@Bryant Divelbiss. Up to your old baseless rhetoric. Why don't you just condense it down to Obama bad, Romney good. Baldwin bad, Thompson good. BTW, the GOP has assaulted the middle class draining money to support the wealthy. Try approaching this without such a jaundiced eye.

Tansandy, you've presented no facts to refute. Baldwin isn't running for president. I wouldn't expect Thompson to solve the world's problems between now and election day either. I'll vote for Baldwin because we need balance in the Senate and I'm not impressed by Thompson's extensive "consulting" work in DC. The national debt is due to the worst recession in U.S. history. Stimulus spending is working, though very slowly. Also compare and contrast Japan's spending approach v. European austerity models.

Robin Hood was a punk.

Racine Progressive: Some of us would argue this is the 2nd Great Depression. I think you would find that arguement from both parties. Where I do not agree with you is whom you blame. CMOs were not the brain child of W. That child actually was concieved in the 70's...at least the foreplay started then- under Carter. Every Administartion since has grown that child and expanded it. Under Clinton we included jumbo loans in CMOs. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Instead of pointing fingers, we need to fix the mess. Fix it now, before we go down the tubes.

Hey Dumbazzz .. is that how you live your life ..oh i am in debt and can't afford the payments so lets get a 0% interest loan .. so i buy more cheap chinese crap .. Got out of the 2nd great depression, Wake up!! we are over 100% of GDP in debt .. how the Phuck do you think that is going to work out .. i say like Greece

The stimulus did very little to help. 2/3 was spent after 2009 was over. At that point financial experts were expecting a better recovery if Washington would allow it. But Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc. put the brakes on a further recovery.

Look at thoughts from a Democrat Leaning Cramer before BrRown won.

Jim Cramer

1/19/2010

Can we just call this session off until we see who wins in Massachusetts? Can we see what will happen in the Senate rather than what will happen with

We know that everything ... means nothing if Scott Brown beats Martha Coakley, the woman who called Curt Schilling a Yankees' fan in some gaffe that should cause all of Beantown to switch to the GOP.

I can't stress how important this election is because we have a dual-issue president, health care and bank basher, and neither plays out all that well among the investor class.

Of course, the president is back with the Wall Street/Main Street thing, oblivious to the fact that the stock market rally has enabled Americans to feel a little better about themselves and spend a little more while they wait for an employment turnaround.

Who knows what could happen if they didn't just go after the banks and go after the health care industry? We could, conceivably, be doing things to fix infrastructure, putting people to work or even getting an energy bill that creates jobs through natural gas instead of just stifling industry through cap-and-trade.

I know one senator can't mean that much in the long term. But the notion that Washington will always be front and center because of the Democratic agenda could be turned down and Washington could become more of a sideshow which would allow us to focus, once again, on earnings and business and not anger, politics and non-job creation.

Both parties got in this mess. I personally blame Democrats more. Clinton changes the CRA to force Fannie And Freddie to back or buy sub prime loans were the key to the whole crisis. Without that there is no way to claim those mortgages were safe, no sub-prime loans packaged in mortgage back securities, no derivatives betting the failure of those mortgage back securities. Then Dodd and Frank lead the fight to prevent any reforms of Fannie and Freedie. Bush failed to fight to reform since he bought in to the idea that increasing home ownership was good for society, might be true if they were true owners with skin in the game, but not with 100% + loans. You can just blame Bush and GOP for the crisis and will get agreement from ignorant people but the fact do not back up that position. Sure Bush deserves some blame. By the way Obama stood with Dodd to block reform so he is no better than Bush.

Randy: There is a way of hiding money that many people regardless of political affilliation use. A deferred annuity is just one example. The interest earned in a deferred annuity is not claimed on taxes unless money is taken out. In other words, Grannie could be a multi millionaire, but only lives on a small SSI check. Her money grows at much more than 1%, and she pays no tax on the interest. When she dies it passes to the beneficiaries, and she appears to have died a pauper.
Tax history is not totally relevant if you are comparing one candidate to another.
Vulture capitalism and corporate raiding is an issue you will not easily be swayed on, I will leave that to someone else.

