Getting Closer To A Fiscal Cliff Deal

[JayHawk]

Actually chance it is called demographics not bumper stickers.

Please provide any proof you might be able to derive from ... well hell I will take anywhere... that says those earning greater than 250 thousand dollars a year are greater than two percent of america...

Here I will start with a wiki links that uses Census bureau data and New York Times defined criteria of the classes... they actually define those above 250K as the top 1.5% from 2006 statistical data.

What is hard not to comprehend?

I understand you think it is unfair because a lot of people who make 250k live in the NYC area. That however makes it no less true that 98% of Americans earn less than that....

[chance1]

Actually chance it is called demographics not bumper stickers.

Please provide any proof you might be able to derive from ... well hell I will take anywhere... that says those earning greater than 250 thousand dollars a year are greater than two percent of america...

Here I will start with a wiki links that uses Census bureau data and New York Times defined criteria of the classes... they actually define those above 250K as the top 1.5% from 2006 statistical data.

What is hard not to comprehend?

I understand you think it is unfair because a lot of people who make 250k live in the NYC area. That however makes it no less true that 98% of Americans earn less than that....

i'm not debating the accuracy of the 98% figure - i'm sure the math is correct

and it's great for a politician to be able to say the 1% or the 2% ....... in this case in a very negative way ..... they're beating the system, etc.

Obama went to $400K in this first go round with Boehner - he'll have to do it again

and w/o some kind of blueprint to reign in spending, it doesn't really matter anyway

i don't think taxes are THE ANSWER - economic growth is coupled with reasonable but necessary spending cuts including the military AND entitlements

[JayHawk]

See entitlements usually means Social Security and Medicare both of which have issues but have nothing to do with our budget excesses. NOTHING.

So we do agree... taxes need to be raised and spending needs to be cut on the military and other government departments.

Where we diverge is you argue this 250K thing as if somehow they will remain immune. We must raise taxes on the 2% to start the process but eventually taxes should raise for every human being in the US. SO i see no issue with the 250 starting point. Eventually it needs to go up on the vast majority of America or we will never pay our debts down.

[chance1]

See entitlements usually means Social Security and Medicare both of which have issues but have nothing to do with our budget excesses. NOTHING.

So we do agree... taxes need to be raised and spending needs to be cut on the military and other government departments.

Where we diverge is you argue this 250K thing as if somehow they will remain immune. We must raise taxes on the 2% to start the process but eventually taxes should raise for every human being in the US. SO i see no issue with the 250 starting point. Eventually it needs to go up on the vast majority of America or we will never pay our debts down.

immune ? no just not having their taxes raised

given the # of taxes - sales, state, city, etc. - they're hardly immune

where would u put SS and medicare ? what "problem bucket?"

paying our debts down will be more easily managed by an economy that is growing

many dems agree - many leading dems agree that the 250k figure is arbitrary and TOO LOW

schumer, pelosi, hoyer and many others - sorry i don't have the link but i will find it

[JayHawk]

immune ? no just not having their taxes raised

given the # of taxes - sales, state, city, etc. - they're hardly immune

where would u put SS and medicare ? what "problem bucket?"

paying our debts down will be more easily managed by an economy that is growing

many dems agree - many leading dems agree that the 250k figure is arbitrary and TOO LOW

schumer, pelosi, hoyer and many others - sorry i don't have the link but i will find it

Feel free to find your link.... alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll people should have their taxes rasied but only after republican meddling stops the recovery of America's economy. Once the economy is strong they should incrementally increase taxes on everyone so as not to make it a single death blow to the economy.

[xbuzzerx]

i'm not debating the accuracy of the 98% figure - i'm sure the math is correct

and it's great for a politician to be able to say the 1% or the 2% ....... in this case in a very negative way ..... they're beating the system, etc.

Obama went to $400K in this first go round with Boehner - he'll have to do it again

and w/o some kind of blueprint to reign in spending, it doesn't really matter anyway

i don't think taxes are THE ANSWER - economic growth is coupled with reasonable but necessary spending cuts including the military AND entitlements

I don't actually dispute the GENERAL things you are saying here, Chance. My issue with Republicans and the general conservative viewpoint on taxation and solving deficits is that they have a blind, dogmatic belief that lowering taxes at any time regardless of the circumstances (i.e. two wars were just started or we're already in a deficit) is the sole and reliable precursor of economic growth.

