The campaign is over...

[Guest]

for me.

That is the easiest way to explain it.

I will not vote for a Democrat. Our current president has surrounded himself with radicals. Cass Sinstein, regulatory czar. He is totally anti-Second Amendment. He even believes that hunting should be banned and that animals should be permitted to bring suit. He also supports the fairness doctrine.

John Holdren, the science is our advocates some of the most bizarre things imaginable. In the event of a global population loss requiring compulsory abortion, government confiscation of newborn babies.

Van Jones, a self-avowed, self identified Communist. They're just so many look them up yourself.

The mainstream press totally ignores anything derogatory about our current president. They cannot be trusted to do the one thing that they were guaranteed freedom of the press to do.

Democrats just seem to want to spend money. They want to tax and spend.

Harry Reid still in power. Voting for a Democrat would risk in staying in power.

I don't care what the Republicans are accused of or are doing. Whatever they are doing or will do cannot be anywhere near what a continuation of a Democrat regime would result in.

I will not vote for a third-party candidate. That guarantees the election of a Democrat.

Don't tell me about George Bush, he hasn't been running for years.

You may think that this is a bit radical but I've thought it out and it is the best solution that I can find. Just ignore the campaign. The campaign is over. Vote Republican. Save the nation. Sleep well for the next 16 months.

I hope I didn't ramble.

[Guest]

i agree...seems very simple and logical....

[Guest]

Of course I think you're correct and I could add much to your list, but it's not necessary. As Dennis Miller just said (in jest of course), right now I would vote for Anthony Wiener over Obama.

[Guest]

Sorry, I can't vote for the GOP pack. Not as it currently stands. It's not like the Democrats are much better. Any party that can't hang the Republicans with the rope the Republicans themselves are giving the Democrats isn't exactly worthy.

[Guest]

for me.

That is the easiest way to explain it.

I will not vote for a Democrat. Our current president has surrounded himself with radicals. Cass Sinstein, regulatory czar. He is totally anti-Second Amendment. He even believes that hunting should be banned and that animals should be permitted to bring suit. He also supports the fairness doctrine.

John Holdren, the science is our advocates some of the most bizarre things imaginable. In the event of a global population loss requiring compulsory abortion, government confiscation of newborn babies.

Van Jones, a self-avowed, self identified Communist. They're just so many look them up yourself.

The mainstream press totally ignores anything derogatory about our current president. They cannot be trusted to do the one thing that they were guaranteed freedom of the press to do.

Democrats just seem to want to spend money. They want to tax and spend.

Harry Reid still in power. Voting for a Democrat would risk in staying in power.

I don't care what the Republicans are accused of or are doing. Whatever they are doing or will do cannot be anywhere near what a continuation of a Democrat regime would result in.

I will not vote for a third-party candidate. That guarantees the election of a Democrat.

Don't tell me about George Bush, he hasn't been running for years.

You may think that this is a bit radical but I've thought it out and it is the best solution that I can find. Just ignore the campaign. The campaign is over. Vote Republican. Save the nation. Sleep well for the next 16 months.

I hope I didn't ramble.

trillions of dollars in spending cuts in return for tax increases on the wealthiest 1-2 percent. Guess that doesn't fit into your blind thinking.

[Guest]

How about giving the whole story Actor. When do these so called "spending cuts" that Oblamer is proposing and that you're touting take effect? Immediately? You think nobody reads?

[Guest]

trillions of dollars in spending cuts in return for tax increases on the wealthiest 1-2 percent. Guess that doesn't fit into your blind thinking.

Not by a dam site! Cut spending...period!!! No tax increases for anyone, period! How does that fit into YOUR blind thinking, Actor? Or would you like to see this nation wind up like Greece and the rest of Europe???

OK, now start tossing bombs at me, everyone!

[Guest]

Not by a dam site! Cut spending...period!!! No tax increases for anyone, period! How does that fit into YOUR blind thinking, Actor? Or would you like to see this nation wind up like Greece and the rest of Europe???

OK, now start tossing bombs at me, everyone!

understand the issue. Obama's plan would solve our long term deficit problems and guarantee that we don't end up like Greece. Try to educate yourself and then come back for more discussion.

[Guest]

understand the issue. Obama's plan would solve our long term deficit problems and guarantee that we don't end up like Greece. Try to educate yourself and then come back for more discussion.

Actor, I am educated on this matter, it's just that my viewpoint does not agree with yours. Since when is disagreement considered ignorant or uneducated? Perhaps that is the only argument you have. My sympathies.