Private equity is many cases is an alternative to shutting down all operations. Yes they restructure to save the company so I guess liberals would prefer all jobs be lost. Still my point is they are not asking for taxes for any other reason but to distract from the fact they have no answers for the big issues. Many in the GOP have in the past bought into the Global warming alarmist. But yes I think most people would find a plan to double or triple you electric cost and transfer wealth around the world as radical. Even if you by into the hysteria all the action would do little to solve the issue.

If Obama wanted to debate tax policy he can do that without Romney's tax return beyond last two years. The only reason he wants the returns is so they can distract from his failure and lack of solutions on the big issues.

Understanding the core functions of a business may help the liberals.
Business- To make a product or provide a service at a profit (return on assets).
Don't get confused that businesses are there to employ people. They do employ people, but that is not their purpose.

Some of us dunderheads realize that you can kill the golden goose if you don't watch out.

Some of us dumb ass Republicans are once again faced with voting for the lesser of two evils. I am not gaga for any candidate, and honestly- it sucks.
I can tell you this: I would vote for Jimmy Carter in a heartbeat over Obama- if that were my only choice.

@ Keith Best, I think you have aptly been described by the President Of Ireland as a "Wanker whipping up hate"

1. He wasn't serious.

2. He did not employ an analogy.

I do, Luke. Based on my AGI, I'll be paying federal income tax at the 15% marginal rate this year. State, property, and sales taxes bring my total tax burden up to 33% of my gross income. Can a lot of high profile Republicans say the same?

If I should ever be so lucky to have enough income to qualify for the 35% marginal rate, I would pay it and be grateful that my income was so high.

None, not one of these freakin a-holes in power pay Taxes, Just us Slaves ..Plus we don't have a TAX problem we have a frakin spending problem .. WAKE the F UP

@Randy,

I'm sure you do, Randy.

My comment was directed at public figures. Obama had his chance to step up.

Randy by the way most of the High profile Democrats are rich and make a lot of money including Obama.

@Bryant -- What does that have to do with paying taxes or not paying taxes? President Obama makes his money writing books and teaching law, not 'streamlining' companies. You don't see the difference?

@Craig -- Yes to all. As long as it's a balanced approach with sacrifices being made on both sides.

When you say 'dependent tax credits' are you talking about the exemptions or the actual child tax credits? Just so we're clear.

What is the role of government .. to protect your rights, NOT to take care of you like you are a baby ... END The banker enslavement, END the Income tax .. end unbacked fiat garbage currency .. you have to kill the problem at the source, not BS solutions

Daily Agenda of Congress .. Spend more Phuckin money that we could ever possibly have to keep mindless Phucks happy, and them in power

I've actually never received a - what is it again - a Phuckin (because using ph instead of an f is less insulting) Handout a day in my life. Bankrupting America is paying for two wars and a Medicare Suppliment on debt while cutting taxes. The rate of spending is less than half of that the last Republican Administration - which took a surpluss and turned it into a deficit within two years

But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of some good vitriol, huh Johnny?

No sheet .. You r right the wars are bankrupting us, but what the Fuck has Obama done about it Not a Fucking Thing moron .. so pull your Fuckin head out of his ass

@Johnny Blade -- Do you think you could clean it up a little? Your use of a certain gerund indicates a lack of vocabulary rather than a 'courageous' attitude.

Free Thought: What surplus are you talking about? When Clinton raided the Social Security Trust fund to the amount of $1 Trillion?
Seriously where is the decreased spending? I believe you said the rate of spending is half of the last Administration. If that were true we would have a rebellion on our hands. If you are using satire to make your point, it is very misleading.
Be honest and admit both parties have thrown you under the bus.