Economic growth can be, literally, trends and fads that spawn a lemming effect and turn into a worldwide boom. They aren't necessarily created, spurred on or initiated by simply hacking a percentage in the tax code. Look at the dot com boom. Look at the housing boom. None of that was people going "well shit taxes went down marginally somewhere, let's all create a speculative industry boom out of nothing." They were basically unforeseen events. Or trends, fads. They weren't long-term sustainable forms of economic growth but few to no booms are.

Long story short, this blind belief that endlessly cutting taxes (I guess till we get to 0.00% ?) commensurately creates economic growth is fiction, it's economic religion. Some of our biggest booms were under much, much higher tax rates than today. Mark Cuban has stated openly that for the incredibly wealthy like himself, wiggling over a couple percent isn't something they even NOTICE in terms of what they go spend money on or whether or not they choose to invest money in businesses or creating jobs.

So if you state (and I agree with it) that this goes beyond taxes, spending and that we need economic growth-- then the question is what do you believe in supporting, promoting, or investing in in order to create that. The only thing Republicans seem to believe in investing in is defense spending and unless you believe there's somehow some untapped huge private sector nation-wide boom waiting to happen from defense spending then that idea isn't going to cut it. Obama talks a lot about incentives programs for both education and start-ups for green energy industries, but it tends to get drowned out and few people talk about it. What's your plan?

[Kulindahr]

From the National Journal of all places. Wow if they are lambasting the republicans for playing with the debt ceiling then mood has finally shifted.

Still we will continually meet a debt ceiling unless we start raising revenue.

When Mitt Romney pays 14% and I pay 28% there is something wrong with America.

If you pay 28%, he should be paying 38%.

[Kulindahr]

I don't actually dispute the GENERAL things you are saying here, Chance. My issue with Republicans and the general conservative viewpoint on taxation and solving deficits is that they have a blind, dogmatic belief that lowering taxes at any time regardless of the circumstances (i.e. two wars were just started or we're already in a deficit) is the sole and reliable precursor of economic growth.

Economic growth can be, literally, trends and fads that spawn a lemming effect and turn into a worldwide boom. They aren't necessarily created, spurred on or initiated by simply hacking a percentage in the tax code. Look at the dot com boom. Look at the housing boom. None of that was people going "well shit taxes went down marginally somewhere, let's all create a speculative industry boom out of nothing." They were basically unforeseen events. Or trends, fads. They weren't long-term sustainable forms of economic growth but few to no booms are.

Long story short, this blind belief that endlessly cutting taxes (I guess till we get to 0.00% ?) commensurately creates economic growth is fiction, it's economic religion. Some of our biggest booms were under much, much higher tax rates than today. Mark Cuban has stated openly that for the incredibly wealthy like himself, wiggling over a couple percent isn't something they even NOTICE in terms of what they go spend money on or whether or not they choose to invest money in businesses or creating jobs.

So if you state (and I agree with it) that this goes beyond taxes, spending and that we need economic growth-- then the question is what do you believe in supporting, promoting, or investing in in order to create that. The only thing Republicans seem to believe in investing in is defense spending and unless you believe there's somehow some untapped huge private sector nation-wide boom waiting to happen from defense spending then that idea isn't going to cut it. Obama talks a lot about incentives programs for both education and start-ups for green energy industries, but it tends to get drowned out and few people talk about it. What's your plan?

Too much two-dimensional thinking is the problem -- I sometimes think no one who can't do linear algebra shouldn't be eligible for Congress, because they can't possibly have the ability to picture the way things really work. The fact is that the Laffer Curve is a special case that really does work -- but you can only tell when it's going to by considering a batch of other variables, not just the two the classic graph rests on. We're nowhere near the conditions required for Laffer's notion to apply (at the very least it requires a much better humming economy).

Mark Cuban isn't alone. Warren Buffet was one who said that people earning the figures he does wouldn't really notice the difference between a 25% tax and a 35% tax, because it would have no real impact on the way they do things either personally or in business, except maybe to sharpen their skills a little; the only thing that really matters is an even playing field. And that reflects what I've found in my economic research in the last few years while on JUB: any tax rate under a third for the very wealthy doesn't affect jobs or productivity enough to matter. What does matter is the rate on those at the bottom, because a thousand dollars less in taxes is a thousand dollars pumped right into the economy, because every one of those dollars will get spent immediately as it didn't get taken by taxes.

