the rightwing emotionally stressed through fear and lies, but if the Republicans can get a chance to affect mis-educating the public through budget cuts, then all they need is fear and lies to get the support of their voters. A guarantee that their arrogant a$$es are looking forward to for future hopes in staying in power in this country, FOREVER!!!

        Question: "Why do you vote for Republicans?

        Answer: "Cause massah said so....."

        I intend to commit civil disobedience.

        • 3 votes
        #3.10 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:45 PM EST
        Over Seas

        Sorry you were not physically able to be a jock ...

        RcR, you need to pull your pants up. Your assumption is showing.

        ...but my son was and was able to go to college on a football scholarship but make no mistake, you didn't pay for a pencil for a jock, the Football programs are self supporting except for the new programs but Football generates at least as much money as tuition does in most schools and far more then some programs.

        Of course they do. How else do you pay the multi-million dollar coaching contracts? Or the multi-million dollar AD salary? Everyone knows that football is the cash cow. It is simply my experience that tuition increases went hand in hand with a new stadium/upgrades. The team was D-1, but not in a top conference, so it isn't as if they were on TV all the time or going to bowl games every year. Where did those 10's of millions come from?

        The student athlete is self supporting so maybe you could just get off their backs and do a little research before opening your Gator...

        I'm not riding the athletes backs. Re-read my statements. The decision to build a new stadium isn't driven by the athletes. I also didn't say anything about funding the athletes scholarships. You draw a lot of conclusions where there are none to find.

        • 3 votes
        #3.11 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:08 PM EST
        Pacific Northwest Blogger

        All higher education systems are for profit, even the state run Universities need to manage to the bottom line.

        Perhaps it's time to have a realistic national discussion on what we want from our educational system to compete in this century and beyond. China and India now have higher rated technical universities that here in the United States. At what point do we stop selling out our childrens future and instead ensure they have the tools to compete and have an actual future?

        Are there alternative ways of funding our schools that don't require serfdom to a line of credit, that aren't based on a lottery system or lottery sales, where can develop a strong nation of intelligent and self reliant adults?

        • 6 votes
        #3.12 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:38 PM EST
        vol fan in chatt, tn

        Rep governors take the federal education money to balance their budgets to pay for more tax cuts.

        wjm, no, it doesn't make sense. Here's why:

        First, federal money is designated, if it is designated to go to education, that is where it HAS to go.

        Secondly, if he was talking stimulus money that went to the states; yes, many states used the stimulus money to balance their budget and guess where much of that went? To bloated state pension funds (union and otherwise).

        http://www.publicsectorinc.com/psi_articles/2011/02/state-and-municipal-debt-the-coming-crisis.html

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/politics/05states.html?

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02showdown.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

        thirdly, do tell, what states have given tax "cuts"? They are taxing everything that breathes, moves, or doesn't. As a matter of fact, it appears that more states have RAISED taxes to cover the budget shortfalls.

        http://www.taxfoundation.org/

        As I said, that post made no sense. And you bloviating about Fox news is bizarre, to say the least.

        Question: "Why do you vote for Republicans?

        Answer: "Cause massah said so....."

        I intend to commit civil disobedience.

        No shock there. It usually is those on the left that resort to such tactics.

        • 2 votes
        #3.13 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:14 AM EST
        Buckeye Voter

        First, federal money is designated, if it is designated to go to education, that is where it HAS to go.

        Governors will often ask to use those funds for a different purpose. Funds for the Bridge to Nowhere? Used for something else and not returned to the federal reserve. Gov. Kasich asked to use high speed rail funds for something unrelated, and was told, "no."

        The OMB has to keep a close eye on this, because state governors lack the ethics needed to use federal resources properly.

        • 3 votes
        #3.14 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:02 PM EST
        Reply
        Phazfun

        How much more pain must "we the people" endure? Took our jobs, took our home values and made 401k's way behind what they could have been so government took that away also. Government stole our money with the fake bailout from GWB which caused us to loose the above using our tax dollars for all of our losses. So we lost twice!

        I get a state tax return that I paid taxes on and I have to claim that as income again? This is government at work and taxation without representation. My senators don't even write back to anyone I know or myself. Where is the tea party complaining about this?

        We already lost twice as I said and have been loosing in our states now with less services our tax dollars were meant for, fire, police, infrastructure etc because of their cry for budget problems I don't know where they came from. Property taxes not being paid for by bank owned properties or something? No one explain where the problem came from. So now we lost 3 times. what did government lose except credibility.

        Our sales taxes went up to pay for police and fire or it went to the general fund where our mayor get taxes to pay for his catered lunches? Now we lost 4 times!

        Government broke the deficit clock and are going to make us all pay for it 5 times now with this added pain from war that were unfounded? I'm tired of complaining but what else is one to do? Like I said my senators don't even listen unless it's election time.

        We are constantly paying for non transparency and no accountability. Just for government not to feel a thing from their behavior? There are no words of how I feel about this!

        From the preamble "promote the general Welfare" now means "put all people on welfare"!

        • 5 votes
        Reply#4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:09 PM EST
        trex-138069

        I'm not sure just what all of this means, but I can guarantee you this: the budget cuts that Republicans want will put lots more people out of work. And that will not exactly decrease the burden on the public.

        • 9 votes
        #4.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:14 PM EST
        Phazfun

        trex,

        You are correct it will put more people out of work. Get rid of their pensions and premium health care, might be a start so it doesn't lose more jobs. Calf alone:

        "lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June '08 to June '09) and are currently in shortfall of "more than half a trillion dollars."

        Imagine what we could save in the fed budget.

        Means if the government talks poor it's an open page to raise taxes, but they do it now and bottom falls out. Guess that's why the states are raising them. That isn't helping me though.

        • 5 votes
        #4.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:19 PM EST
        Beckyal

        What has happened to state budgets are the unfunded manadates that the federal government has imposed on states. Everytime the federal government gives away more welfare they increase the unfunded manadates. In addition state governments have increase their own welfare give aways. All spending both state and federal needs to walked back to 2001 levels regardless and see what happens.

