Thomas D

The Democrats promised to balance the budget by only raising taxes on the rich while increasing spending, this is impossible (search tax 1% revenue). Anyone who voted for a Democrat voted for someone who was lying to them, and unless they we ignorant of any facts they had to know they were being lied to.

The Republicans promised to balance the budget without raising taxes and with no massive spending cuts. Their magic bullet was eliminating exemptions which has been shown would not lead to enough extra revenue to come close to balancing the budget. They also lied to voters yet people willingly voted for them.

We have a two party system that lies to us and everyone knows it. Why do we keep voting these same people into office, is the American electorate not knowledgeable enough to make smart choices?

You always hear the Democrats talking about there being a revenue problem and not a spending problem. Knowing that fact that even if you taxed the top 1% at 100% of income you would not come anywhere close to balancing the budget, should they say that they would sign any budget the Democrats come up with that is actually balanced. The Republicans would allow any tax increase as long as the budget was balanced in that budget year (no twenty years to a balance gimmick).

This would put the Democrats in the position of either saying:

1) They do not care about balancing the budget, they just want to raise taxes for wealth redistribution

2) They agree to massively cut spending to lead to a balanced budget, we have a spending issue that extra revenue will never come close to fixing

What do you think, should the Republicans call the Democrats bluff and agree to sign any budget that is balanced so the American people can see what the Democrat's priorities are?

30 years ago a lot of the things President Obama stands for would have been fought against by Liberals, they would have been protesting in the streets over them. Look at the list of items below and try to imagine any real Liberal supporting these things:

NDAA - Codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.

PATRIOT Act - Allows for broad surveillance on American Citizens

Justice Department crackdown on legal medical marijuana dispensaries

Expanding war in Afghanistan and using drones to kill in assorted foreign countries

Using our armed forces without Congressional Consent ( I know other presidents have done it, it is still wrong)

I just wonder how anyone can call themselves a Liberal and still vote for someone (Obama) who supports these things.

2008 - 69,498,215

2012 (Projected) - 60,788,555

Does this show that he really does not have any mandate? It seems that he has even less support now then he did in 2008.

I am thinking it will be American cars.

The best idea would be (especially for the self employed or those who by their own insurance)

1) Pay the fines, it will never rise above $2500 and it is pegged to a small percentage of your income

2) If you get sick or injured just sign up for insurance that day, the companies cannot deny you coverage (no pre-existing condition denials) and cannot charge you more than if you paid all along (community rating).

Save all of your money you would have spent on health care in a Roth IRA so it is tax free at retirement.

I do not see any downside to working the system like this.

This health insurance penalty is a tax on people making less than $250,000 a year for sure.

Now we can say for certain Obama like to raise taxes.

Did anyone notice that the Attorney General got up and gave a speech saying this administration feels it is lawful and good to kill American citizens anywhere on Earth without a trial or due process. If the administration decides that anyone might be a potential threat they have the right to kill them.

Does this not bother anyone? We are so focused on mane calling the big important things just go right on by us with no real debate, anger or action.

It is scary how many freedoms and rights have been taken while the citizens of this country do nothing.

I know Congress makes the laws, regulations, taxes and passes the budget so I was wondering if there is an easy place to figure out who controlled Congress during good and bad economic times. I figure Congress has a lot more to do with the economy than the President.

I know the Republicans controlled it during the Clinton years and that economy and the Democrats controlled it during the recent crash but I am just looking for some more information on it.

Libertarians support individual rights, this includes the right to gather in a group and ask for more compensation from an employer.

We do believe that there should be no special laws forcing people to join a union to get a job or laws prohibiting employers from negotiating with individual union members.

I am just wondering when people started thinking Libertarians were anti-union and not anti-government interference.

change from a way to fund government to a way to social engineer society and redistribute wealth?

and drive it into insolvency?

He wants to continue to take billions every year that is supposed to go into the Social Security fund and give it to big business.

For instance look at the Occupy Wall Street Protestors. they say some things we can all agree on than just go overboard with greed.

1) Bailouts for banks and corporations were wrong - agreed

2) Corporations have too much influence in our political process - agreed

3) Taxpayers should all chip in and pay off our student loans - just greedy

we will get about 70 Billion extra per year in revenue.

Our Budget deficit this year is going to be about 1.3 Trillion.

Where is the other 1.23 Trillion going to come from?

Not like they could do any worse. Look at he fact that the the fraction of murders solved has decreased in the United States, from 90% in 1960 to 61% in 2007. It is even lower presently. This basically means that is they do not catch you over the body they will never catch you.

When was the last time the police prevented a crime, where I live they normally only come around to give a report on a robbery so the person who was robbed can submit it to their insurance company. I think a private force could do that just as well as they do now.

I mean will it even be possible. Taxes will not help, we could tax the top 10% of wage earners at a 100% rate and it would not cover the deficit.

Spending cuts are never real. The cuts they have proposed and are called draconian actual increase the debt to over 20 Trillion in 10 years. And these "cuts" have not even really been enacted.

With the average Americans lack of knowledge or drive, the fact that incumbency almost guarantees re-election and Americans all want more from the system than they paid in do we have any real hope of fixing anything before we become another Greece?

and the rate on the 10 year Treasury is about 2.5%.

Do you know this means people are paying the Government to hold their money for them? This should be all you need to know about how much confidence investors have in any other country.

We are still number one.

when it has been proven time and again that a simple downgrade does little to affect interest rates;

Look at when Japan was downgraded, their rates barely moved. Same with China, Australia and Canada.

Why when it has not affected large economies in the past do people think it will make our treasury rates shoot up? Remember treasury rates are based more on how safe you look compared to other investments than any rating, and we still look safe compared to anywhere else.

There will be no spending cuts. What the politicians call cuts are not really cuts, it is just slowing the rise of spending.

You can think about it like this, if they spend a Trillion dollars this year and planned to spend 2 Trillion next year they would only raise spending by 800 Billion and call it a cut of 200 Billion. Now to any normal human this is an 80% spending raise but they refer to it as a cut.

Truth is spending will go up every year under almost every plan put forth by Democrats or Republicans.

If you do not contribute all and are a net consumer why should you be allowed to vote yourself more money.