montelik:

As Sound Sultan sang, people bad oh, people bad oh.

Pres see d way you are laughing at your person in his moment of difficulty. 

this is a foolish moment of difficulty. He chose to embark on a journey he knew quite well would be embarassing and he got embarrased. Now I hear some senators/congressmen won't be attending the speech. His presidency has become a joke. I don't know how else to describe it.

This was a promising young man, had the support of a large majority of Americans. This got into his head and he perhaps thought he could perform a miracle in Washington and bring republicans and democrats together. Washington has been divided since 1789 and it's not about to change. Obama went there, instead of doing his thing he went to look for bilateral bills. The only bills where he can get full republican support are bills of war( and little or no democrat support) or if he proposes to drop dead. Lol. Yet he keeps talking of bipartisan bills. Even a speech on the Arizona shooting was criticized by republicans. His approach to Libya, kicking out gadhaffi with no US casualty was criticized by republicans. Yet he keeps talking of bipartisanship.
Then he went to fix a speech on republican debate day lol. Even chris rock has not cracked thus kind of joke before.

Obama needs to wake up, the republicans don't want any dialogue with him, they would rather destroy america's economy than work with him as per the Job's Act, they think he's a muslin, they think he's a socialist, they think he was born in Kenya, they hate his colour, they want him out of the white house ASAP, obama does not get it, he's always sulking up to the republicans and fox news, obama is all talk no action, whatever happened to the man people believed was the best thing for america, obama is finisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshed.

Pres elect, what do you think about the speech he made yesterday?

i wish Republicans would put politics aside and work with him, we can't afford to be the number 2 in the world.

God bless America
God bless our Troops
SemperFi
Support our troops

@armyofone,

Why would half a trillion dollars in stimulus turn the economy around when 1 trillion dollars did not do such?

thameamead:


[b]Obama needs to wake up, [/b]the republicans don't want any dialogue with him, they would rather destroy america's economy than work with him as per the Job's Act, they think he's a muslin, they think he's a socialist, they think he was born in Kenya, they hate his colour, they want him out of the white house ASAP, obama does not get it, he's always sulking up to the republicans and fox news, obama is all talk no action, whatever happened to the man people believed was the best thing for america, obama is finisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshed.

did he tell you he isnt aware? Unfortunately its a democracy, he cant act unilaterally.

Tayo-D:

@armyofone,

Why would half a trillion dollars in stimulus turn the economy around when 1 trillion dollars did not do such?

It actually did if you would pull your head out of the sand for 2 mins. The economy started tanking after Dec last year when repubs took control of the house. Check your facts . . . even Rick Perry needed stimulus dollars to balance his budget.

"Change has come to America!"

I dey laff o!

davidylan:

did he tell you he isnt aware? Unfortunately its a democracy, he cant act unilaterally.

hahahhahaha - america - a democracy - bro thanx for giving me jokes

why has the right to habeus corpus been suspended?

why does the US govt now have extended powers to carry out surveillance on its populace?

why is it that only the richest 1% of america's population make up the bulk of congress and the senate?

It actually did if you would pull your head out of the sand for 2 mins. The economy started tanking after Dec last year when repubs took control of the house. Check your facts . . . even Rick Perry needed stimulus dollars to balance his budget.

EPIC FAIL - america's economy has been in decline ever since it decided to outsource its manufacturing industry to the far east in order to benefit from cheap labour, but the real decline bega\n in earnest after the banking collapse of 2008.

the mistake many people make about obama is that they actually think he represents the grassroots ie blacks, the poor and other disenfranchised groups - LET ME SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR - OBAMA IS A WALL STREET PUPPET - EVERYTHING HE IS DOING NOW ie the so called capitulation to the republicans is part of a script which was agreed long ago by the real people who run america, obama is virtually powerless - he is like the chief executive of a corporation - he takes his instructions from his shareholders ie the real govt, forget about all this bipartisanship nonsense - its a game - the politicians need to come up with a game to convince the masses that they actually live in a democracy when nothing could be further from the truth. its an act !!! everyone has his script and has to act according to what the script says, that is what obama is doing and that is what the republicans are doing, however i will say this - the republicans are inherently racist and do not approve of obama being where he is, but not because of his poliitical persuasions (as he is doing everything to please them) its more to do with the fact that they hate the idea of a black man being in the highest office of the land (even if that black man is an uncle tom)

@David,

It actually did if you would pull your head out of the sand for 2 mins. The economy started tanking after Dec last year when repubs took control of the house. Check your facts . . . even Rick Perry needed stimulus dollars to balance his budget.

