National Debt $16,217,000,000,000+

[david'sgirl 134]

We can't tax cut or gut our way out of the deficit, which was the Romney/Ryan plan. We have to increase revenue, but Norquist made that a Republican impossibility.

Yup

[david'sgirl 134]

How do you plan to solve the debt problem and unaffordable healthcare costs? I'm glad your happy that your guy won, but I don't see the solution being offered, just gloating.

A housewife with a red pen could fix this mess. The problems in Washington are due to both sides pandering to special interest groups (like oil companies, unions, drug companies etc) and making too many deals with lobbyists. In order for anyone to make the kind of sweeping changes needed the House and Senate need to be on board and stop blocking everything. They all need to stop taking kickbacks, free trips,lunches etc and represent us not the SIGS. The entire tax system needs to be restructured, simplified and made fair. The UK model works and they should take a look at using a similar model. There is a lot of work that could be done but as long as the President is blocked he cant really get it done. Then people whine and say he did not keep his promise. Well how could he? I just saw Behner promise to work together. It's a start.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How do you plan to solve the debt problem and unaffordable healthcare costs? I'm glad your happy that your guy won, but I don't see the solution being offered, just gloating.

That's another Right Wing lie. The U.S. already spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation and with 40 million Americans without insurance. Costs per capita will now go down because its more cost effective to have everyone insured. That's called fiscal responsibility.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's look at Obama's. Ryan's budget was never implemented.

Neither was Obama's.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He inherited a 10 trillion dollar debt from Bush. It's 16.2 trillion now - a 60% increase in 4 years.

Obama added more to the national debt than the first 42 Presidents combined. Not including GWB - yet. Give it a few years.

Look at the CBO 10 year outlook from 2008 and 2009. You will notice that despite the CBO grossly underestimating the severity of the recession, the near term budget outlook was bleak. And Obama wasn't President yet. And that bleak outlook was assuming that the AMT will come back full force in 2010 (which, of course it did not) and that the 2001 and 2003 tax cut provisions will expire as planned at the end of 2010 (which, of course, they did not). That by itself reduced revenues by a couple trillion dollars over the last 3 years. Add to that the additional tax cuts and other stimulus measures and all of a sudden, you've piled a few extra trillion dollars onto that debt.

Now, Obama should not have extended the tax cuts. But these tax cuts would not have been extended, had the Republicans in the House - including your hero Paul Ryan - not passed a piece of legislation to extend them.

[mawilson 2,133]

We can't tax cut or gut our way out of the deficit, which was the Romney/Ryan plan. We have to increase revenue, but Norquist made that a Republican impossibility.

I think it's a possibility now - Boehner is open to the idea.

[mawilson 2,133]

I find it extremely annoying that 47% of the country has zero or negative federal income tax liability, yet the President's solution is to stick it to those who actually do pay.

He wants to plunder people who make $200,000 per year, and really sock it to those who dare to make a million.

You don't see anything wrong with this picture?

[웃 910]

I find it extremely annoying that 47% of the country has zero or negative federal income tax liability, yet the President's solution is to stick it to those who actually do pay.

He wants to plunder people who make $200,000 per year, and really sock it to those who dare to make a million.

You don't see anything wrong with this picture?

It's a little bit too Christian for my liking.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I find it extremely annoying that 47% of the country has zero or negative federal income tax liability, yet the President's solution is to stick it to those who actually do pay.

He wants to plunder people who make $200,000 per year, and really sock it to those who dare to make a million.

You don't see anything wrong with this picture?

The main thing I see wrong with this picture is that you are making a statement which is incorrect.

[mawilson 2,133]

The main thing I see wrong with this picture is that you are making a statement which is incorrect.

Which is?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which is?

The fallacy that people who do not owe federal income taxes or even have a negative federal income tax liability carry a smaller tax burden than those that do pay federal income taxes. Look at the whole picture and you'll see more clearly.

[mawilson 2,133]

The fallacy that people who do not owe federal income taxes or even have a negative federal income tax liability carry a smaller tax burden than those that do pay federal income taxes. Look at the whole picture and you'll see more clearly.

We're talking about federal taxes.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you are getting EITC, you are not paying any payroll taxes either.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

We're talking about federal taxes.

Which aren't the only taxes people, not the rich by percentage of course, pay.

[mawilson 2,133]

Which aren't the only taxes people, not the rich by percentage of course, pay.

But other taxes are irrelevant in the context of this discussion. US Congress and President can only affect federal tax policies - they have no say in how the states run their taxation departments.

Federal income taxes are not the only federal taxes that people pay, but the number of people who pay NO (ZERO) federal taxes is still very high - 26.7 percent of all tax units.