Democrats meeting with Obama on deficits

Yes educate yourself before 2012 or we will end up with Obama again- Looks like people learned though as the midterm elections spoke volumes

Cut spending now.

When the Debt ceiling is exceed you do NOT default!

THe USA Treasury is restructuring payments, THis will continue until the COngress STOPs the increases in program spending. The government can increase the debt limit but then the total monthly interest the Treasury must pay the FED will Begin to climb faster than the USA tax payer can make up the difference.

YOU are dealing with math that say you blow up today or you blow up tomorrow by conduction more of the same Crappy Spending habits of the te US COngress!

Choose your dish and be prepared for very very bad long term results!

A Clean Debt raising bill. Period. Let the republican congress default if they want. They will always hold us hostage , they could care less...I will be disastrous for the country, the world, and you'll probably see a 20% markup on your interest payments for loans...but let them do it. Government by blackmail is scarier than defaulting on the debt.

Because more spending by our reckless government is the answer, right?

The republicans are being shown as a group of people willing to toss Granny over a cliff in hopes of a better budget. Democrats should then follow up with a commercial of democrat political leaders sticking their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will just fade away. The same economic leaders who say that to default on our loans would be horrorific are also saying that we can not continue the current entitlement programs forever. But hey, if all else fails, just fall back to the "Blame Bush jr method" as to why the system is going (not maybe, but will) broke.

Start by cutting the waste out of Defense, then cut off ALL foreign aid (Israel too), get rid of the subsidies to corporations and repeal the bush tax cuts. That alone should trim a Trillion off the debt.

House Democrats, let the Teabumlicans do it. If the debt ceiling isn't raised - it's only go to hurt Wall Street and the rich. The rest of us were screwed in the 2008 mess - now it's time for the rich to get screwed.

And the voters will wake up and throw the teabumlicans out of office so fast next year - Speaker Bonehead will be crying real tears.

Una

Reckless is what repugs are...cutting spending is reducing demand which will plunge the country back into recession. Repugs ran up most of this debt and they created the crash of 08 that we have to spend to prop up GDP... cut corporate subsidies raise revenue and then reeduce military spending, revamp our domestic security and prison mega complex

Don't blind yourself to foolish political partisanship, Randy McMurphy. Take a look at this, and then tell me what the largest budget items are. While you quickly took aim at Defense spending, I notice you've not breathed a word about Medicare or Medicaid - two of the largest budget items. Political partisans are all too willing to cut the programs they oppose, but I note they will doggedly defend their own favorite spending programs tooth and nail. The time for such one-sided partisanship is quickly coming to an end, for our nation's demise is close at hand.

Agent Orange and gang are nothing more than blackmailers. Nancy is correct that these privileged dweebs don't give a hoot about Middle Americans. We are invisible. If they truly wanted to cut the debt they could chop the Pentagon budget in half, close the bases in Germany, Spain, Italy and England for starters. Then we could use the savings to build ladders for Repub politicians to climb out of the pockets of lobbyists.

People who think that it is o.k. or that the Republican leadership in Congress is doing the right thing need to come to terms with their hypocrisy. In 2002, Boehner and McConnell voted to raise the debt ceiling 450 billion dollars. In 2003, both politicians voted to raise the debt ceiling 900 billion dollars. In 2004, both politicians voted to raise the debt ceiling 800 billion dollars. In 2006, both politicians voted to raise the debt ceiling 781 billion dollars. In 2007, both politicians voted to raise the debt ceiling 850 billion dollars. What does that add up to? 3.78 TRILLION dollars. And I'm sorry that these votes are as plain as day and documented for all the world to see. I'm sure when faced with reality your eyes will glaze over and you will run to turn on Fox news to fuel your hatred and paranoia.

But, I would love to hear someone justify their actions under a Republican president. And explain why they all of a sudden have a change of heart.

They won't respond to that commonsense...

It's....blatant hypocrisy....and they know it...

Right on commonsense, 6 trillion in debt, 5 trillion by the full republican majority when they were slated to have a 5 tril surplus, raise enough debt to cry poverty to slash the safety net, a stated goal of GOOPers starve the beasters

UNA

Look closer at military spending... it is actually 1.2 trillion dollars per annum, not even more than 1/3 rd what the annual budget should be the republicans want to increase while gutting the programs the American people widely approve of and DON"T want to cut.

