Randy, your comments are dead on. Our US Representative thinks we're a bunch of idiots. He needs to find out that is not true--write and tell him to stop the economic terrorism. We need the revenues to increase and taking back the Bush era cuts (that are not creating jobs) is the one and only way to do it. Our Representative and our Senator need to create real jobs, not support an agenda that doesn't do anything positive for the middle class taxpayer.

It is disgusting that F. Jim and the rest of the T-Party GOP are willing to tank our economy so that the super rich don't have to get nicked, and I mean nicked, by a slight tax increase. Compared to what others are going to have to sustain with the proposed cuts and that damage that will be done if we don't raise the debt ceiling, the super rich will feel practically nothing. In fact there are a number of them that are OK with having their taxes raised.

@Nate -- Someone making over a million dollars a year pays _half_ his or her income in taxes? Would you tell me where you get that figure? And do you know what percentage a person making $30K per year pays, considering that 100% of it is subject to FICA and there is sales tax and gasoline tax and all the other small taxes that are just a part of living expenses?

The rhetoric is not old. The marginal tax rate on the topmost bracket is about the lowest it's ever been. Returning it to the Clinton era levels would not kill anyone. Maybe you should try listening to MSNBC rather than just watching it to scoff.

I understand your frustration and repeated need to even the playing field between those who work hard and those who want handouts. Look up the tax margins through the IRS or just google them. Thinking about this more, what baffles me is why liberals put forth that 1 or 2% figure all day long, when your president claimed anyone making over $70k was rich.

I ask you again, Nate, where you get your figure about the wealthiest paying 50% of their income? I understand the concept of a marginal tax rate. Do you?

Randy, I cannot cite a physical source for your enjoyment, for this comes from a personal experience. Now, you catch me off guard, I'll clarify that it may not be the effective tax rate.

We've seen this movie before; the GOP pulling behind Teri Schiavo. They know what they are doing, they know it is stupid, but they can't stop themselves.

This debt ceiling is like the Teri Schiavo issue on steroids. We liberals are well aware that this will ruin the GOP in 2012 if they succeed.

But unlike the right wing which will do what ever they can to destroy the economy and commit traitorous acts in an effort to deny Obama a second term, we love our country too much and therefore telling F. Jim and others to put down the knife before they slit our collective wrists and slowly walk away from the table.

And no cuts in social programs like Medicare and Social Security (which is not part of the 'deficit' in any case) would be enough to satisfy the far-Righties. I want to see significant cuts in government spending too, but not entirely on the backs of the helpless. The Pentagon can tighten its belt instead of Grandma.

Yes, Randy, I think you've stated your case repeatedly. No cuts in social programs whatsoever, tax the bejesus out of the successful and you want free health care.

"Yes, Randy, I think you've stated your case repeatedly. No cuts in social programs whatsoever, tax the bejesus out of the successful and you want free health care."

No, Bob McBride. I'm willing to see reasonable reforms in social programs -- along with equivalent cuts in other spending -- notably defense. And I don't want 'free' healthcare. I want the healthcare plan I paid into my entire working life, although I know it must gall you that higher wage-earners get the same level of coverage as a working class person.

Why would it gall me that high wage earners get the same level of coverage as a working class person?

I'll also note that you didn't deny wanting to tax the bejesus out of the successful.

He didn't throw in "- combined!" at the end of that statement, just for emphasis? Someone in management must have told him to tone down the hyperbole to the point where he just sounds sorta nuts.

@Bob McBride II...Diagnostic terms change over time to reflect specific symptoms and core pathology. I've been around long enough that I still think in terms of psychopath when referring to certain symptoms and behaviors. Anti-social personalities lack a common empathy toward others and everything is considered in relation to the self, Furthermore, they are amoral and manipulate others for their own benefit. Even when confronted with their negative behavior they will refuse to accept responsibility and will rationalize to displace responsibility.

@WFB Mike...If we are headed to national bankruptcy, it's not Obama leading us there; we have done it to ourselves. We are in the position of paying for our past mistakes. We are now in the position of paying for "dead horses". Not only must we cut our expenditures but we must increase revenues. Simple process, difficult to implement. This is a national debate that has been going on since the founding of the nation; Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Adam Smith addressed it and would have rejected the position of Hamilton as well as Jefferson. Hamilton represents unbridled mercantilism while Jefferson represents the physiocrats. When we allowed our imports to exceed our exports to satisfy consumption, then we headed in the direction of bankruptcy.