        • 4 votes
        #4.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:41 PM EST
        cdee12120

        I just read an article about states having to file bankruptcy to shed themselves of their ridiculous state pension programs strangling their budgets.. astronomical payouts..the problem the states and the US senate especially.. everyone is in on the take...

        • 4 votes
        #4.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:59 PM EST
        vol fan in chatt, tn

        yep, cdee.

        • 2 votes
        #4.5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:17 PM EST
        RcR-2828649

        Oh bunk,stop repeating far right extremist babble as though it were news and true.

        Nice try, maybe the people you hang with don't fact check and believe everything told them or omit facts to suit your complaint.

        FACT: the Federal Government does NOT tax your state refund as income unless it was deducted from your income and you paid in excess of what you owed.

        If the income you wrote off comes back to bite you blame whoever told the taxman what to put on the tax return.

        A computer is no smarter then the person who programmed it, you tax return is no smarter then you.

        • 4 votes
        #4.6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:32 PM EST
        Clint-746036

        everyone is in on the take...

        Proof and names, please.

        • 3 votes
        #4.7 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:21 PM EST
        Phazfun

        RcR-2828649

        FACT: the Federal Government does NOT tax your state refund as income unless it was deducted from your income and you paid in excess of what you owed.

        Never said that. State taxes you twice, where you see fed in what was supposedly read by you?

        I get a state tax return that I paid taxes on and I have to claim that as income again?

        It's government at work taxing you and taxing you again. Then they see if they can tax you again.

          #4.8 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:49 AM EST
          Phazfun

          RcR-2828649

          Oh bunk,stop repeating far right extremist babble as though it were news and true.

          Please inform us what isn't true.

            #4.9 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:54 AM EST
            Phazfun

            Put the employees of government on Social Security. End of story and no budget problems. You run for office and serve 4 years you get pension and SS, no more dang it!!

            One example just in Cali where they make 100k in their pensions.

              #4.10 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:57 AM EST
              Phazfun

              Beckyal

              What has happened to state budgets are the unfunded mandates that the federal government has imposed on states. Every time the federal government gives away more welfare they increase the unfunded mandates

              So budget woes are only due to the fed paying for more welfare? OMG. They tacking on the unemployed also along with the tax cuts to the rich that were unfunded? Punish the states (we the people) for the feds blunders, typical and needs to end.

              Let's walk like an Egyptian.

              • 1 vote
              #4.11 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:44 PM EST
              Reply
              Smokie-788412

              Save us all some time and energy, just send the Presidents budget back to the President for him to reform. He seems to like to reform everything he gets his sticky fingers on. Since he and the Democrats didn't bother to come up with a budget for 2011 why send us one now?

              • 2 votes
              Reply#5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:10 PM EST
              Bosslimo

              You are not well informed.

              But, I want to address the reform you mentioned. You see, anything the president does will not be good enough. The "Make Obama Fail" campaign will not allow anything the president does to pass. They can send it back to the president indefinately, it will never be good enough. I dare you to find one republican to say Obama was satisfactory on anything. 85% of his promises where completed in one year but not a single republican can say anything good about him.

              From killing grandma, death panels, socalist accusations, muslim accusations... all part of the make him fail campaign. Blinding the right with anything but facts is the only way a failed republican party can compete with him. Repeal and Replace, but no idea what to replace it with, no policies mentioned, no litigations in the House. ZERO ideas but the same old song, let big business run rampant, they will hire (yet sit on trillions of dollars in profit with 9% unemployment), cut taxes (yet, they are at 1950s level already), you getting the picture yet?

              America elected a president, but standing behind patriotism, the conservatives and thier big business allies have shanghied the country in hopes of regaining the power they had.

              • 7 votes
              #5.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:06 PM EST
              vol fan in chatt, tn

              smokie is informed, apparently you aren't:

              http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget

              http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-14/democrats-unlikely-to-pass-budget-in-face-of-spiraling-deficits.html

              • 3 votes
              #5.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:22 PM EST
              mountainmike-1199289

              Are Republicans willing to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich or cut the military spending in half??? No.

              HYPOCRISY!!!

              If the Republicans had their way, billionaire individuals and corporations would be indulging themselves in multiple mansions, stretch limos, private jets, yachts, etc... as the country goes insolvement and the rest of us have to persevere through extremely hard times.

              • 6 votes
              #5.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:22 PM EST
              vol fan in chatt, tn

              hullo, you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession. And yes, they are cutting the defense budget.

              mansions, stretch limos, private jets, yachts, etc... as the country goes insolvement and the rest of us have to persevere through extremely hard times.

              LOL, You mean like Al Gore, Queen Nancy, John Kerry, etc.??

              1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million
              2. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million
              3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million
              4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million
              5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million
              6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.); $70.2 million
              7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million
              8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million
              9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million
              10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million

              http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116489-wealthy-lawmakers-increased-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009-

              237 millionaires in Congress as of Nov 2009:

              http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

              Yep, time for them to start doing some sacrificing, don't you agree?

              • 2 votes
              #5.4 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:23 AM EST
              mountainmike-1199289

              I mean America currently accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending. Our closest rival is China at just 6.6 percent. And this is down from spending more on the military than all other countries combined for decades. We have 734 military bases and facilities world wide. No other country is even remotely-remotely close.

              We could cut defense spending in half and still be spending over three times more than our closest rival.

              Then we have two multi trillion dollar quagmires in the Mideast helping to bankrupting us. I just saw a news story at McClatchy about Black and Veatch despite poor quality work getting yet another countract to build a hydroelectric plant in Afghanistan.

              http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/14/108625/us-firm-with-poor-ratings-hired.html.

              Excuse me for noticing, but America is squandering trillions of our dollars in the Mideast, all for the greater profits of the military industrial complex. How about we take the military industrial complex off of corporate welfare?!

              • 3 votes
              #5.5 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:04 PM EST
              Auto 101

              Do You really think china reports truthfully what they spend on their military we have 1.6 million military they have 2.3 million the have almost the same nuclear subs and far more tanks and mechanised equipment China is also building its long range missile/ space program. I really think they have the most truthful Government don't you think. No other nation has a better country they are more educated than any American and they do it on one 1/8 of our budget. they never lie.