I guess thats why rethuglicans don't have the plums to cut it when the had the majorty to do so...

But, I would love to hear someone justify their actions under a Republican president. And explain why they all of a sudden have a change of heart.

It was wrong for Republicans too. Two wrongs do not a right make, save perhaps in Bizarro World or maybe on a pre-school playground. Once our nation collapses beneath the weight of its own collective stupidity and you're slaving for whatever warlord rules over you with an iron fist, finger-pointing won't do you a whole of of good then, will it? Fix it now, or our nation will be but a memory within a decade.

Look closer at military spending... it is actually 1.2 trillion dollars per annum, not even more than 1/3 rd what the annual budget should be the republicans want to increase while gutting the programs the American people widely approve of and DON"T want to cut.

First, not sure where they got their numbers from on military spending. This is a non-partisan site that reflects the largest budget items in real-time. Secondly, yes military spending should be cut, but so do the spending programs Democrats are attempting to defend tooth and nail. If Republicans don't give up anything, and Democrats don't give up anything, guess what? NOTHING GETS CUT AND WE ALL LOSE!

It was wrong for Republicans too. Two wrongs do not a right make, save perhaps in Bizarro World or maybe on a pre-school playground.

Oh please. If your older than 30 it's not the first time around the rodeo with Republicans who create massive debt. If you voted for Reagan then you knew when GWB came on the scene what would happen. Name one that didn't in the last 30 years?

Here take a look and you tell me exactly who is creating debt and whose not?

So, to you two wrongs do make a right. "Billy jumped off a cliff, so what's wrong with me doing it?" Understood. Now sit back and watch our nation perish. Prepare to serve whatever warlord rules over you in the coming years.

UNA: the trough of hypocrisy that you and the tea parties have been drinking out of for the last couple of years becomes the enveloping theme of all these posts. The republicans do NOT have your best interest in mind when they feign to be responsible and fix this nations woes. Their approach is unbalanced, counter intuitive, and blatantly self serving. Not to mention hypocritical. How can you trust a party with such egregious standards of conduct?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I get that. But, when someone raises the debt ceiling to the tune of almost 4 trillion dollars and then all of a sudden a democratic president is in office and the debt ceiling is such a terrible thing now. How gullible are you? The republicans entire agenda is lucid and transparent. Cut NPR, cut Planned Parenthood, cut medicare, cut cut cut cut cut cut cut. But wait, we need to lower taxes for the wealthy because they are the ones that need, deserve, and require our benefaction.

There is an amazing phenomena in politics today that mirrors this country's insatiable appetite for sports and competition. People have aligned themselves with political parties and are inexorably bound to any stupid or asinine conjectures made by their affiliated parties. It's republican policy, so I stand behind it 100%. The libs are the enemy. Our team won. Hoorah for our team. We are the winners.

Never mind that the policies actually are detrimental toward you. So long as YOUR team won, all is good with the world.

Please.

UNA: the trough of hypocrisy that you and the tea parties have been drinking out of for the last couple of years becomes the enveloping theme of all these posts.

Ad hominem attack. Anything of substance to add, or is only more useless finger-pointing to follow?

The republicans do NOT have your best interest in mind when they feign to be responsible and fix this nations woes. Their approach is unbalanced, counter intuitive, and blatantly self serving. Not to mention hypocritical. How can you trust a party with such egregious standards of conduct?

No party that promotes deficit spending has my interests at heart. Does your chosen political party promote deficit spending, or oppose it?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I get that. But, when someone raises the debt ceiling to the tune of almost 4 trillion dollars and then all of a sudden a democratic president is in office and the debt ceiling is such a terrible thing now.

I opposed it then, and I oppose it now.

How gullible are you?

Not sufficiently gullible to believe the bald-faced lies of either major party of corruption. How about yourself?

The republicans entire agenda is lucid and transparent. Cut NPR, cut Planned Parenthood, cut medicare, cut cut cut cut cut cut cut. But wait, we need to lower taxes for the wealthy because they are the ones that need, deserve, and require our benefaction.

And your own chosen party's agenda is equally transparent: Cut Defense spending (and little else), increase social spending programs, and raise taxes on the rich (ignoring the fact that most tax revenue comes from the middle class). What I support is cutting absolutely everything here while raising taxes across the board on all income categories (vice just the favorite targets of political partisans). Know of a party that supports such a platform?

