Laffer Curve...

Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? I hadn't until several months ago. It's a little like the Bell Curve for grading in school, but this is for determining the optimal tax rate in an economy.

The Laffer Curve basically says that at 0 percent taxation the government gets $0 dollars in revenue, and at 100 percent taxation the government gets $0 dollars in revenue. At 100 percent taxation there is no incentive for people to earn money. Instead bartering and other means of trade take the place of cash transactions.

Based on those assumptions, there has to be a tax rate in between that keeps the people happy while generating the revenue government needs to function.

When Ronald Reagan took over after jimmy carter almost drove our economy into the ground, he used the Laffer Curve, in part, as a basis for dropping the highest marginal tax rate from 70 percent to 31 percent. It resulted in a massive increase in revenue to the federal government. Of course, congress continued to spend every single nickle that came in, and then some, so no surplus was ever attained.

It's hard to believe that taxing people LESS brings in MORE money, but it works. That isn't always the case, but historically in this Country it is very effective.

obama and his gang of thugs think that taxation is the key to solving our financial crisis. It isn't. Cutting spending is the first step. Reducing the size and influence of government is also a good step. Businesses have to have some freedom in order to be innovative. Innovation leads businesses to employ more people, more people paying a lower tax rate increases revenue to the government.

obama also talks constantly about the evil rich people. They don't pay their fair share. There are three points I would like to make about that.
1. The top 1 percent of wage earners in this Country pay 40 percent of the tax burden. Compare that to the bottom 45 percent who pay no taxes at all. Who is actually carrying the burden?

2. Rich people in this Country employ millions of people. The small business is the backbone of this Country. We are losing small businesses every day to uncertainty with the economy, over regulation, over taxation and just a general hostile environment created by this administration.

3. Companies and corporations don't pay tax. Sure, they may send money to the federal government, but they offset that money by increasing prices on goods and services or being unable to afford raises and other benefits for their employees.

One last thing, it is not evil for a company to make a profit. Profits mean more research and development which results in better products. It means raises for employees. It means charitable donations. It means putting more money back in to our economy.

obama is bad for our Nation. He is anti-American in every sense of the word. His plot to turn us into a third world nation is dangerous. His underhanded and dirty tactics should not be tolerated. The press in this Country have given him a free pass from the moment he emerged from the chicago slime. Will the press be as forgiving when he comes for them?

For more information on the Laffer Curve, and other examples, visit this link...

'Negative' Rating for U.S. Debt Sends Jolt Through Capitol Hill Debate on Debt Ceiling

No matter how grim the outlook, democrats and obama want to continue spending. The only way they can figure to have more money to spend is to raise our taxes. It never even occurs to them that we can't afford it. Our montly gasoline bill has increased by over $300 bucks a month. If this keeps up it won't even pay to go to work.

If more people don't keep after their congress critters about the budget and the deficit, we are going to go from real trouble to whatever is worse than that. My representatives are sick of me. They hear from me waaay more often that they are comfortable with.

Write them folks, let them know we have to fix this stuff NOW. Not in 2012, not in 2016, NOW. We can't afford to kick this can down the road any longer. I will stand behind those willing to make the tough decisions, even if it is painful.

Remember though, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem...

From FoxNews

The United States' latest fiscal standoff -- an intensifying impasse over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling -- got a sudden jolt Monday when a top credit rating service expressed pessimism at D.C.'s political will to solve the debt crisis.

It remained unclear whether Standard & Poor's decision to change its outlook on U.S. fiscal health over the next two years from "stable" to "negative" would prompt the White House and Congress to agree on a debt fix. But it certainly prompted both sides to affirm they are serious about the issue.

“Serious reforms are needed to ensure America’s fiscal health," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a written statement, calling S&P's announcement " a wake-up call to those in Washington asking Congress to blindly increase the debt limit."

Republicans have called for attaching spending reductions to any increase in the debt limit, which nearly has been reached at over $14 trillion, but the White House has warned that failing to increase the limit in the coming months could be ruinous for federal finances and the economy as a whole, because the nation's creditors may lose confidence in the United States' ability to pay its debts.

S&P's announcement sent stocks tumbling Monday, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney downplayed it, saying the political process will outperform the agency's expectations.

The Obama administration also acknowledged that there is increasing agreement on the scope of the problem.

"Both political parties now agree that it is time to begin bringing down deficits as a share of GDP," Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets at the Treasury Department, said in a written statement. "We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation."

Not everyone is convinced that raising the debt ceiling is necessary, even with strings attached.

Read the rest at the link above...

obama Keeps 'Czars' Despite Budget Deal That Eliminated Them

What an asshole. obama agrees to the budget deal and then refuses to do his portion. These "czars" never should have been allowed in the first place. These positions answer to no one but obama, are in charge of billions of tax dollars and have very little if any oversight. It is simply a way for obama to hire more of his left wing liberal, socialist buddies for huge salaries without having to worry about congressional approval. It's bullshit.

His inabilty to uphold his end of the bargain should make the entire budget deal null and void. Only a true scumbag would refuse to honor their word. All a man really has is his word, and if that is no good, well you figure it out...

From FoxNews

President obama may have never met a "czar" he didn't like and he's not about to bid farewell to any of them now, despite a budget deal he struck with Republican leaders last week that eliminated four of these positions.

The budget compromise that obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader harry reid reached in the final moments before the government shut down last Friday included language effectively eliminating the czar positions overseeing health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs – positions that don't require Senate confirmation.

But after signing the legislation Friday that funds the government through the end of September and cuts $38 billion in spending, obama issued a signing statement saying he would ignore the part about his czars, arguing that defunding those positions violated his constitutional authority.

Republicans cried foul over obama's move.

"It's not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these 'Czars' is objecting to eliminating them," Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who introduced legislation earlier this year eliminating nine czar positions, said obama cannot choose which laws to follow and ignore.

"The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy," he said in a statement, arguing that appointing these czars without Senate confirmation violated the Constitution.

"The United States is not a kingdom run by a political director, and President obama needs to quickly reverse course and abide by the law eliminating the czars that were part of the budget resolution."

