I agree with you. They should grow up and stop being selfish...

agreed. and start out by replacing every one of them

Agreed they are the greedy and this needs to stop and think about the majority not the rich only!

As long as nothing effects them they dont care they have all they need...they do not listen to the people ....LET THEM EAT CAKE is thier moto

You all seem to forget the key player who is pretty well causing this mess..MR. OBAMA! If you're going to point fingers try to be honest about who and why!!

Does that include the largest impediment...Obama???

Don forget Pelosi and Reid. They're not exactly standing on any bread lines either.

And the Democrats are innocent? They have the largest number of nitwits--Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, and of course the nincompoop in chief, Obama.

Reed, Pelosi and President Obama are the arrogant elite that control 2/3 of our government. Yet all they can do is demonize/hate the Republicans. The Senate under Reed has not passed a budget in over 3 long years. Obama goes to Hawaii during a critical time and is the worst President the US has ever experienced.

Roger, the republicans do their share of demonizing the democrats too. It's not one-sided.

This is not a Tea Party issue. You really need to read more than HuffPo and listen to the MSM. Obama is the one who is balking. Several bills have been presented but the spoiled brat wants his own way regardless. And he would rather see us in trouble so he can further his rotten agenda.

Mitch McConnell will compromise when he gets everything he wants. You don't want to
mess with someone from Kentucky.

LOL! Anyone else get the irony of the statement below "Mitch McConnell will compromise when he gets everything HE wants"... uhhhh, so what's to compromise if you get everything you want?

Mitch most certainly represents the views of the extremeist TP fraction of the GOP which is destroying the party. Someone in the GOP needs to get a spine, and quick, or risk becoming irrelevant. Last I saw in the Nov elections, the far right was beaten down and was shown with all that wasted PAC money from Rove and Koch resulting in what, one winning seat? Adelson siphoned $70B of his own fortune for naught.

Really, at what point does self preservation come into play for the GOP? This is NOT the party of Reagan, or heck, even Nixon couldn't get elected today by the GOP.

the cost of the fiscal cliff isn't just the American people, but it's the future (non-existent) of the GOP.

Marcy, that is absolutely not true! Obama submitted his original plan and compromised twice afterwards, and Boehner has done nothing. It is the republicans who are balking. Obama's agenda is rotten only if you think helping the middle class is wrong.

UNTIL THE FISCAL CLIFF IS SOMETHING TO SWEEP AWAY AND EXPOSE THE REAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ECONOMY, PAYCHECKS TO CONGRESS AND POLITICIANS, SHOULD CEASE TODAY. WHEN THEY ARE DOING THEIR JOB, THEY ARE THEN ELIGIBLE FOR THEIR PAY TO BE REINSTATED. PRESSURE THEM AGAAIN AND AGAIN

I Agree,STOP Paying them till they start working for America!!!!

The markets have already hedged their bets for the deal to fail. The pay cheques will be coming from there. Also, keep an eye on the shorts with respect to timing and Jan end of options expiration. Ending with "take care and take care of each other" (Jerry Springer)

This "comments" facility seems to lack the standard ability to allow you to "agree" or "disagree" with a given post, so I'll comment : "agree"!

NO ! Everybody need to regroup until we follow the Basic Instruction which is the word of God .Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness ; and all these things will be added unto you.everything is going to be a mess. Don't worry just start a prayer petition to the higher power who know's and see it all . I believe if we start praying about this situation God will turn it around for our Good .'' Father in the name of Jesus we need your help with the Government offical's to come together for the better of your people in making the right decision with the end of the year Fiscal Year Budget in the name of Jesus. When satan tempted Jesus he said to satan IT IS WRITTEN ! THIS IS MY FINAL ANSWER IT IS FINISHED . IT IS ALREADY DONE. JUST PRAY AND WATCH GOD CHANGE THANGS.

Deborah - what in God's name are you ranting about? LOL

so who is going to initiate the bill that makes raises and benefits for congress and senate up to a levy voted for by the people. That is the guy I vote for. The rest need to be replaced ALL of them. Dont vote for ANY incumbent any more.

If we go over the cliff there might not be any 'next time'.....I understand your feelings tho....

@ woody bAbb. the country recently held federal elections, remember? it was the same old thing. retain the incumbents. it shouldn't be that hard to understand. DO NOT EVER VOTE FOR THE INCUMBENT. DO NOT FOLLOW PARTY LINES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE 'LINES' OF WE THE PEOPLE. but that did not happen and it won't. the voting public does not have the courage to walk their own path.