And we need incentives -- under the right conditions, those do yield more revenue than they cost. Green energy is a good area, as is health care. On top of those we could use some real stimulus spending, spending on transportation especially -- repairing bridges long in need would be fair, but identifying highways so badly gone they're inhibiting commerce, and others where upgrades would enhance commerce, are the best way to go.

[Benvolio]

We cannot have a successful economy or democracy when more than half the voters are immune from the taxes and spending for which they vote. That is the most important thing at this point. We can survive another recession.

[Jack Springer]

Too much two-dimensional thinking is the problem -- I sometimes think no one who can't do linear algebra shouldn't be eligible for Congress, because they can't possibly have the ability to picture the way things really work. The fact is that the Laffer Curve is a special case that really does work -- but you can only tell when it's going to by considering a batch of other variables, not just the two the classic graph rests on. We're nowhere near the conditions required for Laffer's notion to apply (at the very least it requires a much better humming economy).

Mark Cuban isn't alone. Warren Buffet was one who said that people earning the figures he does wouldn't really notice the difference between a 25% tax and a 35% tax, because it would have no real impact on the way they do things either personally or in business, except maybe to sharpen their skills a little; the only thing that really matters is an even playing field. And that reflects what I've found in my economic research in the last few years while on JUB: any tax rate under a third for the very wealthy doesn't affect jobs or productivity enough to matter. What does matter is the rate on those at the bottom, because a thousand dollars less in taxes is a thousand dollars pumped right into the economy, because every one of those dollars will get spent immediately as it didn't get taken by taxes.

And we need incentives -- under the right conditions, those do yield more revenue than they cost. Green energy is a good area, as is health care. On top of those we could use some real stimulus spending, spending on transportation especially -- repairing bridges long in need would be fair, but identifying highways so badly gone they're inhibiting commerce, and others where upgrades would enhance commerce, are the best way to go.

I've never understood the liberal love affair with Warren Buffet. Buffet runs an extremely aggressive organization that buys up companies, controls and destroys some with an iron fist (remind anyone of how Romney was described), and destroys competition -- not the usual things that liberals like to call their own.

Locally Buffet's company Nebraska Furniture Mart has killed off more small, family owned businesses than Walmart ever did -- and yet liberals hold him up as one of their prophets.

Buffet is always complaining about the rich not paying enough taxes -- he and his liberal rich buddies can pay more -- no one is stopping them.

Any liberal care to explain?

[Benvolio]

I've never understood the liberal love affair with Warren Buffet. Buffet runs an extremely aggressive organization that buys up companies, controls and destroys some with an iron fist (remind anyone of how Romney was described), and destroys competition -- not the usual things that liberals like to call their own.

Locally Buffet's company Nebraska Furniture Mart has killed off more small, family owned businesses than Walmart ever did -- and yet liberals hold him up as one of their prophets.

Buffet is always complaining about the rich not paying enough taxes -- he and his liberal rich buddies can pay more -- no one is stopping them.

Any liberal care to explain?

I am not a fan of Buffet's but I do not agree he has intentionally bought and destroyed companies, and Nebraska Furniture destroyed the competition before Berkshire Hathaway bought it. The Blumkins owned it then.
But he is a world class hypocrite. He is worth 40 billion or so in Berkshire stock but pays very little income tax because the company has never paid a dividend. No dividends to tax. His salary is a mere 100,000 or so. Now he has started to give stock to charities he can claim a deduction for the appreciated value. He wants high spending by the government, but our money, not his. He likes the estate tax but does not intend to pay much as he gives his stock to charity.

[Jack Springer]

^^
Buffet bought 80% the store in 1983 and he started it's aggressive campaign to crush it's competition.

[JockBoy87]

He wants high spending by the government, but our money, not his.

Do you know what the contribution of your tax bracket is to the federal income?

How does the phrase "our money" not typify the foundation of socialism in US government?

[Benvolio]

^^
Buffet bought 80% the store in 1983 and he started it's aggressive campaign to crush it's competition.

What basis do you have for that. Any citation? Most of the competition was gone by then.

[Benvolio]

Do you know what the contribution of your tax bracket is to the federal income?

How does the phrase "our money" not typify the foundation of socialism in US government?

My point is that he wants the government to spend tax money from other people not him.

[JockBoy87]

My point is that he wants the government to spend tax money from other people not him.