Not true.  The problem with the economy dates back to when Pelosi and co took over the House, and Bush embarked on a bipartisan spending spree.  Everything came to a head just before Obama took office and he inherited a problem that he was also responsible for.

The $1 trillion did not only NOT create jobs, but was part of the drag on the economy that has led to the derating of the US credit rating.  Now let's go to the actual record of the stimulus.  Obama, in his supreme job-creating wisdom gave $535 million to a green company called Solyndra. As at last month, this same Solyndra has laid off thousands of workers and have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Guess who is stuck with the bills?  Examples abound of cases like this show-casing the economic wisdom, or lack of it of your Messiah.

Tayo-D:

@David,
Not true.  The problem with the economy dates back to when Pelosi and co took over the House, and Bush embarked on a bipartisan spending spree.  Everything came to a head just before Obama took office and he inherited a problem that he was also responsible for.

As usual, blame Pelosi. Obama is responsible for a crisis he inherited? how absurd.

Tayo-D:

The $1 trillion did not only NOT create jobs, but was part of the drag on the economy that has led to the derating of the US credit rating.  Now let's go to the actual record of the stimulus.  Obama, in his supreme job-creating wisdom gave $535 million to a green company called Solyndra. As at last month, this same Solyndra has laid off thousands of workers and have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Guess who is stuck with the bills?  Examples abound of cases like this show-casing the economic wisdom, or lack of it of your Messiah.

The stimulus was a "drag on the economy"? Interesting considering under the stimulus, the economy went from shedding 600,000 jobs a month to actually adding close to 150,000 jobs per month and economic growth actually went positive.
Take your head out of mcconnell's butt for a minute dude.

Sorry the stimulus was not what led to the derating of the US credit rating, go read S&P's report, it laid the blame squarely at the feet of republican intransigence and political wrangling. Hard to take you seriously when you make such nonsensical errors.

@David,

As usual, blame Pelosi. Obama is responsible for a crisis he inherited? how absurd.

I am getting increasingly convinced that you have no ability to reason things out nor are able to be consistent in your ability to apply principles.  You claim it is absurd that I could lay the blame at the feet of a new congress and yet your previous post was a direct accusation that congress was responsible for the downturn of the economy.  You have no ability to reason beyond your prejudice do you?

The stimulus was a "drag on the economy"? Interesting considering under the stimulus, the economy went from shedding 600,000 jobs a month to actually adding close to 150,000 jobs per month and economic growth actually went positive.

What jobs did the stimulus create for goodness sake?  Please I will like you to point a number of them out if you can.  Pulling numbers out of thing air to validate a wrong position does not make it the truth.  The economy created lots of job before there was ever anything called stimulus.  It is only natural that in an event to correct the economic mess, it will reach a bottom and find its way back up.  I have given you an example where the stimulus wasted half a billion dollars and I can give you much more examples.  Please validate your position with examples we can research as truth.

Take your head out of mcconnell's butt for a minute dude.

You must think being caustic and abrasive makes you look smart.  I'm sorry to disappoint you that it is the opposite.

Sorry the stimulus was not what led to the derating of the US credit rating, go read S&P's report, it laid the blame squarely at the feet of republican intransigence and political wrangling. Hard to take you seriously when you make such nonsensical errors.

You are unable to do some critical thinking do you? Every system of democracy is underlined by debates and political wrangling.  You do not have such in a Dictatorship.  If dissent is all that causes a hit in a country's credit rating, then Cuba and Venezuela should have AAA ratings for lack of a strong opposition, but they don't.

