COLUMN: President blames Republicans but is the one holding the economy hostage
December 10, 2012 at 4:15 am in Duluth News Tribune
Republicans have put revenue on the table to a level the President once sought. Now he says double it. We have shown a willingness to negotiate. It is the president who has announced positions that are non-negotiable. It is the president who continues to divide the country. He is showing a willingness to tank our fragile economy and send it back into recession. It is he who is holding the economy hostage. Continue Reading
Of course the President wants to suspend the debt ceiling debate. We have seen what happened last time the Republicans made it into a costly game of chicken.
“The Government Accountability Office released a report in July that estimated that uncertainty from the drawn out fight and last minute resolution lead to higher interest rates on longer-term bonds in the range of 0.3 percentage points (or about 30 basis points). This rise in interest rates increased borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in 2011, and more than that including subsequent years. This may be small compared to the savings from the resulting Budget Control Act, but it was unnecessary considering the solution could have come much sooner. The GAO report notes that this figure also does not account for the time and resources used by the Treasury Department to manage the debt limit and when looking at the wider economic consequences it is clear that last summer showdown was not without serious cost. If the debt ceiling is to have a useful purpose, it must remind Congress to consider the impact on debt when making future fiscal decisions.
The GAO recommends this as well:
Congress usually votes on increasing the debt limit after fiscal policy decisions affecting federal borrowing have begun to take effect. This approach to raising the debt limit does not facilitate debate over specific tax or spending proposals and their effect on debt. In February 2011, we reported, and continue to believe, that Congress should consider ways to better link decisions about the debt limit with decisions about spending and revenue to avoid potential disruptions to the Treasury market and to help inform the fiscal policy debate in a timely way.” http://crfb.org/blogs/gao-debt-limit-fight-cost-treasury-13-billion
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that ending the Bush tax cuts for earners on income over the first $250,000 would contribute $950 billion over a ten-year period. $823 billion of that would come from the increased revenue, and another $127 billion would arise from the lower interest on the associated debt. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities added that this could be done without very much risk to the economy, which stands to reason, because the wealthy would be far more likely to park any tax relief in the bank rather than spend it in the economy.
The Republicans are holding out for deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This includes raising the retirement age for Social Security and reducing the amount of Grandma’s check, as well as raising the age of Medicare enrollment.
This is the time for Republicans to become reasonable. The nation can’t afford to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Americans believe that taxes on the rich should go up.
It is mean spirited and unfair to demand cuts to the most vulnerable among us – the poor, elderly and disabled.
We need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class. We need policies that help create jobs. Tax incentive could be offered to those who actually create jobs right here at home in the USA. We need policies that make education and training more affordable. We need MORE funding for higher education, not less.
We don’t need more top-down economics. We’ve tried that for many years now. We’ve seen what happens. The rich got richer, but the typical family saw its income fall. We can’t afford to go back to it. We cannot starve the economy if you wish to see growth. There are many ways the budget issues can be solved. We need to think outside the box to find fair solutions.
Thank heavens Chip Craavack won’t be in congress much longer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
110 
91
Watch out… posting facts here will get your downvoted
You are spot on with the analysis.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
71 
54
Mama, You conveniently ignore that we are spending more than a trillion more per year than we take in in revenues. Even if we taxed our top earners at 100% of their income, it doesn’t pay for the INCREASES in Obama’s proposed budget. WE MUST CUT SPENDING!
What is “fair” about forcing middle class working stiffs to pay for the social parasites? If a man is able to work, he should be forced to do so if he expects any money from Uncle Sam. But this isn’t what the Obamination has done. He used an executive order to remove the work requirement from welfare.
Hot debate. What do you think?
78 
68
“Fair” is whatever it takes to keep the gravy train going and the country be damned.
Hot debate. What do you think?
42 
44
How will you force those who do not have jobs to work?
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
23
So who is a social parasite? Grandma and Grandpa who paid into Social Security for 45 years? Disabled children? Disabled Vets?
How about corporate parasites like the oil industry?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
71 
31
Keep repeating a proven lie. He has not waived work requirements. He was working with Governors that wanted requirements relaxed during the down turn in the economy. But it must be true if Romney says it is. Here in Minnesota work requirements are in full force. Try again Hugh.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
We don’t need to cut spending, we need to raise taxes, which are currently at an all-time historic low, thanks to Republican greed.