There is an amazing phenomena in politics today that mirrors this country's insatiable appetite for sports and competition. People have aligned themselves with political parties and are inexorably bound to any stupid or asinine conjectures made by their affiliated parties. It's republican policy, so I stand behind it 100%. The libs are the enemy. Our team won. Hoorah for our team. We are the winners.

Which is why I am bound to neither major political party, since in my eyes they are equally yoked to special interests and wallowing in irreversible corruption. How about yourself?

Never mind that the policies actually are detrimental toward you. So long as YOUR team won, all is good with the world.

Which is precisely the point I've been hammering home: Fix this now, or it won't matter which major political party of corruption won.

Please.

Indeed. The days of celebrating our collective short-sightedness and stupidity are drawing to a swift close.

So we have increase federal spending for decades and decreased taxes and now all of a sudden we have to slash everything. That is incredibly short sighted. That may put a dent in our troubles, but it will leave us weak for the future.

I'm affiliated with no party. I believe that military spending should shoulder the biggest burden. Medicare and Medicaid fraud should be addressed. The wealthy should not get any tax breaks. And the insurance and medical industry should be reformed. You can't raise taxes on people below the poverty line. I'll let you in on a secret.......they don't have enough money to tax.

All of this is a good start. After these are implemented, then we can take a step back and see what can be further accomplished. Your knee jerk reaction to this will not produce any long term benefits.

I don't believe the BOLD-faced lies of any political party. I do, however, believe that there is some good to be done in government. But, it seems like at least for now, you support the republican agenda.

I would hope that the politicians and people like you can find a middle road instead of all the extremism.

So we have increase federal spending for decades and decreased taxes and now all of a sudden we have to slash everything. That is incredibly short sighted. That may put a dent in our troubles, but it will leave us weak for the future.

Not spending within our means when our debt comes close to matching our GDP is incredibly short-sighted. Want to spend more? Raise taxes on all income categories, and do so within budget.

I'm affiliated with no party. I believe that military spending should shoulder the biggest burden. Medicare and Medicaid fraud should be addressed. The wealthy should not get any tax breaks. And the insurance and medical industry should be reformed. You can't raise taxes on people below the poverty line. I'll let you in on a secret.......they don't have enough money to tax.

What is the current poverty line? When I said raise taxes on everyone, I mean everyone! If you have an income, a percentage is taken - no free rides. You can lower said percentage for those making too little, but everyone contributes to fixing this, or once we collapse nobody will be helped.

All of this is a good start. After these are implemented, then we can take a step back and see what can be further accomplished. Your knee jerk reaction to this will not produce any long term benefits.

Nothing knee-jerk about what I proposed. Our nation is likely irreversibly damaged, unless drastic measures are taken now. The time for partisan finger-pointing is over. Fix it!

I don't believe the BOLD-faced lies of any political party. I do, however, believe that there is some good to be done in government. But, it seems like at least for now, you support the republican agenda.

Do Republicans desire to raise taxes on all income categories and cut all spending, including Defense? If so, then yes, I support their agenda.

I would hope that the politicians and people like you can find a middle road instead of all the extremism.

What I propose is middle of the road, since it incorporates elements supported by both major parties of corruption. Unfortunately, neither major party is willing to do what must be done, which involves wide-scale sacrifice for long-term gain. We've become a soft nation that wants whatever it wants, and wants it now. Our days are numbered.

Not spending within our means when our debt comes close to matching our GDP is incredibly short-sighted. Want to spend more? Raise taxes on all income categories, and do so within budget.

and not raising taxes to the level they were when we didn't have all of this debt is also incredibly short-sighted.

When I said raise taxes on everyone, I mean everyone! If you have an income, a percentage is taken - no free rides. You can lower said percentage for those making too little, but everyone contributes to fixing this, or once we collapse nobody will be helped.

Why? Did everyone crash the economy? Does everyone receive their income via stock dividends?

Do Republicans desire to raise taxes on all income categories and cut all spending, including Defense?

No they don't.

and not raising taxes to the level they were when we didn't have all of this debt is also incredibly short-sighted.

Agree, thus my call to raise taxes across the board.

Why? Did everyone crash the economy?

The economy is cyclical in nature - also tied in closely with the global economy, with natural peaks and valleys, so the world population in effect crashed the economy. But you already knew that.

Does everyone receive their income via stock dividends?

No, and your point being what?

No they don't.