A simple attempt to engage one's cognitive process will entail asking what the wrangling was about.  It's a fact that S&P reported that the downgrade would not have happened if the US had addressed its structural debt problem.  The Republicans called for a balanced budget amendment that would have been adequate to deal with this issue but was rebuffed by the amateur in the WH.

And for your information, S&P had put the US on a credit watch since July intimating Bond Firms that the US needs to cut its debt by $ 4 trillion to maintain its AAA ratings.  Needless to say, neither Obama nor Reid put a plan on the table to address this structural issue, hence the downgrade.  And for your information, even the new rating is saddled with a "negative watch" label, no thanks to the spender-in-chief at the WH.

Tayo-D:

@David,
I am getting increasingly convinced that you have no ability to reason things out nor are able to be consistent in your ability to apply principles.  You claim it is absurd that I could lay the blame at the feet of a new congress and yet your previous post was a direct accusation that congress was responsible for the downturn of the economy.  You have no ability to reason beyond your prejudice do you?

I didnt indicate it was absurd to lay the blame at the feet of a new congress . . . learn to read before making noise. I simply acknowledged the right wing talking point - blame pelosi for why its raining today.

Its clear fact that the economy was improving enough for economists to declare the recession over last year BEFORE the cut cut cut republican house took over and we ended up in a double dip recession.

Tayo-D:

What jobs did the stimulus create for goodness sake?  Please I will like you to point a number of them out if you can.  Pulling numbers out of thing air to validate a wrong position does not make it the truth.  The economy created lots of job before there was ever anything called stimulus.  It is only natural that in an event to correct the economic mess, it will reach a bottom and find its way back up.  I have given you an example where the stimulus wasted half a billion dollars and I can give you much more examples.  Please validate your position with examples we can research as truth.

1. The stimulus created jobs . . . compare the monthly jobs reports from Dec 2008 to Dec 2010. Night and day dude . . . you dont need a degree in physics to figure that out.

2. You gave an example of where the stimulus wasted money? Duh and was the near collapse of GM an example of government wasted money too? Dumb.
Companies go into bankruptcy all the time, sometimes it may not be because a new investor pumped money into the company.

Tayo-D:

You must think being caustic and abrasive makes you look smart.  I'm sorry to disappoint you that it is the opposite.
You are unable to do some critical thinking do you? Every system of democracy is underlined by debates and political wrangling.  You do not have such in a Dictatorship.  If dissent is all that causes a hit in a country's credit rating, then Cuba and Venezuela should have AAA ratings for lack of a strong opposition, but they don't.

1. Being abrasive doesnt make me smart, its my way of dealing with low information noise makers.

2. and you call all you've posted here "critical thinking"? I could get all this waffling from Hannity all day. What's new?

3. This is nonsense. Read the S&P report before making noise. A republican i work with came to my office with the same idiocy you are presenting here and we had to go download and read the report ourselves line by line. He's never opened his mouth about the credit rating again. You would be surprised that republican antics as a problem with the credit rating was mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the report. Download it dude, its free . . . dont you get tired of O'reilly telling you what to think? and no i hardly watch msnbc.

If indeed the economy of stimulus was the reason for the credit downgrade then why were investors fleeing to purchase US treasury bonds - a sign that most still consider US debt a safe bet?

Just keep on reading Hannity's lips.

Tayo-D:

A simple attempt to engage one's cognitive process will entail asking what the wrangling was about.  It's a fact that S&P reported that the downgrade would not have happened if the US had addressed its structural debt problem.  The Republicans called for a balanced budget amendment that would have been adequate to deal with this issue but was rebuffed by the amateur in the WH.

Dumb nonsense again. The repubs didnt call for a balanced budget until 2 weeks BEFORE default date. Where were they all the time they had congress under Bush? They forgot there was any problem with debt? Now that the default is over where are the balanced budget noise makers? they are waiting for another default deadline to realise how important it is again?