                #5.6 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:03 PM EST
                Reply
                trex-138069

                I've served on a condo board and seen this on a smaller scale. "Why aren't our services better? Why do you have to raise our fees?" It is absolutely hopeless to try to explain the inherent flaw in this logic. When a co-owner orates and length about how the members have spoken and they want to pay less, any question about what they would cut from the budget it more likely to provoke angry shouting than to produce usable suggestions.

                The Republicans made their promises to their constituents. Now let them get themselves out of the corner they've painted themselves into. Should be fun to watch.

                • 8 votes
                Reply#6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:13 PM EST
                Auto 101

                Condo board I remember my parents board raised the fee form $26 to $250 because they had no money. Home owner association's are more crouped than the Government.

                  #6.1 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:07 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Phazfun

                  differnet

                  And let the whinning begin.

                  Know where you can put that comment?

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#7 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:14 PM EST
                  trex-138069

                  That picture of Boehner is priceless, by the way. He looks as though he's bawling like a baby, and well he might, now that he realizes how difficult it will be to deliver the budget cuts he promised without finding an angry mob with pitchforks at his door.

                  • 6 votes
                  Reply#8 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:15 PM EST
                  Jim-Evolu

                  Cut defense, that's where all the money went

                  • 8 votes
                  Reply#9 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:27 PM EST
                  Rhazes

                  An estimated 1.1 to 1.35 trillion was spent on defense in 2010 and politicians can only come up with 78 billion in MIC cuts over 10 years.

                  I'm sure if we are ever invaded 6-8 months later when Afghani stormtroopers show up on barges malnourished and dehydrated with slingshots and clubs it will be worth every penny.

                  • 7 votes
                  #9.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:44 PM EST
                  Clint-746036

                  What! Why cut one of the few things the federal government is actually chartered to do?

                  Get rid of all government grants, earmarks and other forms of pork then watch the role of the federal government fundamentally change as it shrinks.

                  • 3 votes
                  #9.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:25 PM EST
                  Brian White

                  Why cut? Because the US defense budget equals the defense budgets of every other nation on the planet put together. Do you think they're all going to invade us at once?

                  • 5 votes
                  #9.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:48 PM EST
                  Clint-746036

                  Do you think they're all going to invade us at once?

                  Probably not the ones we are using that money to defend.

                  Do you have the numbers that go along with your statement that our budget equals all the other defense budgets put together?

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:08 PM EST
                  The Gunshark

                  That's the simplest cut you could make. Slash defense by $300 to $500 billion by ending the wars and cutting the Pentagon budget.

                  A massive chunk of the money we are using is going to Cold War-era weapons and projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

                  Get rid of all government grants, earmarks and other forms of pork then watch the role of the federal government fundamentally change as it shrinks.

                  Congratulations! You've just saved... virtually no money.

                  Never mind that eliminating stuff like Pell Grants will do further damage to the economy by forcing more students into crushing amounts of debt.

                  That's the Republican mantra, though. No plan. No logic. No reason. The idea that we should cut something that consumes very little money and actually helps people first over contracts for endless war is bats#$% crazy.

                  I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but I've never seen Nancy Pelosi completely sidetrack into bulls#$% issues like abortion or gay marriage. Those side issues will die out when my generation takes over the government.

                  • 4 votes
                  #9.5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:21 PM EST
                  Clint-746036

                  You've just saved... virtually no money.

                  Interesting math...care to explain?

                  • 3 votes
                  #9.6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:39 PM EST
                  mountainmike-1199289

                  Brian White:

                  Good post. Its not about a strong defense. Its about contracts for all of the multi billionaire military industrial complex corporations. Think of all the things that are proposed for cuts here while we build power plants, pipelines, etc in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we always hand out taxpayer money to Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, etc...

                  • 2 votes
                  #9.7 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:11 PM EST
                  Auto 101

                  perhaps we should cut our NATO spending after all we supply 20% of their troops and 25% of their budget.

                    #9.8 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:10 PM EST
                    Brian White

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

                    Rank Country Military expenditure, 2009[2] % of GDP, 2008
                    United States 663,255,000,000
                    China 98,800,000,000
                    United Kingdom 69,271,000,000
                    France 67,316,000,000
                    Russian Federation 61,000,000,000
                    ...

                      #9.9 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:40 PM EST
                      Minan59

                      Looks like we could cut $400,000,000,000 from the defense budget and spend more than twice what the next country does on defense.

                        #9.10 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:43 PM EST
                        Clint-746036

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

                        Rank Country Military expenditure, 2009[2] % of GDP, 2008
                        United States 663,255,000,000
                        China 98,800,000,000
                        United Kingdom 69,271,000,000
                        France 67,316,000,000
                        Russian Federation 61,000,000,000

                        Wikipedia??? Do you have a reliable source?

                          #9.11 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:33 PM EST
                          Brian White

                          Yes, wikipedia.

                          Why? Do you have a source that disagrees with it?

                          If you want the same data from another url, here ya go:

                          http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php

                          I think both of them use most of the same sources though:

                          * "World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers," a series of annual reports produced by the US government,
                          * the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
                          * the CIA's World Factbook 2003, and
                          * IISS's The Military Balance: 2002--2003.

                          • 1 vote
                          #9.12 - Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:13 PM EST
                          Reply
                          madvargr

                          $78 Billion in cuts for war while education gets $100 Billion.

                          This @!$%#ing hell hole of a nation spends more Goddamn money on war than all the rest of the countries on Earth combined. How much is @!$%#ing enough???

                          Anything to give tax cuts for billionaires and welfare for defense contractors, huh? @!$%#ing America deserves its fate.

                          • 11 votes
                          Reply#10 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:48 PM EST
                          mountainmike-1199289

                          I agree. @!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing@!$%#ing!!!

                          • 2 votes
                          #10.1 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:13 PM EST
                          Auto 101

                          Then get a job and pay for your own education like the rest of us did. my parents made too much money to get any help so I paid for it myself. get a job! Are you afraid to obtain you own future? Or does someone have to give it to you?