Nor do the Democrats, thus our current predicament.

Agree, thus my call to raise taxes across the board.

Which is crap because they didn't decrease across the board. The middle class give or take over the years has enjoyed more or less the same tax rate give or take a percent or two. The upper tax brackets have received double digit decreases right around the time we started to see deficits. Here.

The economy is cyclical in nature - also tied in closely with the global economy, with natural peaks and valleys, so the world population in effect crashed the economy. But you already knew that.

That doesn't answer the question. Recessions are cyclical not depressions. Nice try throwing crap to see what would stick though.

No, and your point being what?

I'm sure you can figure it out.

Nor do the Democrats, thus our current predicament.

Um that actually did happen... President Clinton.

Which is crap because they didn't decrease across the board. The middle class give or take over the years has enjoyed more or less the same tax rate give or take a percent or two. The upper tax brackets have received double digit decreases right around the time we started to see deficits. Here.

You're certainly allowed your opinion. I believe the sacrifice should be fully shared across all income categories, vice targeted only at the favorite targets of political partisans. You obviously disagree.

That doesn't answer the question. Recessions are cyclical not depressions.

What is the major differerence between a recession and a depression? Would you compare the ongoing recession with the Great Depression?

Nice try throwing crap to see what would stick though.

Try to behave as though you're not in the fifth grade, and I'll continue conversing. Otherwise, I'll make no further time for you.

I'm sure you can figure it out.

Please, enlighten me. Otherwise, your point holds no merit and will be dismissed accordingly.

Um that actually did happen... President Clinton.

Mr. Clinton isn't in charge now. Mr. Obama is, and under his leadership the US Federal budget is running a huge deficit.

You're certainly allowed your opinion. I believe the sacrifice should be fully shared across all income categories, vice targeted only at the favorite targets of political partisans. You obviously disagree.

If the gains aren't shared across all income categories then why should the sacrifice be? You're being just as partisan if not more so.

What is the major differerence between a recession and a depression? Would you compare the ongoing recession with the Great Depression?

There is no The. There's many metrics to look at. While the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near what we had during the great depression our GDP dipped very close the much talked about -10% I think we he hit -7% somewhere in 2009. You might say ah ha. However, in order to refund the banking system and the general economy in the 30's there was an increase of about 20% or so in the ubiquity of the dollar. In 2008? A 125% increase was needed in order to refund the banks and backfill a portion of what was lost. While what we experienced does not meet all of the metrics to classify it as a depression it sure doesn't compare very well with the previous recessions we've had either. You would have to go back to 1949 to see a worse decline in GDP.

Try to behave as though you're not in the fifth grade, and I'll continue conversing. Otherwise, I'll make no further time for you.

Try to not pretend like the severity of our recent recession is cyclical I'll and i'll treat you like you are not a fifth grader. Here is the list of all of the recessions. Recessions in general (and I'm taking that very liberally) are cyclical. However their effect on GDP is NOT.

Please, enlighten me. Otherwise, your point holds no merit and will be dismissed accordingly.

Dividends and Capital Gains are taxed at 15%. The middle class tax rate is in the 20's. Effectively those who draw their income from dividends and capital gains are taxed a lower rate than middle class individuals.

Mr. Clinton isn't in charge now.

Correct. However that does nothing to disprove that a certain group can balance a budget while the other cannot.

Mr. Obama is, and under his leadership the US Federal budget is running a huge deficit.

Ah so did Regan, Bush Senior, and W. In fact didn't W pass on a piss poor economy to Obama. You might want to factor that in somewhere.

If the gains aren't shared across all income categories then why should the sacrifice be? You're being just as partisan if not more so.

Really? Where did I write that more wealthy individuals should not see their taxes raised too? I'll wait, while you fail to find it.

There is no The. There's many metrics to look at. While the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near what we had during the great depression our GDP dipped very close the much talked about -10% I think we he hit -7% somewhere in 2009. You might say ah ha. However, in order to refund the banking system and the general economy in the 30's there was an increase of about 20% or so in the ubiquity of the dollar. In 2008? A 125% increase was needed in order to refund the banks and backfill a portion of what was lost. While what we experienced does not meet all of the metrics to classify it as a depression it sure doesn't compare very well with the previous recessions we've had either. You would have to go back to 1949 to see a worse decline in GDP.

