OPINION

He’s a master at that, James. When he said his stimulus bill was passed with absolutely no pork or earmarks, he never even giggled.

To answer your question - NO!

Unless we quit voting for reps and demos or at least if we are forced to play the one party game - vote for all challengers.

Oldagg

Why does everyone cry foul on Obama mortgaging our future when right here in our backyard we are doing that with toll roads? We are allowing the potical wh*res to mortgage our's and kid's future to the tune of 50 years. I can assure you for toll road users that tolls will be costing you more than anything Obama is doing.

Is the state full of hypocrits?

The deficit commission was killed in the Senate by Republicans Mitch McConnell, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John McCain among others. And they co-sponsored the legislation and still voted to kill it. Obama then issues an executive order to create the deficit commission and appoints former Senator Alan Simpson, a rock ribbed conservative from Wyoming, as co-chairman. Not a word of this from the Republican blowhards who can only find fault 100 percent of the time with anything our President does. Always, always finding fault with Obama. That's the hypocrisy of the right wing.

My grandkids will lovingly pay for Obama's debt even if the dimocrats won't.

Jack,
There is a big difference between a toll road and running continued deficits that adds to the federal debt.

First, states and municipalities cannot borrow from themselves or print money, so they issue bonds backed by the income from the tolls. Bondholders pay for the road to be built (with real money). The people who use the road, pay the toll which goes to repay the bondholders. Federal deficit spending is inflationary, state toll roads are not.

Second, your children who pay those tolls will get to use the asset that was built. With all the federal spending that is consumed to pay interest on the debt and transfer payments, your children will have little to point to when they send in their tax payment.

I don't understand why a brilliant professor would need a commission to tell him he could create huge surpluses to pay down the ever increasing national debt and actually have money in the federal treasury if he just killed Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Of course the last two have to be done in steps as people who are already enslaved in.....oops I mean dependent on these programs, since they have already paid in their whole lives. Those 40 and under should be released. Or at least if it such a great deal they could continue it on a voluntary basis. But I know, I know it is cruel and unrealistic to take a common sense business approach to running our affairs.

Let's keep trying to just Balance the budget right? Because breaking even will go such a long way in eating up those annual interest payments that consume 1/3 of our annual revenue. Oh, and don't forget that the whole industry of processing, collecting and enforcement of tax payments takes up nearly another 1/3 of that annual revenue.

Go to www.FairTax.org if you want real answers and real change. The politicians don't like this legislation because it would almost put lobbyist out of business since there are no more industry tax incentives to lobby for under this bill. Then where would they be come election time? What? You can't expect them to count on the contributions of actual constituents now do you? That would require them to hold themselves accountable and practice integrity! We certainly can't have that kind of change.

You want change? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE CHANGE!!!

The party of NO, that first co-sponsored the legislation for the deficit commission then voted to kill it once President Obama said it was a good idea is, is wanting our country to fail. They would rather we all rot then to let President Obama succeed. Many congressman and senators said that many times.

So, the Party of NO would rather see our country go deeper into a depression, with no new jobs, and people continuing to go bankrupt because their health care won't pay all that they have promised. And they say they are patriotic?? That's the biggest joke around. These blowhards who tout their conservativeness are the ones that would step over their own grandmother to get to the lobbyist's check.

I say let's vote out all the people in office in Texas. It's time to clean house!!

skipper, I like the Party of No. They make sure that the Party of Lies, Democrats, are kept in check. No is a good word in DC speak. It tells the Dems that , no were not going to believe your lies anymore, no we don't want wealth re-distribution and no we don't want Public Healthcare Reform.

also we don't want continued trillion dollar plus deficit spending on unconstitutional items such as social security and other forms of welfare. (at last count, since 2007, the democratic controlled House of Representatives has passed spending bills totaling nearly 3.2 trillion dollars more than tax revenues can support. THIS LIES SQUARELY WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. No one else. 3.2 trillion dollars is more than the total of deficits spend in six years under Bush by the Republican controlled House of Representatives. all we hear, though is that the Republicans are to blame for everything. not the dems.