                            #10.2 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:13 PM EST
                            Hayte

                            Then get a job and pay for your own education like the rest of us did.

                            Maybe you have been under a rock..in a cave...on Mars. There are no jobs. Remember? Unemployment? Have you read the news? Please get up to speed before you embarrass yourself by posting ignorance.

                            my parents made too much money to get any help so I paid for it myself.

                            Neat-o that you did it in a time when there WERE JOBS!! There are no jobs to get. That's the problem! Get it?

                            get a job!

                            What job? Where? Just writing it down doesn't produce jobs.

                            Are you afraid to obtain you own future?

                            Hey, another self important sentiment supplied by a self involved thought process...weeee.

                            Or does someone have to give it to you?

                            Get over yourself.

                            • 1 vote
                            #10.3 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:27 PM EST
                            Auto 101

                            Maybe you have been under a rock..in a cave...on Mars. There are no jobs. Remember? Unemployment? Have you read the news? Please get up to speed before you embarrass yourself by posting ignorance.

                            O yea my brother just spent his longest time looking for a job in Reno 3 weeks and yes he is in school. No jobs then look in different areas I spent 1 day looking for a job when I went to school I went for security instead of a job in the Auto category My class mates spent 3 months looking for a job at Jiff. 2009 I spent 4 hours looking for a job had 3 offers and 2 others called back two months latter that 4 hours includes lunch also. no jobs indeed.

                            What job? Where? Just writing it down doesn't produce jobs.

                            Its called looking they are there.

                            Neat-o that you did it in a time when there WERE JOBS!! There are no jobs to get. That's the problem! Get it?

                            My brother is doing it now.

                              #10.4 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:04 PM EST
                              Hayte

                              O yea my brother just spent his longest time looking for a job in Reno 3 weeks and yes he is in school.

                              Huzzah for your brother in f-ing Reno. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but Nevada isn't America. Look at a map if you don't believe that.

                              No jobs then look in different areas I spent 1 day looking for a job when I went to school I went for security instead of a job in the Auto category My class mates spent 3 months looking for a job at Jiff.

                              *boggle* So, your solution is to find a job somewhere else. Thanks for your stupid suggestion. It sucks.

                              2009 I spent 4 hours looking for a job had 3 offers and 2 others called back two months latter that 4 hours includes lunch also.

                              Big deal. You are posting to pet your ego. It's ugly.

                              no jobs indeed.

                              And, because you assert your point on the internet, it somehow changes reality for everyone. That is an amazing ego you have there.

                              Its called looking they are there.

                              Assertion.

                              My brother is doing it now.

                              Your BROTHER in NEVADA doesn't represent all areas of America. Nor does his situation transfer or represent every applicant. Does that make sense to you?

                              Your view is self important, self aggrandizing and honestly, obtuse. You aren't America. Your brother isn't America. And, your solution is to "find a job somewhere else". Which is stupid.

                              You don't live where I do. You don't share the same skills. You don't live in the same market. And, neither does your brother. And to hold the entire country to that standard is...well...self important.

                              • 1 vote
                              #10.5 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:29 PM EST
                              Auto 101

                              Yes it is everyones fault but your own that you don't have a job. And I suppose you are right Nevada has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. everyone else has to have the Government to live or everyone in America will starve to death. I have to have the Government to succeed in life because someone else is preventing me from succeeding in life.

                              • 1 vote
                              #10.6 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:44 PM EST
                              Hayte

                              Yes it is everyones fault but your own that you don't have a job.

                              It's like talking to a chunk of cheese.

                              And I suppose you are right Nevada has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation.

                              Chedder.

                              everyone else has to have the Government to live or everyone in America will starve to death.

                              Brie?

                              I have to have the Government to succeed in life because someone else is preventing me from succeeding in life.

                              Swiss.

                              Whatever dude. You can judge everyone based on your personal experience but, it holds no water. I reject your example, I don't care about your magnanamous brother and I don't care you. Your example isn't universal. You can judge everyone like it is, but, it is just you bragging and congratulating yourself. Which is in very poor taste and shows exactly what kind of an American you are...an oppotunist.

                                #10.7 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:18 PM EST
                                Auto 101

                                Have fun blaming everyone.

                                • 1 vote
                                #10.8 - Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:02 AM EST
                                Hayte

                                Way to vote for yourself.

                                  #10.9 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:17 PM EST
                                  Auto 101

                                  Vote for myself? what are u smoking?

                                    #10.10 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:02 AM EST
                                    Hayte

                                    Vote for myself?

                                    's a joke. nm.

                                    what are u smoking?

                                    Your pride is probably more of a factor in your failure in understanding the reality of your surroundings than ANYTHING I could find to smoke.

                                    Now that our exchange has deteriorated into the issue being "You and I", We are done. We are off topic. Any posts from here on out will consist of attacks and I'm not down.

                                    Happy posting.

                                      #10.11 - Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:10 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Ontolodox

                                      Republicans rejected that appraisal, castigating Obama for proposals that will boost spending in such areas as education, public works and research, and charging that Obama's cuts are not deep enough.

                                      Why am I not surprised that Republicans would take offense to spending in those three areas?

                                      • 5 votes
                                      Reply#11 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:48 PM EST
                                      AlphaDogReporter

                                      One thing for sure, it's a pain listening to the GOP.

                                      • 4 votes
                                      Reply#12 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:49 PM EST
                                      Over Seas

                                      Read the article closely. The President's budget proposal seeks to reduce deficit spending by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. That is NOT the same thing as reducing the debt.

                                      Please note that the deficit for 2012 is projected at $1.5 trillion... and the TOTAL deficit savings for the next 10 years is ONLY $1.1 trillion.

                                      To say that the proposed cuts don't go deep enough is laughable. Of COURSE they don't go deep enough. It would appear that the government is entirely populated with fools. Fools who don't have the first clue about balancing a budget. Fools who don't care about balancing a budget. Fools who only seek reelection.

                                      Enjoy your reelection. There won't be much of a country left to govern if these deficits continue for too much longer.