If you want the privilage of living in the greatest country in the world, you have to be willing to contribute, according to your means. If this country has been good to you then you should be prepared to give something back, in return for this privilage.
Quit snivelling and pay your taxes – it’s the patriotic thing to do.
Just for the record: Republicans take more money from our “social safety net” than any other group, and that’s according to the Congressional Budget Office.
If you want to know who the biggest “social parasites” are, just look at the Republican party.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Wrong.
From today’s NYT:
Even if Republicans were to agree to Mr. Obama’s core demand — that the top marginal income rates return to the Clinton-era levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent after Dec. 31, rather than stay at the Bush-era rates of 33 percent and 35 percent — the additional revenue would be only about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Obama wants to collect over 10 years.
Hot debate. What do you think?
53 
39
Proper sourcing includes providing the name of the story and/or the URL for the page.
Just saying that today’s NYT said that does not prove a darn thing. Looking through the NYT.com I am not seeing anything in reference to these numbers. Most information I am finding all points to just under 1 Trillion dollars over 10 years which is right in line with Mama’s claim.
Granted, 1 trillion is not enough. We will need to have other sources of income and cut spending in a lot of areas. But it is a start.
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
32
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/us/politics/tax-arithmetic-shows-top-rate-is-just-a-starter-in-talks.html?smid=pl-share
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
21
Now THAT clarifies things.
According to that story, the actual plan includes not only increasing the top tax brackets back to the Clinton-era levels, it also includes “higher tax rates on investment income from capital gains and dividends, and the restoration of two other Clinton-era provisions limiting deductions and tax exemptions for affluent individuals.”
So the Presidents tax increase on income “would raise $441.6 billion by 2023″ which is roughly 1/4 as you stated. But… the kicker here is investment and capital gain/dividends taxes I mentioned above which “would raise $407.4 billion over a decade”. This would actually exceed Mama’s listed projection of $823 Billion.
You must have missed that part of the story.
Now, I am not an economist. But I do know that we had a very strong economy during the Clinton era. We could argue until we are blue in the face as to whether or not it was caused by the tax cuts or just the circumstances in which he held office.
But going back to that tax plan sounds like a good start to me.
Yes, we need to cut spending. But not at the expense of things like social security, medicare, environment or education. Sure, some streamlining can be done and certain cuts can be made, but we need to make sure we are investing in these aspects as they are important for our future.
Isn’t that what being a good American is all about? Being a good steward and making sure we preserve what we have now in order to provide the same for tomorrow?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
28
Dave~ Read the whole article…apparently you missed…from same article you posted..
“Seldom mentioned is that Mr. Obama’s revenue total also reflects four other changes from Bush-era tax cuts: higher tax rates on investment income from capital gains and dividends, and the restoration of two other Clinton-era provisions limiting deductions and tax exemptions for affluent individuals.
Together those changes would raise $407.4 billion over a decade — nearly as much as the president’s proposal on higher rates, which would raise $441.6 billion by 2023, for a total of $849 billion. Another $119 billion would come from higher estate taxes, opposed by Republicans and some Democrats. ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which does add up to almost a trillion so actually the article does support the Presidents proposal. Thanks..well done…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
27
Mama mentioned taxing the rich would be an increase of $823 Billion over 10 years (not including the debt savings). That is $82 say $83 Billion per year. Our YEARLY deficit is 1.2 Trillion so with the 83 Billion added in our deficit is not $1.117 Trillion per year. We need to cut spending. Something that Democrats won’t seriously consider.
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
29
What do you suggest? Someone has to pay higher taxes. Maybe we need to go over the fiscal bump and see what happens. Supply side economic theory has been tried and it does not work.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
21
AND….someone needs to take a cut in benefits. Whatever happened to shared sacrifice?
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
Right Hugh. If taxes are going up on some then everyone from the very richest to the lowest leach should contribute an equal proportion to solving the problem. After all, the mantra of the liberals is “pay your fair share”. That should include everyone. No exclusions.