No, the country is going to he!! and we must elect Debra Medina for president. That way we won't pay any taxes except a sky high sales tax on everything, will no longer have public schools, will have no services for the poor, will not have federal funding for roads and transportation, no services for abused/neglected children, the disabled, and the elderly, and we can all carry guns without registration.

The only answer is to go back to the wild west. Yeeeeehaw!

So we should complain if Obama expresses no interest in digging out of the national deficit, or we should complain if Obama does want to attempt a bipartisan effort at hopefullly putting in motion future efforts to reduce the deficit? This is confusing.

Oh, I should have known, the real answer there are those who will complain no matter what action Obama takes or doesn't take regarding anything.

Just cut Medicare! Why do people want to live forever if this country is going down the tubes! Old people are draining the resources of our future by wanting health care at an affordable rate.

BTW Social Security is working. It will be insolvent for a few years while all these old people take their free money, but after they die it will come back.

Just cut Medicare! Why do people want to live forever if this country is going down the tubes! Old people are draining the resources of our future by wanting health care at an affordable rate.

BTW Social Security is working. It will be insolvent for a few years while all these old people take their free money, but after they die it will come back.

Now, as I understand it, the Tea Party movement is angry about waste, bail-outs for the rich and spiraling debt. They detest big government. But if waste and debt are really what’s bothering them, how about the waste in the more than 1,800 daily health-care related personal bankruptcies, the 25 to 30 percent of some corporate insurers’ costs going on administration (versus 6 percent for Medicare), the sky-rocketing health premiums that are undermining U.S. corporations (and so taking jobs), the endless paperwork of private reimbursement procedures, and the needless deaths?

Americans don’t want a European nanny state — fine! But, as a lawyer friend, Manuel Wally, put it to me, “When it comes to health it makes sense to involve government, which is accountable to the people, rather than corporations, which are accountable to shareholders.”

All the fear-mongering talk of “nationalizing” 17 percent of the economy is nonsense. Government, through Medicare and Medicaid, is already administering almost half of American health care and doing so with less waste than the private sector. Per capita Medicare costs for common benefits grew 4.9 percent between 1998 and 2008, against 7.1 percent for private insurers. Why not offer Medicare as a choice — a choice — to everyone? Aren’t Republicans about choice?

You're twisting words, Bud. I said, "Does living long enough to be old automatically make you a parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generation?"

Consider your statement: "Just cut Medicare! Why do people want to live forever if this country is going down the tubes! Old people are draining the resources of our future by wanting health care at an affordable rate."

Does being old mean I should no longer have "health care at an affordable rate"? I guess that huge chunk of money I get every month from Social Insecurity should take care of all my medical expenses, huh?

Done any investigating on how much that "huge chunk" is, Bud? What I get a month is less than I made in a WEEK when I was working. I would LOVE to not be on Medicare. Unfortunately, it was that or nothing; I got kicked off my group insurance the month I turned 65.

Just because I'm fortunate enough to have lived long enough to become old doesn't mean I'm ready to stop living, and I'm not unique. Very few of us old people are ready to stop living. That's why we're still here.

If that much money is necessary for keeping otherwise hard-working people in their homes what's the alternative?

Why should all our taxes go to support the rich and they send it overseas with our jobs, after they've collapsed our banking system.

That would be punishing the victim of a crime, and rewarding the perpetrator.

And any money spent on infrastructure, is like money someone spends on their house; it's investing in an asset, not blowing it up in in what seems unceaseless wars.

To Anonymous @ 11:36

If 1800 people a day are going bankrupt because of insurance that comes out to about 700,000 a year... That sounds a little off to me. Where do you get your facts?

Most (most) of us can make the choices it takes to live a productive life. It starts early.

I am learning that the R's WANT and BELIEVE you can do it.

The D's think everyone is HELPLESS and STUPID and cannot do it without the gov. doing it for them...