[Guest]

Actor, I am educated on this matter, it's just that my viewpoint does not agree with yours. Since when is disagreement considered ignorant or uneducated? Perhaps that is the only argument you have. My sympathies.

if a certain former Governor of Texas who accidentally became president didn't blow so many holes in the national budget. Two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations-in effect tax spending- politically motivated Medicare part D,etc. It's like Bush and Cheney went out for an expensive dinner, and left without paying the bill. Obama deserves credit for at least trying to find a long term solution. He's willing to compromise by cutting trillions in spending,, and wants a plan for more revenue in return for the spending cuts. BTW, check out the latest polls on who the American people think is right on this.
And no, I don't think you are ignorant because you don't agree with me. You made a reference to our country turning into another Greece if we tax the wealthy more. The fact is that the reduction in government spending that Obama is proposing, and the additional revenue from taxing the wealthiest 1 percent at the Clinton era tax rates will insure that we don't end up like Greece.

http://news.yahoo.com/approval-obama-over-republicans-debt-limit-poll-131656487.html

[Guest]

How about giving the whole story Actor. When do these so called "spending cuts" that Oblamer is proposing and that you're touting take effect? Immediately? You think nobody reads?

today, it would jeopardize any economic recovery if massive spending cuts were to be enacted immediately. Obama is looking for a long-term solution. I thought you conservatives wanted to leave the country in better shape for your children and grand-children.

[Guest]

Neither party, Dems or Repubs have cut spending. Both are the same. If one gets into to much hot water they just agree to let the other party win the next election and nothing chnages except the name of who is in charge. Both parties have increased spending and the size of government when in power. The Repubs say decrease government while increasing the size, they want to fool us, and we have been, the Dems are honest enough to tell the true that they want to control everything,from birth to death, where the Repubs tell a good lie, but each party does the same thing. INCREASE government.

Time for a regime change that each party is so proud of saying of foreign dictators.

Elect all new folks, each election.

[Guest]

trillions of dollars in spending cuts in return for tax increases on the wealthiest 1-2 percent. Guess that doesn't fit into your blind thinking.

I think taxes have been raised enough.

[Guest]

I think taxes have been raised enough.

are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. Apparently you missed the last eleven years.

[Guest]

are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. Apparently you missed the last eleven years.

Solution: Get wealthy, it's the American way!

[Guest]

today, it would jeopardize any economic recovery if massive spending cuts were to be enacted immediately. Obama is looking for a long-term solution. I thought you conservatives wanted to leave the country in better shape for your children and grand-children.

We can start by eliminating all the new spending programs enacted by Obama over the past 3 years, and fire all the czars, and fire all but one person of the First Lady's staff, and roll back the wages of the WH staff. That would save us plenty right there.

It'll be hard to replace the money that was used as an Obama slush fund, otherwise known as the "stimulus", but with diligent and immediate cuts that are greater than any debt ceiling hike, we can slowly build ourselves back to some economic security.

The next step would be to remove the main problem, which is Obama himself in 2012, and that alone should increase our credit rating.

[Guest]

We can start by eliminating all the new spending programs enacted by Obama over the past 3 years, and fire all the czars, and fire all but one person of the First Lady's staff, and roll back the wages of the WH staff. That would save us plenty right there....Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term. In fact, no President from either party has enacted a spending bill in U.S. history.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress which preceded them for the eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto spending bills or starting or continuing wars without Congressional approaval--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

[Guest]

Argue, argue, argue. You don't need to. Which is better, another 4 years of Obama and his crew or just about any Republican running?

Vote Republican. Save the nation.

[Guest]

Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress for the preceding eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto some spending bills--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

Oh please VK, I'm just tweaking you honking liberals who still think Obama walks on water and the conservatives are lurking under bridges. I'm making a point here and if you can't see it, it explains a lot to me.

[Guest]

Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term. In fact, no President from either party has enacted a spending bill in U.S. history.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress which preceded them for the eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto spending bills or starting or continuing wars without Congressional approaval--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

Let's get down to the facts and actually DO THE ARITHMETIC rather than pontificating BS showing you know little or nothing about the subject. For the last four decades Federal outlays have averaged between 18 & 19% of GDP - a sustainable level. Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels. This administration has the nation on a path to default on our debt through its profligate spending.

It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control. Bring Federal spending back down to 18% of GDP or even 21% and we have a problem we can deal with. Right now expenditures are at 24% and climbing.

[Guest]

...For the last four decades Federal outlays have averaged between 18 & 19% of GDP - a sustainable level. Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels....It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control.......Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels....
It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control....

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/FederalOutlaysRevenuesGDP.png

You're only partially...and selectively...right. Check the chart.