While presidents in both parties have appointed high-level officials to advise them on a wide range of policy areas, obama's czars have been a favorite target for Republicans, who say obama has appointed more than any of his predecessors in a power grab that undermines the Senate's advice and consent role.

Scalise's office estimates that 39 officials are in the obama administration and in his bill he described czars as the "head of any task force, council, policy office within the executive office of the president" or similar office, appointed "without the advice and consent of the Senate."

Earlier this year, climate czar Carol Browner left the White House and health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to White House deputy chief of staff. Other past czars in the obama administration has drawn much criticism from Republicans, including former green jobs czar Van Jones and current science czar John Holdren.

The Grand Compromise

Someone in our government should recognize the absolute genius of Charles Krauthammer and put him to work for the good of our Country. I have never read a single word he has written that I didn't agree with. Without a doubt, he is smarter than the entire obama administration combined.

obama is quick to citicize the Ryan plan without offering anything of substance himself. It is standard operating procedure. Just like Libya, he refuses to make any kind of a plan that can be pinned directly to him. Instead he lets others do the heavy lifting and attempts to take the credit. What a small person he is.

He pulled the same stunt in congress, voting "present" on the tough votes to avoid a record that could be quoted later. But the silence in those "present" votes is deafening. He has spent his entire political career being non-commital yet critical of those who dare to make a commitment.

The rudimentary plan he did devise is more of the same liberal crap, tax and overspend. It's the only answer their limited range of vision can come up with.

2012 can't come soon enough for me. We need to clean house on election day...

by Charles Krauthammer - Human Events

The most serious charge against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget is not the risible claim, made most prominently by President Obama in his George Washington University address, that it would "sacrifice the America we believe in." The serious charge is that the Ryan plan fails by its own standards: Because it only cuts spending without raising taxes, it accumulates trillions of debt and doesn't balance the budget until the 2030s. If the debt is such a national emergency, they say, Ryan never really gets you there from here.

But the critics miss the point. You can't get there from here without Ryan's plan. It's the essential element. Of course Ryan is not going to propose tax increases. You don't need Republicans for that. That's what Democrats do. The president's speech was a prose poem to higher taxes -- with every allusion to spending cuts guarded by a phalanx of impenetrable caveats.

Ryan reduces federal spending by $6 trillion over 10 years -- from the current 24 percent of GDP to the historical post-World War II average of about 20 percent.

Now, the historical average for revenues over the last 40 years is between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. As we return to that level with the economic recovery (we're now at about 15 percent), Ryan would still leave us with an annual deficit in 2021 of 1.6 percent of GDP.

The critics are right to focus on that gap. But it is bridgeable. And the mechanism for doing so is in plain sight: tax reform.

Real tax reform strips out exclusions, deductions, credits and the innumerable loopholes that have accumulated since the last tax reform of 1986. The Simpson-Bowles commission, for example, identifies $1.1 trillion of such revenue-robbers. In one scenario, it strips them all out and thus is able to lower rates for everyone to three brackets of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent.

The commission does recommend that, on average, about $100 billion annually of that $1.1 trillion be kept by the Treasury (rather than going back to the taxpayer) to reduce the deficit. This is a slight deviation from revenue neutrality, but it still yields a major cut for the top rate from the current 35 percent to 23 percent. The overall result is so reasonable and multiply beneficial that it rightly gained the concurrence of even the impeccably conservative (commission member) Sen. Tom Coburn.

That's the beauty of tax reform: It is both transparent and flexible. That flexibility and transparency can be applied to the Ryan plan. If you need a bit more deficit reduction to bridge the 1.6 percent GDP gap that remains after 10 years, you can get there by slightly raising the final rates.

Ryan's tax reform envisions three brackets with a top rate of 25 percent. There's nothing sacred about that number. In principle, you could raise all the rates slightly with the top rate going to, say, 28 percent -- the top rate that came out of Ronald Reagan's 1986 tax reform. You're still much lower than the current 35 percent. And yet that final boost could bring you closer to a fully balanced federal budget at roughly 20 percent of GDP.

Nor would any great conservative principle be violated. The historical average of revenues -- 18 percent to 19 percent of GDP -- could be raised one point or so on the perfectly reasonable grounds that we are a slightly older society, and that we wish to avail ourselves of the extraordinary but expensive medical technology that can increase both the quality and length of life.

This one concession would yield a fully balanced budget more quickly than Ryan's plan and would reduce the debt/GDP ratio even more steeply (because GDP would be growing, while debt would not). The effect on America's financial standing in the world would be dramatic: Restored confidence in U.S. fiscal health would reduce interest rates, which would lower the overall debt burden, which could allow lower taxes, which could stimulate yet more economic growth. A virtuous circle.

That's the finish line. But it starts with spending cuts. Serious cuts, as Ryan suggests -- not the smoke and mirrors the Obama speech shamelessly presented as a plan.

Given the Democrats' instinctive resort to granny-in-the-snow demagoguery, the Republicans are right not to budge on taxes until serious spending cuts are in place. At which point, the grand compromise awaits. And grand it would be. Saving the welfare state from insolvency is no small achievement.

Boehner Blew The Budget Deal (and probably the future of the nation)

Go read the rest of this at TL in Exile. It's funny really, Boehner had all the tools in the world at his disposal and still got bested in this deal. Bear in mind what I said before though, Boehner was up against people who are very good at making shady deals seem legit. These are the very best (worst) of the crooked chicago political machine. What Boehner needs to understand is that you can't trust a fucking democrat, ever. They will smile at you while they stab you in the back.

I'm not giving Boehner a pass on this. He screwed the pooch, big time. He gave away everything and got nothing in return. He should have been able to see what the democrats were doing or have someone in his corner that could. He has lost my faith and I'm sure the faith of millions of other too.

He should have shouted from the highest mountain that obama was using our Troops as a bargaining tool. He should have held his ground, government shutdown or not. He should have forced the democrats to make real, substantial cuts. Even if the deal he was able to cut didn't pass the senate, the ball would have been in their court. The spotlight, and the blame, would have been on those that deserve it...

By T.L. Davis - TL in Exile

The other day I expressed my dissatisfaction with the budget deal. I quoted the oft-quoted numbers of $50 billion in new spending while negotiating for a $38.5 billion dollar spending reduction and intimated that this was clearly stupid. But, there were levels of being sold out that I had not addressed and since taking the victory lap along with Barack Obama was not enough for Boehner and people are considering him a winner in the negotiations with Obama, I think I ought to be a bit more clear as to my objections to the budget deal recently released.