Everyone and his dog knows a balanced ammendment requiring super majority in the senate and 2/3rds of the state legislatures WILL NEVER PASS . . . to say the "amateur in the white house" (a racist euphemism that was never used for any other president) was at fault is absolute idiocy.

Obama presented a far more severe budget reduction than was eventually passed. Repubs refused this because it contained removing tax loopholes for their friends . . . yeah the same dudes who put 2 wars on the government credit card really care about debt. Let them continue leading uninformed cows like you by the nose.

Tayo-D:

And for your information, S&P had put the US on a credit watch since July intimating Bond Firms that the US needs to cut its debt by $ 4 trillion to maintain its AAA ratings.  Needless to say, neither Obama nor Reid put a plan on the table to address this structural issue, hence the downgrade.  And for your information, even the new rating is saddled with a "negative watch" label, no thanks to the spender-in-chief at the WH.

That was 2 months AFTER the initial deadline for raising the debt limit passed thanks to political wrangling in Washington. Are you this slow?

@Davidylan,

Below is the Executive Summary of the report:

- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
- The downgrade reflects our opinion that t[b]he fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our     view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.[/b]
- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when[b] we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.[/b]
- Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into[b] a broader fiscal consolidation plan[/b] that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Every reason given above is based on fiscal responsibility and policy.  The key policy decision that warranted all this is mentioned in the last point - government debt trajectory.  How does further stimulus spending help this debt trajectory?

Please stop this partisan strong-headedness and address the issue as it requires.  If Obama signs on to a Balanced Budget Amendment which failed by just one vote in the Senate (after passing the Gingrich republican controlled House) during Clinton's era, then we wouldn't be facing this problem.  The Balanced Budget Amendment has been on the table for a long time and not recently as you have suggested.

Both the RNC and the DNC are the problem, which explains why the Tea Party is not liked by both Party establishment because they are holding their feet to the fire on this most important issue of our time.

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,

Below is the Executive Summary of the report:

- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
- The downgrade reflects our opinion that t[b]he fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our     view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.[/b]
- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when[b] we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.[/b]
- Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into[b] a broader fiscal consolidation plan[/b] that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

[size=15pt]Every reason given above is based on fiscal responsibility and policy.[/size]  The key policy decision that warranted all this is mentioned in the last point - government debt trajectory.  How does further stimulus spending help this debt trajectory?

No its not dude, at least you shld be able to read if you can cut+paste. Note these 2 lines that you yourself highlights - More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when[b] we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.[/b]

Next - Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into[b] a broader fiscal consolidation plan[/b] that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

Let me also quote from the detailed report itself - The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge

Hmm only one group was using the default ceiling (something Bush used more than 6 times with no problems) as a political football mr tayo.

Again let me quote from the DETAILED S&P report - It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

I only know of ONE group that is against raising revenues. Boehner made it clear that a problem with raising a mere $400m by closing special interest tax loopholes was the reason he rejected a $4tr cut in spending . . . oh yeah they are really concerned about the debt.

But more quotes - Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Huh? so even S&P is smart enough to realise you have to RAISE revenues by letting tax cuts expire to solve the debt crisis and SPECIFICALLY mentions republican intransigence as one of the reasons they are revising their opinion on the debt?

Mr Tayo . . . just continue listening to Faux news . . . you remain just as criminally misinformed as the rest of your uncle toms.

Tayo-D:

Please stop this partisan strong-headedness and address the issue as it requires.  If Obama signs on to a Balanced Budget Amendment which failed by just one vote in the Senate (after passing the Gingrich republican controlled House) during Clinton's era, then we wouldn't be facing this problem.  The Balanced Budget Amendment has been on the table for a long time and not recently as you have suggested.

You forget that the BBA would need the states for final ratification and that it will NEVER pass that right? You also realise there are no votes for a BBA in the senate and the "amateur in the white house" cannot armtwist democrats to vote for a BBA should they choose not to right? Its ok, just blame Obama . . . afterall that's what slave master Hannity tells you to do. If it makes you fit in a white world then go ahead making noise.

I asked you a simple question, why did this same republicans fail to pass the BBA when they had the white house and congress for 5 yrs under Bush? where were you? You all remembered the debt was important only when the "amateur" came into office?