From about 1975 until 2000, government spending actually exceeded 20%...it looks like it averaged about 22-23% of GDP for those 25 years. Would you call that "unsustainable"? You might, depending on which party was in power, I suppose. But during that quarter century, our economy performed pretty doggone well. The chart below shows that our GDP grew in all but a few years at a rate that looks like it averaged about 3-4%.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/USGDPGrowth.png

But you're quite wrong regarding your statement that "...It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen..." That's plainly wrong. Federal revenues have fallen, from an average of about 17-18% of GDP from 1975 and as high as over 20% in 2000. But they have declined dramatically since then, to as low as about 15% now. Presumably, the Bush tax cuts had quite a lot to do with that result. A lowered GDP that resulted from deep recession also had a lot to do with the result.

As far as government spending is concerned, you are quite right. Since 2008-9 spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. How much was the result of unecessary increased spending and how much the result of a reduced GDP resulting from the worst recession since 1929? That takes a lot more analysis, but it certainly has an effect.

On the spending side, I guess I might ask how much of the increased spending was done to address the financial crisis that was reaching full-blown proportions just as Obama was being inaugurated? How much was the result of the two wars which he inherited from the prior administrations? Again, more analysis is needed. But unless you're a complete partisan and maintain an ignorance of recent history, you've got to conclude that both had significant economic effect.

I won't defend the actions of the Congresses that were in power since 2000, regardless of their party or ideology. They were all profligate spenders as well as people who paid absolutely no attention to governing in the way their predecessors did. And that spending and inattention to governance is largely what got us where we are now.

For you to place all the blame on one President who came into office 30 months ago to find two wars and the worst financial crisis in 75 years is complete hogwash. Look at the charts. More importantly, tell us all what you would have done facing the same circumstances?

Barack Obama will have to take responsibility for his presidency. That assessment will be made sometime in the future. But to say that he is totally responsible for what has happened in the last 30 months and what may happen in the next year or so is nonsense.

Who will you blame if the current fiscal crisis is permitted to spin out of control? The POTUS? Or the polarized and partisan politicians who refuse to negotiate short- and longer-term solutions that people from all political or ideological persuasions know are necessary.

Ahh forget it...I already know your answer.

[Guest]

What do you think would save more money?

Cutting White House staff or bringing home National Guard reservists and going back to paying those tens of thousands of soldiers their 38 days/year of pay instead of 24/7 combat pay?

[Guest]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/FederalOutlaysRevenuesGDP.png

You're only partially...and selectively...right. Check the chart.

From about 1975 until 2000, government spending actually exceeded 20%...it looks like it averaged about 22-23% of GDP for those 25 years. Would you call that "unsustainable"? You might, depending on which party was in power, I suppose. But during that quarter century, our economy performed pretty doggone well. The chart below shows that our GDP grew in all but a few years at a rate that looks like it averaged about 3-4%.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/USGDPGrowth.png

But you're quite wrong regarding your statement that "...It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen..." That's plainly wrong. Federal revenues have fallen, from an average of about 17-18% of GDP from 1975 and as high as over 20% in 2000. But they have declined dramatically since then, to as low as about 15% now. Presumably, the Bush tax cuts had quite a lot to do with that result. A lowered GDP that resulted from deep recession also had a lot to do with the result.

As far as government spending is concerned, you are quite right. Since 2008-9 spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. How much was the result of unecessary increased spending and how much the result of a reduced GDP resulting from the worst recession since 1929? That takes a lot more analysis, but it certainly has an effect.

On the spending side, I guess I might ask how much of the increased spending was done to address the financial crisis that was reaching full-blown proportions just as Obama was being inaugurated? How much was the result of the two wars which he inherited from the prior administrations? Again, more analysis is needed. But unless you're a complete partisan and maintain an ignorance of recent history, you've got to conclude that both had significant economic effect.

I won't defend the actions of the Congresses that were in power since 2000, regardless of their party or ideology. They were all profligate spenders as well as people who paid absolutely no attention to governing in the way their predecessors did. And that spending and inattention to governance is largely what got us where we are now.

For you to place all the blame on one President who came into office 30 months ago to find two wars and the worst financial crisis in 75 years is complete hogwash. Look at the charts. More importantly, tell us all what you would have done facing the same circumstances?

Barack Obama will have to take responsibility for his presidency. That assessment will be made sometime in the future. But to say that he is totally responsible for what has happened in the last 30 months and what may happen in the next year or so is nonsense.

Who will you blame if the current fiscal crisis is permitted to spin out of control? The POTUS? Or the polarized and partisan politicians who refuse to negotiate short- and longer-term solutions that people from all political or ideological persuasions know are necessary.

Ahh forget it...I already know your answer.

This "a president isn't responsible for spending as it has to go through congress" president along with a democratic majority shoved through a bil unread in the middle of the night that will not only by any measure bankrupt this country but will destroy healthy competition and transform it to a single payer system. the simple truth is Obama won't own the economy he has carried to 24% of GDP