First of all, you know when you have been bested when the opposition holds you up as a worthy adversary. I don't know for a fact that the collective ass-covering was a part of the negotiated deal to let Obama keep some of his most prized pieces of the budget, or not. It stinks, that's all I know. There was no defunding of Planned Parenthood, there was no defunding of Obamacare, there was no real 38.5 billion dollars in spending cuts, it was done with some accounting gimmicks. By the way, who has already forgotten that accounting gimmicks like keeping Social Security off budget and Medicare's "Doctor Fix" are how we got here in the first place? It is this kind of smarmy, weasel-y budget negotiations that have led to $14 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Even Paul Ryan's budget doesn't even balance the budget until 2021, so when the hell are we going to deal with the DEBT?

For those who don't know, deficits are what accrue every year, debt is the pile that all of these yearly deficits are piled onto. Deficits are the amount of money you are spending over what you are taking in, Debts are the things that catch all of those yearly excesses and pile them up. So, if we don't even get to a balanced budget until 2021, these trillion dollar deficits will continue during all that time and dump onto the massively growing DEBT. It is only in theory that we eventually, sometime in the mid century, actually begin to work on the DEBT, which by then will be somewhere near $30 trillion dollars or 200% of our GDP, assuming we ever get out of the ditch Barack Obama has driven us back into over his two years.

Okay, those are the raw numbers that must be placed alongside the puny $38.5 billion dollars supposedly saved in the budget deal, with the help of some left-over stimulus money and returned TARP funds, NOT mostly by cutting spending as they would have you believe.

Obama Throws Down Gauntlet on Tax Hikes, Republicans Blast Deficit Plan

There is so much wrong with what obama said today that I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with the obvious, obama is a socialist dumbass who wants to make our Country into Europe. Which is funny because Europe doesn't even want to be Europe anymore.

Another obvious point, well, obvious to anyone with half a brain, we DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. Why do democrats absolutely refuse to see that you can't spend money you don't have? Many of them are wealthy, so maybe in their personal lives they can spend and spend and never run out of cash. It's not the case for our Country, and they are SPENDING OUR MONEY, not their own.

If obama thinks that taxing small business owners is a good idea, he is even more stupid than I thought, and that's pretty damn stupid. Our economy will never grow, people will never be enticed into starting a business and hiring people as long as democrats keep up this anti-business agenda.

Entitlement spending in this Country is out of control. It has been for a long time. Everyone knows it but nobody, until Paul Ryan, wants to address it. Passing it on to the next bunch has been the way to do it for far too long.

obama thinks that kicking the Republicans in the nuts hard and often is the way to bipartisan legislation? He really is out of touch with reality. His fantasy world is dragging our Country further and further from the path set out by our Founding Fathers. He doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He proves that almost daily.

I don't know if anyone has addressed the duplicate and triplicate programs that were pointed out a month or so ago, but that would be easy pickings toward reducing spending. If we were to halt all aid to corrupt countries, there is another bunch of money. Haiti and North Korea are examples of this. The governments are so corrupt that any aid money we send them goes right into the bank accounts of the corrupt leaders.

How about all the money we give to mexico to help fight the never ending drug war? Again, it is lining the pockets of corrupt government officials and their flunkies.

At some point, all of these associations need to be examined or we will continue to send American tax dollars to places that it does no good. The tax dollars would be better used here, fixing our own problems.

obama needs to get a taste of reality. If he can't or won't, he needs to hire a czar with some sense, somebody that isn't a thug and isn't from chicago...

From FoxNews

President Obama, outlining his latest deficit-reduction proposal, called Wednesday for both parties to work together to balance the budget and put America on a path toward paying down its debt. But the address left both sides digging in on one crucial issue -- taxes.

In a case of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object, Obama said he absolutely would not allow tax cuts for those making above $250,000 to be extended.

Republicans said they absolutely would not accept a new tax hike. "Any plan that starts with job-destroying tax hikes is a non-starter," House Speaker John Boehner said in a written statement.

Based on the response of Republican members of Congress -- as well as several likely presidential candidates -- the address may have served to inflame the debate rather than reset it. Tax hikes weren't the only plank in Obama's budget plan, but they generated the most criticism.

"The only concrete proposal that he proposed was raising taxes," House GOP Leader Eric Cantor said afterward. "That solution falls far short of dealing with the kind of crisis that we're facing."

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., skewered the president's address, accusing him of "exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy and anxiety."

The response previewed a grueling battle as both parties prepare to trudge through a new set of budget issues in the months ahead. The speech also served as an opening argument for the 2012 campaign, and Obama drew a clear line between his long-term budget plan and Republicans'.

In the speech at George Washington University, he positioned his spending plan as a more "compassionate" alternative to one introduced last week by Ryan. He applauded Republicans for putting a plan on the table to address entitlements, but the praise stopped there.

"The way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known certainly in my lifetime," Obama said, calling the GOP plan "deeply pessimistic." He suggested Republicans were giving up on basic functions of government.

"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them," Obama said of the Republican plan. "It's a vision that says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made to care for our seniors."

The president claimed his proposal would cut $4 trillion from the deficit in 12 years or less. He drew several lines in the sand as he explained how he planned to get there.

Accusing Republicans of cutting services to seniors and poor children while cutting taxes for the rich, Obama said: "That's not right, and that's not going to happen as long as I'm president."

The president's proposal would deal with entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, but avoid the major changes being pushed by Ryan. The president opposes turning Medicaid into a block-grant program for states and making Medicare seniors purchase government-subsidized insurance, as Ryan proposed. Rather, he vowed to make other changes he claims will extract more than $300 billion in savings from those programs over the next decade. Plus he pushed cuts in discretionary spending, including to defense.

But where Obama departed most sharply from Republicans was his call for rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the most well-off Americans -- meaning a tax hike for households making more than $250,000, or the top 2 percent of wage-earners. Republicans and Democrats had agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, but Obama said Wednesday, "I refuse to renew them again" for the top tier.

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut," he said.