It seems several folks on here don't seem to understand the difference between the National Deficit and the National Debt. Sad really, but for the sake of educated debate moving forward:

National Deficit = The $1.4 trillion difference between what government will spend in 2010 and what they will bring in for 2010. So yes HUGE spending cuts are required. Since raising taxes actually has the backward effect of reducing revenues in a bad economy, we need to do what has historically worked and lower taxes across the board to stimulate the economy and increase revenues. Like Reagan and Clinton did when the economy stregthened, you can then raise taxes and increase revenues even more. NOTE: More revenue equate to squat with HUGE spending cuts.

National Debt = The $12,410,678,456,876(and going up at an unphathomable rate due to huge interest accumilation) is owed to countries like Japan, China, India, France and Germany. We cannot pay down this debt until we can make HUGE spending cuts and increase tax revenues in order to replace budget deficits with budget surpluses. See the pattern?

So, when folks carry on about the $200 billion budget surlus that Clinton had for one budgetary year(came from taking money out of social Security's so-called "Lock Box") which was also his last year(thus the famous phrase,"when Bush took over there was a $200 billion surplus"). So, you take that $200 billion surplus and apply it to teh debt of about $9.6 trillion at that time and now you have only $9.4 trillion in debt. WEEE!! But since that surplus came from a gubment program you can't rob every year to close deficits, you have to come up with something different. Like say HUGE spending cuts and increased tax revenue???

Anonymous @ 1:31, you are absolutely right. It is really quite simply that black and white with a few exceptions on each side of the aisle.

Anonymous @ 11:36 wants to be able to lay in bed until noon, get up and head off to his cost free doctors appointment and get back to his section 8 house just in time to get his gubment check and food stamps. Then of course it off to the liquor store to gank some 40's and blunts!! The night comes alive while he plays PS3 until 2 am on his gubment subsidized broadband connection. America has certainly become the land of the free for some of us!

Dman1b, "HUGE spending cuts and increased tax revenue"... Yes, for our children and grand kids sake there will need to be both. Will Obama and the Congress - Democrats and Republicans - have the guts to do it? We'll see. One of the possible starts is a deficit commission to at least lay out the stark facts and hopefully the tough steps to address them. One co-chair is Alan Simpson, a fiscal tight-fisted conservative. Clinton's $200 billion budget surplus was real accomplished with a Republican Congress and Democratic president. Read Newt Gingrich's article in Time this week about how he worked with Clinton to accomplish the budget surplus and other tough steps. By the way I responded to your Geitner comments.

Just cutting out or at least seriously curtailing all the subsidies would do a long way to reducing the deficit.

And most if not all the earmarks and pork, too.

It will never happen. Too much of our spending is for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other unconstitutional, at least before FDR, entitlement programs. As interest rates go up to control inflation from the Keynesian economic policies of our national government, both the deficit and debt are going to get much worse.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Insecurity need to be phased out. For those already on the programs, discontinuing them is unthinkable - that's all some of those people have, and it's pitifully little. Those under an arbitrary age, say 40 at the latest, and maybe even 50, should be on notice it ain't gonna be there for them and to plan accordingly.

But then, a lot of young people never expect to see a penny of the money they're paying in to Social Insecurity and Medicare. They're very wise.

estacado, i'm bringing dialouge over from previous post on close to same subject because Bill Burris is in here now and you owe him an apology. I don't think you a genuine enough to give it to him, I hope you prove me wrong.

"Posted by estacado @ 9:08 AM Tue, Feb 23, 2010
Dman1b, here's what Burris said: "If he owed more taxes than he could pay or agreed with, he could simply choose not to pay them. The penalty, nowadays, is a cabinet post." That statement is inaccurate. Geitner as a member of the Cabinet has not gotten away with anything. He was found to owe taxes and he paid them. Geitner's tax problems appear to be one of "omission" rather than "commission". Rangel's appears to be a genunine tax cheat. Rangel should resign or be voted out or be removed from his chairmanship. I was having too much fun responding to you to get back to Burris a third time."

Here is the facts from the Washington Post:
"Over several years, Treasury secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner failed to pay Social Security taxes, even though he was advised by his employer to do so, signed an agreement indicating that he understood that such payments were his responsibility and received extra pay from his employer specifically for that purpose."