Like or Dislike:
11 
11
BT…..Good for you! I have tried to explain that very thing here! Our deficit is over a trillion dollars EVERY year…..and they are talking about higher taxes for the rich bringing in 800 billion over 10 years…..or, 80 billion a year…. vs…..over a trillion PER YEAR of debt……and the difference would be added to the total debt of 16 trillion dollars….and if we figure in the additional interest on the difference every rear……there goes the extra tax revenue…..out the door! The trick is ….to balance the budget each and every year…..and also to pay on the the total debt….so the debt gets reduced! The spending HAS to be CUT! There is no way they can raise enough in REVENUE ONLY….to both…..balance the budget ( annually )…..and to pay down the total debt!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Who cares what Chipper says?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
79 
46
when WHEN will the last picture of Cracky be published?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
35
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
48 
87
What do you suggest?
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
54 
72
In March 2012, President Obama called for an end to $4 billion in oil industry subsidies. However, some estimates indicate that the real level of oil industry subsidies is higher, between $10-$40 billion. At the same time, oil company profits have benefited as oil prices reached a new record of $145 a barrel in 2008. (Source: Christian Science Monitor, Taxpayers Shouldn’t Subsidize Oil Industry Profits, March 29, 2012)
Citizens for Tax Justice report detailing how little corporations pay in federal corporate income tax also noted that financial firms receive the highest percentage of federal tax subsidies, collecting nearly 17 percent of the tax largess that the government hands out. The largest single recipient of federal tax subsidies over the last three years was mega-bank Wells Fargo. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/07/363234/financial-tax-subsidies/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
39
The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
34
FYI – citing Wikipedia as a reliable source weakens your argument.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
23
offered no solutions and attack Obama and the dems…that will work.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
15
I suggest that for every percent a middle income earner’s taxes go up, Those 47%-ers receive an equal cut in benefits. If we are forced to pay more taxes, the takers must also give up a proportional amount. What’;s fair is fair, and what could me more fair than sharing the pain. If they don’t act equitably, you can expect a revolt among the payers.
Hot debate. What do you think?
46 
36
Who are the 47%?
Roughly 3,000 members of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers—they earned more than $2,178,866 in 2011—who paid no federal income tax because they were hedge-fund managers, real-estate investors, or wealthy financiers whose income is derived from capital gains, which are taxed at very low levels. When that rate is combined with a concept called “tax-loss carryforward,” which Roose says “allows an investor to use last year’s big loss to offset this year’s gains for tax purposes,” these top earners don’t have to pay federal income tax. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/who-are-the-47-percent-7-facts-about-the-americans-mitt-romney-attacked.html
“The poorest fifth of Americans paid an effective tax rate of 17 percent last year, and the second-poorest fifth paid an effective tax rate of 21 percent … Only 18 percent of American households paid no income taxes and no payroll taxes last year. It is largely low-income seniors and very poor people that legally don’t pay federal income taxes or payroll taxes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center…. many in the 47 percent are elderly, in the military, in school or very poor… .more than 90 percent of entitlement benefits go to the elderly, seriously disabled or members of working households, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/fact-check-mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1893537.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
24
Hugh~ Surely even the slowest conservatives have heard by now that half of those claimed in the infamous “47%” are those that are in retirement and who worked and paid taxes their whole lifes…but don’t pay taxes now.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
15
go ahead and revolt whats stopping you? lol are you waiting for some guy to build the best metal known to man and some lame heroin to start your revolution? go ahead and leave “makers” as you will soon find out who actually makes the things you think you do.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
I get down votes for asking a question.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
41
Time to stop watching Fox News…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68 
38
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
46 
65
let me get this straight…chip is doing away with the finger pointing and found something apparent…..that Obama is who we should point fingers at lol…god chip i voted for you but when you say your not going to point fingers and then do exactly that in the very next sentence is rather funny.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
26
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
38 
61
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
44 
66
The proposed tax increases are only for income above $250,000. All income including and up to $250,000 would stay at the current rate.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
26
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
36 
49
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that ending the Bush tax cuts for earners on income over the first $250,000 would contribute $950 billion over a ten-year period. $823 billion of that would come from the increased revenue, and another $127 billion would arise from the lower interest on the associated debt. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities added that this could be done without very much risk to the economy, which stands to reason, because the wealthy would be far more likely to park any tax relief in the bank rather than spend it in the economy:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
33
Hugh….~You should have a tattoo on forehead that reads”Property of Faux News” Might as well… Parasites? lazy? It’s fascinating and scary to me, how easily some are programmed to believe utter nonsense. Of course you’re not referring to those that don’t work and living off trust funds and investments and dodging paying taxes through capital gains loopholes….it’s the working poor, the children,elderly and disabled that are the problem….that lazy 47% that don’t pay their fair share and just leaching off the rest of us are the real parasites…right? Not the Corporation or the wealthy or hedge fund managers who can protect their income and shelter it under capital gains…or the millionaires that hide it off shore like Mitt..most of us pay about double the percentage in taxes in fact what Mitt pays…but only Repubs think that’s fair…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic
Got the figures from above graphs on breakdown on GOP claims
28% of population that pay no income because are working poor but they do pay into payroll taxes and social security which is still paying taxes and contrary to GOP portrayal that are lazy and living off the backs of others…they’re working!!. When combine with the 53% then we have actually 81% that are working and paying taxes. Some that make up this figure are also kids, who file as income earners from like money earned in summer, but don’t make enough in year to pay income tax but still counted as tax filer.