Rex Nutting of MarketWatch: spending has grown only 1.4 percent per year under Obama – one-fifth the rate under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#CeHi3tthAHMfje0H.99

Troy: I don't totally disagree with you but, the spin doctors would have a field day with that though. Adjusting for the declining economy and the drop in GDP, etc.
But a 1.4% increase in spending is a far cry from your earlier claim of cut spending in half. While earnings have dropped, any increase in spending is bad in my book.

I will concede the point about the spin doctors. I actually think both sides have already spun this every which way and that.

I will also agree spending money we don't have is not a good idea or plan - no matter the circumstance.

You are right. We, as a country, need to have a serious conversation about spending. I would also hope my point about a serious conversation about revenues be included in the conversation.

I agree.

Under Republican proposals, Social Security and Medicare would be privatized. Considering what happened to the middle class the past 20 years, the privatization of these two essential programs for the elderly is the worst possible idea.

I am glad you and your grandmother is doing better, Tansandy. I really am.

I am not doing better and my grandmother passed away. I don't accept I am the only person in this society who has to sacrifice to pull us out of our problems. Shared sacrifice means everyone shares - not just the middle class.

Proposals are just that- proposals. I welcome any attempt to fix the problems, we should be happy there is someone paying attention to the issues.
Does anyone accept a pay cut with glee in order to keep their job? No, but it is better than no income at all. Something has to change and soon....the money tree has been picked clean, and the habitual spending needs to be addressed.
I paid into social security like the rest of us- Damn it I want what was promised too. If it ends up being 80 cents on the dollar, it beats getting zilch. But I don't want to see a cut and nothing done to fix the issues either.
It is time for our representative government to start representing us, and stop kicking the can down the road.

I absolutly agree, Craig. I just happen to think a conversation about revenues should be included as well. Cuts to middle class programs, stagnant wages while the uber rich continue to get richer with no sacrifice is neither fixing the issue nor representing all of us.

We agree on something- awesome! To think we didn't need to use the F bomb to make peace and come to an agreement is unfathomable. Maybe what we really need in Washington is regular guys and not lifetime politicians.

Tansandy, I'm actually a moderate. I believe in our two political party system, strengthening Social Security and Medicare. I held my figurative head in my hands during the Bush years because as a fiscal conservative I believed his spending was profligate, from the first Chinese loan from to pay for mailing the absurd "refund checks." The surplus was a line item. $1T plus has been borrowed from Social Security since the 1960s, affecting the interest thrown off by the SS corpus. Tax cuts for the 1% despite the fact that there was no need for them in the economy at that time (and I'll point out that I'd have no issue with trickle down economics if it actually worked-12 previous years of evidence in 2000 demonstrated otherwise). Two unfunded wars, the unprecedented number of mercenaries hired at much higher cost than military personnel and billions handed out in no-bid contracts. Mismanaged funds: $6.6 b earmarked for Iraq reconstruction, reported on June 14, 2011 by Special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen who called it "the largest theft of funds in national history." (Source - CBS News). $4b in overcharges/unsupported expenses from Halliburton/KBR (Halliburton has moved its HQ to Brunei to avoid U.S. taxes). $10b mismanaged/wasted per 2007 Congressional hearing; $1b in missing weapons, vehicles, equipment (Ibid). Doesn't include what happened in the financial industry leading to the crash. An extraordinary situation, could take a generation to fix.

FreeThought Troy, Craig, I couldn't agree more.

Yes, Tom. Because no jobs were created during the last Democratic Administration (Clinton). No jobs have been created under the current administration (12 straight months of growth vs. 12 straight months of loss in the prior administration).

Spending skyrocketed and employment plummeted under the Republican Administration. Spending has leveled off and employment is increasing under the Democrats.

Why are Republicans considered Fiscally Sound again? They really shouldn't be.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking places, and manufacturing. - That's private sector job growth just to clarify.

Oh, and Johnny. The country is no longer fighting the War in Iraq. That happens to be doing something about it...

... no matter what name you call me.

Johnny Blade, I see you're losing the battle with your addiction to huffing glue. I recommend switching to gasoline, and also taking up smoking - eventually, things will get better. For the rest of us.