So, after being advised of his obligation, signing a documnet that he understood this obligation, received extra monies to fulfill his obligation and then turned around and shierked that obligation for 5 years is not cheating or fraud??? Really?? Shouldn't he step down just like Rangel? Or, maybe he should have had the integrity of Tom daschle or Bill Richardson(two other hot picks from the great one) and never have accepted the nomination! You are either just kidding, and my bad for misreading your humor, or you are a complete unsaveable OBAMABOT!!!

Either way you were dead wrong with your statement, "The two of us are in such diametrically opposite positions that it is bleating in the wind for both of us. I don't agree with your statements nor you with mine. There is no member of the Cabinet who has "not paid taxes" and gotten away with anything." Unless you consider the DNC paying his bill free of interest or penalies makes an up and up guy who is absolutely qualified for the position? So now you don't agree with facts? Give Bill a nice big apology beacause he was dead right and you were dead wrong. Not to mention you will feel better. And for the record Obama has 3 tax cheats in his cabinet.

Dman1b, you are hyper-ventilating. All this still holds true - "If he owed more taxes than he could pay or agreed with, he could simply choose not to pay them. The penalty, nowadays, is a cabinet post." That statement is inaccurate. Geitner as a member of the Cabinet has not gotten away with anything. He was found to owe taxes and he paid them. Geitner's tax problems appear to be one of "omission" rather than "commission". Rangel's appears to be a genunine tax cheat. Rangel should resign or be voted out or be removed from his chairmanship." Omission rather than commission - you want to hang 'em high, but conservative Republican senators who voted on Geithner's confirmation do not agree with you. From a January 13, 2009 NY Times article, after testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, two conservative Republican senators on the Committee said:

“I still support him,” Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah said. “He’s a very, very competent guy.”

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, called the matter “a lot to do about nothing.”

“I just find it to be really unfortunate,” Mr. Gregg said, “because here is an extraordinarily qualified guy who we really do want to have in leadership here in Washington.”

The Jan. 13, 2009 NY Times article also said: "Mr. Geithner fully paid his state and federal income taxes. In failing to pay his payroll taxes, he in effect kept the money the I.M.F. had contributed toward his liability. However, Mr. Geithner’s accountant told him he was exempt from self-employment taxes, according to Obama transition officials.

As Obama officials pointed out, and I.R.S. documents attest, the failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes is common among Americans who work for international organizations, including foreign embassies. A 2007 I.R.S. notice reported that up to half of such employees incorrectly file their tax returns." Omission rather than commission.

Geithner paid the taxes plus interest. He did not waltz into the Cabinet post and ignore paying his taxes. Burris quote - "he could simply choose not to pay them. The penalty, nowadays, is a cabinet post." Not so. Geithner did not get away with anything. Even that liberal rag, the Wall St. Journal, still supported his nomination. You want blood figuratively and I guess sometimes literally, but you are not going to get it.

Estacado, I don’t want anyone hanged. What I would like, though, is some respect from the government. To install someone as Secretary of the Treasury, who oversees the collection of taxes someone who did not pay his, whether by omission, commission, ignorance or fraud, is insulting; it tells me that Obama thinks me, you and the rest of us too stupid to know the difference; kind of like having a boy-toucher as assistant deputy secretary of education. I have no illusion as to what would happen if I neglected to pay my taxes; it is too terrible to contemplate, so I pay them. Further, I don’t mind paying them, or wouldn’t if I didn’t absolutely know that much of it is wasted on self-serving programs.

As to Rangel, it would be nice to know the extent of his malfeasance, but the good Speaker will not allow a accounting of his transgressions by investigation. And if she did, would it turn out like the “investigation” of Dodd for getting sweetheart mortgage deals that forbade the investigation of his mortgage records?

How about a little accountability and justice? There seems to be no shortage when Republicans are impuned.