Telling me to "stop partisan strong-headedness" while clinging to partisan rhetoric? How rich.

Tayo-D:

Both the RNC and the DNC are the problem, which explains why the Tea Party is not liked by both Party establishment because they are holding their feet to the fire on this most important issue of our time.

Ah the usual false equivalence. Like i said earlier (which of course you sweep under the carpet since Hannity is yet to address it), why are investors fleeing to US treasury bonds if indeed they think US debt is unsafe? Perhaps they know something you republican knuckleheads dont. At least McConnell was plain when he said his main legislative duty was removing Obama from office. The rest of you his minions would do better to educate yourselves before bleating like headless braying sheep.

@Davidylan,

If you have an interest in debating Hannity or any other American you have been trained to hate, please call their shows and discuss with them. I don't listen to Hannity, nor do I watch O'Reilly as you continue to hammer as you do other ignorant stuffs. Please address my points and stop all the childish rantings that portray you as an ignorant, self-important Leftist.

There is a reason why we have an Executive Summary. It highlights salient points that the entire document addresses. Additionally, it cuts through the clutter so that people like you who read documents based on your idealogical disposition, will have little room to wiggle and read your meaning into the entire document as you are trying to do here.

The problem is an unsustainable financial burden. A Balanced Budget Amendment will address this problem. A balanced budget entails both cuts and raising revenue. Until the amendment is passed, talking about cuts and raising revenue is mute. And by the way, there are a thousand and more ways to raise revenue other than tax increases. New York City raised taxes on its highest income earners two years ago, and they have ended up with less revenue. So please stop this nonsense that tax increases equate to higher revenue, it does not. What ensures higher revenue for the govt is a vibrant private sector. Tax increases is nothing but an higher cost of doing business to the private sector. How does that help both the govt and businesses? And can you explain how additional spending binge by Obama addresses this deficit spending that is the problem?

As for people buying more govt bonds, the reason is very clear. It is the same reason investors were buying toxic assets with underlying adjustable mortgage loans - they trust the govt will print money to meet the obligations. Also, the US is bound to pay those it owes ahead of meeting any domestic obligations. Did you ever remember Obama or Geitner saying they will not pay investors if the debt ceiling was not raised? Obama on the other hand said he could not guarantee meeting the needs of domestic social programs. Go figure,

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,

If you have an interest in debating Hannity or any other American you have been trained to hate, please call their shows and discuss with them.  I don't listen to Hannity, nor do I watch O'Reilly as you continue to hammer as you do other ignorant stuffs.  Please address my points and stop all the childish rantings that portray you as an ignorant, self-important Leftist.

There is a reason why we have an Executive Summary.  It highlights salient points that the entire document addresses.  Additionally, it cuts through the clutter so that people like you who read documents based on your idealogical disposition, will have little room to wiggle and read your meaning into the entire document as you are trying to do here.

There is also a reason we have the entire report available to download for free. I noticed how you decide to avoid it since it doesnt regurgitate repub talking points.

Tayo-D:

The problem is an unsustainable financial burden.  A Balanced Budget Amendment will address this problem.  A balanced budget entails both cuts and raising revenue.  Until the amendment is passed, talking about cuts and raising revenue is mute.  And by the way, there are a thousand and more ways to raise revenue other than tax increases.  New York City raised taxes on its highest income earners two years ago, and they have ended up with less revenue.  So please stop this nonsense that tax increases equate to higher revenue, it does not.  What ensures higher revenue for the govt is a vibrant private sector.  Tax increases is nothing but an higher cost of doing business to the private sector.  How does that help both the govt and businesses?  And can you explain how additional spending binge by Obama addresses this deficit spending that is the problem?

you are lying and you know it. With your repubs signing no raise taxes pledges with the likes of Grover Norquist . . . sure. The only reason we are here is because of republican intransigence to letting Bush tax cuts expire on schedule . . . maybe you should ask them to raise revenue no?