Republicans have roundly opposed a tax hike for anyone and condemned the proposal, before and after the speech.

"The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on job-creators, entrepreneurs and small business owners across America," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely presidential candidate, said in a statement.

Ryan said he was "very disappointed" with the president, calling his speech "excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate."

"What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner in chief," Ryan said. "Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells."

Read the rest at the link above...

US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011

Keep these numbers in mind as the budget battles come up. obama and his pet democrats have spent money at levels we have never, ever experienced before. They will continue to spend like that until we run their asses off. We have told them to knock it off. We have begged and pleaded. They don't care. They have no respect and very little concern for We the People. Do you think they will have any concern when we show up at their door with torches and pitchforks?

If Boehner and the Tea Party new guys don't fix this soon, washington may find out just how many of us are pissed off with their inability to control their spending...

AFP

The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

The Treasury argued that the pace of increase in the deficit was deceptive because of large one-off reductions in expenditures made during the first half of fiscal 2010, compared with previous and subsequent periods.

Those included a $115 billion reduction in funds spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- the financial institution bailout program -- in March 2010.

But 2011 so far has also seen significant increases in spending on defense, Social Security, health and debt service, while receipts have not grown as fast.

"The jump in outlays mostly owed to a smaller estimated reduction in TARP outlays this year versus 2010," said Theresa Chen at Barclays Capital Research.

However, she said, the trend shows that taxable income is rising at a 6.9 percent annual pace, and individual incomes taxes are up 20.6 percent, "consistent with general economic improvement."

The figures came amid a sharp, politically partisan battle in Washington over cutting spending and raising taxes, with President Barack Obama preparing Wednesday to release his plan for reducing the long-term deficit.

He also faces a looming battle over increasing the country's official debt ceiling, so that the government can continue to borrow to finance the deficit.

Read the rest at the link above...

Two other opinions about the budget deal...

I agree with elements of what each one of them says. It was a win. of sorts, for Republicans. But on the downside, the democrats are much better at this type of negotiations than Republicans. They are willing to give a little to gain a lot. I think this is what the democrats did in this case.

It was the largest cut in budget history, but obama using our Military as a bargaining tool is inexcusible. Like Robert mentions, no president in history has ever gone there. Never.

And like T.L. says, Boehner isn't qualified to lead these types of negotiations. He is too honest. To attempt to strike a favorable bargain with democrats, you have to be as dirty and as thuggish as they are. You have to be willing to stake your own grandmother to an ant hill. democrats are willing to do that, and worse.

The first is from My friend Robert at American and Proud

Budget Deal Done! How do you feel?

After a couple days of huffing and puffing. After reading the entire budget that was agreed to. And after checking many “Alternative reality” sites (aka Liberals) I came to a conclusion. It may not set well with some folks, it may make sense to others but it is my opinion.

We on the right didn’t do too bad in the agreement. We didn’t win in a blowout, but we didn’t lose at all. In other words it was like baseball game played over 12 innings we lost our starting pitcher and our power hitter to injuries but we won the game.

The POTUS made the Speaker blink. Yep. The POTUS used our military as tools to save Planned Parenthood. Yep. And it worked. In a day gone by NO POTUS would have ever gone there. Our current POTUS did. Obama is not a Democrat, he’s a progressive and that’s the big difference in this entire thing. A democrat can be reasoned with, a progressive on the other hand is ANTI-AMERICAN from the start so sacrificing the military wouldn’t phase him.

Did the Republicans win? Absolutely they won. They proved some points, they made Obama tip his hand about how far he’s willing to go to protect a failed agenda and they got MORE cuts than ever before. And they are putting fourth a bill that will protect the military from any such Obamanism in the future. They also left the door open for the next battle which starts in about two weeks.

While I would have rather them take it all the way, I do understand the game. Its one of quarters not entirety all at once. We got more work to do, we have a LOT more work to do, but for an opening salvo in a clash, We’ll take the 38.5 billion and hope they can get the other 60+Billion before the next fiscal year.

And the next one is from my friend T.L. Davis at TL in Exile.

The Enemy Is Us

One can barely grasp the enormous stupidity of the budget deal. It is a signal that there is no chance of a bold, desperately-needed reconciliation with sanity. There is no chance that even discretionary spending can be limited, much less the drastic measures required to save the nation from bankruptcy and world-wide ridicule. If this is the fruit of the Tea Party, it is a wicked weed indeed.

John Boehner is not qualified to polish the spittoons in the basement of the Capitol Building, much less participate in a negotiation between Harry Reid, Barack Obama and the Republican congress. The praise being heaped upon him by the press signals that he is the one they want to negotiate the 2012 budget. He negotiated positive press and a fig leaf from the president in return for capitulation. Gee, I wonder why they would give that to him? It is time to scrap Boehner and elect Paul Ryan as the majority leader, or at a minimum, to designate Ryan as the principle budget negotiator for the majority.

The bigger issue is the 2012 budget. $6.2 trillion in spending reductions are you effing crazy? Boehner couldn't negotiate for an umbrella in a hurricane. He just simply does not have the backbone for it. I don't dislike his personal story, it is compelling, but this is the salvation of the country, this is for all the marbles. He is out of his depth and perhaps his advisers are of theirs as well. Perhaps the Republican Party is out of its depth. I have never seen anything resembling a spine when it came to budget negotiations from the Republicans.

I've been through this before, but I will go through it again. You cannot negotiate a budget deal where you eliminate tens of billions of dollars while you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the period of the negotiation. I wrote a post a while ago about the $6.1 billion dollar debate and how if that debate went on for a week, the interest on the debt alone would wipe out the savings. In this deal, the government spent over $50 billion while they negotiated to cut $38 billion.

Listen, this is the same old fight in a different location. The moochers and parasites are the supporters of the Democrats, they aren't going to let a budget cut interfere with their looting and since the Democratic Party is nothing other than a gigantic money-laundering operation, every dime the moochers and parasites have gotten from the government they are willing to spend to keep them in office and to keep them from reforming the system. The Democrats themselves have no reason to engage in legitimate negotiations. Parasites don't give a damn about the condition of the body from which they feed. It is beyond their intellectual capacity to consider the future when the feast is at an end.