But you just said "our money" as if you had an equal stake in the federal income.

Don't you think people who are wealthier than you, or at least those who pay more taxes, have a better say?

What did the Rachels mean when they said 90% of one's wealth is created by the labor of others?

[Jack Springer]

What basis do you have for that. Any citation? Most of the competition was gone by then.

http://www.nfm.com/ourstory_history.aspx

Their own web site. They are furniture and appliance whores.

Low prices until all their competition is out of business -- then raise them.

[JayHawk]

Um Jack the website you link to shows you are incorrect. first of all the purchase was for 90% of the store not 80% and in now way whatsoever does it reference underselling the competition to push granny and grampy retailer out of business. I live in the area now and while a large portion of people I talk with go to NFM many do not because there is only one store and the prices arent that much different than the other retailers in my rather swank Overland Park (better than Missouri) part of town.

Now could you provide some proof NFM pushes the smaller operations out of the market?

Seems to me your just pissy because they built in Kansas. Of course it is quite odd for a free wheel, no or low tax republican to bitch about business ownership.

[xbuzzerx]

My point is that he wants the government to spend tax money from other people not him.

That doesn't sound different from ANY rich person, which is why I pretty much just ignore the limp outrage from people like yourself about the so-called parasites who "are immune from the taxes and spending they vote on."

Were Cheney and people with shares in defense and oil industries the only people who accrued debt from the Iraq War? No? Then it works both ways and stop complaining about it. You're inventing a fictional "us and them" mindset where only one side gets some type of benefit they aren't paying for. It goes both ways.

[JayHawk]

Regardless on Jan 1st two million families will be taken off of unemployment benefits. Which will put all of those folks on the dole once again. Additionally their spending which is dollar for dollar of what they receive ... so if the average weekly amount to a claimant is 295 then 2.4 Billion leaves our economy immediately...

Add to that the failure of the House to pass a farm bill and consider milk and dairy prices doubling.....

Hope all of you have saved up for your republican driven recession.

[Jack Springer]

Um Jack the website you link to shows you are incorrect. first of all the purchase was for 90% of the store not 80% and in now way whatsoever does it reference underselling the competition to push granny and grampy retailer out of business. I live in the area now and while a large portion of people I talk with go to NFM many do not because there is only one store and the prices arent that much different than the other retailers in my rather swank Overland Park (better than Missouri) part of town.

Now could you provide some proof NFM pushes the smaller operations out of the market?

Seems to me your just pissy because they built in Kansas. Of course it is quite odd for a free wheel, no or low tax republican to bitch about business ownership.

Name some furniture stores in KC. A couple of dumpy stores and maybe 1 or 2 old family stores that are struggling to stay open -- Nebraska Furniture Mart has crushed the competition -- and will do the same in DFW.

In your small mindedness, I would expect you to think that it's because the store is in Kansas. Wrong. You live in the white only section of Kansas -- the NFM store is in the segregated white section of the black county you joco folks like to make fun of.

[Jack Springer]

Since Obama just increased the deficit by about $1 billion/year with his executive order on raises for executives -- can anyone really say that Obama is serious about curbing spending or controlling the deficit?

I don't think Obama really gives a fuck about the financial security of the USA.

[Rolyo85]

You don't? The shock!

[chance1]

No worries ........ Pres. Obama is making the Sunday Talk Show rounds today ........ all is saved

I hear his basic premise is to blame Boehner/McConnell/Repubs

but by all means watch for yourself

this is a guy who didn't show up for months - while campaigning

and he's still campaigning it seems

blame game bullshit

accountability for all but ME

Happy New Year american public

[rareboy]

Four more years Chance.

Four more years.

[chance1]

Four more years Chance.

Four more years.

Clearly u can count better than President Deficit

[Rolyo85]

Four more years Chance.

Four more years.

Tastes sweet, doesn't it?

[chance1]

Tastes sweet, doesn't it?

Some people's sweet

Taste bitter.

Yep.

Gonna watch pres deficit on MTP

[xbuzzerx]

No worries ........ Pres. Obama is making the Sunday Talk Show rounds today ........ all is saved

I hear his basic premise is to blame Boehner/McConnell/Repubs

but by all means watch for yourself

this is a guy who didn't show up for months - while campaigning

and he's still campaigning it seems

blame game bullshit

accountability for all but ME

Happy New Year american public

How exactly is the inability of the Republican Congress to budge or compromise even when it's in their own best interest his fault exactly?