The Bush tax cuts cost about $800bn over 10 yrs . . . stop telling me tax increases do not equate to higher revenue . . . we know these tax cuts have led to DECREASED revenue. Maybe you should be directing that nonsense that tax increases dont equate to increased revenue to S&P, i would trust their own economists before i would take your own republican propaganda.

It wasnt me who talked of the Bush tax cuts . . . S&P did, stop reading executive summaries when the whole report is available for download. perhaps you would be better informed.

Let me ask again for the 3rd time (since you weasel keep ignoring it) - where were you all and your balanced budget ammendment when you held power under bush for 5 yrs? did the debt not exist then?

Tayo-D:

As for people buying more govt bonds, the reason is very clear.  It is the same reason investors were buying toxic assets with underlying adjustable mortgage loans - they trust the govt will print money to meet the obligations.  Also, the US is bound to pay those it owes ahead of meeting any domestic obligations.  Did you ever remember Obama or Geitner saying they will not pay investors if the debt ceiling was not raised?  Obama on the other hand said he could not guarantee meeting the needs of domestic social programs.  Go figure,

huh so they were well aware that republicans were just playing chicken with the debt limit?

Arguing with you is a total waste of time.

@David,

There is also a reason we have the entire report available to download for free. I noticed how you decide to avoid it since it doesnt regurgitate repub talking points.

Why are you so intent on showing how much you do not know? Have you ever worked in a corporation and told to write a report? Do you know what an Executive Summary is at all? Any point not addressed in the Executive Summary is either unimportant, or just a contributing factor to the real issue mentioned in the Executive Summary.

I noticed you also ignored the lecture I gave you about the summary. For your own good, please learn from it so you can use it in your professional pursuit. I will not start going through the entire document with you where you have greater latitude to use any phrase, word or statement out of context for your predetermined end. The salient points are well articulated in the summary and I'm not surprised that they undermine your ignorant position.

you are lying and you know it. With your repubs signing no raise taxes pledges with the likes of Grover Norquist . . . sure. The only reason we are here is because of republican intransigence to letting Bush tax cuts expire on schedule . . . maybe you should ask them to raise revenue no?

I see you've been conditioned to believe that the only way to raise revenue is to increase taxes. Please use your common sense for once and deliver yourself from the left-wing propaganda machine. There's a lot of evidence in history to prove otherwise. I just told you the case of NY.

The Bush tax cuts cost about $800bn over 10 yrs

Stop this rubbish that is being spouted by Obama and his robots. Tax cuts do not cost the govt anything. Such statements are made only by those who think all means of production, the products and profits belong to the govt in the first place. So tell me, how much is the cost to govt with the payroll tax cuts that Obama is calling for? While you are answering that question, please ask yourself, what is the cost of the trillion dollar deficit spending of Obama to not only the private sector, but to you and you children?

. . . stop telling me tax increases do not equate to higher revenue . . . we know these tax cuts have led to DECREASED revenue. Maybe you should be directing that nonsense that tax increases dont equate to increased revenue to S&P, i would trust their own economists before i would take your own republican propaganda.

What do you know? How can you be so misinformed? Here is a link on the historical lessons of tax cuts for you to read and hopefully deliver yourself from the grip of a self-inflicted ignorance - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

It wasnt me who talked of the Bush tax cuts . . . S&P did, stop reading executive summaries when the whole report is available for download. perhaps you would be better informed.

There was an increase in revenue after the Bush tax cuts. What the heck is your point? Tax cuts enhances production and tax hikes does the opposite. If tax hike is the answer, why not tax everybody? Why the selective taxing of a few for political gain?

Let me ask again for the 3rd time (since you weasel keep ignoring it) - where were you all and your balanced budget ammendment when you held power under bush for 5 yrs? did the debt not exist then?

Are you so dumb? Republicans have been pushing for a balanced budget amendment even before Bush became President. The measure was defeated by just one vote in the Senate dealing a momentum set back to the measure. A good economy (yes, even during Bush's presidency) also put it on the back burner. No one really gave the measure any thought with unemployment at around 4% during Bush's presidency. With real unemployment numbers at almost 17% now with increasing govt spending, yes people have started to reason like they should have over the years.