10% of those that pay no income tax are the elderly who have paid taxes and worked whole life but retired. So that takes us to 91% that are working or always worked and paid taxes. True that also means that 38% aren’t paying federal income tax..but they still have or had worked and paying taxes. They also pay property taxes, sales tax, gas tax etc. etc….so where’s the lazy parasites?
13% of those not paying federal income tax is part of benefits for working poor with children and includes the disabled.
These numbers add up to 51% not the 47% because of some overlap in figures for working poor and benefits with children and some disabled work. When you break it all down…you are probably only talking about maybe 7% at best that don’t work and don’t pay taxes, roughly our unemployment rate. Not even those getting assistance are permanent either…it’s revolving like those on unemployment…they’re not parasites or lazy and some just hit a bad patch…oh, but there is a couple of percent that get benefits pretty permanent…but you realize that to get that, one must prove that are disabled. Contrary to the Faux News/GOP propaganda, we don’t just hand out money regularly to people to NOT work or do anything. Why conservatives are so quick to embrace utter BS is dumbfounding at times…
Dare to think for youself…is part of our revenue problem that the wealthy tax cuts also provided cuts to corporations such that in last few years half of the fortune 500 haven’t paid income tax on profits…OR…is the problem we’re just not getting enough out of the working poor and children and retirees and that the disabled are just lazy? Here’s the real challenge…and exactly WHO…benefits from and wants you to believe that the problem is the working poor?
It is pretty transparent that the whole GOP propaganda about who’s not paying income taxes is just that…manipulated and contrived propaganda with totally misrepresented falsehoods to promote an agenda. Hell, it’s an old 50 year old John BIrcher agenda that can trace right to Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and Murdoch. Not only do conservatives never say…gee maybe the revenue problem is the wealthy..or corporations who used to pay income taxes…instead the GOP hollers and wails that it’s unfair that Corporations whose rate was 63% of profits under Kennedy and only now paying average of 18% with half of 500 paying nothing….that’s it’s just way too high…and I wonder who wants the people to believe that and who benefits the most and who NEEDS the populace to NOT look at them and focus instead on the opposite…the poor? HELLO????
Dare to think for yourself…or just go ahead and get the tattoo.
Definition of Conservative: A person unable to grasp two opposing views at same time and maintain the ability to function.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
24 
42
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
38 
51
Chip misleadingly said (and I quote): “President Obama agreed to extend the existing tax rates for two more years. The president, while signing the extension, called maintaining the existing tax rates “a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country.” He said the tax cuts “will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people.” He said it was not the time to be raising people’s taxes. Apparently he doesn’t believe that anymore.” (end Chip quote)
Chip is just plain lying here. President Obama has consistently said we should raise taxes on the rich and keep taxes on the middle class low.
Obama is only trying to raise tax rates on the top 2%! This is nothing new.