I get that he's a black socialist Democrat and all that, but beyond that an actual reason would be nice.

[Benvolio]

How exactly is the inability of the Republican Congress to budge or compromise even when it's in their own best interest his fault exactly?

I get that he's a black socialist Democrat and all that, but beyond that an actual reason would be nice.

Compromise is like the tango. It takes two.

[xbuzzerx]

Compromise is like the tango. It takes two.

Oh so it's Obama sitting on his rearside saying no deal? In what reality?

[Benvolio]

He is not willing to reduce spending enough to make progress toward eliminating the defecit. The tax raise is the only bargaining chip the Republicans have, and if they give it up without solving the deficit problem, it is only a matter of time until we bankrupt the country.

[JockBoy87]

Compromise is like the tango. It takes two.

You didn't happen to just borrow that quote from Mitch McConnell did ya?

"I’m willing to get this done, but I need a dance partner."'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ate-democrats/

[CoolBlue71]

GREAT!!!!

A spending cut proponent LETS CUT HOMELAND SECURITY!!!!!

Agreed. We need costs reductions in national security and the U.S. military. Those who should be paying more taxes should begin at $75,000. No reductions with Social Security benefits. No raising of the age for qualifying for Social Security.

[chance1]

How exactly is the inability of the Republican Congress to budge or compromise even when it's in their own best interest his fault exactly?

I get that he's a black socialist Democrat and all that, but beyond that an actual reason would be nice.

u don't get Jack

clearly

[Benvolio]

Agreed. We need costs reductions in national security and the U.S. military. Those who should be paying more taxes should begin at $75,000. No reductions with Social Security benefits. No raising of the age for qualifying for Social Security.

I vote to cut TSA for sure. When i go to the airport in the midwest, virtually all local people, we get the full treatment: xray, and they look under my wrist watch!! When I return from Miami or LA, many foreign, its just the old metal detector. What a waste and aggravation.

[xbuzzerx]

u don't get Jack

clearly

You didn't answer the question.

[JayHawk]

Clearly u can count better than President Deficit

Ahhh .. you can always tell when the argument fails = the cutesy cute names come out...

I vote to cut TSA for sure. When i go to the airport in the midwest, virtually all local people, we get the full treatment: xray, and they look under my wrist watch!! When I return from Miami or LA, many foreign, its just the old metal detector. What a waste and aggravation.

Most TSA procedures have to do with volume and profiling of a variety of methods regardless of whether they admit it or not....


That said we do need to cut DHS.... just consider that EVERY police department in the nation gets money from DHS.... Arguably it should be a Presidential appointee directed department that enforces laws as that is one of his constitutional duties. However after 9/11 it has exploded way out of control... when DHS is funding drones for departments we have slipped through the looking glass.

Still ALL of this is the result of a do nothing congress rooted in a hapless and inefficient House that has no form of leadership to speak of in any terms other than pathetic.

Consider that besides taxes we get unemployment cuts, 1.2 trillion in across the board cuts and no farm bill so the Dairy Cliff...lol.. that title dairy cliff would be amusing if it wasn't such a sad reminder of ineffective dolts in the House.

Obama has come more than halfway and Boehner couldn't get a majority of the majority just to send it to the floor. THAT is the bottom line.

I predict they will now pass a continued tax break for those under 400k and in return unemployment benefits will not lapse for two million. That and the Senate passed bill that has been floundering in the house since well before the election will be passed at the last possible moment... disgraceful.

[maxpowr9]

Congress voted themselves a raise last week for their ineptitude. I say we go over the cliff and make them pay more.

[JayHawk]

To be fair Congress voted a wage increase that EVERYONE on the public dime gets. And the President instituted a freeze on those raises across the board claiming not to allow another raise until the private sector recovers.... or rather by stating that the government should not get raises while the public who pays their check are not getting raises.

Well Obama lifted that or it would not have occurred. I will bet you that is some of the closed door decisions made by those vultures.