Very well, we'll look here to see what defines an economic depression. From what we read of the definition there, it appears there is no agreed-upon definition, so you can feel free call it what you like, and I'll do the same.

Try to not pretend like the severity of our recent recession is cyclical I'll and i'll treat you like you are not a fifth grader. Here is the list of all of the recessions. Recessions in general (and I'm taking that very liberally) are cyclical. However their effect on GDP is NOT.

The Code of Honor does not provide you that privilege, regardless of your feelings about me, and I'll not tolerate ad hominem attacks or anything else that makes veiled (or not so veiled) attempts to bring into question my intelligence or motive. Stick to the subject at hand, and avoid shallow and useless logical fallacies. Leave those for those who know nothing of logical discourse. I'll not address it a second time.

Dividends and Capital Gains are taxed at 15%. The middle class tax rate is in the 20's. Effectively those who draw their income from dividends and capital gains are taxed a lower rate than middle class individuals.

That can be adjusted, while still raising taxes across all income categories, can it not?

Correct. However that does nothing to disprove that a certain group can balance a budget while the other cannot.

My initial post pointed out that run-away spending is being done by both political parties of corruption. Nothing you've written here dissuades me from that opinion. That they have different interests in running up deficits is beside the point. As to Mr. Cliinton, my opinion is that his fiscal policies were the one thing he did well.

Ah so did Regan, Bush Senior, and W. In fact didn't W pass on a piss poor economy to Obama. You might want to factor that in somewhere.

Please point out anywhere in my entire posting history here on NV wherein I've excused the fiscal policies of any of those men. Once you've failed to do so, come back to the here and now - Mr. Obama is running huge deficits, and that needs to be fixed, now.

Really? Where did I write that more wealthy individuals should not see their taxes raised too? I'll wait, while you fail to find it.

Where do I assert that you said that wealthy individuals should not see their taxes raised? I don't believe I did. Instead how about you reread the last couple of questions and pretend like you understood the line of questioning. Thanks

The Code of Honor does not provide you that privilege, regardless of your feelings about me, and I'll not tolerate ad hominem attacks or anything else that makes veiled (or not so veiled) attempts to bring into question my intelligence or motive. Stick to the subject at hand, and avoid shallow and useless logical fallacies. Leave those for those who know nothing of logical discourse. I'll not address it a second time.

I believe you've been just as offensive so you can board the high and mighty train yourself. Thanks

That can be adjusted, while still raising taxes across all income categories, can it not?

Good grief. What is it now? It's 15% What is the middle class tax rate? 20% (give or take) Of course it can change anything can. The reality of the matter is that it is what it is. That's the reality not what you would like it to be.

My initial post pointed out that run-away spending is being done by both political parties of corruption. Nothing you've written here dissuades me from that opinion. That they have different interests in running up deficits is beside the point. As to Mr. Cliinton, my opinion is that his fiscal policies were the one thing he did well.

The point isn't whether you are dissuaded or not. The reality is what it is, and so far in the last 30 years no Republican President has EVER posted a yearly surplus. Therefore calling both parties equivalent to one another in the deficit department is false.

Please point out anywhere in my entire posting history here on NV wherein I've excused the fiscal policies of any of those men. Once you've failed to do so, come back to the here and now

Why do you always put up non sequiturs when the facts don't support your claims? Once you fail to grasp the question I'll pose it again next time.

Mr. Obama is running huge deficits, and that needs to be fixed, now.

I know it needs to be, but can it be in the middle of a recovery following such a deep recession?

Where do I assert that you said that wealthy individuals should not see their taxes raised? I don't believe I did. Instead how about you reread the last couple of questions and pretend like you understood the line of questioning. Thanks.

I fully understood your line of questioning, and I still believe taxes should be raised on all income categories. You believe that taxes should be raised only on some. We disagree, and nothing you've written so far has persuaded me to your point of view.

I believe you've been just as offensive so you can board the high and mighty train yourself. Thanks

Please post anything I've written here that could be construed as an ad hominem attack.

Good grief. What is it now? It's 15% What is the middle class tax rate? 20% (give or take) Of course it can change anything can. The reality of the matter is that it is what it is. That's the reality not what you would like it to be.

Then what is your issue with raising taxes on all income tax categories. If the level is raised a bit more on those in higher categories, so be it, so long as they're raised on all categories at the same time.

The point isn't whether you are dissuaded or not. The reality is what it is, and so far in the last 30 years no Republican President has EVER posted a yearly surplus. Therefore calling both parties equivalent to one another in the deficit department is false.