Even the non-partisan congressional CBO office said that raising taxes on the rich will have no negative impact on the economy, whereas raising taxes on the middle class would drive us back to recession. Nice try, Chip.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-fiscal-cbo-idUSBRE8A71D020121109
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
34
The Congressional Budget Office said that raising taxes on the rick will have no negative impact on the economy, but the CBO office said that raising taxes on the middle class would decimate the economy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57498371-503544/congressional-budget-office-warns-recession-looming-if-congress-doesnt-act-on-fiscal-cliff/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
19
NO SAM, it’s you who are confused. Here’s a video clip with the exact quote. (and It was taken from a liberal newspaper’s website.)
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-signs-tax-cut-extension-deal-into-law/1#.UMZAMvX085g
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
32
He is not disputing that Obama made the quote that Cravaack quoted.
He is disputing the claim that Cravaack made that states that Obama wasn’t always about raising taxes on the rich. Implying that Obama extended the tax cuts because he was for cutting taxes for the rich, which is patently false.
From the very link that you provided: “Obama, who also opposed high-end tax cut extensions, said he had to accept things he didn’t like in order to avoid tax hikes for all Americans, many of whom are already struggling in a bad economy.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
28
My how things look different when viewed from New Hampshire! Or maybe it’s the sleep apnea kicking in again?
Who with a middle class or lower income can remember what they did with the bush tax cut boon to our paychecks? For most of us the amount ran into the hundreds, and was absorbed by rising day to day expenses, especially health care.
Now who can remember that the Bush tax cuts were sold under the idea as a temporary economic boost, not a permanent cut?
As far as their effect in stimulating the economy, most of the experts agree such an effect–if it occurred at all–was minimal.
On the other hand, the result are clearly conclusive on the effect of the tax cuts on the budget. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves! Rather than stimulate the economy resulting in more economic activity and more revenue coming in to government, the bush cuts led to a decrease in incoming revenues and has been just as much at fault for increasing debt as overspending has. Trillions of dollars less going into the US treasury than would have without the cuts.
If you take the cost of the wars and add in the bush tax cuts and their decline in revenues,
The tax rate on the richest americans was almost twice what it is today back when many baby boomers were born. It was down to 50% back in Ronnie Reagans day–a time when most americans will remember treated their wallets and bank accounts pretty well. That rate was then reduced to just under 40%, and then the bush tax cuts took them down another 4-5%.
If you want to talk fair, we can look at how things used to be. Letting the bush cuts expire on the richest americans raises their taxes less than 5% and still will leave them short of what they had to pay back in the Reagan days!
Now as far as cuts in spending–Chip/Boehner and the republican spin these days is highly enlightening. Obama has proposed HUGE spending cuts. They insist he hasn’t but it’s right there for all to see–3 TRILLION dollars in proposed cuts.
To put that in perspective, the deficit rose by 6 trillion under Dubya’s presidency.
Are those cuts enough? Should lower or middle class americans not see any tax increase? The way out of the mess requires all sides to give. I think we’ll see the democrats do so–there are a few good ideas in the republican plan I hope they will entertain.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
27
Somehow some wording got chopped off of my last post. Was supposed to read “If you take the cost of the wars and add in the bush tax cuts and their decline in revenues, their total exceeds the growth in spending over the same time period. ALL sources of revenue decline have to be addressed to pull us out of this mess, not just the ones that please your finances, employer, or campaign contributors!
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
16
Sleep Apnea – it still disgusts me that he gets 90k/year on “disability” when he was able to be a representative. This is a 100% treatable condition. My father in law has it, and is able to work every day in the mines without an issue now that he is being treated.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
33
Nice twist, but to make it crystal clear–my point is how little the small amount most middle class folks get with those cuts really means to their ability to do anything other than pay the same bills and buy the same necessities they would anyway, giving the growing cost of living and health care’s logarithmic cost increase.
Now if I had enough income to have been paying 60% in the 60′s, 50% in the 80′s, 39% and change under clinton, and now 35% after the bush cuts–that money would really mean something!
What Reagan really instituted that has been carried to the xtreme in the party is this idea of raising taxes ONLY on the middle class and poor, and CUTTING them on the most affluent.