Bobby
True, will break the back of the American economy with spending more than all the others in our history, and is holding out for congress to give their permission for unbridled spending to continue!

"Flat Tax"?
Not an icecube's chance in hades.
Progressivity should be preservedand expanded in the tax code, not done away with.

Bob,
What two words?

What is being agreed to is that there be no tax increases without cuts in spending other than SS and Medicare which in spite of the elite's thinking are not entitlements but benefits paid for. Stop with the Tea Party blather. There are many, probably most, conservatives who are not Tea party people but do have intelligence and fortitude and a work ethic...all anathema to libs.

Considering that Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are in the red to the tune of somewhere between $70 trillion to $120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, the GOP should just walk away from talks because all the President will agree to is more spending.

Our kids deserve better from the Democratic Party.

As @GetReal describes, Social Security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. I pay $200 a month into Social Security. Social Security claims I'll be making in the neighborhood of $2,700 when I retire. Except at the rate it's going, it won't be there.

Except, Social Security was used to pay for the Vietnam War and also used to balance the books in the 90s.

Bob, I would have to disagree with your second statement. There is strong support amongst Americans for the President's fiscal plan, but the House won't vote on it.

Barbara -

The President's plan - 75% of which is going toward new spending. How does that deal with the real drivers of our debt which is entitlements? The entitlements are somewhere between $70-$120 (some say $200 trillion plus) in debt in unfunded liabilities. The President's plan does nothing but spend, spend, spend.

The House has already passed a bill to keep us from going over the cliff. The
Senate has not.

Yes, but the House bill is not in line with the basic fiscal policies that the President and most Amercians have indicated they support.

You mean the policy that says to spend more on entitlements and tax the successful? This will hurt the small businesses that employ people and damage the economy.
Again, the Senate has not passed a budget in three years. Even the President's budget got no votes in the Senate.

The President is not serious in these negotiations because the fiscal cliff, which the President proposed, gives Progressives everything they want - higher taxes on everyone, deep cuts to the military, and the preservation/status quo on entitlements which are as much as $120 trillion in debt.

The President claims to want a 'balanced' approach yet balks when a 'balanced' approach is proposed. What he wants is $1.2 trillion in new revenue so that the BIG Government folks in D.C. can continue to spend, spend, spend.

Our kids are so screwed...

http://www.thealexandrianva.com/2012/12/us-debt-visualized-in-physical-100.html

But Taxpayers are responsible for who is in Congress.

Amen to that...

Starbucks, really? They are managed by a politician...looking for a seat in Washington.
Get real people. We elect the officials, the con artists and all the rest... EVERY TWO YEARS.

Harry Reid and the Senate are also complicit. Remember, Obama's budget failed in the Senate and Reid has not passed a budget since Obama has been in office.

actually no..... harry reid has never brought a budget to the floor since obama has been president

You can pass a budget with 51 votes. Obama's budget has yet to even get one vote. Harry 'The Body' Reid won't bring up the House budget in the Senate because it would pass with 51 votes.

Lee - sure you can pass a budget with 51%. It's just that the House has insisted on a super majority so nothing gets done. Even now, Boehner refuses to put for the budget in the House unless 1/2 of the GOP agrees on it - NOT if 51% of ALL House representatives agree.

The GOP just keep changing the rules and obstructing progress unless they get their way. The people spoke - all 53% of us - more than those that re-elected the last president in either of the elections of 2000 and 2004. Seems like there is a real mandate this time and the House just doesn't want to play ball unless they get their way. It's not their way. It's OUR way. A point that seems to elude the House.

Locally -

The House HAS passed a budget each of the last few years as they are legally required to under the law. The Senate, where the blocks occur, is where the 51 votes come from.

Where the 'super majority' comes from is the 60 vote threshold to cut off debate in the Senate. Harry Reid, not John Boehner, insists on the cloture vote (60 votes) first. Why not put the last House budget up for a vote in the Senate w/o a motion for cloture? Because, it would probably pass.

Lee - we're talking about right now. And, quite frankly, The GOP has consistently required a majority vote on just about everything that has come in to the House. Boehner is saying right now that he will not put forth anything in the House unless he gets 50% of HIS party. Not the 51% of the House representing BOTH parties, but 50% of HIS party. That is obstructionism.