We have now seen the script laid out for the upcoming budget battle of 2012 and the debt limit increase to come. We have come, we have seen and the enemy is us.

Budget Deal Targets Pieces of Health Care Law

Ok, maybe I was a little hard on Boehner yesterday. Anything that helps defund or repeal obamacare is a good thing. I still think Boehner compromised when he didn't have to, but the deal he got was better than the past couple of continuing resolutions...

The Wall Street Journal

The budget deal reached Friday would affect two initiatives contained in last year's health-care law that were bitterly opposed by businesses, killing one outright and slashing funding for the other.

The agreement would eliminate a provision of the health-care law enabling low-income workers to opt out of employer-offered health insurance and shop for more affordable coverage on insurance exchanges to be created in 2014, according to congressional aides and business groups.

Under the provision, employers would have had to help pay for the insurance purchased on the exchange. Ending the program would save the government $4 billion over 10 years, but it wouldn't result in any immediate spending cuts because it isn't set to begin for three years.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden sponsored the provision, calling it "Free Choice." A spokesman for Mr. Wyden, Jennifer Hoelzer, said Saturday that "both parties claim to support choice and competition in health care, but their closed-door decision to kill off Free Choice makes it pretty clear that their real goal is to keep health care in the hands of special interests."

Spokespeople for the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers, organizations that opposed the measure, couldn't be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which also opposed the measure, declined to comment.

The budget bill will also cut $2.2 billion in funding from a program that would encourage the development of health-care cooperatives-not-for-profit entities that would compete with private, for-profit health-insurance companies.

Read the rest at the link above...

Shutdown looms and democrats lose what's left of their minds...

I have heard it all now.

The Republicans want old people to die...

The Republicans want to deny cancer screenings for women...

The Republicans want women to die...

This is complete bullshit. If the dumbass democrats had passed a budget last October, they wouldn't be fighting over continuing resolutions every few weeks. What they did instead was just decide to spend what ever they wanted to, without the restraints of a budget.

Now the Republicans are forced to reign in the out of control bleeding of money from washington. When things are as bad as they are currently in our government tough choices have to be made. Somebody has to have the balls to make those tough calls.

You know what, none of those calls involve starving old people or killing women. The democrats are a bunch of fucking drama queens. If they were willing to face the fact that our Country is flat broke, maybe they would understand what needs to be done. They aren't. They won't. They need therapy, shock therapy.

obama has put together a budget for 2012. Right out of the gate it has a TRILLION dollar deficit. Before the first tax dollar is spent, we are already an additional TRILLION dollars in the hole. Is that any way to run a Country? Look at this number $1,000,000,000,000.00. Can you even imagine that? Does your brain even register that many zeros? Mine doesn't, it's mind boggling. And the really messed up part of that is, we will have to borrow that TRILLION dollars from China. Do you know how long it is going to take to pay that money back, on top of all the other money we already owe them? Put it like this, your grandchildren will still be paying it back.

Over all, our deficit is in excess of $14,000,000,000,000.00. 14 TRILLION dollars. And the fucking democrats are acting like a bunch of drama queen, chicken little, crybabies over 61 BILLION dollars that the Republicans want to cut this year.

If you are stupid enough to believe that the upcoming shutdown is the fault of the Republicans, please seek a mental evaluation. Just look at the numbers involved and how we got to them. Also consider what I said above about the democrats refusing to put a budget in place. When you consider that it is against the law for them not to have a budget it is even uglier. And don't forget that when the budget was supposed to have been put in place, the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency. Like I said before, a budget would have just gotten in the way of their spending. A liberal, anti-American agenda is expensive...

Boehner: Congress shouldn't be paid in event of shutdown

Boehner is 100% correct. If the government shuts down congress should not get paid. And obama sure in the hell shouldn't get paid, he shouldn't even be getting paid now.

During a shutdown, only the people who protect us should be paid. The Military, Police and Fire are about it. There may be some other essential folks that need to stay on the payroll.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but don't those non-essential employees who will be laid off get back pay when everything starts back up? I'm almost positive I heard that somewhere. If that is the case, it is dead wrong. If I get laid off because my company is way over budget, when things get back to normal, do you think they will give me pay for the time I was sitting around the house in my underwear? I kind of doubt it...

By Jordan Fabian - The Hill

Lawmakers should not be paid if the government shuts down, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday.

Boehner expressed support for legislation that would prevent members from drawing a paycheck should Congress and the White House fail to reach a deal, by day's end Friday, to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

"Members of Congress are elected by their constituents. If there is a government shutdown, not only will Congress not be paid, but federal employees will not be paid," he said during an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The Speaker's endorsement of the idea comes after a number of lawmakers urged leaders to adopt the principle this week.

Over 20 senators this week made public statements in favor of the idea, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) even said he would donate his salary to charity or give it back to the Treasury if the government shuts down.

Both chambers have passed separate pieces of legislation cutting off lawmaker pay in case of a shutdown, but a single bill has not advanced through both chambers and been signed by President Obama.

"We’ll have to take a look at that," Boehner said.

"If Speaker Boehner were really serious about preventing Members of Congress from being paid during a government shutdown, he would immediately pass our ‘no budget, no pay’ bill," responded Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who sponsored the Senate's congressional pay bill.

During his wide-ranging interview with ABC, Boehner also expressed confidence both sides could eventually reach a deal on a 2011 budget.

Rep. Paul Ryan Raises Profile With 'Bold' Budget Plan

Paul Ryan is a badass. He understands the shape we are in financially. He's also willing to step outside of the washington box and take charge, unlike obama who wants to sit on the sidelines and bitch about the big boys who are trying to clean up the mess.

I would probably vote for a ticket where Ryan was the VP...

By Stephen Clark - FoxNews

He's a rising star on the right and a growing target on the left.

Washington is buzzing about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's take-no-prisoners approach to budget cuts -- manifested in his budget proposal that would slash federal spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years and overhaul health programs for the elderly and poor.

As Congress wages an epic budget battle that threatens this weekend to shut down the federal government for the first time in 15 years, Ryan's willingness to offer specifics on how to tame deficits and preserve the American safety net is boosting his profile among Republicans and stirring speculation that he may be on the short list of GOP vice presidential contenders.