[chance1]

You didn't answer the question.

your context of black and socialist isn't worth answering

[chance1]

Ahhh .. you can always tell when the argument fails = the cutesy cute names come out...

when you think of the one thing Obama has done to show that his presidency has been on balance a failure

DEFICIT comes to mind

he's an expert at it

so it's not cute - just apt

[chance1]

Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee says a deal will be struck and predicts it at $500K

which means the faux $250K = rich will be kaboshed

"We're going to deal with this tax issue," he continued. "We're going to deal with it either before midnight tomorrow or in the next couple of weeks, but nobody in the country - 99%, 98% of the people in the country should not be worried about revenues. But what they should be worried about is we still haven't tackled the issue of fiscal solvency."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...old/?hpt=po_c2

[JayHawk]

when you think of the one thing Obama has done to show that his presidency has been on balance a failure

DEFICIT comes to mind

he's an expert at it

so it's not cute - just apt

So since the deficit handed him was bigger what is your name for Bush?

BTW before you spin it out of control that is just a question not aligning the current issues with Bush so please don't get confused.

Had republicans came to the table willingly we would have decreased the deficit much more so over the last four years but it took years of legislative losses and maneuvering to bend them over a barrel and get them to actually come up with solutions.

Finally, what does Chance suggest would be the proper course for recovering from a massive recession? NO spending and allowing the country to careen into a deep depression?

It is simply a moniker devoid of reality. But that is on par with your republican lackies. They have been devoid of reality for going on 15 years now.

[JayHawk]

Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee says a deal will be struck and predicts it at $500K

which means the faux $250K = rich will be kaboshed



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...old/?hpt=po_c2

No that simply means taxes go up on those above 500k, they will simply not take the cuts they planned and unemployment insurance remains in effect for two million.... essentially they are kicking the can down the road. Doing literally nothing to address the issue at hand.

[chance1]

So since the deficit handed him was bigger what is your name for Bush?

BTW before you spin it out of control that is just a question not aligning the current issues with Bush so please don't get confused.

Had republicans came to the table willingly we would have decreased the deficit much more so over the last four years but it took years of legislative losses and maneuvering to bend them over a barrel and get them to actually come up with solutions.

Finally, what does Chance suggest would be the proper course for recovering from a massive recession? NO spending and allowing the country to careen into a deep depression?

It is simply a moniker devoid of reality. But that is on par with your republican lackies. They have been devoid of reality for going on 15 years now.

Bush gave him a deficit and Obama said "I'll give u a REAL deficit" - google it - he's exploded it

hence President Deficit

even now he's not concerned about the budget deficit - only about tax rates ...... cause HE PROMISED

"we'll deal with the deficit later"

we'll deal with the deficit after he leaves office is my guess

stimulus money should be used to RETRAIN people from skills/jobs that are no longer required into those that fit our new economy

and it shouldn't be shepherded by the likes of reid and pelosi who put the president on mute

he's too busy for the details

as for republicans coming to the table ........... be serious - the house has submitted proposals - for a long time now - just not the kind that democrats want - they'd rather demagogue them

[bankside]

Obama is paying Bush's tab.

Bush started two costly wars with no plan to ever pay for them. He was a financial moron. If Obama has balanced the budget on Day 1, you would be living through a bottomless Depression right now instead of a tough recession.

[JB3]

Obama is paying Bush's tab.

Bush started two costly wars with no plan to ever pay for them. He was a financial moron. If Obama has balanced the budget on Day 1, you would be living through a bottomless Depression right now instead of a tough recession.

Bush's tab and he has a rather large tab of his own as well.

[JayHawk]

as for republicans coming to the table ........... be serious - the house has submitted proposals - for a long time now - just not the kind that democrats want - they'd rather demagogue them

Really so go ahead and tell us which republican proposal you would like to accept? The one where seniors pay for the doubled defense budget or the one where they privatize social security... all of these were debated when they proposed them. If you don't remember republicans refused to do one single thing that is still evading them... they refuse to actually collect money in the form of taxes to pay for the financial decisions they made. And then they convince morons that democrats are the ones spending. it is comical.

Show me the republican plan to balance the deficit with tax revenue included and I will agree they offered a viable plan. Conservatives and liberals got together and offered a bi-partisan approach that was not taken up for a vote because it failed a super-majority based off of ALL the republicans voting against it.

face it chance republicans wanna be in the wilderness out of power and still protect the rich, corporation and the defense industry. nothing else has importance. it is pure ignorance.

[JayHawk]

Bush's tab and he has a rather large tab of his own as well.

Ok so same goes for you as for chance... go ahead and give your plan other than government spending for recovery from a recession. We'll wait.