And, every proposal put forth in the past in the House has completely ignored raising revenue. Which is amusing that the GOP is sticking to austerity only approach, as is in Europe, which resulted in second recessions in Europe. You cannot grow by cutting alone. The GOP has stated they will close tax loopholes but has not defined which loopholes. The 2 largest tax loopholes that will have any impact upon the budget is the employee/employer tax exempt healthcare and mortgage deductions. Neither of which the GOP or House will vote for ending those sacred cows.

So, again. The House has continued to fight the majority of American's desire to raise revenue on the top 2% (remember, Boehner couldn't even put forth the bill before the Christmas because the House GOP wouldn't even raise taxes on incomes of $1M+). That is ideology before country. That is the problem the GOP has. Boehner has no control over his own party. And, I'll add, it's personal. Their hate for a dem President and their no tax ideology is killing this country and their own party. Hate does that. Get over it or become irrelevant.

Locally - Considering the last budget and an overwhelming majority of action items/roll call votes were passed in this Congress with less than a super majority in the House, I'd say you're confused.

Some actions, like impeaching presidents, suspending the rules, expelling a member or amending the Constitution, are considered so important that they require a super majority vote. The vast majority of bills & amendments are passed via a 'simple majority.'

As for not getting anything done, the U.S. Senate has 4-5 dozen or more bills that passed the House (even ones w/ bi-partisan support) that the Senate has yet to take up. The Senate is where the real obstructionism is taking place.

The GOP has invoked cloture an average of 150 times 2009-2010 as part of their plan to render Obama ineffective (apparently the GOP & Lee H underestimated does the intelligence of 53% of America).

As an example, during the 111th Congress that ended in December 2010, over 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives - many with broad bipartisan support - died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on in the Senate because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required to overcome objections (or threatened filibusters) by the Senate Republican minority.

The number of killed bills could have been much higher than 400 had not Reid invoked the cloture rule 137 times. Cloture is a method by which the Senate Majority Leader may close a debate (e.g. a filibuster) and proceed with an immediate vote to be taken on the issue. The cloture rule has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered.

A Summary of the Record of the 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) of the United States, (for reference)
http://www.congress-summary.com/A-111th-Congress/Laws_Passed_111th_Congress_Seq.html

The GOP Senate and House has required super majority for everything from Wall Street reform, unemployment extensions, small business jobs act to S-CHIP.

No wonder the GOP lost the 2012 elections. Suggest reading actual data Lee H, rather than GOP sound bites.

Just an update with today's news on the 112th congress to further support the obstructionism which is continuing as we deal with this fiscal cliff stand off.

As of today, the 112th Congress is officially the least productive since the 1940's because of the unprecedented attempts to filibuster and other moves by the GOP Congress.

One example, significant pieces of legislation that have traditionally received bipartisan support -- such as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act -- have been blocked.

House Republicans have also held votes to repeal Obamacare more than 30 times since gaining control of the chamber in 2011, despite the fact that such a measure has no chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or being signed by Obama. Just a waste of everyone's time as again the GOP tries to stand on principle v. representing the people.

115 times the Republican minority has held up a bill's passage by threatening to filibuster it.

At least there is bi-partisan agreement on who: In April, Thomas Mann of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Norm Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute published a Washington Post op-ed saying that the GOP deserves the blame for the dysfunction.

They wrote. "In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party."

Just the facts.

Locally, I have read the I have read the data and seen every roll call vote taken in the House since forever.

You said:
" It's just that the House has insisted on a super majority so nothing gets done."

Once again, the vast majority of bills in the House of Representatives have passed (or failed) via a simple majority. So your statement is simply not true.

You wrote:
"As an example, during the 111th Congress that ended in December 2010, over 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives - many with broad bipartisan support - died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on in the Senate because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required to overcome objections (or threatened filibusters) by the Senate Republican minority. "

Why didn't Harry 'The Body' Reid bring some of the 400 bills up for a simple majority vote if it wasn't being filibustered? Many times, Senator Reid invoked cloture when it wasn't necessary. Many times, cloture was invoked when a member objected to a bill passing by 'unanimous consent.'

But, isn't debate good? Why should one party (the Congress you speak of was when the democrats controlled both Houses) be able to ram their agenda down the people's throat without debate?

To show what a hypocrite Locally is, remember when Senator Charles 'Chucky' Schumer said this?

“Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

So, it's okay for Democrats to filibuster bills but, not okay for Republicans to do it??

Lee, you are tiresome with your false arguments. Please review the posts.

No one is saying fillibustering is not allowed. In every previous administration you might be 50 or less fillibusters per Congressional session.

Under Obama? the GOP minority has run up 114 to 150+ fillibusters.