@David,

Let's lay out some historical facts here:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts
President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

you get your information from heritage.org? A republican think tank?

Might as well go get information from Acorn to refute the nonsense you had up there. why did Reagan (your god) increase taxes over 10 times? He forgot to read the information you have up here? why did clinton increase taxes? Why did America go through her best industrial period when tax rates for the rich was close to 90%?

Arguing with you is total loss.

@David,

It's obvious you cannot provide facts to buttress your position, nor can you substantiate your claims with facts.

Heritage provided facts and figures.  Is any of them wrong?  If so please prove otherwise.

I provided you with irrefutable facts about the waste in the stimulus spending.  You dismissed that even though you cannot point to any job that was created by the stimulus spending.  I can't continue to waste my time with someone who cannot provide proof nor articulate his position with facts. You seem to enjoy the propaganda you are being fed by Chris Matthews and co.  Please continue in such delusion. Thank God (by that I don't mean Obama), the false savior (Obama) will not see more than one term at the WH.

And since you hate Reagan so much, what about what John F. Kennedy said? Here it is again in case you missed it:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." John Kennedy.

Tayo-D:

@David,

It's obvious you cannot provide facts to buttress your position, nor can you substantiate your claims with facts.

Heritage provided facts and figures.  Is any of them wrong?  If so please prove otherwise.

I provided you with irrefutable facts about the waste in the stimulus spending.  You dismissed that even though you cannot point to any job that was created by the stimulus spending.  I can't continue to waste my time with someone who cannot provide proof nor articulate his position with facts. You seem to enjoy the propaganda you are being fed by Chris Matthews and co.  Please continue in such delusion. Thank God (by that I don't mean Obama), the false savior (Obama) will not see more than one term at the WH.

Dishonest nonsense. I provided clear facts to buttress my points. posting republican talking points from heritage is laughably ridiculous.
Would it be ok if i provided facts from MSNBC too? you might as well post Hannity's manifesto here.

I wonder why you keep dodging the questions i ask of you . . . let me ask for the 4th (FOURTH) time - why did this same republicans fail to pass the BBA when they had the white house and congress for 5 yrs under Bush? where were you? You all remembered the debt was important only when the "amateur" came into office?

Let me ask again - why did Reagan increase taxes not once, not twice, not three times but almost 11 times? Did he not see the "irrefutable facts" from heritage then?

Tayo-D:

And since you hate Reagan so much, what about what John F. Kennedy said? Here it is again in case you missed it:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." John Kennedy.

you're just an ignorant empty-head.

Tax rates under JFK was 91%, he wanted to reduce the rates to 65%.

David,

Dishonest nonsense. I provided clear facts to buttress my points. posting republican talking points from heritage is laughably ridiculous.
Would it be ok if i provided facts from MSNBC too? you might as well post Hannity's manifesto here.

To think you are a product of the American education system.  Opinions are different from statements of fact.  I never posted an opinion here from Heritage.  What I posted were historical facts and figures that can be verified.  I don't mind reading from MSNBC as long as I can separate the reporting of facts from personal opinion.  

Let me share one more fact with you and not an opinion.  At the time the first stimulus was being debated and passed, the US unemployment rate was a little over 7%.  Obama promised unemployment will never go above 8% if the stimulus was passed.  Now, after a full implementation of the stimulus, unemployment is at over 9% and rising.  Not only did Obama stimulated the deficit, he did the same with unemployment!!!!!

@David,

why did this same republicans fail to pass the BBA when they had the white house and congress for 5 yrs under Bush? where were you? You all remembered the debt was important only when the "amateur" came into office?

Are you on drugs? Didn't you read my response to that earlier?

you're just an ignorant empty-head.

This describes you so aptly. Again, you are regurgitating someones assessment of you here.

Tax rates under JFK was 91%, he wanted to reduce the rates to 65%.

So? He called for tax cuts which led to a higher government receipt and not the other way round as you have consistently claimed. This again is a fact and not a personal opinion.