Thanks for the history lesson. Now, back to the present: What is the plan to eliminate today's deficits? I give two craps about which party of corruption claims credit, I just want to see it done before our nation crumbles beneath the weight of its own stupidity.

Why do you always put up non sequiturs when the facts don't support your claims? Once you fail to grasp the question I'll pose it again next time.

Why do you introduce straw man fallacies and red herrings, when we were discussing current events? Mr. Clinton is no longer President, nor is Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, or Mr. Washington. Will you next discuss the successes and failures of the Roman Empire, or will we discuss current events and today's deficit?

I know it needs to be, but can it be in the middle of a recovery following such a deep recession?

I think it can. Cut ten percent from every spending category here, and raise taxes across the board. Will it be painful? Certainly! But it is preferable to national collapse.

I fully understood your line of questioning, and I still believe taxes should be raised on all income categories. You believe that taxes should be raised only on some. We disagree, and nothing you've written so far has persuaded me to your point of view.

Ok well at least that makes sense. We disagree.

Please post anything I've written here that could be construed as an ad hominem attack.

I believe you said, "

Try to behave as though you're not in the fifth grade, and I'll continue conversing."

Does that look like positive reinforcement or an attack on your part?

Then what is your issue with raising taxes on all income tax categories. If the level is raised a bit more on those in higher categories, so be it, so long as they're raised on all categories at the same time.

Hmmmm.... now are you saying that you wouldn't mind if taxes were raised for all but at different rates according to their tax bracket?

Thanks for the history lesson. Now, back to the present: What is the plan to eliminate today's deficits? I give two craps about which party of corruption claims credit, I just want to see it done before our nation crumbles beneath the weight of its own stupidity.

Well at least you recognize it.

Why do you introduce straw man fallacies and red herrings, when we were discussing current events? Mr. Clinton is no longer President, nor is Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, or Mr. Washington. Will you next discuss the successes and failures of the Roman Empire, or will we discuss current events and today's deficit?

What does the Roman Empire have to do with the United States of America? And I'm the one throwing strawmen? At least my examples were presidents without OUR country within the last 30 years. BTW you can't really discuss current events without touching on what happened in the past. A perfect example would be letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They are in effect so we can't really do anything about them if we don't talk about them can we?

I think it can. Cut ten percent from every spending category here, and raise taxes across the board. Will it be painful? Certainly! But it is preferable to national collapse.

Depending on how it's done I could accept that.

I believe you said, "

Try to behave as though you're not in the fifth grade, and I'll continue conversing."

It was in response to a personal attack, but granted it should have been omitted.

Hmmmm.... now are you saying that you wouldn't mind if taxes were raised for all but at different rates according to their tax bracket?

Frankly, I would rather see a form of the Fair Tax, but since we'd likely never gain consensus on that, a general increase of tax rates would suffice.

What does the Roman Empire have to do with the United States of America? And I'm the one throwing strawmen? At least my examples were presidents without OUR country within the last 30 years. BTW you can't really discuss current events without touching on what happened in the past. A perfect example would be letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They are in effect so we can't really do anything about them if we don't talk about them can we?

The obvious straw man was made intentionally to point out the ridiculousness of the ones you employed earlier. Does the past have bearing on the present? Absolutely, but it cannot be used to excuse massive budget deficits today. That would be equivalent to saying, "Jenny stole money from work last week, so it's okay if I do it this week." It's absurd on the face of it.

Frankly, I would rather see a form of the Fair Tax, but since we'd likely never gain consensus on that, a general increase of tax rates would suffice.

Hmm OK.

Does the past have bearing on the present? Absolutely, but it cannot be used to excuse massive budget deficits today. That would be equivalent to saying, "Jenny stole money from work last week, so it's okay if I do it this week." It's absurd on the face of it.

Not excusing but providing a point of reference.

Not excusing but providing a point of reference.

Understood. Unfortunately, I've no faith in either major political party since both are tied at the hip to special interests and lobbyists, and both seem more focused on scoring political points than actually eliminating the deficit. Think even the agreement we saw between Mr. Clinton and the GOP Congress is sadly a thing of the past.

I don't know what is so bad about our debt News Week said if every citizen paid 3,000 it would be paid for. It was in the back of their magazine I remember I read it when picking by wife up at the airport after her deployment. and we are near the bottom in the developed world for debt per citizen.