                                      • 5 votes
                                      Reply#13 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:51 PM EST
                                      vol fan in chatt, tn

                                      bingo. I was wondering when someone would finally figure that part out. We aren't cutting the debt, just the amount of new debt we are adding to the existing debt!

                                      • 2 votes
                                      #13.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:25 PM EST
                                      The Gunshark

                                      To say that the proposed cuts don't go deep enough is laughable. Of COURSE they don't go deep enough. It would appear that the government is entirely populated with fools. Fools who don't have the first clue about balancing a budget. Fools who don't care about balancing a budget. Fools who only seek reelection.

                                      There's an easier solution, in addition to some spending cuts.

                                      Bite the bullet and pay the hell up on your taxes. Give up your unpaid-for tax cut that will simply add to the deficit and stuff my generation with the bill.

                                      Problem solved. See how easy it is when you apply logic to a situation?

                                      • 3 votes
                                      #13.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:24 PM EST
                                      es_shoes

                                      gunshark, that still won't help get spending under control... you don't give an alcoholic half his normal drinks and call it a success. You cut it out completely.

                                        #13.3 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:55 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        babina

                                        Weren't the supposedly fiscally responsibl­e Ryan and Boehner, along with many other conservatives, in congress from 2001 to 2006? Where were they then? Oh yeah, voting YEA on every spending bill that came through congress including including two tax cuts for the wealthy, one war, one invasion and occupation­, Medicare Advantage, No Child Left Behind, and every other spending bill the republican­s passed that was not paid for, which was ALL of them. Budget hawk Ryan didn't seem to have a problem when the wars were left off the books either....­.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        Reply#14 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:07 PM EST
                                        Over Seas

                                        2007 - $165 billion deficit

                                        2012 - $1.5 trillion deficit

                                        AND the 2007 number is historical, so it includes what would have then been the "off the books" items. The same tax bracket applies to the wealthy in both years, we have less of a presence in Iraq now (meaning less funding headed that way). What exactly are we doing that creates 10x the deficit?

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #14.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:32 PM EST
                                        Minan59

                                        Budget hawk Ryan didn't seem to have a problem when the wars were left off the books either....­.

                                        He didn't have a problem voting for the Wall Street bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy either!

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #14.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:49 PM EST
                                        cdee12120

                                        I don't know where you are getting these figures but according to the US Treasury.gov In September of 2000, when George Bush was rounding his first year in office the national debt was 5,674,178,209,886.86-------by 2008 the end of GWB's term the debt was 10,024,724,896,912.49...currently the debt stands at 13,561,623,030,891.79

                                        If Obama is looking to cut 1 trillion... in debt per year..by the end of his second term we will be looking at close to 8 trillion dollar debt.. get ready for some tight years ahead... 48,53 and 78 were difficult years ...all have one thing in common.. post war...

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #14.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:50 PM EST
                                        Over Seas

                                        If Obama is looking to cut 1 trillion... in debt per year..by the end of his second term we will be looking at close to 8 trillion dollar debt..

                                        This will never happen. This would require finding an additional... 800-900 billion in funds every single year. Considering that the 2012 budget is carrying a $1.5 Trillion deficit, that means they need to find spending cuts and raise taxes to the tune of $2.4 trillion in 2012 alone. Remember, according the to article, he is looking to reduce the deficit (not the debt) by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. This amounts to reducing the annual deficit by $110 billion per year... which leaves us saddled with $1.39 trillion in 2013, $1.28 trillion in 2014, etc. additional deficits per year, based on 2012 spending????

                                        So in 2020, when the US total debt is $30 trillion... oh never mind. I'll use a little word from my Green friends - unsustainable.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #14.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:25 PM EST
                                        Brian White

                                        If Obama is looking to cut 1 trillion... in debt per year..

                                        Deficit <> debt. Please learn this. The article says quite clearly that the plan will lead to a paltry 1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over an entire decade. The plan says nothing about paying down our debt.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #14.5 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:44 PM EST
                                        RcR-2828649

                                        $9 trillion out of 11 worth of debt is attributed to Reagan and the Bush's two.

                                        Its far harder to actually Govern then it is to make speeches people like to hear.

                                        Cut spending sounds lovely as does tax breaks but what sort of America will we have if we make all these cuts to spending without paying for them.

                                        Right now we know the "wealthy" who got the huge tax cuts you and I will have to pay for they did NOT produce jobs,it just put more money in the pockets or the wealthy on the backs of the working middle class.

                                        This huge tax cuts for the wealthy were promised to do what? Produce jobs is what all the wacko's said, DIDN'T HAPPEN!

                                        The first thing Republicans were going to do was what? Produce jobs, what happened?

                                        The Tpublicans still have not worked on producing jobs and they say they have made headway so does that mean the Democratic policies worked and are working, It's the only way because the T-publicans have not produced any sort of Jobs bill.

                                        Like I said earlier, it's easier to obstruct and complain then to govern...

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #14.6 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:59 PM EST
                                        Over Seas

                                        Cut spending sounds lovely as does tax breaks but what sort of America will we have if we make all these cuts to spending without paying for them.

                                        First of all, you don't have to pay for spending cuts. Cuts = money you no longer spend.

                                        Secondly, I would prefer an America that isn't indebted to foreign governments in order to continue to operate. At some point, those foreign interests will either pull the plug (stopping the cash flow) or call in some of their IOU's. I've said this before, but if you thought the financial crisis in 2007-2009 was tough, watch what happens when the entire Fedral government becomes insolvent. Will the police keep doing their jobs for free? Teachers?

                                        The first thing Republicans were going to do was what? Produce jobs, what happened?

                                        I suppose this is fair, because the right badgered Obama after day 1 for not fixing the economy instantly. Congress has been in session less than 1 month, so obvious rhetoric aside (and to echo what the left said to counter the Obama attacks) - they haven't had enough time yet. 2012 elections will determine if they did a good job with this or not.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #14.7 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:43 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        Ozark Mountain Sage

                                        The Republicans will now put together a 2012 budget that will not in any way help to balance the overall budget. It will be the spend, spend, spend, Republican budget. The Republicans will of course as usual move the money from the programs that serve the poor and middle class to the tax cuts for the rich.