"I think that Paul Ryan is the brightest light in the Republican Party right now," said former Sen. Bob Kasten, a fellow Wisconsin Republican who once employed Ryan. "And the courage he's shown is unlike anyone in Washington today, including the president."

"Whether for president or vice president or for further leadership in Congress, he's on everyone's list," he said, adding that the choice would be up to him.

Ryan, 41, is chairman of the House Budget Committee and known as the Republican go-to guy on fiscal policy, a position that has placed him at the center of the most contentious Capitol Hills debates in recent years, including Obama's health care overhaul. But his new budget proposal is elevating him to a new level of fame or notoriety, depending on which side you're on.

He wants to tackle the $14.3 trillion national debt while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next decade. He wants to cut the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent. He also wants to transform Medicare into a system in which the government would pay for private health insurance plans instead of paying doctors and hospitals directly.

While Republicans have called it a good starting point, Democrats are dismissing it as an attack on senior citizens.

Ryan says he's not surprised by the reaction.

"I always knew if you put bold reforms out there, you'll have the partisan demagoguery," he told Fox News Wednesday, contending that's why nothing gets done in Washington.

"We can't keep doing that in this country," he said. "We got to stop spending money we don't have."

Read the rest at the link above...

Obama-Boehner Fight Gets Ugly

Everything is rosy when obama and reid get their way, when they are put in a position of possibly compromising they act like jr. high school girls.

Do you think Boehner will cave? I hope like hell he stands his (our) ground. There has to be real cuts made to spending in washington. We are headed for financial ruin at breakneck speed.

It is going to be painful to fix our budget woes, but not nearly as painful as the alternative. It can't be put off any longer...

By Chris Stirewalt - FoxNews

Obama Swats Boehner, Boehner Swats Back

“The president is certainly entitled to disagree with our budget, but what exactly is his alternative? If he wants to have an ‘adult conversation’ about solving our fiscal challenges, he needs to lead instead of sitting on the sidelines.”

-- Statement from Speaker John Boehner released Wednesday morning blasting President Obama for neglecting long-term fiscal issues

President Obama is out on the campaign trail today talking to Pennsylvanians about wind power and attending an awards ceremony hosted by Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.

But real the topic for the president’s day isn’t green energy or racial injustice. It’s dealing with House Speaker John Boehner and the prospect of a looming government shutdown.

After a White House meeting with Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Tuesday, Obama went to the press room to rip Boehner for playing “games” with the process and “quibbling around the edges” of the nation’s fiscal problems.

Boehner then responded with a press conference of his own saying that Republicans would not be “put into a box” by the president and said Democrats are using “smoke and mirrors” to create the false appearance of spending cuts.

Today is the crucial day if lawmakers mean to avoid a government shutdown. House rules require three days for legislation to be considered before a vote and Senate Democrats have been unable to produce their own plan for funding the government when the current emergency measure expires on Friday.

That means if a shutdown is to be averted, Reid and his caucus would have to get busy today and produce a bill that can draw at least the seven Republican votes in the Senate needed to advance and head to the House.

In the six weeks since House Republicans passed their spending plan for the rest of the fiscal year – now just 25 weeks – the Senate has been stuck and the government has been operating on emergency measures to stave off shutdowns while negotiations continued.

Boehner shocked Democrats on Tuesday when he won the support of Tea Party members of his caucus for yet another emergency one-week extension. Boehner won their backing by attaching a $12 billion cuts package and promising full-year funding for the Pentagon in the measure.

Boehner, Reid Fail to Agree on Budget Solution as Gov't Shutdown Nears

It's funny seeing obama try to act like a badass. Especially when you consider that this entire mess has come about because the democrats, who controlled the house, the senate and the presidency, didn't pass a budget last year. So now, obama wants to act like a bully and try to make Boehner buckle under the pressure, force him to make a compromise.

If Boehner sticks to his guns, which I doubt, he can force obama and reid to make some concessions.

I don't think that a government shutdown is such a bad idea. It will separate the essential employees from the non-essential. It would go a long way to fixing our budget if those non-essential employees, who are not needed during a shutdown, were given the opportunity to find their next career. Maybe if several of them had to compete for jobs in the real world, with the current obama economy, maybe there would be more a more realistic attitude about spending.

It's almost as if the people in our government don't realize that real people actually have to work for the money they continue to spend. The money just magically shows up on the doorstep. Sorry, it doesn't work that way...

From FoxNews

Even with President obama holding their feet to the fire, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader harry reid were unable to reach a budget deal during a meeting on Capitol Hill as a government shutdown loomed this weekend.

The meeting lasted less than an hour but the two "agreed to continue working on a budget solution," spokesmen for the two said in separate statements.

Earlier Tuesday, a visibly frustrated obama said that if the meeting between the two leaders does not lead to a deal, he would summon the pair back to the White House Wednesday.

"Myself, joe biden, my team -- we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to this resolved," obama said during a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room.

obama also said that democrats have agreed with Republicans on how much to cut from the budget and that he won't accept another temporary spending bill that House Republicans are rallying behind to keep the lights on for another week.

"We've already done that twice," obama said. "That is not a way to run a government. "I can't have our agencies making plans based on two-week budgets."

obama said both sides are closer than ever to a deal and that politics shouldn't stand in the way of preventing a shutdown that would harm the economic recovery.

"There is no reason why we should not get an agreement," obama said. "At a time when the economy is just beginning to grow, the last thing we need is a disruption that's caused by a government shutdown."

In a statement following the private White House meeting earlier Tuesday, Boehner had said there was no deal. And he warned that House Republicans "will not be put in a box" of accepting options they refuse to endorse.

Boehner has proposed an agreement that would keep the government running for one more week and slash another $12 billion in spending. The GOP-led House has already passed a pair of stopgap bills, so far cutting $10 billion from an estimated $1.2 trillion budget to fund the day-to-day operations of government through Sept. 30.

obama said he would only accept another short-term funding extension, of two or three days, in order to get a longer-term deal through Congress. But he ruled out a longer extension to allow negotiations to continue.

"What we are not going to do is once again put off something that should have been done months ago," the president said.

Read the rest at the link above...