Bass ackwards most would say. I’d be fine with a small increase on lower income folks coupled with what Obama wants on the rich. Coupled with the cuts Obama is promising and toss in some of the closed tax loopholes the republicans are proposing and we might really have something. And yes the definition of “rich” probably needs to rise a bit–after all those on the very top have had it so well recently!
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
It’s like nobody told him he lost.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
27
Good one!
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
21
Well, he IS still in office.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
39
Nope sorry – This progressive has his bachelors degree in Mathematics. Mathematicians like facts. That is why I will refer to the CBO for any and all numbers pertaining to the issue as they are the trusted source for the information.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
34
Because someone official needs to be the source of truth. Every source of information needs a source of truth. That is how computational informatica ALWAYS works.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
30
Neither is Chip Cravaack.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
22
40 years of Oberstar telling nothing but the truth and now Cravaack does nothing but lie. Interesting. Wonder what the new old guy will tell us..?
Like or Dislike:
15 
14
The CBO can only use the numbers they been given. The numbers Obama gave them to support his hijacking of our healthcare system never added up, try as he did to twist them into supporting his position.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
28
That is false:
“CBO draws on information from a wide variety of sources. A great deal of crucial information comes from the data collected and reported by the government’s statistical agencies. Such data include the national income and product accounts, surveys of labor market conditions and prices, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, data on National Health Expenditures, and various health care surveys. CBO also uses data and other information from its analysts’ myriad contacts at federal agencies, state and local governments, and industry groups.
In addition, CBO seeks input from outside experts, including professors, analysts at think tanks, private-sector experts, and employees at various government agencies. Some of those consultations occur during regular meetings with the agency’s Panel of Economic Advisers and Panel of Health Advisers; many more consultations occur on an informal, ongoing basis. Those consultations with outside experts complement the knowledge and insights of the talented analysts on the agency’s staff. ” http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
17
Go read CBO report #43373. You will find a much different set of “facts” on how much is paid by different pay grades. I’ll give highlights:
Bottom 1/5 of earners pay at a rate of 1%
2nd lowest 1/5 of earners pay at a rate of 6.8%
middle 1/5 of earners pay at a rate of 11.1%
second highest 1/5 of earners pay at a rate of 15.1%
highest 1/5 of earners pay at a rate of 23.2%
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Obama’s current deal is the same old tax and spend. Obama proposes cuts that will happen well after he leaves office. Typical. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334216/all-about-taxes-michael-tanner#
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
26
The national review? really? They are more biased than fox new and msnbc put together.
I would never try and site a msnbc article or a think progress article as anything for basis of truth…
amazing…
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
Do you have any clue how CBO functions and how it is staffed? Repubs and Dems both rely on it for facts. http://www.cbo.gov/about/overview
It is respected by both Dems and Reps in Congress including Craavak.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
10
The CBO is the best thing we have, at least for now. It might not be perfect, but I can’t think of any better systematic source for Congressional research data than the CBO.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Please enlighten me on what you would use for a non-biased source of truth.
Like or Dislike:
11 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
19
Then look up what the CBO said about Obama’s “magical numbers”. They don’t add up. Now tell me, why couldn’t a mathematician see such a glaring deficit? Oversight? Or dishonesty?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
26
Step away from Faux news, sir, and do a bit of quick research.
Obama IS PROPOSING TO CUT TRILLIONS IN GOVT. SPENDING! In addition to wanting to raise taxes on the rich, he’s proposed cuts to military spending, requiring those of higher incomes to pay more of their medicare/medicaid costs, reducing costly federal farm payments to farmers and decreasing the amount kicked in for crop insurance, forcing federal workers to kick more of their money into their retirement funds, and more.
It’s all there, easy to find. Unless you only listen to partisan political hacks or Fox News, that is.
Is it enough–NO. But it’s something, and not only that but there’s some political pain there–he’s giving in on things that won’t help his party win votes, thats for certain. And it’s a good starting point for discussions–IF the republicans want to even have a discussion involving some compromise, that is.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
20
He’s proposing trillions in spending cuts? Where?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
24
I think the new headline up (no comments allowed on the story) pretty much makes Cravaaks point:
—- Obama ‘won’t compromise’ on taxes —-
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
32
Even though extending the Bush-era tax cuts was, indeed, a compromise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
Really? “holding the economy hostage” Once again Chip making dramatic, sweeping statements. It is not the cost of war, the bottom line going into the red after Clinton left office, constant “inside battening” of our representative. Sometimes you have make some boundaries for the 6 year olds, or they will have a hissie and write in the paper. The people JUST got done speaking…it’s clear who was the WINNER. Who is not cooperating with the majority of the people? Whatever happened to respect for the Commander and Chief? (something that was thrown in my face throughout the Bush years) HOW can we help but lose respect for the Republican party when they have representation such as this? and btw – GREAT comment White Pine….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
17
sorry – meant inside battling of our representatives….