Auto 101, the bad thing is that we are actively adding to the debt, and it isn't that far from our total GDP. Look at it this way: If you had a debt of $70,000 and brought in only $68,000 a year, would it make a lot of sense to keep piling on yet more debt? Take a look here to see what each taxpayer and citizen would owe to pay down the debt. It is considerably more than $3000.

How can that be News Week is a liberal source and it can never be wrong so your must be a falsified data :<). Israel has a higher debt per person then we do acordind to News Week.

My example was a off: Flip the numbers (making $70K a year, owing $68K), and then the analogy fits.

I would like to add that the Roman Empire has everything to do with the United States. Part of the reason that all of these people are able to get on here and spew all these falsehoods is that the majority is uneducated. Rejecting history is equivalent to trying to prop a ladder up on a cardboard box. It is quite dangerous to move forward without fully understanding where you have been (in terms of humanity).

I personally think that the deficit is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I also think that there are many ways to deal with it and just making cuts or just raising taxes is not the way to deal with anything.

What I find very frustrating is that the country's deficits did not cause the recession. Our country's deficits have not put the economy into shambles for the last three years. There are some very blatant and completely inarguable circumstances and policies that have been enacted that certainly added quite a bit to the current deficit.

Deregulation and wall street greed caused the financial meltdown. We were running deficits under W since 2002. All of the policies under the last 4 presidents have accumulated to this recession and this era of deficit spending.

You people are being unrealistic to say that the country's deficits are going to drive us into oblivion. What is driving us into oblivion is the policies of the conservative movement that has turned into the antithesis of marxism. And is equally as bad.

Was all this economic downfall Bush jr's fault?

Pelosi was on the Sunday media circle and when asked what the Democratic Party had developed during the recent exchange with the President on the reduction of debt and the entitlement situation, she said that the Democrats were going to create "jobs" and assist the "middle class". In the future the democrats were working to reduce the debt by increase the taxes on the "rich". She also stated that this Bush's economic policies have caused this downward spiral for the American middle class and that he should be the one taking the blame. Of couse when reminded that when Bush was in office it was a 5% overall unemployment rate and an average gallon of gas was 1.78. That current levels were almost 10% unemployment, over 3.50 a gallon and possible double dip recession with spending almost 2 Trillion in worthless stimilus package. She had no response. Although she said that with Obama-Care we would put back 1.5 Trillion in Medi-Care so that is how we will save on entitlements? Of course no one asked her about 20% of the large companies seeking waivers from Obama-Care requirements are within her district and control?

Yeah, it is just all evil Bush jr's fault..... no one else is to blame for the current situation just blame Bush folks it is just that simple. Those darn republicans are the ones who caused all of this.

First Mac. Sit down and consider the facts. What caused the recession? Here's a hint: It included a housing bubble, wall street deregulation, and decreases in domestic manufacturing.

You should also research what a bubble is in terms of the market.

Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi didn't cause the recession. Nor did President Obama. What Bush did as President increased the deficit. Once again, Bush did not create the recession. Bush's policies are responsible for the DEFICIT.

In your opinion, was the economy strong is 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? We were running deficits. Dick Cheney even said that "deficits don't matter". So while everyone cries about deficits and entitlements, those two factors did not create the recession. The current deficit growth was due to measures being taken to stall a recession that could have turned into a depression. Now less people have jobs and less revenue for the government equals more deficits.

Stop taking cues from Limbaugh and think for yourself.

Sounds good to me...

And take away their Health Benefits too. Senator Grassely from Iowa was asked if he would give up his Medical Benefits when they kill Medicare - he replied No - because it was free.

But to the rest of us, this will be the Great Depression and the last recession combined and magnified by 100 and will cause world wide trouble......But, sure go ahead don't raise the debt limit we can't have the elite 1% 'suffer' now can we?...

But to the rest of us, this will be the Great Depression and the last recession combined and magnified by 100 and will cause world wide trouble.

It will pretty much destroy the world economy as we know it.

Everyone should call the republicans and tea party members and tell them what you think. And remember all this when election time rolls around and vote them out.

Congress is playing a deadly game of chicken with the economy, who will blink first?

Call their bluff, see what happens. I owuld love to see the GOP fall.

The GOP is just like a booger when you don't have any tissue, you have to get rid of it but the the question is how?