Obama Summons Lawmakers to White House Budget Talks

So, will Boehner cave today or later in the week? Because it isn't a question of if, just when. The worst about about it is that he is in the better position. The democrats need him to compromise, because they sure aren't planning on making any concessions. It's the same old story, compromise means the Republicans doing exactly what the democrats want...

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Monday summoned key lawmakers from both parties to the White House for budget talks in hopes of avoiding a government shutdown this weekend.

The White House said the president has invited House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and top negotiators on the appropriations committees to a session Tuesday.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said time was running short and the president would urge the lawmakers to reach an agreement.

Carney said the White House was optimistic that a shutdown could be averted, but a top Republican did not share that optimism.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said there were still disagreements about how much to cut spending through Sept. 30, the end of the budget year. He accused the White House of bringing too many phony budget cuts to the table in hopes of restoring reductions made by Republicans in February.

"Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I've made clear that their $33 billion is not enough and many of the cuts that the White House and Senate Democrats are talking about are full of smoke and mirrors," Boehner said in a statement. "That's unacceptable."

Democratic officials knowledgeable about the proposals said the administration's ideas including taking unused money from federal highway programs and leftover funds from a program providing health care to middle-class families. Both ideas count in congressional budget terms as savings that could be used to pay for spending elsewhere in the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies, but their practical effect is nil.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss proposals that haven't been made public.

Read therest at the link above...

Obama to Congressional Leaders: Hurry Up and Strike a Budget Deal

What do you bet Boehner folds again? This guy has way less balls than I thought. He is in a very good position right now. He doesn't have to compromise. He should be able to force the democrats to make some REAL spending cuts. He won't though.

I about half hope there is a shutdown. As long as the government is shutdown there is a lot less stupid spending going on. And if the government does shut down, it will be the fault of both parties. The democrats will try to spin it as unwillingness on the part of Republicans to make a compromise, but really it will be the unwillingness of the democrats to make real spending cuts in an out of control government...

From FoxNews

President obama told the leaders of the House and Senate on Saturday to hurry up and strike a deal on the budget to avoid a government shutdown next weekend, the White House said.

obama made separate calls to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, urging them to "reach a final solution and avoid a government shutdown that would be harmful to our economic recovery," the White House said in a readout of the call.

Negotiators are discussing spending cuts in the $33 billion range but haven't agreed on where to make them. Talks were continuing through the weekend. Funding for the government expires at midnight Friday.

Boehner is under pressure from Tea Party-backed conservatives to not compromise after the GOP-led House passed a budget bill in February that cuts $61 billion from current spending levels.

During the phone call, Boehner "reminded the president that there is no 'deal' or agreement on a final number, and he will continue to push for the largest possible spending cuts," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

Shah: GOP budget would kill 70,000 children

It must have been an amazing amount of research to determin exactly how many little children will die because of our budget deficit. Do you think this shah guy has their names? I mean if he can give the exact numbers, he must have their names and addresses too.

I may be wrong here, but I think our budget deficit has a negative impact on our economy. Which in turn has a negative ompact on our job market. That might explain why so many people in our Country are out of work. democrats 100% refuse to stop spending money, no matter what the cost to our own Country. I don't want to see little poor children die in any country, especially not in ours. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the entire world for us to fix our broken economy so more people can find a job? A strong United States is in a much better position to help out the countries who need assistance.

By Josh Rogin - FP

As Congress struggles to negotiate a budget deal to keep the government running, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told lawmakers Wednesday that the GOP version of the budget bill would result in the deaths of at least 70,000 children who depend on American food and health assistance around the world.

"We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying," USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee.

"Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would have to be scaled back specifically. The other 40,000 is broken out as 24,000 would die because of a lack of support for immunizations and other investments and 16,000 would be because of a lack of skilled attendants at birth," he said.

The Republican bill, known as H.R.1, was passed by the House, and would fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2011. It would effectively cut 16 percent from the Obama administration's original fiscal 2011 request for the international affairs account.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pointed out that H.R. 1 would provide $430 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which is 50 percent below the president's fiscal 2011 request and 67 percent below fiscal 2010 levels.

Shah said that such a cut "would be, really, the most dramatic stepping back away from our humanitarian responsibilities around the world in decades." The IDA account supports 1.6 million people in Darfur, so halving the account would place 800,000 people at risk, he said...

Read the rest at the link above...

3 Disturbing Images of Obama

Once again, Karl Rove hits the nail on the head. obama's foreign policy or should I say, lack of foreign policy is lessening the United States in the eyes of the world. One would think that he would eventually keep his mouth shut on matters for which he has no head. Instead he continues to spout tough sounding rhetoric with very little substance and no follow up. It is our duty to assist those in Libya seeking freedom. In may not be in the form of troops or an invasion. But a simple no-fly zone would allow the rebels an opportunity to catch their breath and regroup. The airstrikes by the Libyan military keep the rebels on their heels and unable to gain ground.

obama's failure to lead on the budget, again, failure to lead is too light, his failure to participate in the process at all, has made him look foolish and immature. He criticizes, yet he adds nothing of substance to the conversation. The democrats, in return, try to get by with the bare minimum of participation, but thwart any progress by the Republicans. It has created an atmosphere similar to elementary school. The back and forth bickering with nothing being accomplished gives us in the real world very little to be hopeful about. We are not the idiots congress and obama take us for. We see the future of our Country and the financial ruin we are headed for.

obama claims to be uninvolved in the Wisconsin union battle. Yet he sent his pit bulls from organizing for America and makes snide little comments at every opportunity. His involvement runs much deeper than he would have us believe. He is very involved, but his refusal to admit it and show open support have angered many in his union base. He has revealed himself to be a coward on about every front. Just like his days in the Illinois senate voting present.

I'm still amazed that such a man has been able to ascend to such a level. He has no conviction, no strength and no spine. He is unwilling or unable to take a stand on any issue that opponents could use to pin him down. One would think that the president of the United States would do the right thing, always, and the critics be damned. I hope this experiment in socialism has reminded us why it has failed many times and in many places...

By Karl Rove - FoxNews

Last week was a bad week for America because it was a bad week for President Obama.

West Wing politicos may not share that opinion. They seem to think any week during which the president makes a speech or holds a news conference is a good week: Americans get to see the amazing, inspiring Mr. Obama. But three images of Mr. Obama from last week are hardly uplifting.