Tayo-D:

David,
To think you are a product of the American education system.  Opinions are different from statements of fact.  I never posted an opinion here from Heritage.  What I posted were historical facts and figures that can be verified.  I don't mind reading from MSNBC as long as I can separate the reporting of facts from personal opinion.  

Let me share one more fact with you and not an opinion.  At the time the first stimulus was being debated and passed, the US unemployment rate was a little over 7%.  Obama promised unemployment will never go above 8% if the stimulus was passed.  Now, after a full implementation of the stimulus, unemployment is at over 9% and rising.  Not only did Obama stimulated the deficit, he did the same with unemployment.

What you posted where "facts" from heritage stripped of their context to arrive at a misleading conclusion. Its the typical republican game.
You all tell us about how Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went up . . . but refuse to mention he raised taxes over 10 times.

you talk to us about JFK advocating lower taxes . . . but forgot to mention marginal tax rates were 91% and JFK wanted to peg it at 65% . . . would you advocate we go back to 65% rather than the measly 35% we have now?

Obama made a promise (non-binding) when he wasnt in office yet and had no idea how bad the economy really was. I think this idiotic talking point has been over-used. What next? He uses the teleprompter too often?

When are you going to address my questions mr heritage?

Tayo-D:

@David,
Are you on drugs?  Didn't you read my response to that earlier?

i saw the idiocy that you passed as a response. Yes the motion was defeated by one senate vote under the Clinton presidency. But Boehner, McConnell and others had the congress under Bush for 5 yrs . . . where was the BBA? they forgot? they were too busy at war? Debt was zero then?

Tayo-D:

This describes you so aptly.  Again, you are regurgitating someones assessment of you here.
So?  He called for tax cuts which led to a higher government receipt and not the other way round as you have consistently claimed.  This again is a fact and not a personal opinion.

At 91%, most of the rich were simply running away from the country so they could keep more of their money. Tax rates are 35% today . . . and you're still borrowing the JFK argument? typical republicans . . . ignorant noise makers.

What you posted where "facts" from heritage stripped of their context to arrive at a misleading conclusion. Its the typical republican game.
You all tell us about how Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went up . . . but refuse to mention he raised taxes over 10 times.

Olodo.  What was the effective tax rate when he came into and left office?  Also, what was the unemployment rate when he came into and left office?  Finally, what was the govt receipt when he came into and left office?

you talk to us about JFK advocating lower taxes . . . but forgot to mention marginal tax rates were 91% and JFK wanted to peg it at 65% . . . would you advocate we go back to 65% rather than the measly 35% we have now?

Why the continual change in goal post.  You said every increase in taxes also increase govt revenue. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush proved otherwise.  These again are facts which are antithetical to your nature.

Obama made a promise (non-binding) when he wasnt in office yet and had no idea how bad the economy really was. I think this idiotic talking point has been over-used. What next? He uses the teleprompter too often?

You agreed that the statement is true and you are saying again it is a talking point.  Are you such a dunce?  It appears you've been deployed with the talking point to make "talking point" charges at others.

i saw the idiocy that you passed as a response. Yes the motion was defeated by one senate vote under the Clinton presidency. But Boehner, McConnell and others had the congress under Bush for 5 yrs . . . where was the BBA? they forgot? they were too busy at war? Debt was zero then?

Go back and read what I said again.  I will not indulge you with the half-truths you perpetually rely on in this discussion.

At 91%, most of the rich were simply running away from the country so they could keep more of their money. Tax rates are 35% today . . . and you're still borrowing the JFK argument? typical republicans . . . ignorant noise makers.

I see.  So the US has now built fences around its borders to keep the rich in so they do not relocate in response to unwarranted tax increases?  So they can no longer take their money and businesses to other business friendly nations if the climate at home is no longer favorable?  Are you for real?

@David,

It's obvious your idol worship of Obama will not make you see reason. I have devoted too much time to you today than you deserve. I have more important things to do than continue to waste my time with a belligerent ignoramus. Goodnight!