Johnny you need to take it down a notch. Or Patch will ban you. It is one thing to disagree and be a li'l nasty, but what you are doing is beyond acceptable.
It doesn't help fix the issues nor does it help make your point.

Government jobs do not create wealth, it is best for us all(taxpayers that is) to have the minimal amount of government jobs, keeping those saved tax dollars in the private economy where wealth is created.

That is a good point to consider, Pete. I would counter Firefighters, Teachers and Police are government jobs. Though these heros may not create mountains of wealth, they are essential to our culture and should be expanded - not cut to a minumum.

Troy you are spot on that they are essential.
But if their paycheck bounces, how many will show up for work next week?

Craig - I know I wouldn't keep showing up if my paychecks bounced, but I'm not the hero these other folks are.

But no - if there is no money, we can't expect these folks to work for free. You are totally right.

Hopefully we can all get on the same page, get this economy rolling again and make sure no one's pay checks bounce.

Amen

What makes these people more of a "hero" than a doctor or an electrician?

Actually - Act 10 is the worst point. Starting or no. Striping workers of thier rights to bargain to make thier jobs better - remember, they already agreed to the fiscal consessions immiately, is a recepe for middle class collapse.

Nonsense. I am middle class and I have never been in a union nor would I ever join a union. we need an Act 10 for the nation.

You may not have ever been in a union or every join, but I imagine you do enjoy a 40 hour work week, employer paid benefits and a minimum wage that your present salary is based from (or was based on if you are presently retired). All of these worker rights were, and are, fought for by Americas Unions.

An Act 10 for the nation would render unions powerless and all the rights and privledges we all enjoy now... they all go away.

I have never been a part of a union, either. But I still recognize and appreciate their efforts.

I own my own company Troy, the unions have done nothing for my success or quality of life.

That's great you own your own company. Honestly - no snark. That's sweet. I am truly happy for you and your success all on your own. Not everyone can say that. That really is great. I know I can sound like a dink, but I can not be more sincere here.

I would disagree about the quality of life thing, though. Union workers teach our youth, they put out our fires and save us when we are in danger. Union workers take care of us when we are sick and in need of medical care.

I am personally ok with teachers, nurses and fire fighters having more income and benefits than I do. I want these people as happy as possible, because when I need them, I want them totally focused on thier jobs 100%

Union workers don't teach my kids .. So you feel paying the salaries of these Union Thugs by forcing people to pay via income or property tax or they will go to jail is acceptable, Do you not like the Free market??

In the private sector i have NO collective priviledge to bargain .. why should government workers??

Johnny - do you hear your self? I mean really hear yourself?
This country provides services for its citizens every day; Military, Infrustructure, etc. It requires us to pay taxes to pay for these services. It's not a knock on the free market. It's a knock on Anarchy.

Again, I don't have collective bargaining, either. I do; however, enjoy workers rights unions fought and bled for decades ago.

The private sector has unions too.

I know it's easy to watch Fox News or listen to Charlie Sykes, get all worked up, post something ignorant and hit submit without thinking it through, but I really wish you would.

Nuking them may be extreme, but I could not agree more. One side can not fix the problem. Who ever started it... whoever finished it - no longer matters (in my opinion).

We, in the real world, have to work together to address our problems. It is high time our elected officials took our example.

Craig - the two of us may not agree on policy 100%. But I think we agree on the conversation. It's too bad not everyone can shelf their personal business and have an adult conversation.

Hint: I'm talking to you, Congress.

Nuke was a poor choice of words, perhaps one of Johnny Blades words would have worked better ;-P
Fact is: Most of us agree on 90% of the issues, but spend 90% of our time arguing the 10% we do not agree on.
If we could force our representatives in Government to fix even half of the issues we agree on- what a great improvement we would have. They prefer to keep us fighting amongst ourselves to detract from their lackluster performance.

This is a good sentiment. If we could all just refrain from posting about the First Lady's "carpet," then maybe there would be hope for mankind...

Orange Shag.