Daniel - slow down:

"In fact, most of the $10 trillion federal deficit Obama inherited was accumulated under the last three Republican presidents."

Is this a fact? Cite your fact. You know it is not true. The deficit was in $ Biliions - with a B. Obama brought it to Trillions - with a T.

"A recent report from the GAO says that most US corporations actually pay no US taxes at all because of the loopholes in the tax law."

GE paid no USA taxes. This is well documented. Jeffy Immelt is Obama's right hand businessman - so called business czar - perhaps we all should be able to follow his tax policy - if they, as a multibillion dollar company pays $0 - maybe President 0 should look across the golf cart and ask Jeffy to pay his fair share.

It's not being considered by Obama and the Democrats either. Did you get after them on it during the two years of free-rein they had prior to the 2010 elections? You folks spend enormous amounts of time, money and effort attempting to get the party you oppose to do things the way you want them to, yet during periods of time when the party that you do support is in power, you let them slide on the exact same issues. It's very hard to take you seriously when you do that.

@Bob McBride II...Your statement concerning the state of government prior to the 2010 election leaves out one important element; the Democrats are an organization of disordered interests. In essence the Democrats rely on rule by consensus, which is a messy process at best. However, that is no reason to not address issues. I am just attempting to point out to never get your expectations too high for the Dems for what they can get done, even when in an unchallenged majority.

Lyle,

I don't know what's more absurd - Beth's contention that the Republicans should be doing what she suggests, even when her own party didn't do so when they had every chance in the world, or yours, that the Democrats should be excused for not having done so because it's like herding cats contending with all the disparate interests in your party.

Trust me, my hopes for the Democrats could never be considered overly high, but I'd think you'd be able to give a better reason for why the Republicans need to be replaced with more Democrats than that they're disorganized and don't get things done.

I think I'd be a great short stop for the Brewers, just as long as everyone understands I can't hit or field a ball. However, while awaiting my turn on the field, I have plenty of suggestions for how Yuniesky Betancourt should be playing the game and if he doesn't do what I say, someone should make him do it.

Trust me, Lyle, my analogy is not that far off from what you two are arguing above.

Bob, Bob, Bob--quit making assumptions about my political bent. You've not a clue. Since you and I don't socialize, you wouldn't know that I've been ragging about the waste of resources--especially kids--in war since Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned party politics is bs--doesn't mean anything--just one more artificial wedge that the super rich has driven into the middle class. The goal of politics right now is to divide us and distract us. I'm all for scrapping the two party system and the special interest groups and starting over. I say we take $5 from every tax return, put it in a pool and if you run for president you get x amount. NOTHING ELSE. Ban all the other influences. Then the electorate would have to take the time to research what each candidate stands for and vote on the issues. It'll never happen...we're all too lazy and the media is too powerful. PS If you'd bothered to read the above cite, you'd find a bipartisan approach to a new dialog about the US budget.

Sure, what's another 5 bucks per person for another crazy progressive "scheme" for improving things. If you think influence stops at the campaign level, you're clueless.

Secondly, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is hardly a bipartisan organization. If you think it is, well...clueless again.

You can deny your partisan leanings, but then you'd have to go back and edit or delete virtually every post you've made here over time.

You called out Ryan and Sensenbrenner because they're Republicans and purposely didn't include the other parties involved (Obama and the Democrats) in your post. I realize you can't help yourself, but at least acknowledge the truth and don't further implicate yourself by implying that an organization that's blatantly partisan, isn't. You really don't have to go that much deeper into your links to see the truth.

Sorry, Bob, you are right--I am going to pull an "Alberta Darling" here and say "I mis-spoke"--what I meant to say is that is a good start for a bi-partisan discussion of the budget. I didn't say that it doesn't go to all levels, I said I we should scrape the system. Rather than go on and on endlessly explaining every minute detail of my thought, I cut it short. But, since you asked, once the electorate is educated, they will use the power of their votes to end the vicious cycle. They will demand that the candidate stand on their own platform and then follow through with their promises. For example, I contend that we should be recalling every politician that
promised "JOBS" to get elected and are now in Washington dinking around wasting our money doing nothing to actually create a job. If they raised taxes on corporations and then gave tax incentives for job creation, we'd see some real results. And if you check out what Jessie Venture is spouting these days, you'll note that my idea to scrap the two party system is not original. As far as my comments, haven't you realized by now that I am not a Democrat? I am a market socialist. Socialist governments prevailed throughout many cities in Wisconsin for almost 100 years and they were a backlash to the same kinds of things were are seeing now. I have no problems with Obama or Pasch because they are closer to my belief system than Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan, Alberta Darling, Scott Walker and especially Sensenbrenner.