                                        • 8 votes
                                        Reply#15 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:18 PM EST
                                        cdee12120

                                        good luck.. they will loose the house and senate in 2012... vote em in and vote em out...even the dumbest amongst us are starting to pay attention..

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #15.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:53 PM EST
                                        vol fan in chatt, tn

                                        Budget hawk Ryan didn't seem to have a problem when the wars were left off the books either....­.

                                        He didn't have a problem voting for the Wall Street bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy either!

                                        hmm, neither did Obama.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #15.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:27 PM EST
                                        RcR-2828649

                                        Obama isn't complaining or making hypocritical statements, do you not see the difference?

                                        It's kinda like "chicken hawk" so many Republicans never served in the military but are adamant hawks. Many people have a problem with someone sending my kids to war while He/She has no skin in the game and then trying to compare this to a person who is NOT a hawk and would exhaust all options before sending our kids to war. I would also note far more kids from Democratic middle to the poor class are serving.

                                        I never was a big Bush 1 fan until he did what was the smartest/cheapest and most insightful thing to do in Iraq, that is leave Saddam so we wouldn't have to completely reassemble an entire Country, the way Bush One handled the Iraq war was in my eyes by far the best way it could have been handled.

                                        As far as Bush two? The second Iraq war could not have been handled any worse and the first thing I want to mention, Valerie Plame was right and those criminals who outed her for political purposes should have been punished, I don't mean poor old scooter libby only but any agent involved should be in prison.

                                        I still hear about WMD's that were supposed to have been found in Iraq, the yellow cake that was found was accounted for but actually proved Saddam was following his agreement with France to a "T" so please stop this far right extremist lie and maybe we can get on our way to healing.There was no reason for the US to be the world policeman and also there was no reason to kill so many people ours included.

                                        Hey after Ann Coulter said what she did about military personal why did so many still follow her like she was a goddess?

                                        Bush 2 claimed we would be perceived as heros

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #15.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:53 PM EST
                                        vol fan in chatt, tn

                                        Obama isn't complaining or making hypocritical statements, do you not see the difference?

                                        Now THAT is the funniest thing I have read on here yet! Sorry, but you totally lost me when you started on Bush and Iraq...

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #15.4 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:29 AM EST
                                        Minan59

                                        Budget hawk Ryan didn't seem to have a problem when the wars were left off the books either....­.

                                        He didn't have a problem voting for the Wall Street bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy either!

                                        hmm, neither did Obama.

                                        Obama is not the one claiming to be a budget hawk, Mr hypocrite is.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #15.5 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:02 AM EST
                                        Reply
                                        FlNutmegger

                                        Quote from story: WASHINGTON— President Barack Obama will send Congress on Monday a $3 trillion-plus budget for 2012 that promises $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade by freezing many domestic programs for five years, trimming military spending and limiting tax deductions for the wealthy.

                                        Now as I am fond of saying here, frequently, I am not the brightest bulb in the lamp but for the life of me I can't find any reductions in our foreign aid programs which are bloatsville all by themselves! If we, the American taxpayer, who ultimately foot all of the bills have to suffer then those that depend upon our largess need to feel our pain, also. Turn off the money spigot to all foreign aid, including Israel, and close some of the money pit foreign bases we have constructed in other countries which support their local economies at the expense of ours. A good start for that is withdrawal from the UN and kick them out of the country. Huge money pit and growing larger as we speak! Let us have a little practiced isolationism until we have stopped bleeding from a thousand cuts inflicted upon us by an unappreciative world.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        Reply#16 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:33 PM EST
                                        cdee12120

                                        such a good post.. but how then could we ever protect the elites foreign assets..

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #16.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:55 PM EST
                                        Rhazes

                                        Turn off the money spigot to all foreign aid, including Israel,

                                        Seriously, the underpass near my house floods every time it rains for the last 8 years forcing me to take a detour that adds 2 minutes of time meanwhile our politicians are using tax payers money to pave 30 miles of road in Israel.

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #16.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:33 PM EST
                                        Brian White

                                        I wonder why your 2 minute detour isn't on the top of the to-do list....

                                          #16.3 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:44 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Ditto

                                          Republicans rejected that appraisal, castigating Obama for proposals that will boost spending in such areas as education, public works and research

                                          Yes by all means, why not firmly entrench ignorance in all aspects of life. After all, the ignorant are easily mislead. It is simply appalling that the GOP is willing to give Richie Rich a free ride but is dedicated to the mass production of Jugheads.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          Reply#17 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:33 PM EST
                                          Ditto

                                          I travel the world over doing my job and right now I am in France. Possibly the most socialist of all European countries, and just like us they bitch and moan about taxes and government red tape. But just try to tinker with their social safety net and they will bring the country to a stand-still. Taxes are much higher here but the cost of living is commensurate, and the standard of living is, in my opinion, much higher. Life here is not all about what you do, but what you do with your spare time. At the same time they invest in the future. High speed rail service, research and development in all aspects of the physical sciences as well as the arts are well funded. They are leaving North America behind and we will suffer for it in the near future. If the GOP has its way, we wont even know we are being passed by. We will all just become the next peasant workforce, there to be exploited.

                                          • 7 votes
                                          Reply#18 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:07 PM EST
                                          Bosslimo

                                          In all honesty, the republicans can't find anything that wasn't proposed already. Look at the House schedule for the next few months. They work 2 weeks and off one week, work 2-off another. The time they work is spent on debating insignificant policies or repealing HCR. Nothing new from them. They will ride this out until election time. Then, you will hear the fear rhetoric from them in hopes of getting your vote.