Like or Dislike:
13 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
22
Mama et al, after a while it becomes apparent that this is akin to wrestling with a greased pig, and the pig really likes it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
8
So true. They enjoy their anger.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
Two years ago, Republicans had a great opportunity to propose these minimal tax increases. But they were so intent on protecting their rich buddies that said they would force unemployment benefits to expire if the Democrats didn’t extend the tax cuts for millionaires. Republicans were willing to let millions of out-of-work citizens go bankrupt so that people like Mitt Romney could maintain a lower tax rate than their cleaning lady.
The compromise was to extend the tax cuts through the election year so that both sides could make their case, and voters could decide which one they liked best. We did that. Nobody expects the Republicans to just roll over and accept everything the Democrats ask, but it is obvious to anyone who’s paying attention that the Republicans lost the debate over taxes.
It’s kind of funny hearing this one-term representative say that the president “refuses to lead in any serious way.” Sounds like projecting to me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
18
Everyone here has so far missed the mark entirely. Government spending isn’t nearly as partisan as it’s made out to be if you look at the facts. Our entire system is based on credit now, not actual cash. The total amount of credit in circulation outnumbers the total amount of actual money by roughly 5 to 1. We’ve seen this trend increase steadily since the 1950s. Economist Richard Duncan (who has been reviewed positively by both RT News and Glenn Beck) calls the system we live in “creditism”. We haven’t had actual capitalism for quite a long time.
Long story short, government deficit spending is the only thing preventing our economy from spiraling into a severe recession. Private companies can’t take on any more debt, so the government is the only agency that remains to do so. If we cut government spending as the tea party proposes, we’ll see the economy shrink by 16% overnight (as government deficit spending makes up 16% of GDP), which will kill demand and spiral us into depression. If we keep this going, we’ll be like Japan in 10 years and our government debt will be upwards of 300% of GDP, then we’ll see the economy spiral into depression.
Basically, we’re screwed. Pointing fingers at any one individual is short sighted and ignores the larger problem of an economy that relies solely on the constant expansion of credit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
9
I see the usual flamethrowers are out there but have but two observations. 1) Why are so many (including politicians) conflating Social Security and Medicare with the budget deficit? Both those programs are separate and have nothing to do with the deficit which is defense, discretionary spending, interest on the debt. They have their own taxes separate from income tax and reform of those programs should be considered separately. By breaking down the problems into constituent parts, you are more like to solve them. 2) Everyone in the debate is talking past each other. One group harps that the increased taxes on the rich will not solve the problem (and it won’t). Another group claims to cut spending but that will not solve the entire problem either unless you shut down government. all sides are missing the point, all these whines are just one part of an overall package of revenue increases and spending cuts that need to be considered concurrently. Cravaak makes a whole lot of claims, including Simpson Bowles but were is the legislation? Tell us in detail what you want to cut. Regardless of whether house and senate voted down the Obama budget and regardless of whether the House Republican budget didn’t get anywhere either is immaterial, at least they are out there.