That's called ABUSE of the fillibuster rules. Even things that in the past always had bipartisanship support, the GOP blocked.

And, we wonder why we are now clinging to the fiscal cliff. The GOP simply won't deal.

The Obama plan has specifically outlined cuts to sacred cows like healthcare. Where's the give in return? Not one give on lifting the temporary bush tax cuts.

And, it bears repeating, TEMPORARY. Even Bush 2 knew you could not keep taxes that low forever. Yet, the GOP wouldn't even bring to the floor because they knew they could not get the votes to even so much as raise the taxes on incomes over $1M.

You cannot defend the abuse of the fillibuster and the lack of give that Boehner cannot provide because of the GOP is placing principle before country.

There is a reason that even the AEP says it's the GOP's fault. Obama won the re-election. The GOP just keeps doubling down on failed tactics which has only resulted in a resounding thumping of far right candidates. In most rational organisms, self-preservation kicks in.

You can't defend any of this, which is why you put forth false arguments. Now, go and enjoy the New Year. Really!

"That's called ABUSE of the fillibuster rules. Even things that in the past always had bipartisanship support, the GOP blocked."

So when Democrats abused the filibuster privilege under Bush 2, it was okay? Personally, I was against the 'nuclear option' when the BIG Government RINO Republicans wanted to try it in the mid-2000s and I am against it now.

Bush 2 showed a lack of leadership leading the country economically and the leadership vacuum has only gotten worse since.

"And, we wonder why we are now clinging to the fiscal cliff. The GOP simply won't deal."

Last year, Congress passed the Budget Control Act where Democrats, in exchange for a $2.1 trillion debt ceiling increase, promised to cut Federal spending by $2.1 trillion. Spending has only gone up since.

Boehner went to the President with a deal that was balanced - $800B in new revenue along with $800B in cuts/entitlement reform. The President said no. The President wants $1.6 trillion in new revenue and promises spending cuts in the future. Yeah, right.

So, remind me again who's the one who won't deal?

JoeB90 - nobody has disdain for Bain - just the malarky of Romney and his tax strategies. Good Lord, he even CHOSE not to deduct charitable expenses just so he could say he paid 14% in taxes versus the even lower amount.

It was Romney's bs that was hypocritical and his obvious disdainful for the "47%" who didn't pay taxes. THAT was the issue.

Sad you didn't get that key point.

Jim wrote:

"There has never been a time in our history where lowering taxes on the wealthy has resulted in economic recovery..."

Absolutely false. Happened during the Harding/Coolidge administration which rescued the US from the 1919 depression. Happened on JFK's watch when he lowered the top tax rate from 91% to 77%. Happened on Reagan's watch when he lowered rates across the board. Happened on Clinton's watch when he cut taxes in 1997 and yes, happened in 2001 & 2003 when the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

".it retards recovery by taking money out of the economy because they do not spend it. "

Again wrong. The wealthy tend to hide MORE of their money when taxed more not less as Clinton found out when he raised rates in 1993.

Jim - Granted, the 1920-21 Depression was the product of a deliberately deflationary fiscal and monetary policy aimed at undoing (at least in part) the very rapid inflation that occurred in the final stages and the aftermath of World War I.

But, what engineered the economic growth that got us out of that depression in approx. 18 months? Cutting spending, and cutting taxes (also reducing loopholes which broadened the tax base). I'd like to see a link where either Coolidge or Harding used 'fiscal stimulus'.

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. Coolidge continued the Harding plan which led to the 'Roaring 20s'.

Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the JFK tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

Under Reagan, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The reason Reagan's GDP growth results are likely skewed is because of the high inflation that occurred during the 70's.

[..]

[..]

As for the Bush tax cuts, say what you will but, revenue increased after the passage of the tax cuts in 2001 & 2003. After President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the largest tax cut since Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $794 billion to a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began — a jump of 47%.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period.

Revenues weren't the source of the problem. Deficits came from the other side of the ledger: spending, which outstripped new revenues.

As John Adams said, sometimes facts really are stubborn things.

I'm not talking about the proposal the President made during the debt ceiling negotiations in 2011. I'm talking about the President's fiscal cliff proposals which include no spending cuts whatsoever and 75% of the revenue raised is going toward new spending.

http://www.thealexandrianva.com/2012/12/majority-of-fiscal-cliff-tax-hikes-to.html

Right now, 10,000 people are retiring everyday and there are approx. 78 million people on the verge of retirement. This means the Government has to have in a bank somewhere $100 trillion dollars right now earning interest. They don't have the money.