                                          They have some serious problems coming thier way by 2012. HCR will have a greater impact, making it harder to repeal, because once we get some benefit from it, we don't like losing it. Trade agreements will be implimented, and businesses won't like having to lose added consumers for political gain. A qualified voice from the right to run against the president has yet to come forward. Another smoke screen; Repeal Obama - Replace with nobody.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          Reply#19 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:23 PM EST
                                          Ditto

                                          The really sad part of it all is just how many people are willing to vote for nobody.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #19.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:34 PM EST
                                          FlNutmegger

                                          Put those suckers on the clock the way we used to do! When the government decides that they can do without their special perks and live like the Americans who elected them to govern, and this includes Obama, too. Cut their staffs by 50%. reduce their overall budget as they are willing to do to Social Security and Medicare which they don't even have to buy, then come back and talk to me! Level the playing field! This crap of let "them eat cake" has grown real old!!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #19.2 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:32 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Bob-970091

                                          If Obama cuts from the elderly, the children, and the poor, hey, at least they will have High Speed Rail to nowhere. (LOL)

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#20 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:41 PM EST
                                          Max-1313

                                          Why was it not un-nessary spending when the republicans were doing all the spending on two wars and cutting taxes? How does this vampire manage to survive in tanning booth?

                                          • 3 votes
                                          Reply#21 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:46 PM EST
                                          Over Seas

                                          Maybe its the sheer scale?

                                          Back in the Bush years the deficits were between $100-$500 billion. Now they are $1.1 - $1.5 trillion.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #21.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:57 PM EST
                                          Max-1313

                                          Bush left office with a 10 trillion dollar deficit and the republicans act like this started in January 2009.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #21.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:00 PM EST
                                          vol fan in chatt, tn

                                          yep, Bush had a 10 trillion dollar deficit when he left. It is now approaching 14 trillion. Obama and the Dems managed to add 4 trillion in just over 2 years... congratulations!

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #21.3 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:32 PM EST
                                          Max-1313

                                          And republicans have brought nothing of any significance to the table. What if the tax cuts do not create create jobs and by that I mean jobs paying above minimum wage? Even more loss of revenue. What will the deficit look like then? It will be Obamas fault yes but only for making a deal with the republicans.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #21.4 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:06 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          OhighOboy

                                          Here's a few suggestions on how we can stop subsidising other citizen's divorces and their obligation to support and raise their own children:

                                          First we need to look at how our courts process divorces where custody of the children are at issue. The very first thing that should happen in any marriage that is being ended involving children is a psychological evaluation should be done on the entire immediate family unit. This should include any and all adults residing in either household of both parents. This evaluation should be performed by qualified; competent, pre-approved by the court, psychologists only. If one or both parents refuse to be evaluated this should be seen as an immediate red flag and that parent or parents should be excluded from consideration for the award of custody. Based upon the results of this evaluation if both parents are deemed to be able to provide for the children in a stable; safe and nurturing home then the custody should be awarded to the parent that can best support the child without any aid from the taxpayers when a shared custody accommodation cannot be reached by the parents. If the shared parenting agreement can be reached by the parties it should be so ordered by the court. If neither parent is competent to raise their children then another family member who is willing to step forward and can do so should be awarded custody with supervised visitation to the parents.

                                          Let's get the government out of the business of collecting and distributing support to children to the maximum extent possible. The above changes will result in a reduction of the amount of money spent by the taxpayers on Aid for Dependent Children through the HHS dept. It would also reduce the amount of people needed on the payroll at the Office of Child Support Enforcement Agencies at the County, State and Federal levels. It should also reduce the number of people serving time in Jails and prisons for felony non support as parents will be made responsible for thier own children and interacting with them in their daily lives. Currently, it costs $42,000.00 to incarcerate a person in a county jail for one year. This should also reduce the number of staff at all levels of the country's jails and prisons, further reducing the budget requirements at the County; State and Federal levels.

                                          Another action that should be taken is for all levels of government should require a drug test to be done on anyone seeking aid from the HHS department or any form of aid, educational or otherwise. What you are doing when you declare you need assistance for getting an education or the cost of housing and living in general is that you do not have the ability to pay for things yourself and are asking the taxpayers to give you a hand up not a hand out. Once you are able through employment to support yourself at a level you want the taxpayer to support you, any amount earned above that level should be levied by garnishment to repay that debt to the taxpayer. No more giveaways on the back of the taxpayer.

                                          Another change I would like to see is the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. This should give males the same rights to determine reproduction that currently is the exclusive arena of females. After all, it takes two people to make a pregnancy both should have a say whether that pregnancy is ended by birth or abortion. If either parent wants to end the pregnancy it should be ended. If one person wants to continue the pregnancy the other should have the ability to opt out of being involved and stripped of their parental rights regarding the child. The party that wants to have the child should assume full legal and physical custody and financial responsibility of the child. If neither parent has the ability to support the child without aid from the taxpayer and no other family member is willing to do so the pregnancy should be terminated. If you decide to have sex and make a child then you should accept responsibility for that child.

                                          In all domestic relations matters were an affidavit is made and that affidavit is determined to be perjurous then the party making that declaration under oath should be prosecuted for perjury no matter to their competency or not. If the perjurous act results in disbursement of taxpayer money under NO circumstances should that debt be passed on to another person. Hold the person that commits the fraud suffer the consequences of their own actions.

                                          These are just common sense actions that can be done to shift the responsibilty for supporting yourself and your family back to you and away from the taxpayer and holding those who commit crimes accountable for their own actions.

                                            Reply#22 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:16 PM EST
                                            Over Seas

                                            (Sorry, this should have been 21.3 in response to Max)

                                            Yes, Bush doubled the debt in 8 years. $5 trillion to a total of $10 trillion. Well, after 2012, we should be sitting on a $16 trillion debt and well over $20 trillion by 2016, yet somehow things are so much better now... or so they would have us believe.

                                            If Obama gets re-elected, and we hit $20 trillion by the end of his 2nd term, will the outcry be the same? Doubling the debt and overspending the previous administration by 200%, and this is what we call success?

                                            • 1 vote
                                            Reply#23 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:33 PM EST
                                            Max-1313

                                            If the republicans get what they want will the deficit go away? No, they are attempting to balance the budget with incremental cuts that are purely political. These cuts will not even pay for the interest on the debt that their previously failed policies created. How long should the middle class be required to pay for our world wide empire? I am in no mood to have my Social Security sacrificed to pay for more military spending and wars. Defense is the big mother load for discretionary spending cuts. The republicans know it and it will only be a matter of time until they have to abandon politics for reality.