As it is, you all know how this is going to work out. Both parties will stall until after the first of the year, taxes will go up, politicians will pass some legislation reimplementing the tax cuts, both sides will say they cut taxes on the middle class, promise to make spending cuts and tax reform and nothing will get done. Republicans will say they didn’t raise taxes which will satisfy the Grover Norquist pledge but will claim they cut taxes. Democrats will say they saved social security and medicare from the Repubs, even though they haven’t. In the meantime, we end up deeper in debt from finger pointers like Craavak not getting anything done and unwilling to talk to the other side.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
9
I am continually frustrated by the Republicans efforts to mis-identify what results from raising the debt limit. It is for PAYING for the spending that was approved previously by Congress. It does not allow the Congress or the President to spend anything more than that. Shame on Congressman Cravaack for perpetuating that lie.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – “Welcome to Greece”. To all you libclowns out there who voted for the destruction of our economy I say “Well played!” When you finally get out a calculator and figure out Obumma’s tax strategy can’t just stop at the people making over $250k he will be coming for you next. You need to think a little more globally regarding whom Obumma sees as “rich” and even the poorest of the American poor are wealthy compared to the world’s poor.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – “Welcome to Greece”. To all you libclowns out there who voted for the destruction of our economy I say “Well played!” When you finally get out a calculator and figure out Obumma’s tax strategy can’t just stop at the people making over $250k he will be coming for you next. You need to think a little more globally regarding whom Obumma sees as “rich” and even the poorest of the American poor are wealthy compared to the world’s poor. Make sure you keep pushing Obumma’s class warfare ideals because they are working like a peach!
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
looks like mama does a little bit of copy and paste from liberal sites.
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
The Deficit was already at 1.2 Trillion in 2008. This was Obama or Repubs that caused this? It may be easy for conservatives to play stupid but is fatal flaw by conservatives to think others are as addled or suffer from memory loss, that is clearly a conservative trait.
It is true that in 2009 Obama added 200 billion to deficit. Which raised defict to 1.4 trillion. Huge, enormous and unacceptable is what everyone can agree on. Two wars, total collapse of economy at hands of Repubs didn’t leave Obama many options on table. What conservatives refuse to do, despite it being a fav talking point, is to accept responsibility for their own actions they rather blame someone else for their failings and promote lies that the trillion dollar deficit is all Obama’s doing.
But the deficit has dropped significantly since then and mostly because of Obama’s Statutory Pay as you go that he signed in Feb. 2010. This ensures no new spending unless already funded or that doesn’t come with equal reduction in other spending. So guess how many Republicans signed it to prevent more excess spending? ZERO..NOT ONE!!
Rommney lied as clearly was his strong suit, the talking conservative bubble heads lie, they get paid to…but the truth and reality is that Obama is responsible for the lowest spending growth in over 60 years according to WSJ.
Another falsehood is that Dems just spend and spend and Repubs don’t…here is the spending increases by President.
Reagan 1982-85~ 8.7%
Reagan 1985-89~ 4.7%
Bush 1990-93- 5.4%
Clinton 1994-97~ 3.2%
Clinton 1997-01~ 3.9%
BushII 2002-05~ 7.3%
BushII 2005-09~ 8.1%
Obama 2010-13~ 1.4%
It’s sure not the Dems that doing the most spending. It was George Bush that turned a 200Billion surplus by beginning of first term into a 1.2 Trillion deficit by end of second term.
The other reality is that Obama has cut the defict from what the Repubs handed him and jacked it up to and in fact cut 200Billion in just last year. His 2013 budget if Repubs would stop being so clueless and obstructing and help approve it would be 977 Billion.
Still a far cry from where should be but going in right direction and a 20% reduction from where those budget economic wizards called Republican had it.
“When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” Unknown…and all my interactions with Repubs is they just cease being honest. Isn’t that what they’re always doing when claiming the current deficit is all Obama’s fault.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
According to the US Constitution, CONGRESS alone holds the “power of the purse” — NOT the President.
NOT ONE DIME CAN BE SPENT FROM THE US TREASURY WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS — more specifically, the approval of the US House of Representative, of which you were a part, Mr. Cravaack.
The blame lies ENTIRELY upon YOU, Representive Cravaack, and upon your “obstructionist” buddies in the House.
YOU and your Republican buddies in the House voted on and approved all that “out of control” spending, and now that the payment is coming due you want to welsh on the debts that you already approved on the floor of the US House of Representatives. YOU legislatively approved the spending, but now you want to refuse to deposit sufficient funds to cover the debts that you created and approved, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
It’s just a very poorly played GOP scam, and we can all see right through it.
You can’t lay the blame for this mess on President Obama – you Republicans own this mess, lock stock and barrel.
Trying to blame others for your own mistakes is why you were not reelected for another term. Good-bye, Mr. Cravaack, and good riddance!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2