Bill Burris, I agree with you regarding Rangel that any malfeasance should be smoked out. Dan Rostenkowski, former Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, went to the slammer for corruption related to the postal scandal (investigated by Attorney General Holder in the early '90's.) So be it for Rangel if that's where it goes. Geithner was nominated for Treasury Secretary for his central banker skills in a time of world financial crisis and not for his tax collection responsibilities, though the IRS definitely is a biggie coming under the Treasury. Geithner's tax problems were and are not to be swept under the rug. Those central banker skills were why conservative Republican Senators Hatch, Gregg, Lindsey Graham, etc. still supported Geithner's nomination. Yes, Geithner should not have had those tax issues - omission or not, but on balance his other credentials to address the world financial crisis outweighed the tax issues as Treasury Secretary. I deplore when the Congressional leadership of either party winks at transgressions of their own party. Hopefully, the deficit commission will zero in on the "self serving programs" and recommend substantial spending cuts as well as the higher taxes - gulp - that they recommend we fork over.

Bill Burris, point well made and I'm sure Charles Rangel will pay what he hasn't for years, just like tax cheat Geithner. I remember when they asked Tiny Tim about it and I'm posting link to youtube video of him claiming he doesn't know how to use Turbo Tax, classic, so Obama finds this guy qualified to run the Federal Treasury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKVxGlkPRlo

This is just a bonus clip that shows tax cheat Geithner on channel 8 in Houston and how he can't explain the Capitol Gains Tax! Another Classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAMiAFwuFOQ&feature=related

estacado, I could care less what crooked ignorant legislators in Washington think. Most of them will be bolstoring the roles of unemployment this November. What rings true whether you choose to let it soak in or not is this.

After being advised of his obligation, signing a documnet that he understood this obligation, received extra monies to fulfill his obligation and then turned around and shierked that obligation for 5 years So, as Bill stated it is either cheating, fraud or incompetence? I'll let you choose which. Probably not cheating the way you want to define it, because nobody cheats the IRS for long, but it sure looks like he tried. Along with Hilda Solis(Labor Secretary), Kathleen Sebelius(Health and Human Services Secretary). Either way the Obama cabinet does not have very much above board tax experience, and that's the bigger fact.

I know, I know, you still love him and find him to be the most brilliant and sexy president ever, I know.

Dman1b, those Obama loving conservative senators Gregg and Hatch voted for Geithner's nomination as Treasury Secretary for his central banker skills while the world's financial house was burning down but your horse blinder vision said "tax cheat" Geithner should have been flogged and tossed over the highest cliff. Well, didn't happen. Tough.

Do I "love" Obama as much as you "hate" him? I guess others will have to judge, but it really doesn't matter.

I also "love" Eisenhower, Bush I, LBJ, Truman, FDR and Clinton among recent Presidents for different reasons. You like/love Reagan in his first term and maybe Kennedy since he did not have much time to do damage. Pretty sad they are the only ones in your booster club. I spread my "love" around.

estacado, and congressman Burgess and Brady among others asked him to step down on Nov 19, 2009 after hearing how he covered up or just didn't know anything about $62 billion in AIG payouts. Again, he was either fraudulent or incompetent. I think the American people, like my self are not satisfied to have either of these as a pattern of performance.

And I don't HATE Obama. I'm just not so delusionally enamoured with a fellow U of C alumnus as you are. Because I did not attend school with him or while he was teaching there I remain objective on his decisions. In regards to gun legislation as I mention before, I give him a big A+ so far. Other gun owners are buying up all the ammo, but I see no reason to do that. I'll reserve judgement on healthcare until after the meetings with the other side of the aisle. Cap and trade is a looser for everyone, but I don't think it has a chance so it doesn't bother me.

All that said, at least you have personal reasons for subjective judgement of Obama and why you voted for him. It could be worse, you could be Jmac. She is just as subjective(maybe more) yet claims she didn't vote for him! Go figure.