Honestly, whatever you call yourself doesn't matter. You're aligned with the Democrats. You routinely complain about what the Republicans are doing and never hold Democrats to the same standard. Just because you claim you belong to some offshoot doesn't mean you don't come at things from the left. I don't like everything Republicans do either, but I'm not going to attempt to claim I'm not partisan to the right because, like you, I support candidates from the party that comes closest to what I believe. BTW, none of this is uncommon in the least.

So now that that nonsense has been addressed, on to the other nonsense. The $5.00 campaign tax to be distributed amongst candidates - no two party system.

With no sanctioned parties, you could end up with hundreds of candidates affiliated with any number of organizations, from the Tofurkey and Beet Juice Lovers Society, to NAMBLA to the Arian Nation to the "Pull my Finger" party...and on and on and on... All, apparently, with access to some of that fund. How are you going to sort that out? How are you going to decide who's deserving and who isn't? How are you going to placate the person that paid their $5.00 and doesn't want a cent of it to go to the Arian Nation candidate? Who decides who's worthy and who isn't? Do we have a run off? What's the plan Beth? Thought it out at all or are we just not going to worry about it and let the Market Socialist Club of America make the call?

Bob, this is my last word on the subject. Just off the top of my head, primaries? Based on a certain number of signatures on nomination papers. Public debates. The top three or four get government funding? Don't know, open to discussion and other's ideas. All I do know, is that the system we are currently using is broken. It no longer serves us. Our politicians need to be more accountable to taxpaying voters and this recall season points out that fact. Please note, that unlike you, I don't feel the need to make snarky editorial comments about your thoughts. Except, of course, for this one.

Beth,

I'm doing nothing more here than giving you a shot at explaining your $5 plan. If you don't think it through, it's not much of a proposal. It's fine to complain about the current system, but if you haven't got something better to put in it's place, what's the point?

Our system is what it is. Go to any country and you'll find people there who don't like the system and don't think it's fair, primarily when their party or favorites aren't in power.

Your system will not eliminate the influence of special interests. It will only force them underground. You can see that now in what's happened as a result of things like McCain-Feingold. You have nebulous organizations supporting candidates under the auspices of NOT supporting them (call so-and-so and tell them.....)

Frankly it was better knowing precisely who's funding what, rather than making it "illegal" and then pretending that they aren't any longer.

You can't and won't ever get rid of it - the stakes are too high. You can, however, make it even more opaque by trying to implement faulty systems that attempt to do so.

BTW I did read the budget thing. It consists of tax the rich, tax corporations, tax those who inherit, tax those who benefit from profitable investments. Increase spending on social programs, subsidize housing for the poor. Gut the military and promote "clean" energy. Same old, same old.

LOL. Since when. The only time jobs have grown in this country coming out of an economic setback was when the government invested in this country, or when the Democrats overpower the right wing. It was true for the New Deal, spending during WWII and Eisenhower's presidency.

When do we stop giving the super rich breaks when we get nothing in return. Corporations are awash in cash and giving them more won't create jobs because they are using it to buy back stock, make acquisitions and give shareholders and management huge compensation and dividends. They're creating jobs alright; in India, China, etc.

The tax increases are going to have little effect on the super rich versus the impact that stiffing our creditors will have on the economy.

Besides, grow up F. Jim. The amount of cuts need to prevent raising the debt ceiling would cripple this economy and devastate large numbers of people.

I didn't say 'taxes' at all...

It's kind of the same situation where so many people point to companies like GE and claim that they are not paying any taxes. They may have no federal tax liability, but they still pay lots of money in taxes.

Cornyn says............... not much for sure!!! Everyone pays taxes without exemption: gas tax, non-food item tax, car repair tax, etc. No one gets a free ride. The poor and near poor all suffer under the 'blueblood dog rules'. I'm hoping this "crisis" is going to make the difference in who gets voted into office next. I don't care about the label - just the candidate and their integrity: watch this : http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/naomi-kleins-alternative-history-of-present-day-capitalism/ and then find the book !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you being paid to sell books or something? It seems that everything you post is an advertisement for Klein's book...

@CowDung...You have to admit that Klein does bring something to the conversation.

This same link has been posted several times on several different threads. Perhaps if Mrs. R were to post something other than the link for the book/video, I'd be more inclined to include it in the conversation.