First, there was the president on Libya -- dithering, indecisive, unreliable, and weak. As Qaddafi’s mercenaries and bombers brutally grabbed back momentum from the democratic opposition, all Mr. Obama could say was, “My national security team has been working…to monitor the situation…to prepare the full range of options…”

If America’s failure to lead allows Qaddafi to snuff out the popular uprising against his dictatorship and regain power, the consequences for the U.S. will be severe. Dictators will know the U.S. president is a pushover. Our allies around the world will be dispirited and our adversaries emboldened.

Then there was the on-going budget battle. The failure of Mr. Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a budget before the start of the fiscal year last October 1 is an astonishing act of incompetence. They controlled the entire process with wide margins in both houses. Now we are reduced to funding the government of the world’s most powerful nation with continuing resolutions that cover two or three-week periods. And Congressional Democrats are whining it is impossible to cut $60 billion out of a budget that consists of $3.8 trillion dollars.

At a Friday morning press conference Mr. Obama called the failure to pass a budget “irresponsible” and said “the notion that we can’t get resolved last year’s budget in a sensible way…defies common sense.” But he was not passive observer. He’s the president who failed to get his own budget approved by his own party last year.

Then Mr. Obama went on to say of the budget that “it shouldn’t be that complicated…to get this completed.” This came after weeks during which Democratic Congressional leaders criticized the president for providing no leadership, then the appointment by Mr. Obama of Vice President Joe Biden as his personal negotiator on the budget, and Mr. Biden’s almost immediate departure for a weeklong foreign trip. Mr. Obama still refused to get his hands dirty by offering a possible solution.

Then there were the president’s remarks to members of the National Governors Association on Wisconsin, last month, where he cautioned, “I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”

This was a classic Obama straw man. Who exactly is “vilifying” or “denigrating” whom? The president’s intimation was that it was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, but Mr. Walker’s tone has been mild, even-tempered, restrained and entirely appropriate.

If there are people who needed a presidential admonishment about civility and respect, they are the protestors who broke into the Wisconsin capital building in a vain attempt to keep the legislature from voting, the protestors who compared Mr. Walker to Adolf Hitler, and the Democratic legislators who fled the state rather than do their duty. But those would be the president’s allies and admonition are only required of his opponents.

When Mr. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he had the annoying habit of voting “present” on controversial issues he felt might damage his future political ambitions. -- But at least Mr. Obama showed up then. The president’s refusal now to provide leadership on Libya or the budget and his readiness to score cheap political points with straw man attacks makes his days in the State Senate look like an era of true statesmanship.

The Insanity of a $6.1 Billion Dollar Debate

As you may have heard, both the Republican $61 BILLION dollar plan and the democrat joke $6 billion dollar plan were voted down today. Neither of them could even get a majority vote. What this tells me is that neither party has any interest in cutting the deficit.

Like T.L. points out, while these dumbasses were debating the bills, the interest on the debt racked up more than the democrat proposal.

Our Nation has taken out a huge payday loan. I'm sure you are familiar with the tactics those guys use. It is designed to keep you in debt, long term, paying interest and never making any headway on your principal. That's where we are, except we aren't even paying the interest. I put up a link to a debt clock a few days ago. Please, take a minute and check it out. If it had hands on it you could use it as a fan. I know the dollar figures are more than a normal person can wrap their brain around, but it will give you an idea of what kind of trouble we are in. The thing that scares me the most is that the politicians don't seem to get the seriousness of the situation. They just keep spending! We don't have any money! We are borrowing money to pay back money we borrowed! What would happen if you tried that with your family budget?

Go read the rest of this post over at TL in Exile, the link is below...

By T.L.Davis - TL in Exile

The sitting congress and the president should right now, be run out of office, impeached, recalled, physically chased, if that's what it takes. Here's the reason: the congress is right now debating budget cuts. Those who have been in charge for 2 years have run up a deficit of 5 trillion dollars. They did that, the Democrats. They didn't even have the ability to pass a budget. Now, the Democrats argue for budget cuts of $6.1 billion.

The insanity of this debate is this: by the time the congress has argued for cutting the budget for one week, there is a debt accumulation that would wipe out the entire $6.1 billion dollars they are arguing about. At these levels of debt, it is not a one for one effect either. In other words, cutting $6.1 billion dollars does not mean that debt reduction is achieved by any significant amount. $6.1 billion dollars represents less than 1/20 th of 1% of our debt (I am not the best at math) I do know that 1/10 th of 1% of our debt is $14 billion.

Freshman Democrat Joe Manchin: Obama has 'failed to lead' on budget

It's amusing when democrats turn on each other. Joe Manchin has an excellent point though, obama isn't a leader. He is a divider. He has forced partisan politics to a level we haven't seen in years. He has set race relations back a good 50 years. Now he is even dividing his own party.

obama has a couple of good excuses on the budget though. One, he is absolutely clueless on how to solve this crisis. His advisors are just as lost as he is. And two, he is addicted to spending, he can't stop. He will never understand that we can't spend our way out of this mess. And all of those TRILLIONS of dollars, they aren't free money. There is no such thing...

By Jennifer Epstein & Scott Wong - Politico

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin ripped President Barack Obama on his budget proposals in a Senate floor speech Tuesday, a rare rebuke from a freshman Democrat who clearly is worried about the politics of deficit spending as he faces a tough reelection in 2012.

Manchin charged the president with failing to lead the way in reducing spending, while also criticizing Republicans for offering “partisan” and “unrealistic” budget proposals.

“Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations — our president — has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?”

The full-throated rejection of the president’s spending proposals by a politically vulnerable Democrat is just the latest worrisome sign for Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who have yet to rally their party around a unified spending plan. Indeed, Democratic leaders are having trouble just keeping moderates on board — Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) also have expressed skepticism that Democrats are willing to cut enough spending to satisfy voters and make a dent in the deficit.

Manchin will vote against both the Senate Democrats’ proposal, which will cut $10.6 billion below current spending levels and the House Republican version of the continuing resolution, which would cut $61 billion. The Senate is expected to vote on both this week, perhaps as early as Tuesday, and neither is expected to pass.

Read the rest at the link above...