Dman1b, boring to others but delusional fun for you and me. Yeah, Obama trudged through the halls of U. of C. as an adjunct law professor but was no alum (cry). I bet'cha I could get pretty darn close to your reaction to any health care plan. One cent of taxes...that X!YZ?!! program by Obama... I have about a 100 percent chance I can figure out where you will be on any given program or initiative (including guns). Me being the ambiguous chameleon that I am you won't have such an easy shot where I will stand.

Dman and Bill, with all your whining about Geitner and his tax bill, I guess you have conveniently forgotten about John McCain-presidental candidate who just happened to forget about paying his house taxes-and it was getting ready to be sold to recover taxes-"McCains have failed to pay taxes on their beach-front condo in La Jolla, California, for the last four years and are currently in default ..Under California law, once a residential property is in default for five years, it can be sold at a tax sale to recover the unpaid taxes for the taxpayers."

I'm aware that peopole who are in a different income bracket than us have their "people" do their taxes and really don't get too involved with the details.

Another detail that came out of the McCain unpaid taxes was that they owned at least 7 homes, and when asked, John was not sure exactly how many homes or cars he owned. Funny, I didn't hear a lot of backlash from that from his conservative buddies.

Bluebonnet, my apologies as I had moved over some posts from a previous thread addressing tax cheats in Washington. I did put out in that thread on two seperate posts that there were republicans too, but when I googled congressional tax cheats, all that popped up were democarats. It was quite a list. I also said that Jmac, Paidi or estacado would compile the republican list as I was getting disenchanted(again) with both sides of the aisle. But I do appreciate your taking up the slack and starting the republican list. I know Phil Gramm was another one.

And that is the crux of a growing problem. If our leadership keeps gaming the system while imposing huge penaties upon the average american for common mistakes, then we are doomed to see more acts like the one committed by Joe Starks in Austin. I by no means condone what he did, I'm merely stating that if we don't change the tone in Washington then we are bound to see more of it.

www.FairTax.org

I do agree with you on one point, that there are more tax cheats in elected office than we can count. I believe is that most are by omission, meaning that they hire someone or a group to "find every loophole that they can" and just to make it legaland they don't want to know the details. While these "people" are eager beavers, they may bend the rules. I can almost bet that almost anybody making 7 figures is probably not paying all of their taxes.

But, I have to admit, I hear people at church, at work, etc. talking about their "tax deductions" with a wink and a nod. No one is immune from trying to cheat a little, no matter how self righteous they are. The so called famous "men of the cloth" are the worst!

I believe that until we raise the level of integrity of the country and make being honest and paying our rightful taxes as being a good American, we are still going to have all of the tax cheats. It's like lying, how many little white lies do you have to tell to make you a full fledged liar???

What we’re seeing is symptomatic of a poorly designed and unfair system. We need to move toward the Fair Tax as soon as possible.

OK, bluebonnet, to my point, if McCain were running for California state comptroller responsible for collecting property taxes, that would be a major insult to the intelligence of Californians (there are too many conflicts in that statement to address). And, as you state, there is a penalty involved. No penalty for Geithner, Rangel, Daschel and the rest; when they get caught, they simply say “oops, sorry” and pay the back taxes, no fines, no penalties. Would they have come forward if they hadn’t been exposed? We can’t know for sure, but I have my best guess.

@bluebonnet: I believe that until we raise the level of integrity of the country and make being honest and paying our rightful taxes as being a good American, we are still going to have all of the tax cheats. It's like lying, how many little white lies do you have to tell to make you a full fledged liar???

Lets see. Elected and appointed government officials do not pay their fair share of taxes. The government confiscates, redistributes and wastes hard earned tax payer money. You don't understand why good Americans tell white lies? Hello!

@Really, wow I never expected you to apologize for calling me a liar when it was clearly your inability to read and comprehend that is the problem, but to remove both our post Bro??? You are now truely the most pathetic subject on the boards.

Bluebonnet, Or we could move to a tax structure that doen't require a win and a nod. Everybody gets treated equally. Of course the rich will get taxed more because they spend more and the poor gets taxed less because they spend less. And the less you spend the more you save. It is almost voluntary taxation beyond your living requirement spending.

www.fairtax.org