The politicians on both sides of the aisle have spent the money. This is why I say, our kids are so screwed.

Well done ! Thanks.

I'm not sure what networks you have been listening too, but it has always been quite clear that everyone received a tax cut...the question was why the wealthy needed one at a time of fiscal crisis, during the course of two wars President Bush decided not to pay for. President Obama also cut taxes, but only for those for whom it would do the most good. The fight now is to maintain the tax cuts received by the middle class. Those that make above 250K will have theirs revert back to the rates under Clinton. It's pretty simple...and has been made quite clear by the news outlets you cite. It was a key promise of President Obama in the recent campaign...and we know the results there don't we?

Why will unemployment hit 12%? And, as far as gutting the military, being involved in the industry, well, heck, they've been 'streamlining' for the past 2 years. Hasn't hurt our private sector business in the DOD.

But, truly interested in how the tax cuts for the middle class - why will allow the middle class to continue spending on needs and some wants - and increasing taxes on the wealthier - which already have all their needs taken care of - will drive unemployment.

Can't find any NBER data on that, so interested in how you get there.

...and how about having Starbucks kick out the slackers who sit at a table for hours at a time (hereby denying other paying customers a timely seat) just so they can use the wi-fi? And there are still people holding business meetings and job interviews at the Starbucks closest to my home, taking up valuable customer space...

Java,

Just go the Starbucks next door. If that is busy, go across the street to the other one.

I do like that trickle down/entitlements approach as it does seem to me the entitled class are really the top 2% and our elected officials - not the "47%" oft referred to during the campaign.

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.

Seems to me if Congress can get their pensions at 62, then those of us in the private sector should NOT have to wait until 67 for our SS and medicare payments. And, since pensions are almost non-existent in the private sector, then our tax dollars should NOT have to pay for a Congressman's pension. Let them pay into a retirement fund like the rest - then they may have second thoughts about tying their retirement funds to the stock market.

Live and retire like the rest of us and perhaps our legislators will develop greater empathy in making laws that affect the rest of us.

Please cite specific past history of when taxes hurt.

Under Ike in the 50's the top rate was 91%. We did pretty good in the 50's. Great expansion of suburbia and middle class.

Under Kennedy in the 60's, taxes were in the 70's. Again, suburbia did well, consumerism rose.

Reagan raised taxes no less then 6 times in 8 years in the 80's in order to help reduce the deficit (reducing the deficit requires increasing revenues aka taxes and cutting spending - helped he raised the debt limit 17 times)

Then we go to Clinton who raised the tax rates by a mere 2 points - and we had a balanced budget, new businesses and industries flourished.

Bush 2 reduced the tax rate - and as he expressly stated - to 'stimulate' the economy and placed a 10 year sunset on those taxes.

We didn't do well in the 00's. Never really recovered from the '01 recession. Other confluences such as low interest rates resulted in a credit and housing bubble. Financial Crises.

Now, we've kept those stimulus, low tax rates for 4 more years. We're slowly recovering. And, we need to get the debt reduced. So, all that's being proposed is what Reagan did, raise taxes, cut spending.

What the UK saw was an AUSTERITY PROGRAM. They ONLY cut spending and did NOT raise taxes. I'll be glad to refer you to economic and finance references that seemed to have evaded you if you would like.

So again. Hurt? huh? No idelology, just pragmatic experience and history.

Again Locally, your facts are wrong:

"Reagan raised taxes no less then 6 times in 8 years in the 80's in order to help reduce the deficit (reducing the deficit requires increasing revenues aka taxes and cutting spending - helped he raised the debt limit 17 times)"

It’s a bit misleading to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions (a.k.a. broadening the tax base). Reagan actually cut effective tax rates across the board.

"Then we go to Clinton who raised the tax rates by a mere 2 points - and we had a balanced budget, new businesses and industries flourished."

When Clinton raised taxes, the economy actually slowed. Which is why Clinton cut taxes in '97. It wasn't until Clinton cut taxes that the economy took off. The balanced budget occurred because Congress, not Clinton, controlled spending. Together with Congress, Clinton and Congress raided what was left of Social Security to balance the books.

"Bush 2 reduced the tax rate - and as he expressly stated - to 'stimulate' the economy and placed a 10 year sunset on those taxes."

Bush 2 actually wanted to make the '01 & '03 tax cuts permanent but, the Democrats wouldn't let him. The 10 year sunset is due to pay-go. Where Bush failed was together with the Democrats, they increased Govt spending instead of cutting back.