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #23.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:39 PM EST
                                            Over Seas

                                            Defense is the big mother load for discretionary spending cuts. The republicans know it and it will only be a matter of time until they have to abandon politics for reality.

                                            Well, they axed the new engine for one of the jet planes, so that is a step in the right direction.

                                            The middle class makes up the bulk of the people in this country, so like it or not, they are going to be saddled with a good chunk of the tax burden. There is no way around that fact, even though it pains me to say it since I'm part of that group.

                                              #23.2 - Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:22 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              Brian White

                                              Yet another politician claiming a plan will reduce deficits sometime well outside the time they've left office and will have no control. Lame. Freezing spending is simply nowhere near enough. Reducing the deficit is not enough. We need to eliminate our debt to stop the insane interest payments.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              Reply#24 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:41 PM EST
                                              wjm5-0

                                              OhighOboy

                                              Tell you what... when men can give birth, then we will have the conversation. There is also birth control for men. One is prophylactics, another is called a vasectomy. Make a choice. Otherwise, if you want to, you can tell men not to rely upon a woman's word that she is protected against pregnancy. Any man who engages in sex based on this is, IMPO, a fool who deserves whatever befalls him.

                                              Why would anyone want the Republicans legislating on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and DADT, or child support issues? Sure, nothing should be off the table when it comes to reducing the deficit, but we cannot do this at the mercy of the children, the poor, the disabled, or the elderly, or the educational needs of this country. America's future depends on the future generations being to compete in the technological age that is here now, and will increase in demand in the future.

                                              These issues are not what is affecting the joblessness among the middleclass and the poor. To allow for cuts in education, EPA, Public Works and such is no match for the spending done towards the military budget, foreign aid, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

                                              When you add the spending done for these items alone, one can see why the other programs are all of a sudden under attack. We have our priorities mixed up. The wealthy won't feel the pinch, just like they have never had to make a choice between feeding their families or paying the mortgage.

                                              The credit card companies are now offering monetary returns on their cards being used for gas and food, and other items that are necessities for families who have pay the mortgage, various insurances, and the car notes with cash on hand.

                                              The credit card companies realize that the usage of their cards can cause a family to go deeper in debt over longer periods of time. This all coincides with how we have seen the increases in food and gas prices. They know these are essential needs and they intend to cash in on it. Those cash back offers will never compare to their interest rates, usage fees, and longer terms of paying back the debt.

                                              Now the Republicans intend to repeal financial reform and possibly allow these companies to once again reap huge profits because there will be nothing in the way of them feeding off their cardholders.

                                              I can see where that vote given to the Republicans in the midterms can now be seen as another stab in the back for the middleclass.

                                              And please stop trying to compare what is spent on education as being anywhere near the cost of that tax cut for the wealthy. Just how clueless some people are never ceases to amaze me.

                                              The wealthy 2%, Corporate America, Wall Street, al ready have every political party in this country legislating on their behalf. Greed is now the #1 voice being heard and the majority of us are helpless to do anything about it.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              Reply#25 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:15 PM EST
                                              Smokie-788412

                                              So do you support the new spending for the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and the EPA, all of which will raise the price for energy across the board? Now don't forget that when the price of energy goes up everything we touch goes up. Plus we still have no jobs market and current policies and planed policies will prevent new jobs and less income to the Federal Government. After all if we have no jobs the Federal Government cannot collect income taxes and that's the only money this Government has. It's a shame to think that they have robbed the future to pay for what they want to give us now. I love that word give. The Government can not give us what they do not have and they have no money only our money.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #25.1 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 PM EST
                                              Over Seas

                                              They can give us China's money....

                                              :/

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #25.2 - Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:42 PM EST
                                              wjm5-0

                                              Smokie

                                              Why would you address the issue of what would raise the price for energy and increase the budget, yet you overlook the tax breaks for the wealthy and the military budget.

                                              Taxes being the only money the government has is the reason we were opposed to the blackmail of the Republicans when they wanted to extend all the tax cuts, instead of just the ones for the middleclass.

                                              Their claim for what would open the jobs market was tied directly into the tax cuts, claiming that old trickle down voodoo effect that proved to be a spit in the wind for at least three decades. The most those given the tax cuts do with their savings is invest it. Corporate amd big business holds onto the purse strings in the jobs market and their mouthpieces, the Republican Party, are saying they cannot hire in this unstable economy because financial reform is blocking their path.

                                              Even with all of this negativity coming from the hiring sectors and no jobs plan from the Republicans, the struggling middleclass and poor working americans spent the holidays shopping and consuming and the increased profits expressed in the Wall Street market indexes proves it.

                                              How's that for a slap in the face coming from the Republicans and big business. Now, with all that they have done for the wealthy at the mercy of the rest of America, the Republicans want to finish stripping away what the middleclass has had to rely upon just to get by.

                                              After all ther talk of Obama answering Wall Street instead of Main Street (which was a lie), they opposed the legislation to help small businesses that could have had a positive effect on the jobs situation. It is only too obvious what they think of Main Street America, especially after they got what they wanted for Wall Street.

                                              Now they want to claim that the regulations from the EPA and the Dept. of the Interior, even the FDA, and every other protection for the people and the lands is blocking the way for them be able to realize the potential for hiring. Such a shame that so much of what they claim is the problem will also allow them to run rampant on the environment and the citizens' health.

                                              Go ahead and let them have their way. At this point, I don't see any other planet that will sustain human life. The Republicans have so many tricks up their sleeve, they just might be hiding a planet somewhere and won't reveal it until those among us who vote against them have died out.

                                              NOT!!!

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #25.3 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:38 AM EST
                                              Reply
                                              JAVE

                                              What about Oil drilling? Look at the BP disaster. Look at all that oil that has flooded the ocean. The President, the responsible government agencies, BP and some of our best scientists have all stated it did little harm. Even now, less then a year later we have been assured there has been little harm. Even filtering seafood like oysters are safe to eat. Has the President, Congress, the EPA or any government or industry group ever said this caused great environmental harm?

                                              If the worst disaster in US history has caused such little harm, then normal drilling should be a managed risk. What could be worse then a months long oil spill a mile under the sea?

                                                Reply#26 - Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:34 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